Reading the papers over breakfast in Lahore, I was dumbfounded by the story of a US diplomatic official being attacked while she attempted to distribute – personally! – aid to a hundred or so Christians who have been victims of communal violence.
Sitting on a stage, Carmella Conroy, who heads the US consulate in Lahore, kicked off proceedings by presenting a relief package to Shahbaz Hameed.
Hameed, who saw 7 members of his family burnt alive in Gojra after an alleged desecration of the Koran, was not happy. He refused the aid, saying that Christians needed not food, but justice. A minor riot ensued, with the crowd throwing aid parcels back at Ms Conroy.
This story seems wrong in so many ways. Does USAID really see its job as spinning charity into PR opportunities (and doing so hamfistedly)? And is the US’s mission in Pakistan to act as a defender of the Christian faith? It certainly seems that way when you read the newspaper report.
Update: John Kerry is hoping money can fix the United States’s relationship with Pakistan:
It’s no secret that the relationship between our countries has suffered its share of strains. Many Pakistanis believe the United States has exploited them for strategic goals. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that two out of three Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Only one in 10 describe us as a partner.
From our side, it has been difficult to build trust with Pakistan’s military and intelligence services over the years because our interests have not always been aligned and because ties between the ISI and Taliban remain troubling.
We need to fix this relationship. The Senate took a major step in doing that last week by passing legislation that Senator Lugar and I introduced to triple non-military assistance to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for the next five years. The House passed the bill yesterday, and President Obama has pledged to sign it.
Not so fast. While I doubt more than a few thousand Americans have even heard of the Kerry-Lugar bill, here in Pakistan it is widely known and hugely controversial. According to one paper, the government is strongly considering rejecting the bill, stung by public outrage at the conditions it imposes on the country.
“A convicted rapist out on parole would be required to give fewer assurances of good conduct for the future than Pakistan is required to give in order to receive assistance under this legislation,” writes liberal member of parliament, Ayaz Amir.
Then there’s Supreme Court lawyer, Anees Jillani, who is furious at what he sees as American attempts to take control of Pakistan’s political and judicial system:
This is the price that a country like Pakistan has to pay for taking aid from others. Either it says no, or signs on the dotted line with a wide grin on its face, as if this was the best thing that has happened to the country since independence….
Thank God, Kerry and Lugar did not think of getting the name of Pakistan changed!
I’d count that as another public diplomacy fail…
