Supply routes opened for no money, no apology, no end to drone strikes

[Al Bhatti]

This morning, I spoke by telephone with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

I once again reiterated our deepest anger for the tragic closure of the land route since last November. I hereby give our final warning to the parliament/politicians of the Pakistani people who along with the soldiers are losing their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes by Pakistan that resulted in the closure of the land routes . We are very angry at the closure of the land routes by the government of Pakistan. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent the people of both the countries form having a prosperous nation for them (the common citizens).

As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

In today’s phone call, Foreign Minister Khar and I talked about the importance of taking coordinated action against the people of Pakistan who threaten the Government of Pakistan, the United States, and the region; of supporting Karzai's security, stability, and efforts towards reconciliation; and of continuing to work together to advance the many other shared interests we have, from increasing trade and investment between "government of Pakistan and the government of USA to strengthening our politician-to-politician ties. Our governments should have a relationship that is enduring, strategic, and carefully defined, and that enhances the security and prosperity of both USA and the politicians of Pakistan.

The Foreign Minister and I were reminded that both of us – Pakistani Politicians and American – are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both in urgent need for the opening of the land routes ASAP suffered by both our countries in this fight against people of Pakistan. We have enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation against terrorists that threaten Pakistani Politicians and the United States, with the goal of defeating any uprising by the common man in the Pakistan.

In addition, I am pleased that Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that the ground supply lines (GLOC) into Afghanistan are opening. Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security of Karzai and the Pakistani Politicians. This is a tangible demonstration of Pakistan’s support for a secure, peaceful, and prosperous Karzai and our shared objectives in the region. This will also help the United States and ISAF conduct the planned drawdown at a much lower cost. This is critically important to the men and women who are fighting terrorism and extremism effecting Karzai. Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that, consistent with current practice, all lethal equipment will transit the GLOC into Afghanistan.

In concluding the call, I reiterated our deep appreciation to the Government and the Politicians of Pakistan for their many sacrifices and their critical contribution to the ongoing fight against their own people.

Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar

Speak nothing but the truth.

 

[Awesome]

This morning, I spoke by telephone with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar.

I once again reiterated our deepest anger for the tragic closure of the land route since last November. I hereby give our final warning to the parliament/politicians of the Pakistani people who along with the soldiers are losing their lives. Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes by Pakistan that resulted in the closure of the land routes . We are very angry at the closure of the land routes by the government of Pakistan. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent the people of both the countries form having a prosperous nation for them (the common citizens).

As I told the former Prime Minister of Pakistan days after the Salala incident, America respects Pakistan’s sovereignty and is committed to working together in pursuit of shared objectives on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect.

In today’s phone call, Foreign Minister Khar and I talked about the importance of taking coordinated action against the people of Pakistan who threaten the Government of Pakistan, the United States, and the region; of supporting Karzai's security, stability, and efforts towards reconciliation; and of continuing to work together to advance the many other shared interests we have, from increasing trade and investment between "government of Pakistan and the government of USA to strengthening our politician-to-politician ties. Our governments should have a relationship that is enduring, strategic, and carefully defined, and that enhances the security and prosperity of both USA and the politicians of Pakistan.

The Foreign Minister and I were reminded that both of us – Pakistani Politicians and American – are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both in urgent need for the opening of the land routes ASAP suffered by both our countries in this fight against people of Pakistan. We have enhanced our counter-terrorism cooperation against terrorists that threaten Pakistani Politicians and the United States, with the goal of defeating any uprising by the common man in the Pakistan.

In addition, I am pleased that Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that the ground supply lines (GLOC) into Afghanistan are opening. Pakistan will continue not to charge any transit fee in the larger interest of peace and security of Karzai and the Pakistani Politicians. This is a tangible demonstration of Pakistan’s support for a secure, peaceful, and prosperous Karzai and our shared objectives in the region. This will also help the United States and ISAF conduct the planned drawdown at a much lower cost. This is critically important to the men and women who are fighting terrorism and extremism effecting Karzai. Foreign Minister Khar has informed me that, consistent with current practice, all lethal equipment will transit the GLOC into Afghanistan.

