THE US Senate Committee’s recent approval of $1bn in military aid to Pakistan is conditional on action against militant groups such as the Haqqani network.

This comes amid US allegations of Pakistan’s support of the Haqqani group, believed to be responsible for attacks on western targets in Afghanistan, further straining the relationship between the two countries.

Hillary Clinton had pushed back on such aid restrictions. In the long term, these steps will work against the US government’s security goals in Pakistan. There is dissatisfaction on both sides of the Atlantic; Americans believe that US assistance to Pakistan is not achieving the desired results while the wide perception among Pakistanis is that aid is going towards elite and military strategic interests instead of development projects.

Part of the problem arises from the predominant focus on military rather than civilian assistance to Pakistan. Success in development programmes, reducing child mortality rates and improving education never make for flashy headlines, but in the long term will be a far more effective tool in ensuring US security.

Over the years, the US has fluctuated between a carrot-and-stick approach with Pakistan. Congress, with its recent belt-tightening, is endorsing a stick approach that may backfire in the coming years. By tying aid to military strategic success, the US is essentially reinforcing perceptions in Pakistan that Pakistani lives are being sacrificed for an American war. The US would do better to focus its assistance on high-impact, high-visibility projects that have a meaningful impact on Pakistan’s people.

Rajiv Shah, administrator for USAID, expanded on this at the Asia Society, in New York on Sept 19. He spoke about reforms that had been implemented at the agency to increase transparency including cost effectiveness, measurement of results, and greater accountability with both US and Pakistani contractors. The agency will introduce an annual report at the end of the year which should provide further transparency for the US public.

Though not all projects funded by US assistance have been successful, it is important to highlight that in some areas it has had a meaningful impact. For example, aid used to complete a road in South Waziristan helped increase the presence of local governments and erode support for militants in the country. Recently, militants tried to hide in one of the tribal areas where village elders refused to let them in despite repeated threats to their lives. In recognition of this, further funds werechannelled to build flood-protection walls and water distribution lines there.

In health and education where the current services do not meet demand and the population is expected to double by 2050, aid and reforms are desperately needed. In the health sector, US civilian aid has helped to vaccinate 32 million children with polio vaccines at a cost of just 11 cents per vaccine. In education, school reconstruction and attendance programmes have helped 900,000 children go to school.

There has been a more pronounced focus of US assistance on energy and the economy. Where only 55 per cent of the population has access to modern energy services, aid is set to add crucial megawatts to the grid by 2012, supplementing energy to seven million people and possibly helping to close a part of the energy debt. On the economic front, by providing 14,000 metric tons in improved seeds and starter packets, 11 million people affected by the floods were able to help generate the largest wheat harvest ever in the country.

Admittedly, US aid has been spread too thin in the past and, in some cases, has not been well spent. However, it appears that reforms in US assistance are being taken seriously; increasing transparency while at the same time making an effort to engage civil society and local NGOs to better focus their efforts.

Assistance to Pakistan is vulnerable to diplomatic volatility. Against the backdrop of the WikiLeaks’ revelations, controversy surrounding the Raymond Davis case, the capture of Osama bin Laden and more recent developments, the US-Pakistan relationship has become frosty. Perhaps due to this volatility, Cameron Munter, the US ambassador to Pakistan, stated that he had become much more realistic in his expectations and is beginning to focus and prioritise.

It is clear that US strategic interests underlay military as well as civilian assistance. It is for precisely this reason that the US needs to focus on achieving visible development results within Pakistan. By demonstrating that aid is achieving results in the country, it will go a long way in changing people’s perceptions that it is ineffective and going to the wealthy and influential.

More importantly than lessening the fallout of diplomatic tensions, civilian assistance will ultimately ensure the security of Pakistan as well as the US by investing in its people, making it increasingly difficult for militants to infiltrate civil society.

Congress should therefore reconsider potentially cutting assistance to Pakistan. It will not achieve the desired results as punitive measures will further alienate the Pakistani government and public. Rather than partnering with the government to achieve reforms, this will exacerbate existing problems that could play into the hands of the militants.

Alternatively, if the US makes significant investments in high-impact development projects, more susceptible Pakistanis will choose to maintain a relationship with the US than seek the dangerous alternative. Civilian assistance, if used effectively, will go a long way in ensuring security for both Pakistanis and Americans.

The writer is a development economist and is currently working as a freelance journalist in New York.