How has the Afghan War effected development in Pakistan during Zia’s Regime Essay Example

land accessibility. The situation became more intricate due to Pakistan's budget allocation prioritizing defense spending.

During the Soviet presence in Afghanistan, the United Nations supplied food aid, but it dwindled and stopped after their withdrawal. Nevertheless, many refugees remained in Pakistan where overcrowding forced authorities to allow them to look for work outside of camps. However, as they assimilated into Pakistani society, they became problematic by offering cheap labor and displacing local workers in the primary sector.

In September 30th, 2002, an article in Dawn reported that Afghan refugees living in Karachi and Islamabad participated in criminal activities such as robberies, car thefts, and prostitution. These settlements became a safe haven for criminals while also adding to the already scarce food resources and infrastructure. The "Kalashnikov culture" was brought to the area by these refugees. With military aid supplied by the USA, an arms industry thrived in NWFP which could produce up to 100 AK-47s daily. To support the Afghan Resistance movement, CIA provided $640 million of funding; however, Pakistan army rejected a shipment of arms meant for them due to unsuitability for mountain warfare.

Taran (1997) reported that weapons disappeared and later appeared on the market, spreading to major towns in Pakistan as terrorists, militants, ethnic and sectarian groups obtained them for unrestricted purposes. Goodwin (1987) noted that high civil and military officials skimmed around 30% of aid meant for the Afghan resistance. Pakistan faced multiple security dilemmas at this time, with the threat of the Soviets seeking access to the Indian Ocean through Baluchistan to the west and an ominous Indian presence on the eastern border. The choice was between accepting Soviet domination and becoming

part of a vast South Asian economic network or supporting the Afghan resistance and risking direct conflict with the Soviets.

According to Grare's report in 2003, the United States pledged $400 million of economic and military assistance to Pakistan during President Jimmy Carter's tenure. The purpose of this aid was to support the Afghan resistance and combat the Soviet Union. However, despite this commitment, Pakistan prioritized security which was not included in the promise. Nonetheless, Zbigniew Brezinski, the American national security advisor, gave assurance to Pakistan regarding security in the Persian Gulf region. General Zia recalled a public meeting where he raised concern over Pakistan's position in the Gulf and asked Brezinski about it. Brezinski acknowledged that Pakistan fell within the Gulf region and agreed on U.S involvement if there were any security threats.

During a conversation, I asked if the United States would go to war with Pakistan in the event of a threat. The response was not given, and I acknowledged that no answer was necessary [Grare, 2003]. President Jimmy Carter's offer of economic and military aid was rejected by Pakistan because it was not sufficient enough to risk standing alone against the Soviets [Grare, 2003]. However, under the leadership of Ronald Reagan, a new aid program was developed that satisfied both the USA and General Zia [Grare, 2003].

According to Jadmani (2003), Pakistan was granted $3.2 billion worth of economic and military assistance from the United States, which was given over a period of 5 years. Saudi Arabia also provided a matching amount of aid. The purpose of this aid package was to enhance the country's socio-economic state. However, as noted by Jalal (1991),

the result was the creation of an undesirable military elite.

Pakistan, instead of focusing on achieving a balanced foreign trade budget and promoting investments, chose to rely on foreign aid. This decision not only caused them to sink deeper into the debt trap that they had been in since they began receiving aid after their independence, but it also created a strong dependency on said aid to maintain their current standard of living in the midst of a growing population [Rashid, 1983]. This debt trap was so severe that Pakistan had to acquire even more aid to pay off debts that they had accumulated in the past. It was akin to the West giving less developed countries like Pakistan credit cards with exorbitant interest rates; as Pakistan paid for the principal and interest, they were granted higher credit limits with even more astronomical interest rates. As their population grew, they needed more resources, leading them to accumulate so much debt to Western countries that had extended them credit that they had to seek additional loans or aid from other international organizations dedicated solely to ensuring less developed countries could pay their creditors. This vicious cycle persists as Pakistan needs aid to support current standards of living whilst making payments on its debts.

According to Rashid in 1983, during Zia's regime, Pakistan's Government economic survey (1977-1983) showed a rise of 4.4% in the country's GNP per capita. This growth was mainly due to the increase of narcotics trade resulting from the Afghan war and refugees crossing over into Pakistan. While this notable increase was not explicitly reflected in official statistics, it did contribute significantly to expansion beyond productive

sectors as reported by Parvez in 1998.

Rather than investing economic aid into infrastructure, education, and development, it was allocated towards importing consumer goods resulting in an increase in GNP. However, this increase did not truly reflect the country's welfare or benefit its citizens, as it was a result of the government's high spending to support the Afghan resistance. This aligns with the unearned state income theory proposed by Mick Moore, which states that state income is only earned when both the citizens and the state contribute to generating revenue. Throughout the Afghan War, Pakistan primarily relied on external sources of aid to generate revenue. [Hilali, 2002] [Moore, 2001]

Despite receiving substantial financial aid over the years, Pakistan's government only collected a small amount in taxes, leading to a disconnection between the state and its citizens. The government prioritized defense spending instead of addressing the widespread social issues within the country [Parvez, 1998]. Additionally, economic aid intended to improve the country's economy was either misused for military purposes or embezzled by corrupt military officials, despite efforts from the USA to increase economic performance.

Former finance minister and World Bank vice-president, Mahboob-Ul-Haq, has argued that the money spent by Pakistan on three submarines could instead finance primary education for 17 million children for one year or provide pure drinking water for approximately 67 million of its population [Rehman, 1997]. During the Afghan War, Pakistan was heavily reliant on aid provided by more developed countries, which is one reason why it is still considered a developing nation according to Dependency theory [Frank, 2001]. Furthermore, powerful western countries from which Pakistan seeks support take back more than they

give, leaving Pakistan in a disadvantaged position. Multinational corporations also exploit countries like Pakistan through cheap labor, taking profits outside the country and hindering any domestic investment for economic growth [Ali, 2004]. Therefore, it can be concluded that the Afghan War had mixed effects on the already struggling Pakistani economy.

During his undemocratic rule, General Zia found a distraction in the war, which benefited him and provided the military with necessary aid to withstand threats on the eastern border. However, this era also resulted in numerous social problems, with lasting effects on the current state of the economy. For instance, Afghan refugees residing in major Pakistani cities continue to pose a challenge. The aid secured by General Zia aimed to enhance economic and social conditions in Pakistan, but instead led to a decline in the balance of payments and hindered progress for both social and economic fronts.

The reason for this was the significant spending on defense and consumer goods.