Aid cut

In last week's vote on an appropriations bill, the US House of Representatives reduced aid money to Pakistan from the previous year's $550 million to $300 million.
The Foreign Office in Islamabad did not seem to attach much importance to the move, as it said the US Congress had applied a similar cut in last year's budget but the administration had later restored the earlier allocation, implying that the same may happen this year, too.
Indications, however, are that the closeness that characterised Islamabad-Washington relations as partners in the 'war on terror' is beginning to give way to indifference and even doubts, and hence the kind of support that was available last year may not be there this time around. Even if the aid amount is restored to the desired level, the reasons that the House cited to reduce the assistance deserve to be taken note of seriously.
The appropriations bill, approved by a 373-34 vote, gave the chief reasons for the cut as "increasing lack of respect for human rights, especially women's rights, and the lack of progress for improving democratic governance, and rule of law." So far as women's rights in this country are concerned, the present government indeed has demonstrated a marked sensitivity to the need of improving the situation.
They have been given substantial representation in legislative bodies at the national, provincial and district levels; and they are also being inducted into fields traditionally seen as men's domain. On this account, therefore, Pakistan is subjected undoubtedly to unfair criticism. Further, the present Congressional indictment has more to do with Islamabad's inability to project its policies effectively than with any real cause for concern. The truth of the matter, however, is that what created a particularly negative perception abroad were the two high profile rape cases of Dr Shazia and Mukhtaran Mai, and the inept manner in which the government handled them.
They earned the country so much adverse publicity as they did not only because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding them but because, in a rather thoughtless bid to protect the country's image abroad, the government appeared to play an obstructionist role. Consequently, it ended up achieving the opposite result of what it had set out to achieve.
The most prominent victim of rape crime in Pakistan, Mukhtaran Mai, received so much international attention that this year's State Department report on human rights, in fact, opened with an observation from her, emphasising the significance of outside support for weak people like herself. There is a lesson to be drawn from this example, which is that it is better to take bad things in their stride than to try and cover them up.
A lot needs to be done, of course, with regard to the issues of democratic governance and rule of law although US officials have been saying that they are satisfied with the pace of progress in these areas. Think tanks and various interest groups that influence the legislative process in the US do not seem to agree with the administration's assertions, and their view apparently has impacted the House vote on the aid bill.
In any case, it is in its own interest that the government does not rely too much on outside support while dealing with democratic governance and rule of law issues. They must be resolved as per established democratic traditions. That is what the country needs to move forward on the road to progress and development as well as a good image in the outside world.