Of course no country would give aid and assistance to the under-privileged people in another country only as a matter of generosity; it would like to achieve certain objectives, generally those that should help increase its political and diplomatic influence and clout among the beneficiaries of its aid.
A case in point is Washington's insistence that its aid to the people in the restive regions of Pakistan be duly 'recognised' to help improve its image as a 'giver' state. Reports say that the US government has asked its embassy in Islamabad to ensure that the recipients of American aid clearly know what they got is a gift from the people of the United States. Focus is on branding every item including school buildings, hospitals and energy projects being built in the affected areas as a donation from the American people.
Obviously, Washington wants to increase its visibility among the people of Pakistan to offset rampant anti-Americanism that was never in short supply, even at the best of times, but has spiked in the wake of US commandos' raid on the Osama compound in Abbottabad on May 2. The demand is, that every aid package being delivered should invariably carry the inscription "USAID from the American people" - and also the recent addition mandated by Ambassador Cameron Munter of the American Flag for the illiterate to know that it is of US origin. All of it is a tall order and if past experience is any guide its implementation, in letter and spirit, is next to impossible. The fact is that America is not much loved in this country - even when at the government-level both, the US and Pakistan share considerably close convergence of interests in the region.
Apart from the impracticability of winning the battle of hearts and minds in Pakistan, it's the treacherous ground reality that stoutly defies workability of the American initiative. How can you pose to be peaceniks and vendors of love for humanity so close to the killing fields of the Afghan war and the devastated homesteads in Pakistan's border regions? A battlefield victory doesn't necessarily bring in a victory in the so-called battle of hearts and minds also; quite often the opposite happens, because defeat never stops rankling the hearts and minds of the vanquished. There is a clear conflict in what the US forces, including its drones, are doing to the people and Washington's effort to garner populism.
But more than that, it's the risk of losing life that tends to deter the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) from venturing out into the dangerous places where anti-Americanism abounds. While sitting behind high protective concrete walls, the embassy officials may very well say: "Our mandate is to make sure people here know that they are receiving American assistance". But to be out in the field in an area where the government writ ceases to exist to hawk America-branded goods is sheer madness. No surprise then that almost the entire US aid is being distributed in the disturbed areas without showing its origin. And whenever US officials insisted that the aid goods should carry the USAID signature, the distributors begged forgiveness and withdrew themselves from the field. There is no dearth of instances when militants targeted the aid groups, their fears being so real that 11 prominent charities reportedly asked the USAID last year through the US-based InterAction 'not to require aid in Pakistan to be branded with the group's red, white and blue logo'. The US reaction to the plea is still awaited.
Far removed from the ground realities of an unpopular war, some American lawmakers and think-tanks may be right in thinking that all the aid and assistance to Pakistanis must show that it's a US donation. And if that's not the case the aid programme should be suspended. It is indeed a hard-line approach and doesn't offer a sensible way out of this imbroglio. The fact is even if given under the USAID logo, irrespective of its quality and quantity it is not going to substantially improve US image in these restive areas. But if suspended it would surely negatively impact the American image in this country further. Given a decision to suspend unbranded aid would do more harm to America's image than the status quo, Washington would do well to revisit its stand as its push for aid recognition is unrealistic and almost impossible to implement in the present circumstances. We think, it would be better if it is not insisted upon and the move is shelved for the time being.