The Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Donald Lu, has sought a $101 million budget for Pakistan from the House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee in a written request. Speaking about the request and answering questions from the members, he clearly stated that the budget is to assist Pakistan and curtail its dependence on China, keeping Beijing’s influence in check. A grant, if approved, comes with an outright statement of purpose. Even in the past, there were hardly any doubts about the extensive aid and grants the US provided to Pakistan to contain the influence of Russia first and China later.

Pakistan’s collective memory recalls US aid packages as means to dictate its bidding, always demanding a “do more” approach. Over the years, as the US could not control the mess of its Afghanistan invasions, Pakistan’s policy circles began to see the downside of over-reliance on US money, which came as development funds, capacity building in counter-terrorism, civil society support, and now economic stability. The forever unappeased US meant Pakistan had to seek partners elsewhere, and so it did.

The present-day diversification has not been fully realized yet but remains a visible shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy. This shift is apparent in seeking BRICS membership, proposing trade in local currency with Russia, and reopening ties with partners like Azerbaijan. Pakistan is the third-largest recipient of China’s development finance and has maintained the friendship through thick and thin. The $101 million might seem attractive but should never be accepted at the cost of falling back into the bloc trap. Pakistan does not need to serve any country’s interests of exerting more influence. Instead, it has far more pressing interests of its own to serve. On repeated expressions of concern over Pakistan’s internal political matters by the US, Pakistan has thus far given a strong call to refrain from meddling in internal matters. The same policy must be maintained, even if fresh grants in different sectors are given. The ‘strings attached’ aid packages, which come under the guise of strengthening democracy and the economy, should be critically evaluated.