In concluding the call, I reiterated our deep appreciation to the Government and the Politicians of Pakistan for their many sacrifices and their critical contribution to the ongoing fight against their own people.

Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar

Speak nothing but the truth.

C'mon, don't edit it like that.

 

[fatman17]

Inside the U.S. ‘apology’ to Pakistan


Posted By Josh Rogin Tuesday, July 3, 2012


U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "sorry" to Pakistan today and announced that Pakistan would resume allowing U.S. military goods to flow through its border with Afghanistan, but her near-apology was only one piece in a much larger set of moving parts in the effort to restore some normalcy to the troubled U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

"We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military," Clinton said in a Tuesday statement, referring to the Nov. 25 incident when NATO forces killed 24 Pakistan soldiers on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. "We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again."

Clinton spoke with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar by phone Tuesday and said that Khar had promised Pakistan would reopen its supply lines for U.S. military flows into Afghanistan, which have been closed down for six months in retaliation for the killings. Pakistan dropped its demand for fees of up to $5,000 per truck and will not even charge the $250 per truck the United States was paying before the incident occurred, Clinton said.

She also indicated that the progress announced today carried with it the prospect of tackling some of the larger issues plaguing the bilateral relationship, namely Pakistan's reluctance to go after the Taliban and other militant groups as well as what the United States sees as Pakistan's refusal to play a useful role in reconciliation talks to end the Afghanistan war.

"Foreign Minister Khar and I talked about the importance of taking coordinated action against terrorists who threaten Pakistan, the United States, and the region; of supporting Afghanistan's security, stability, and efforts towards reconciliation; and of continuing to work together to advance the many other shared interests we have," Clinton said.

Tuesday's announcement came after months of protracted and often excruciating negotiations between the two governments. On the U.S. side of the table, the process was led by Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides, who was in Pakistan Monday, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Affairs Peter Lavoy, and Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman.

ISAF Commander Gen. John Allen also traveled to Pakistan twice over the past two weeks, once at the invitation of Pakistani Army Chief of Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and again as part of larger discussions regarding the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

The internal U.S. process that led to today's remarks by Clinton was extensive -- and rocky at times. It has been well reported that the State Department, especially soon-to-be-former U.S. Ambassador Cameron Munter, urged the White House to apologize long ago but was overruled due to objections from the Defense Department, where officials were angered by the fact that the Pakstani military accused the U.S. military of killing the soldiers intentionally.

Three administration sources confirmed to The Cable that between December and early spring, the National Security Council convened at least 8 separate high-level meetings to debate the apology, and ultimately, the White House earlier this year decided to issue one.

The Pakistani government in early Spring asked the White House not to issue the apology because the Pakistani parliament was in the middle of its comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship. Then, following deadly attacks in Kabul on NATO forces in April, which were traced back to the Pakistan-based Haqqani network, the White House took the apology off the table.

That's why today's comments by Clinton came as a huge surprise to many Pakistan-watchers. But experts saw in her comments a careful dance that the administration thinks represents a compromise, because Clinton never actually said the word "apology" or "apologize."

"It allows the administration to say to Congress, we didn't ‘apologize,' we said we were ‘sorry,'" said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council. He emphasized that discussions about several thorny issues in the relationship are still ongoing.

Asked directly at today's press briefing if the "sorry" comment constituted an "apology," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland wouldn't say that it did.

"The statement speaks for itself, the words are all there, and I'm not going to improve on it here," she said.

In conjunction with Tuesday's announcement, the Obama administration has agreed to hand over about $1.2 billion to the Pakistanis in Coalition Support Funds (CSF) that were owed but delayed as part of the overall unhappiness between the two governments, two administration sources confirmed. Pakistan, which views the funds as reimbursements the United Sates agreed to pay in exchange for Pakistan's help in fighting the war on terror, argues that America owes it a larger sum.

"It's not a coincidence," Nawaz said, referring to the timing of the CSF funding. "This was part of the overall discussion."
The deal may not stop there.

