Mrs Clinton [...] said that the administration’s plans to triple civilian aid to Pakistan to $1.5bn (€1.2bn, £1.1bn) a year were “not a blank cheque”. Under George W. Bush, former president, the US provided more than $10bn in military aid to the country amid complaints that funds were misused and subject to inadequate oversight.
The new administration is also taking a tough line with Iraq’s government. Mrs Clinton told Congress that Baghdad needed to do more to overcome political differences through the passage of national oil laws, the speedier release of prisoners under an amnesty law and action on not-yet implemented de-Baathification reform.
Mrs Clinton said: “We will certainly do our best to press the Iraqi government to combat sectarianism in their security forces and we will tie future training and equipping resources to progress on this front.”
The White House also emphasises pressing Iraq for “real political accommodation”, as well as diplomatic engagement with neighbouring states such as Iran and Syria.
Mrs Clinton also focused on corruption and government failings in Afghanistan: “We will tie aid to better performance by the Afghan national government, including anti-corruption initiatives and efforts to extend the rule of law across the country
Aid conditionality in the war on terror?
I applaud the idealism, but remain highly skeptical over the extent to which increasing military and civilian aid to Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan is going to facilitate progress in the war on terror. Yet, newly appointed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton seems to think it might:
This all sounds wonderful, but I strongly suggest Secretary Clinton take a crash course in (tied) aid policies (and their outcomes as regard government reform) in Africa, and elsewhere, before taking the plunge on this one. I could be mistaken in my cynicism, but I somehow don't think so.