|
Rafia Zakaria //DAWN: 08 February 2025
IT was a showdown for the ages. This past week, the Trump administration issued an order placing all workers of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) on leave.
The direct-hire workers have been given 30 days to return to the United States. At the same time, employees of the now dreaded Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) went into the agency’s DC headquarters and prevented even its top administrators from entering the building. Employee access to their emails was also cut off. The branding of the agency on the building’s façade was removed.
In a seeming instant, and on questionable legal authority, an agency whose stated purpose was to help people around the world avoid famine and death had been wiped out. USAID represented less than one per cent of the total US federal budget.
There is a lot to say about this remarkable turnaround in American foreign policy. In terms of its effect on Pakistan, the Trump administration has also cut aid to crucial projects that were taking place under the auspices of USAID. This includes a programme that helped protect historical buildings, archaeological sites and museum collections. Five energy programmes have also been affected. It is unclear both how much aid in total the US was actually providing to Pakistan through the agency, and whether explicit disbursements (if any) by Congress would be affected.
In Pakistan, government employees are usually accustomed to the winds of change blowing every time the government changes. This is because most of them, especially in high posts, are political appointees. In the US, while there is a fair amount of political appointees, the government is largely run by career diplomats who keep things going in more or less the same way, regardless of which party is in power.
With every executive order directed at restructuring the government, from doing away with USAID to also possibly shuttering the Department of Education to mass firings at the Department of Justice, President Trump appears adamant on changing the bureaucratic landscape.
The vast review powers that have been given to DOGE or to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to check every programme and see if it fulfils the Trumpian agenda means that hundreds of thousands of the two million federal employees will be affected. Those who received an ominous letter titled ‘Fork in the Road’ had until this past Thursday to accept a resignation deal where they would be paid until September if they quit their job immediately. Uncertain of what lay ahead, nearly 40,000 employees had taken up the offer.
Beyond the immediate uncertainty that surrounds the American political scene lie crucial structural changes that are going to transform Washington’s foreign policy for the near future. The way in which USAID was scrapped is remarkably similar to how the DOGE chairman and the world’s richest man Elon Musk scrapped Twitter when he took over the social media platform and rebranded it as X.
His influence over the future of America cannot be underestimated at this point. Efforts by anyone, including the flailing Democrat senators and House members, to stop him in his tracks have so far yielded nothing and appear unlikely to have any effect. In a stand-off in which DOGE officials were demanding access to the Treasury, DOGE won and now has access to the most secret data and payment information of the US federal government.
USAID was established under the late president John F. Kennedy in 1961. While it undoubtedly had many programmes that helped deliver HIV drugs and food in disease-ridden and famine-hit areas across the world, the agency had also developed a chequered reputation after America’s failed nation-building efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq following its invasions.
Inspectors general who were responsible for oversight (and who have also all been fired) revealed that the agency was unable to account for hundreds of millions of dollars or was delivering them to autocratic leaders and dictators in corrupt, failing states rather than to the people they purported to help. For Trump, USAID had “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics”.
But at the same time, the aid agency was the primary instrument of America’s soft power, and its scrapping represents a harder turn where quid pro quo-type calculations will be the future face of the US. Beyond good or bad, it is true that the withdrawal of soft power does not yield immediate consequences, but rather exposes its deficits when the US actually needs assistance from a country that was abandoned after aid was cut.
It also allows other global players such as China to occupy the vacuum that is created by the exit of a powerful country, although Beijing, despite its foreign initiatives, is itself focused more on a domestic economic uplift agenda for the time being.
Every day seems to bring a new order of disruption in Washington. If the last Trump administration came in uncertain and bumbling, this one seems far more intent on doing what it promised — drastically cut down government institutions that have stood strong for decades, sometimes being commended and at other times drawing flak. For now, everything, including the world’s future, seems to depend on the whims of a single man.
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
rafia.zakaria@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2025
==============================================================================
Gulmina Bilal Ahmad //DAWN: 08 February 2025
DONALD Trump’s recent decision to freeze US foreign aid for 90 days has sent shockwaves across South Asia, which has long depended on American assistance for economic development, healthcare, and humanitarian aid. While framed as a cost-cutting measure, this abrupt action could have grave consequences, not just for those directly dependent on aid but also for the geopolitical balance in one of the most strategically significant regions. In the aftermath of the announcement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio did clarify that some categories of humanitarian assistance would continue.
South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, has historically been one of the largest recipients of US foreign assistance. From infrastructure projects in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka to counterterrorism aid in Pakistan and healthcare initiatives across the region, American investments have played a crucial role in economic stability and public health. By halting these programmes without warning, the Trump administration risks undoing years of progress and pushing vulnerable communities into deeper crisis.
