She came, she made the appropriate noises about partnerships, she even praised the local mangoes, which was well received by the local press. The independent Geo TV happily reported that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “bought and savored” Pakistani mangoes during her recent visit and proclaimed them “delicious”.
 

What does it take for a US Secretary of State to be favorably covered by the alarmingly anti-American Pakistani media? It’s money, not mangoes. And Clinton came in offering billions of it.
 

Under the Kerry Lugar Bill, named after US Senators John Kerry (Democrat) and Richard Lugar (Republican), which was passed by Congress last year, Washington has committed to $7.5 billion economic and development aid to Pakistan over the next five years.
 

While she was in town, Clinton signed off on an initial $500 million for infrastructure – notably in the energy and water sectors – for the impoverished South Asian nation.

US officials have been keen to note that the aid provided under the Kerry Lugar Bill is destined for civilian development purposes and it does not constitute military aid.
 

Remember ‘Kerry Looter’ or was it ‘Carry Looter’?

The Kerry Lugar Bill -- popularly called “KLB” by the local media and ordinary Pakistanis -- was not that popular in Pakistan.
 

As respected Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid noted, the Pakistani military was incensed by Washington’s efforts to ensure that Americans’ tax dollars did the job by including conditions, in the bill, that Pakistan remain a democracy and that the civilian government maintains control over the military.

The mighty Pakistani military, according to Rashid, contacted pliant local news orgs in a massive PR campaign to whip up opposition to the bill. The Pakistani media duly complied, dubbing it the “Kerry Looter Bill” or the “Carry Looter Bill”.
 

Paying for defense, debts and development - in that order

But those were the bad old days of heightened anti-US sentiments in Pakistan - or so we’re told.
 

Debt and poverty-riddled Pakistan needs development aid. Of its $38 billion annual budget for 2010-2011, a whopping $7.9 billion – or 21% - goes into defense spending. If you think this bad, think again. At least we have the figure these days. For decades, the army refused to allow any Pakistani government to disclose the nation’s military budget.
 

Another 28% of the annual budget goes toward servicing Pakistan’s nearly $55 billion debt.
 

That leaves development, of course, to the internationals.
 

International pledges were made at last year’s Tokyo aid conference, but few European countries have coughed up the cash. European concerns about Pakistan’s lack of progress in fighting militancy and concerns that Islamabad will funnel aid money to build its defenses against arch foe India rather than the Afghan Taliban, means there’s little showing on that front.
 

Which leaves the US to, once again, bankroll Pakistan. Like they have over the past 60-odd years. As in the past, Washington may not get bang for its buck – except probably the odd suicide attack bang.
 

But that hardly matters because amazingly, when it comes to US-Pakistan relations, the donor nation will always be scrambling to throw more cash, buy more love. The aid recipients, on the other hand, will feel cheated, jilted, used, misused and abused. And so, the US will have to cough up more cash-for-love, its top diplomats will be put through the ignominy of soothing irate Pakistanis at town hall meetings and the circus will carry on.
 

The “war on terror” dance too will roll on. Washington will demand that Islamabad do more to control militancy. Islamabad will argue it’s doing all it can. This will go on until US and international troops in neighboring Afghanistan are ready to pack up and go. We might then see a new chapter open in the region.
 

But until then, expect more of the same. Don’t look for grand headlines from tomorrow’s major donor conference in Kabul either. There’s no shortage of international aid in these parts. What we lack is a plan on how this aid gets used. But that’s another story, another blog…