Save me from Mickey Mouse!

Mickey Mouse is what my generation calls something superfluous, silly or trite.  Morning Edition today brought me news of American efforts to revitalize tourism in Pakistan’s Swat Valley:

That’s the Mickey Mouse I’d like to be saved from, because it is the kind of international assistance that gives international assistance a bad name. I’m not against Pakistanis vacationing in nice hotels, but I can’t think of any reason at all why U.S. taxpayer money should be spent trying to make it happen.  And there are at least 137 million reasons why it should not (that’s the number of U.S. income tax returns).

This example raises broader questions about American assistance to Pakistan.  Christine Fair suggested in testimony yesterday:

U.S. efforts to elicit changes in Pakistani society through its USAID program are misguided. First USAID’s efficacy can be and should be questioned. The U.S. Congress has had numerous hearings about aid to Pakistan—and Afghanistan—and the objective results of these engagements have been less than satisfactory given the price tag. This does not mean that the United States should not continue to help Pakistan with its problems. However, it should do so with less publicity and with greater focus on projects that are executable such as power, roads and other infrastructure.

I don’t agree with Christine’s emphasis on infrastructure, as I’d rather see that done through competent multilateral organizations (she is sympathetic with that option as well).   U.S. assistance should be focused more on civil society and democracy support.   If that means we can’t spend the $1 billion and more appropriated for assistance to Pakistan, fine with me.

Christine’s broader point is that we should stop expecting Pakistan to forge a broad, strategic relationship with the United States when our strategic interests diverge.  Instead, she recommends a more transactional relationship–deals that involve  a well-defined quid pro quo in which what each side gives and gets is clear and verifiable.

I have my doubts that will work either.  But it is certainly a direction worth trying before we deep six the relationship with Pakistan altogether, which the Congress may be tempted to do (and has done several times in the past).  If we get even a 50 per cent return on our money, it would be better than we are doing today.

In the meanwhile, let’s get rid of Mickey Mouse projects, which put at risk the already minimal 1 per cent of the Federal budget devoted to foreign affairs.

PS,  also November 4:  a USAID friend says I am completely wrong about the tourism effort in Swat, which is important because of the recent history of the fight against extremism, so here is what I could find readily about it.  Certainly more informative than the NPR piece.  Judge for yourself.