Since 1950s, Pakistani governments, both military and civilian, have been fatally addicted to US financial assistance. Our rulers have always been ready to bend backwards to receive another dose of US aid. That is why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen were certainly not short of affirmatively nodding audience during their recent visit to Pakistan. But at a common mans level, sponsors of the anti-Pakistan strictures on American aid like Congressmen Glenn Thompson, James W. Symington, Pressler, Brown, John Kerry and Richard Lugar are household names in Pakistan, reminding the nation of checkered history of American sanctions and strings. Washingtons perception of Pakistan is that the state is almost at the brink of bankruptcy and it is US aid that is providing the lifeline for sustenance. The direct and indirect beneficiaries of the aid in Pakistan faithfully work overtime to strengthen this feeling among the locals, however, statistics speak otherwise. A former Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan has recently opined: US aid does not help the governments precarious fiscal situation in any meaningful way as only 12 to 15 percent of the total amount is channelled for budgetary support.Assuming that whole $3 billion (per annum) in economic and military is disbursed fully, this accounts for less than 7 percent of the total foreign exchange earnings of the country....The increase in export revenues and remittances in the current year was almost twice that amount. It seems that every Congressman and think-tank has an opinion on what the US should do with its aid to Pakistan. In recent weeks, there have been calls to freeze all assistance to Pakistan as well as calls to stay the course. Nearly three out of four Americans back cuts. Many of the loudest voices in the Congress have been for attaching additional strings to the aid. Regarding the significance of aid, World Bank data shows that during the previous five years, net Official Development Assistance (ODA) from all sources to Pakistan has averaged less than 1.5 percent of its Gross National Income (GNI); per capita aid from all the sources in 2009 was $14 only So these facts do not point towards any meltdown if the American aid is withheld. Similarly, World Banks former Vice President is of the view that the cutting of civilian aid would have only a 0.14 percent impact on Pakistans GDP growth. While former Finance Minister Sartaj Aziz said: As long as the multilateral aid continues, it wont impact Pakistans economy. Out of the $1.5 billion per annum authorisation by Kerry-Lugar-Burman Act, actual disbursements have been $275 million and $676 million during 2009 and 2010. This includes flood relief donation of $500 million. Therefore, it would be nave to presume that withholding of the US aid is so significant that it would lead to a strategic collapse. But the real concern for Pakistans solvency may be the loss of support from international lenders like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF); both look towards the US before deciding about the aid. IMF has the potential to deny the bailout request until a last-minute nod by the White House. On numerous occasions, Washington has used the aid as carrot and stick to entice Pakistan to do its bidding. The carrot has been the promise of additional financial assistance, while the stick has been the threat of withholding the already sanctioned aid. Several financial experts in Pakistan have pointed out that out of the lump sum assistance sanctioned by the US, only a fraction reaches the national exchequer; bulk is siphoned off as consultancy charges to the US appointed agents and overseers. According to a rough estimate, puts losses to Pakistans economy have suffered a major loss of about $70 billion due to its participation in the war on terror. The US has provided $20.7 billion to Pakistan since 2002, which makes about 0.1 percent of the American treasure spent on the war over the same period. A little more than two-third of $20.7 billion went to military use and the remainder to civilian. The biggest head, consuming $8.9 billion, is the Coalition Support Funds. Washington sanctioned this amount for Pakistans military as compensation for the services rendered on behalf of the US military. However, a sizeable portion of it remains un-remitted. The US is getting obnoxiously stingy on reimbursements of this fund rejecting 44 percent claims in 2009, as compared to 1.6 percent in 2005. The uncertain environment that arose as a sequel to Operation Geronimo has compelled Pakistan to launch an aggressive outreach plan for mobilising alternative contingency sources. China and Russia are particularly alarmed by the renewed American unilateralism. Both are increasingly sympathetic towards Pakistans predicament and are deeply concerned about the fresh US inclination towards unilateralism. Their reactions to the Abbottabad attack spared the Pakistani establishment from rampant criticism. President Asif Zardaris recent visit to Russia was interesting. Though the visit was already planned, the timing appeared promising for Pakistan. Moscow has been increasingly uncomfortable with New Delhis rapprochement with Washington and realises the potentially damaging implications of Indias diversification of foreign relations for Russo-Indian partnership. Pakistan has now taken centrestage in Russias efforts to play a proactive role in Central and South Asia, as Moscow braces for the drawdown of the US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. Moscow now sees Islamabad as part of solution to the regions problems. The recent visit of Colonel General Alexander Postnikov, Russian Ground Forces Commander-in-Chief, to Pakistan indicates that the Pak-Russian relations are moving ahead on sound footing. On the heels of Zardaris visit to Russia, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani visited China. The most glaring outcome of this tour was the handing over of the management of Gwadar Port to China. The Statesman, reported while quoting the Press Trust of India, that the Chinese government has warned Washington in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China, and advised the US government to respect Pakistans sovereignty. Iran is ready to provide oil on deferred payments and electricity on competitive prices. We can always count on Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other friendly countries for economic support. Economic assistance from developed to developing countries always accompanies strings of various kinds. The American aid to Pakistan is no exception; however, it has become a highly touchy matter due to differing perceptions about its hidden agenda. Perpetual dependency has resulted in relegating Pakistan to a client state or a 'rental commodity. America has been able to accrue an unbalanced influence over Pakistans policy resulting into a subservient association. Our military leadership needs to re-evaluate the necessity of USAs military hardware vis--vis the incremental erosion of our national sovereignty. Though American systems are far ahead in technological superiority, we need to look towards recent Indian decision of declining American offer of F-16 and F-18 aircraft and going for alternative sources of supply. If India can do without American hardware, we can also live without it. Now, it is time for the Pakistani nation to carry out a reality check, take a fresh stock of the cost benefit asymmetry and make a distinction between the reality and myth of American aid. n The writer is a retired air commodore of Pakistan Air Force. Email: khalid3408@gmail.com