Holbrooke Responds to Kerry on Pakistan: More Transparency and Policy Focus, but Development Strategy Missing

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke recently sent a letter responding to Senator Kerry’s concerns about U.S. aid in Pakistan. Overall, I was pleased to see Holbrooke’s commitment to share more information on the USAID and embassy websites—something Senator Kerry and CGD president Nancy Birdsall both encouraged – and his focus on policy reforms and learning from past donor experience.  However, I wish he would have been more explicit in clarifying the long-term objective of the U.S. aid program.I was pleased to see the following points in Holbrooke’s letter:

1. A commitment to be more transparent. Both Senator Kerry and CGD president Nancy Birdsall called for the creation of an “easy-to-navigate” public website that provides “detailed planning, objectives, and disbursement information.” Holbrooke says “your suggestion of providing more information about our efforts on the Internet is a good one, and we plan on putting more information on the USAID and embassy websites as our plans become more concrete.”  What might a new, improved and more transparent website look like? My colleague Wren Elhai and I have a few suggestions here.
2. The centrality of policy reforms.  Holbrooke states unequivocally that structural and policy reforms in Pakistan (including implementation of a value-added tax and reforms in the energy and education sectors) are paramount to the long-term success of our aid program. It’s clear from donor experience that politically sensitive economy-wide economic reforms are critical. Of course the most pressing question is not whether policy reforms are needed, but how to make those happen. The past experience of the United States and other donors is that outside leverage on domestic policies in a country like Pakistan is limited, even when large sums of money are involved and especially when donors are unwilling to exit, as is almost surely the case for the United States in Pakistan. As just one example, see the dismal tale of donors’ failed attempts to encourage the government of Pakistan to implement urgently needed energy reforms.  The enormity of the challenge suggests that the United States should be modest in its expectations of the leverage it has, and collaborative with other major donors in efforts to engage the government of Pakistan on politically difficult policy reforms.
3. Collaborating with, and learning from, other donors: Senator Kerry urged Holbrooke to work closely with and through the lead donors in Pakistan.  Holbrooke cites multiple examples of U.S. collaboration with Pakistan’s main multilateral partners.  In the energy sector, he points to the U.S. involvement in the Asian Development Bank’s Energy Taskforce and cites the administration’s plans to “pool our resources with the IFIs to the extent possible and appropriate to leverage more reform and more investment in the sector.”  He also references the U.S. collaboration in the UK- and government of Pakistan- led Pakistan Education Task Force. This emphasis on collaboration with other donors is very encouraging.  What remains to be seen is whether the United States will truly work in concert with them, in integrated processes, or whether the sense of urgency on the U.S. side will limit patience for donor coordination, and instead result in the establishment of separate (and possibly duplicative) U.S. processes and policy dialogues in Pakistan.

1. Unclear commitment to a long-term focus: Senator Kerry says the U.S. aid program in Pakistan is intended to have a long-term development focus (describing this approach as, “the best investment in the long-term security of the United States and Pakistan”).  Conspicuously, Holbrooke’s response did not.  This omission fuels my concerns about the balance between short- and long-term pressures on the U.S. assistance program in Pakistan. I am eager to hear a strong and unambiguous statement from Ambassador Holbrooke on the priority of long-term development in Pakistan.Beyond words, Holbrooke and his team could further signal this long-term objective by setting a small number of clear, measurable development indicators for the next five years -- such as girls entering secondary schools, for instance, or tube wells restored – and goals for annual progress against them.  The message would be clear: the investment of $7.5 billion in U.S. aid in Pakistan is about improving the welfare of the Pakistan population and building a more capable and responsive Pakistani state.
2. Dialogue with the U.S. policy community: Holbrooke reaffirms his commitment to better communicate with the Pakistan public.  Aside from his note about better explaining the U.S. aid program to the American taxpayer, he does not respond to Senator Kerry’s suggestion to reach out to the U.S. policy community with more regular information sharing.  I was disappointed to see this, not just because it makes my job more challenging, but because there is experience and expertise across the development community that could help inform and strengthen our efforts in Pakistan. As we’ve suggested, Holbrooke and his team could host regular forums on U.S. policy in Pakistan, with time carved out specifically on the long-term development strategy for Pakistan.