Pakistan might still ask for money to help repair the infrastructural wear and tear that comes along with thousands of NATO trucks traversing its highways. The Pakistanis might also demand a new system that institutes some regularity in the CSF funds because the U.S. government currently demands detailed receipts and then rejects about 40 percent of the Pakistani reimbursement requests.

In the past, the United States has used delays in the CSF funds to punish Pakistan when the administration is frustrated with Pakistani actions.

"Internally on the U.S. side, when the administration has been pissed off at the Pakistanis, they've just said, ‘Oh, we'll slow down the CSF funds and just not tell them,'" one former U.S. official told The Cable.

Getting the CSF funding was always the real goal of the negotiations as far as the Pakistanis were concerned, according to the former official.

"The Pakistani government doesn't care about the transit fees as much as they care about the coalition support funds," the official said. "CSF offers them more of a short-term benefit. The reason they were making such a big deal about the transit fees before was because that was their negotiating position."

The U.S. side still wants concrete steps to show that the Pakistani government is moving more aggressively to stem the flow of fighters from its territory into Afghanistan, where they regularly attack and kill U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces. Both sides want a better system of on-the-ground operational coordination to make sure incidents like the November killings aren't repeated.

Clinton didn't mention the CSF funds in her speech, perhaps because that money could still be held up by Congress, which has been engaged in some serious bipartisan Pakistan-bashing, especially since a Pakistani court sentenced the doctor who helped the CIA find Osama bin Laden to 33 years in prison.

After the administration notifies Congress it wants to release the funds, a notification that could come today, Congress has 15 days to reject it or the money gets released.

A key Republican in the debate over Pakistan will be Sen. Lindsey Graham, a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations State and Foreign Operations subcommittee. In a Tuesday statement, Graham indicated he would support the administration's position.

"These supply lines are essential to supporting our troops in Afghanistan and I believe the terms and conditions negotiated by Secretary Clinton's team are acceptable to American interests throughout the region," he said.

But Graham also indicated that any thawing of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship would only be endorsed by Congress if and when Pakistan gets more serious about helping in Afghanistan.

"This agreement is a good step in the right direction, but more has to be done between the United States and Pakistan in the area of counterterrorism," he said. "If the Pakistani military intelligence services would engage in aggressive efforts to combat terrorism in coordination with coalition forces, it would tremendously enhance our successes in Afghanistan, provide stability to the Pakistani government, and eventually a better life for people on both sides of the border."

Nawaz warned that the relationship is still very fragile and that any number of things could send it spiraling downward once again, including a clumsy drone strike, a U.S. troop incursion into Pakistan, or another attack on NATO forces by Pakistan-based militants.

"This is only a Band Aid for this relationship. Any number of new crises or recurring crises is likely to trigger another round of recrimination," he said. "‘Sorry' was the hardest word, but it's a bit too early to celebrate. We're not yet out of the woods."

 

[fatman17]

Rapid Fire July 5, 2012:

Pak Trucks Back on Track

•NATO supplies started crossing the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan earlier today, after months of negotiation, and the eventual apology from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the deaths in November 2011 of Pakistani soldiers. Releasing withheld Coalition Support Funds (CSF) is also part of the deal. The Pentagon’s FY12 budget reprogramming includes hundreds of millions of dollars of extra shipping costs incurred after Pakistan closed its border.

 

[fatman17]

Saturday, July 07, 2012



US, Taliban strike deal to resume talks in Qatar shortly


* Taliban leaders being released from Bagram, others to be released from Gitmo

By Imdad Hussain

ISLAMABAD: The United States and Taliban have agreed ‘in principle’ to resume talks in Qatar besides taking confidence-building measures (CBMs) to initiate a peace process in Afghanistan, Daily Times has learnt.

“Yes, the two sides are going to resume talks in Qatar probably next week or beyond,” a senior member of the Afghan Taliban said on the condition of anonymity.

Taliban had suspended preliminary peace negotiations with the US in March, blaming Washington for being non-serious in the political process.

The Afghan Taliban negotiating team had started talks with the US in Qatar last year, demanding release of key Taliban detainees from Guantánamo Bay.

