Nancy Birdsall mentioned in an opinion piece in the Dawn newspaper in Pakistan.
From the Article
SINCE Osama bin Laden’s killing, US lawmakers have been engaged in a feisty debate over whether to cut aid to Pakistan. They ask why American taxpayers should give over $3bn annually to a country that would harbour the world’s most-wanted terrorist.
Since the Obama administration spent much of last week reiterating the importance of Washington’s strategic partnership with Islamabad, a significant shift in assistance policy is unlikely. But there is nonetheless great value in the debate about aid — ideally, it will help Congress clarify both for itself and Pakistan why continued foreign assistance is a good idea.
Those who support aid for Pakistan offer two rationales — one that suits US interests, and another that serves Pakistani interests. The first is that Pakistan is integral to the ongoing war in Afghanistan, and to America’s more general fight against terrorism. Pakistan launches military operations against militants, provides supply routes for Nato trucks and gathers intelligence on (some) terrorists. It is also a key player in any negotiated political settlement in Afghanistan. Moreover, it has reportedly the fastest-growing nuclear arsenal in the world, which could end up in the wrong hands if the army were to be compromised. Cut aid, the logic goes, and Pakistan will cut all military cooperation and logistical support.
The other rationale focuses on aid as a factor that may help bring about a stable Pakistan. Nancy Birdsall, president of the Centre for Global Development, a think tank evaluating US foreign assistance, says: “Aid is not a tool to reward or to punish a recipient government…. Similarly, aid is not charity. The reason the United States invests in a country like Pakistan is because instability there threatens long-term security and prosperity here and around the globe.” In this construction, aid is an investment in the Pakistani people and their prosperous future, which is ultimately the best antidote to radicalisation.