Economic development is one of the most immediate casualties of Trump’s decision. The US has been instrumental in funding key infrastructure projects in the region. It has supported everything from roads and ports to clean energy initiatives. Without this funding, ongoing projects may be abandoned, leading to job losses and stalled economic growth. Trade relations, too, are at risk. Many South Asian economies, particularly India and Bangladesh, depend on exports to the US. The aid freeze comes at a time when Trump also wants to increase tariffs on imports like pharmaceuticals and textiles, which provide millions of jobs in the region.
Beyond economic setbacks, the impact on public health could be catastrophic. The US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, which funds HIV treatment and prevention programmes, has already begun scaling back services due to Trump’s action. Clinics in Bangladesh and Nepal are struggling to provide lifesaving medications, and testing programmes have been forced to shut down. This immediate disruption will lead to higher infection rates and an increase in preventable deaths. Additionally, food aid programmes supporting millions of malnourished children in Pakistan and Sri Lanka are now uncertain, leaving families with fewer resources to combat hunger and disease.
Foreign aid is an investment in stability and growth.
Perhaps most alarming is the potential humanitarian disaster in Bangladesh, where over a million Rohingya refugees rely heavily on international aid. The sudden freeze has put essential services, such as healthcare and sanitation in refugee camps, at risk. Without immediate alternative funding, overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar could become breeding grounds for disease and violence. This would further destabilise the situation.
The consequences extend beyond humanitarian concerns; they also have geopolitical implications. For years, the US has used foreign aid as a tool to maintain influence in South Asia and counter China’s growing presence. Now, with this assistance in question, regional countries may increasingly turn to Beijing, which has already invested billions in infrastructure projects through its Belt and Road Initiative. This shift could alter strategic alliances, giving China greater leverage over trade, security, and political decisions in South Asia. In Pakistan, where US aid has historical-
ly supported counterterrorism efforts, the freeze could weaken security cooperation at a time when regional stability is fragile.
Trump’s decision may have been driven by internal considerations, but its global impact cannot be ignored. Foreign aid is not just a charitable endeavour; it is an investment in stability, security, and economic growth for both the recipient and donor. By abruptly cutting off funding, the US risks creating long-term instability in a region that is already grappling with economic challenges, public health crises, and shifting geopolitical dynamics.
For South Asia, the situation is uncertain. Governments and aid organisations will now have to scramble for alternative funding sources, whether from private donors, multilateral institutions, or regional allies. However, the damage may not be easily reversed.
In a world where influence is measured by investment and partnership, the US may find that its retreat from South Asia has left a vacuum that others — most notably China — are all too willing to fill.
The writer is chairperson, National Vocational and Technical Training Commission.
chairperson@navttc.gov.pk
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2025
===============================================================================
Arooj Waheed Dar // DAWN: 08 February 2025
AFTER a phase of stabilisation, it is encouraging to see the government emphasise growth through Uraan Pakistan. The programme, much like an election manifesto, aims to address an overwhelming range of areas. This raises the question: can any government realistically tackle such an ambitious agenda within a five-year term? More importantly, can Uraan truly soar without meaningful reforms in governance?
Uraan appears to be just another flagship programme designed to strengthen the vote bank for one political party ahead of the next election cycle. The lack of effort to institutionalise initiatives through policy integration raises serious concerns about its sustainability. The end of the government will mean the death of the programme, and with elections preceding the Uraan deadline, the PML-N will surely leverage it for an election win.
While the programme sets specific targets for 2029, its potential is undermined by the lack of interim targets, key performance indicators (KPIs), and the role of stakeholders. Women and youth receive only residual focus. Moreover, barring messages from provincial heads, the document largely overlooks the role of the provinces.
This is not the first long-term plan prepared by a government. Numerous plans under previous regimes have been drafted, yet they failed due to both political instability and ineffective governance. To prevent the same risks from jeopardising Uraan, it is essential to address the persistent barriers to growth, particularly weak governance.
The political economy remains by far the biggest hindrance in the way of sustainable development. Transfers and postings are ubiquitously employed as tools for manipulation in the bureaucracy. ‘Compliant’ officers are rewarded with preferred posts, while others are punished with less prestigious posts in difficult areas — privileges are revoked, reputations tarnished, and poor scores on the annual confidential reports are given.
Barriers to growth must be removed for Uraan to succeed.
Government departments work in silos with no coordination mechanisms, even for cross-cutting themes. Most officials operate within the confines of the Rules of Business, limiting the potential for synergized impact.
The approval process is cumbersome, with proposals navigating long hierarchies before being implemented — if at all. There is also a mismatch in human resource: merit is overlooked, with cadre posts created to place preferred people in key positions. The absence of KPIs and persistent data gaps further undermine effective planning.
Priorities are guided by ‘the eyes don’t lie’ ideology. Bridges, roads, etc are constructed to give the illusion of development. Hard infrastructure projects are prioritised over projects focused on long-term human development due to rent-seeking tendencies. Public works and similar departments take the lion’s share of expenditure, leaving meagre allocations for social sectors. Even within the latter, over 80 per cent of spending goes towards construction or renovation.
