STATEMENT OF REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN

CHAIRMAN

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA

U.S. FOREIGN ASSISTANCE TO SOUTH ASIA:

IS THERE A STRATEGY TO GO WITH ALL THAT MONEY?

 

May 14, 2008

 

 

            Good afternoon.  The subcommittee will come to order.  Last week I suggested that the major elements of U.S. foreign assistance consisted, metaphorically speaking, of sending Lawyers, Guns and Money: that promoting democracy, free markets, civil society, and the rule of law strengthens our partners in the international community; that supporting our allies with appropriate arms and training is morally right and smart policy; and that using our wealth and access to our economy to help friendly nations to grow their economies and to develop their governance capacity is a smart use of our taxpayers' money. In essence, Lawyers, Guns and Money are the key pillars supporting American foreign policy, but each element has its limit as well.  In South Asia, all three components are necessary but are not, by themselves, sufficient. Pillars are are just that, pillars. They are not the whole structure; they are tools and tactics to help us achieve our policy goals. And in South Asia, they are often tactics in search of a strategy.  

            South Asia is arguably the place from which America faces the greatest terrorist threat.  It was in Afghanistan that al Qaeda plotted and carried out the attacks of September 11.  It is in the tribal areas of Pakistan where al Qaeda and the Taliban have reconstituted themselves and from where they attack our forces, as well as those of both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Yet since the beginning of the year there has been a series of reports all of which suggest the United States has no overall strategy for dealing with Afghanistan, Pakistan or the terrorist threat the emanates from both.

With regard to Afghanistan, the Atlantic Council states: “Make no mistake, NATO is not winning in Afghanistan.”  The Center for the Presidency’s Afghanistan Study Group concludes:  “The mission to stabilize Afghanistan is faltering.”  The International Crisis Group maintains:  “Afghanistan is not lost but the signs are not good.”

In the case of Pakistan, the Government Accountability Office found that, “The United States has not met its national security goals to destroy the terrorist threat and close the safe haven in Pakistan’s FATA region.” 

While the President and his Administration don’t seem very adept when it comes to strategy, either having one or implementing one, the Bush Administration is very good at spending money, lots of it and mostly on guns.  In terms of foreign assistance, and even in terms of U.S. policy, South Asia was a backwater until September 2001.  From that point forward, U.S. assistance and attention to the region sky-rocketed.  Since America was attacked, South Asia has become second only to the Middle East in terms of U.S. military assistance.  Over the past 6 years, the United States has spent $15.6 Billion on training for the Afghan National Army and Police, yet the army is still incapable of operating on its own and the police are so bad that most Afghans are more afraid of them than they are of the Taliban.

In Pakistan, over the same six year period, the Bush Administration has provided $1.5 Billion in Foreign Military Financing and $5.56 Billion in Coalition Support Funds.  The former to buy radars, and anti submarine planes to track the non-existent al Qaeda air force and navy and the latter disappeared into the Pakistani Treasury for unspecified services allegedly rendered.  Yet Pakistani officials complain, and have done so to me directly, that they lack the capabilities and training to conduct effective counter-insurgency operations.  So we shouldn’t be too surprised that the GAO supports that claim and found that:  “Pakistani security forces lack counterinsurgency capability”; that the Pakistani Army “is neither structured nor trained for counterinsurgency”; and that “serious equipment and training deficiencies exist in the Frontier Corps.”  What did the Bush Administration spend all that money on?  If the situation weren’t so dire and our need for success not so absolute, I’d suggest that additional appropriations to security forces in either nation was throwing good money after bad.

            Leaving the urgent to address the merely important for a moment, there are other nations in South Asia which are in various stages of civil war reconciliation, or governmental transition where the right mix of Lawyers, Guns and Money could mean the difference between a failed state and democratic development.  In Sri Lanka, the government continues to prosecute the war against the LTTE, the Tamil terrorist group, but in provincial elections on Saturday, a splinter group of the LTTE gained enough seats in a coalition with the ruling party to form the next provincial government.  Press reports, however, indicate that the election was fraught with irregularities like ballot-box stuffing, voter intimidation and beatings.  Because former LTTE members, who face accusations of murder, harassing opposition voters and candidates and recruiting child soldiers, will now be part of the provincial government, the Bush Administration is faced with the legal question of how to provide assistance to areas of the country partially controlled by an organization, which while not actually designated a foreign terrorist organization used to be part of one.

            In Nepal, the Maoists did surprisingly well in elections for the constituent assembly.  So well, in fact, that they will now not only be writing a new constitution but will likely be forming a new government.  Since the Maoists are a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, the continued provision of U.S. assistance to Nepal appears on its face to be illegal.  While no one supports funding terrorist organizations, continued reconciliation and democratic development in Nepal is in the interest of the United States, so I will be interested to hear whether the Administration believes assistance to Nepal should continue and if so, how it intends to proceed.

            In Bangladesh, the caretaker government, which has lasted a lot longer than a caretaker government ought to, is preparing for elections, hopefully by the end of this year.  I support the Administration’s call for lifting emergency rule.  Free, fair and transparent elections cannot be conducted when the rights to speak and assemble are restricted.  The caretaker government has taken a partial step, allowing indoor political gatherings, but it must go much further to ensure a legitimate election in December.

            The one country I haven’t spoken about is India, a giant sea of relative tranquility surrounded by chaos and instability.  India has experienced enormous economic growth in recent years, but it still has three-quarters of a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day and faces serious public health problems like the threat of HIV/AIDS and a lack of potable water.  And even though India is growing stronger economically, I am still dismayed that the Administration chose to cut funding for HIV/AIDS.  While I don’t think that countries should receive our assistance indefinitely, I do think we run the risk of undoing progress already made by cutting assistance prematurely.

            Lawyers, Guns and Money.  Each one is necessary but in different degrees in different countries; each is insufficient by itself.  Without a strategy to bind them together they are only means without an end.  And that unfortunately, is what we have seen from the Bush Administration in this region.  Since 2001 we’ve spent $38.67 Billion and we are no closer than we were when we began to a peaceful, stable, secure South Asia.  As I said last week, that’s some legacy.