Is U.S. Food and Water Aid to Pakistan Motivated by War?

Pakistan has been wrecked with flooding this month from unusually intense monsoon rain. The situation brought massive crop destruction and resulting skyrocketing fuel prices, causing more and more Pakistanis to face starvation. Despite the gravity of the predicament, U.S. government officials seem more caught up with their own political agendas. Officials have offered little aid, sparking outrage from the U.N. and international aid groups. Instead, they're using Pakistan's plight as a P.R. opportunity to make some civilian allies in the Afghanistan war.

Let's put the disaster into perspective: More than 1,600 Pakistanis have died and nearly 300,000 homes have been damaged or destroyed since the floods began on July 22, according to the U.N. About 1.7 million acres of crops — mostly maize, rice, sugarcane, and vegetables — got totally wiped out, while much of the country's livestock drowned in some of the worst-hit areas. About 75 percent of survivors rely on agriculture for their livelihoods. They're now broke, hungry, and approaching starvation just as the Muslim month of Ramadan, in which Muslims fast all day and eat at sundown, begins. The cost of basic foods like tomatoes, potatoes, and onions has quadrupled in some cases, making them too expensive for many Pakistanis. On an aerial tour of the water-logged areas, Guardian reporter Saeed Shah writes,"Water could be seen stretching out for miles – swamp-like in places, like an open sea in others...it became apparent that there were still people stranded in the water." The rain's not stopping, either: In the past few days, two more waves of water have crashed through the country and should last through today.

So where, then, is help? In the face of this widespread starvation and devastation, the world community has responded with far less urgency than it has in past emergencies like the 2004 tsunami and the earthquake in Haiti. By August 9th, world governments had donated less than $45 million and pledged $91 million to Pakistan, according to aid group Oxfam, considerably less than was collected for previous disaster relief efforts over a similar period. The U.S. has committed $55 million so far — the U.N. has called for $459 million.

America claims help is on its way, but it's unfortunately tainted with war strategy. Government officials and military leaders view the aid effort as a means to win over Pakistani civilians who increasingly dislike the U.S. because of our war efforts in the region. According to the Associated Press, "...the aid and rescue mission by the U.S. military gives Washington a chance to strengthen a sometimes troubled alliance that is crucial to fighting militancy in the region and ensuring a stable Afghanistan." It is extremely disturbing that the main motivation to save Pakistanis is not just preserving human lives, but to bring them over to "our side." The U.S. aims to distribute food and water in the hopes that Pakistani citizens will act as stronger allies.

It's odd timing, as I just wrote last week on a statement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to phase out its efforts to send hunger aid in times of crisis and instead support long-term anti-hunger efforts. These efforts, however, would largely benefit U.S. agribusiness and foreign policy while harming poor countries. Long-term efforts in Haiti, for example, looked less like sustainability and independence and more like the end of food sovereignty.

Pakistan's flooding has indeed sparked political repercussions, with the Taliban refusing to accept U.S. aid, the Pakistani government facing criticism for its own slow response, and more countries questioning war efforts. The country's needs really can't be ignored. But aid motivated (or neglected) by war, profit, and strategy? Now those are meals that come with some pretty heavy strings attached.

Photo credit: The National Guard via Wikimedia Commons