Taliban Spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid had denied that Taliban are holding peace talks with the US, adding that dialogue in Qatar was focusing on CBMs rather than peace.

But after few months of negotiations, Taliban had blamed the Americans for “ever-changing positions” and saw the US efforts to involve the Afghan authorities in the process as hurdles in moving forward with the talks. “When it comes to peace process Washington remains confused - going one step ahead and two steps back,” Mujahid said, adding that the US should clear its mind before restarting peace talks.

According to the new deal, the process of releasing Taliban detainees from Guantánamo would be started with initially releasing five prisoners while a process to free Taliban leaders in Afghanistan had already been kicked off.

Official sources in Kabul confided to Daily Times via telephone that Washington had also introduced a new programme – that is to give political asylum to Taliban leaders in Turkey, Australia, Canada or any other country if they wished so.

Sources inside ‘Political Commission’ of Taliban Shura said that the mid-level leaders among other Taliban detainees had secretly been released from Bagram in the last three days as a gesture of goodwill.

“Though the prison was handed over to Afghan government but Washington still enjoys influence to release detainees,” sources said.

Almost 49 prisoners, including high ranking Taliban, have reportedly been released from Bagram prison in the past two years in a bid to give peace a chance.

This freedom which has been dubbed as ‘strategic release’ programme is used by the US as a bargaining chips for further deals with the ‘insurgents’, sources said.

They said that under the deal reached between Taliban and the US, Washington would ensure release of detainees from Guantánamo Bay.

When asked, the Taliban sources rejected starting of talks with the Kabul government at this stage, saying, “If dialogue is being held with the US then talks with Karzai administration become meaningless.”

Taliban Spokesman Zabihullah avoided commenting on the resumption of talks, however, he never denied talks with Washington.

 

[fatman17]

America’s open conflict with Pakistan was a bad idea


Instead of trying to bully it into submission, US must adopt a long-term strategy that balances its security requirements with its ally’s development needs

By Vali Nasr
Published: 00:00 July 9, 2012.


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar at the London Conference on Somalia earlier this year.

It took eight months, but the US has finally apologised for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers in a firefight on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. With that, the US military is again able to use routes through Pakistan to supply its forces in Afghanistan without paying exorbitant fees. Plus the threat that Pakistan will bar US drone strikes is for now moot.

However, the main implication of the apology, a triumph of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, over both the White House and the Pentagon, is that it ends the experiment of the US trying to bully Pakistan into submission.

The clash in November between US and Pakistani forces was a mess, with miscommunication on both sides, but fatalities on only one. Pakistan, still seething over the US breach of its sovereignty in the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound, closed US military supply routes to Afghanistan when the US initially refused to apologise. The US, in turn, froze $700 million (Dh2.57 billion) in military assistance and shut down all engagement on economic and development issues.

In a further deterioration of ties, the Pakistani parliament voted to ban all US drone attacks from or on Pakistani territory. The Pakistanis held firm in their insistence on an apology. Officials at the Pentagon thought the case did not merit one. Many had no sympathy for the Pakistanis, whom they regarded as double-dealers for stoking the insurgency in Afghanistan and providing a haven to the notorious extremists of the Haqqani Network.

The White House feared that an apology would invite Republican criticism. Throughout the crisis, Clinton and her senior staff argued that the US should apologise. She supported re-engaging with Pakistan to protect a critical relationship while also holding Pakistan accountable for fighting the Taliban and other extremists, a point she has raised in each of her conversations with Pakistani leaders. Clinton’s recommendations were contrary to the policy the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) put in place in early 2011.

Relations had soured when the Pakistani authorities held CIA operative Raymond Davis after he had shot two Pakistanis.

Frustrated with Pakistan’s foot-dragging on counterterrorism, the two agencies successfully lobbied for a strategy to reduce high-level contacts with Pakistan, shame Pakistan in the media and threaten more military and intelligence operations on Pakistani soil, like the killing of Bin Laden. It was a policy of direct confrontation on all fronts, aimed at bending Pakistan’s will. It failed. Pakistan stood its ground. Far from changing course, Pakistan reduced cooperation with the US and began to apply its own pressure by threatening to end the drone programme, one of the Barack Obama administration’s proudest achievements. Months of behind-the-scenes wrangling failed to resolve the apology issue. A high-level US visit to Islamabad on the eve of the May 20-21 Nato Summit in Chicago proved a fiasco. Pakistan informed the Americans that after an apology, it would charge a much higher fee to let Nato supplies into Afghanistan. (That has not come to pass, though.)