Even these projects are not equitably distributed. Those in power redirect funding to their home districts to strengthen their vote bank, shelving prior projects. Little to no attention is paid to maintenance or sustainability of projects, turning investment into sunk costs a few years down the line. The race for recognition also disrupts continuity, as successive governments rebrand existing projects to showcase their own flagship initiatives.
As the government moves onwards from stabilisation, it is important to overcome these systemic governance issues. A more structured approach towards expenditure allocation is of utmost importance. Ad hoc allocations must be replaced with a real-time monitoring system to track where the funds are being directed, ensuring transparency and optimal resource use.
Political stability and bipartisan ownership of the programme are key to ensuring Uraan’s success beyond short-term gains. Overly branding it as the initiative of a single party undermines its potential and is detrimental to national progress. Continuity must be ensured by freezing PSDP and ADP allocations to reduce the risk of disruptions. Moreover, a conducive environment must be created for the private sector to step in and invest by reducing red tape and eliminating preferential treatment for cronies.
Most importantly, the government must collaborate with the relevant stakeholders to prepare detailed, sector-wise plans to achieve the targets set in the programme, specifying the roadmap, interim goals, and stakeholder mapping. Otherwise, Uraan will risk becoming just another forgotten policy document.
The writer is a senior research associate at the SDPI, Islamabad. The views are the writer’s own and do not reflect the SDPI’s position.
X: @AroojWDar
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2025
===============================================================================
DAWN EDITORIAL
HISTORY has shown that unless states deliver development and equal rights to all, disenfranchised people can target even supposedly cherished symbols of the state to vent their frustration. A recent example of this was seen in Bangladesh, when enraged mobs set fire on Wednesday to the Dhanmondi residence in Dhaka of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, founder and maker of that country. Though Mujibur Rahman’s residence was also torched last year during protests against Sheikh Hasina’s government, this time the edifice was demolished after Ms Hasina made a controversial speech online. The ex-PM, who is also the Sheikh’s daughter, is currently in India, and tensions were inflamed in Bangladesh when she called on people to resist the interim administration. Dhaka has lodged a strong protest with New Delhi over Sheikh Hasina’s speech.
It is sobering that to many Bangladeshis, the Sheikh’s residence now represents a “fascist stronghold”. Unfortunately, Ms Hasina and the Awami League have mostly themselves to blame, as her authoritarian rule excluded many Bangladeshis from equitably partaking in the fruits of economic progress, while political freedoms were also curtailed. It is also true that after separating from Pakistan, Sheikh Mujib would, in January 1975, create a one-party state in Bangladesh, stunting the country’s democratic development. In a dark turn of events, in August 1975 the Sheikh and most of his family members would be brutally massacred in the same Dhanmondi house by mutineers. Bangladesh needs to move on from the Awami League’s heavy-handed rule and return to full democratic rule. Dr Muhammad Yunus’s administration should stick to the timeline announced for elections — late 2025 or early 2026 — to ensure a proper democratic transition. Both the interim set-up and the future elected government must prioritise justice and inclusivity over vengeance. Moreover, the recent events at Dhanmondi offer a lesson for all regional states: when the population is pushed to the edge through exclusionary policies, one can expect an explosion of public anger.
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2025
===============================================================================
FROM THE NEWS CORNER
JOHANNESBURG: Heated exchanges between South Africa and the United States this week are an eruption of tensions over several policy issues that have come into focus under President Donald Trump’s administration, according to analysts.
And more turbulence is in store, with South African-born billionaire Elon Musk a key ally of the new president, they said.
Even if the recent outburst seemed surprising, “the trigger goes some time back”, said Dawie Roodt, chief economist at the Efficient Group consultancy firm.
Senators in the previous US administration “were already questioning their relationship with South Africa”, he said.
For instance, in 2023 a bipartisan group of lawmakers called for former president Joe Biden to punish South Africa for not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
“All of a sudden, those voices that were minority are now more important,” said Roodt.
Trump started the latest spat by accusing South Africa of “confiscating” land and treating “certain classes” of people badly, a likely reference to an expropriation act criticised by white farmers.
The government rejected the claim as misinformed.
Musk followed by charging that President Cyril Ramaphosa had “openly racist ownership laws”.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio then weighed in, saying he would not attend a G20 foreign ministers meeting in Johannesburg this month because South Africa — this year’s president of the forum of top economies — had an “anti-American agenda”.
America’s biggest trading partner in Africa has also come under fire from Washington for leading a case at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of genocidal acts in its Gaza offensive.
Pretoria has also shown its loyalty to Beijing, over Washington’s preference for Taipei, by issuing a March deadline for Taiwan’s de facto embassy to move out of the capital.
Trump has meanwhile threatened to place 100 per cent tariffs on Brics nations, of which South Africa is one, to dissuade them from replacing the US dollar with a rival currency.
“The Elon factor is huge,” political scientist Sandile Swana said of the world’s richest man, who left South Africa in the late 1980s when he was aged 17 and is now in Trump’s government.
Published in Dawn, February 8th, 2025
|