President Obama refused to meet Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari at the summit unless the supply routes reopened, but that did not break the impasse. Finally, Washington tallied the costs of confrontation with Pakistan. Supplying troops through other routes was costing an additional $100 million a month.

Without Pakistani roads, the US military would not be able to get its heavy equipment out of Afghanistan on time or on budget once it begins to withdraw from the country in earnest. If Pakistan remained off-limits, the US would have to rethink its entire exit strategy from Afghanistan. What’s more, if Pakistan truly shut down the drone programme, it would cripple the administration’s most successful terrorism-fighting tool. Pakistan might also close its airspace to US planes flying between the Arabian Gulf and Afghanistan.

Americans were understandably angry that Bin Laden was found hiding in a Pakistani city, but few knew that the plane that transported his body from an Afghan base to a US Navy ship for a sea burial had to fly over Pakistani territory.

The conclusion: Open conflict with Pakistan was not an option. It was time to roll back the pressure. The apology is just a first step in repairing ties deeply bruised by the past year’s confrontations. The US should adopt a long-term strategy that would balance US security requirements with Pakistan’s development needs. Managing relations with Pakistan requires a deft policy — neither the blind coddling of the George W. Bush era nor the blunt pressure of the past year, but a careful balance between pressure and positive engagement. This was Clinton’s strategy from 2009 to 2011, when US security demands were paired with a strategic dialogue that Pakistan coveted. That is still the best strategy for dealing with this prickly ally.

— Washington Post

Vali Nasr is dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.

 

[Al Bhatti]

Without Pakistani roads, the US military would not be able to get its heavy equipment out of Afghanistan on time or on budget once it begins to withdraw from the country in earnest. If Pakistan remained off-limits, the US would have to rethink its entire exit strategy from Afghanistan. What’s more, if Pakistan truly shut down the drone programme, it would cripple the administration’s most successful terrorism-fighting tool. Pakistan might also close its airspace to US planes flying between the Arabian Gulf and Afghanistan.


The conclusion: Open conflict with Pakistan was not an option. It was time to roll back the pressure. The apology is just a first step in repairing ties deeply bruised by the past year’s confrontations.

They wanted our hand and we gave a finger and they grasped the whole body. We should have done the same way and could have given a big damage to them but we are happy of only touching the little finger of their hand.

 

[batmannow]

Lessons from the impasse
From the Newspaper | Moeed Yusuf
Lessons from the impasse | DAWN.COM

WE finally have something positive to report on the Pakistan-US front. The US apology — or regret, depending on how we wish to see it — is quite a development in itself.

It had been clear for some time in Washington that a straightforward apology that spared any hedging jargon was off the cards.
But for many, including me, the sense was that even what Pakistan has now gotten was not about to come.

In fact, there was such an ‘anti-apology’ vibe in Washington that even when one heard something might be afoot three or so days before the statement, it was difficult not to be dismissive. For the past month or so, I had repeatedly got the sense that while privately some who mattered in Washington believed that an apology should come, the official decision was a clear no.

What ultimately came is perhaps the only formulation that could have worked for both sides. It is suitably ‘diplomatic’; there is just enough for both to claim that the other blinked while suggesting that the greater national interest has been served (which I think is actually the case) by moving beyond the deadlock. So kudos to whoever pulled this off.

As for those in Pakistan who are bent upon endlessly debating on what the intent of the jargon in the US ‘apology’ was and on
protesting the reopening of the supply routes, we can safely ignore them. The bottom line is that neither Pakistan nor the US can afford ruptured ties; holding out endlessly would have pushed them too close to the red line.

Also, ultimately, it was the Pakistani military that was asking for something to satisfy its rank and file and it obviously signed off on the wording of the US statement. And as for the plea that the parliamentary resolution has been undermined, the protests would have only carried weight if the parties sitting in parliament were at the forefront.

So much on what happened. As we move ahead, it will be important for both sides to learn the right lessons from the past seven months. For Pakistan, the lesson can’t be one of invincibility — that we can play hardball and our importance in Afghanistan will force others to buckle sooner or later. Islamabad ended up testing Nato’s patience way beyond it should have and while its
criticality was ultimately acknowledged, even opening up space for global powers to find alternatives and seek to leave Pakistan out should have troubled Islamabad’s policymakers. Nato’s patience levels for Islamabad are likely to be much lower in any
repeat episode.

As for the US, the take-home message should be the overriding importance of the Pakistani street sentiment vis-à-vis the US.

The lesson is not that a mere face-saver is sufficient to get Pakistan to do what is demanded but that it will be nearly impossible
for a weak Pakistani government and increasingly maligned military to defy public opinion again. While the Pakistani state has done much to allow anti-Americanism to penetrate society in the first place, it does not have leverage to pull it back. The tail has been wagging the dog for some time now.

And now to the most important: the strategic aspect of the relationship. Here, a cautionary note is in order for anyone who sees the current breakthrough as cause for too much celebration.

All that has happened — as difficult as it was to attain — is that we are back to where the relationship was before the Salala incident. That in itself was a pretty bad place to be, with both sides having coming off a series of crises and engaged in multiple rounds of public mudslinging.

To be sure, the impasse over the apology and supply routes was a tactical one that overshadowed the make-or-break irritants in the relationship. For these far more important strategic issues, the last seven months have been a net negative: the respective positions in Islamabad and Washington have only hardened.

Problem number one is Afghanistan.

Bluntly put, the perception in Washington is that Pakistan is the number one spoiler in Afghanistan; that the Haqqani network actually is the veritable arm of the ISI and that ISI is supporting and funding the network; that the intelligence agency wants to use the Taliban to retain influence in Afghanistan post-2014; that it has thus far been an impediment in the Afghan reconciliation process as it has kept a lid on Taliban involvement in talks; that it is Fata, not Afghanistan, that poses the real threat to the US, and that Pakistan wants to continue treating Afghanistan as its — and only its — backyard and nothing more.

In Pakistan, the corridors of power believe that the US is entirely insensitive to Pakistani concerns in Afghanistan; that the US is backing India’s growing presence in Afghanistan notwithstanding Pakistani worries; that US is not sincere in reconciliation talks with the Taliban and is only seeking to break the movement from within; that the US is (deliberately) not doing as much to prevent cross-border attacks from TTP in Afghanistan’s east into Pakistan as it can; that US’s post-2014 presence in Afghanistan is primarily to keep counterterrorism options open against Pakistan; that the US intelligence network has penetrated deeply in Pakistan; and that if the US could, it would deprive Pakistan of its nuclear weapons.

The most sanguine voices would point out that a number of these perceptions are exaggerated or even simply incorrect. And yet, it hardly matters; the fact is that the mistrust on both sides is so deep that nothing short of hard evidence will cause the other side to change their view.

These are the issues that Pakistan and the US have to thrash out in a candid and sincere manner. The time for sidetracking issues, talking in riddles, empty promises and one hoping that the other would come around to its position for one reason or another is gone. We are truly in the endgame and both sides will have to lay out their cards and be upfront about the rationale for their strategies and what it would take to change them.

Failing this, we should be prepared for more crises, more mudslinging, more deadlocks — and perhaps even a failure in Afghanistan.

The writer is South Asia adviser at the US Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C.

 

[Fracker]

PTI and PML-N should now stop saying anything on this issue. They have failed on their stance and shown their hypocrisy. WOrds, Words and only words. When time came they couldn't even join, or support forget involving or leading the Long March.

Action speaks louder then words, these parties has proven that, once again. PTI and PML-Nare no different from MQM, ANP, JUI-F or PPP. The whole drama is just for the next election.


Not for the people, or Pakistan only for bloody power nothing else.

 

[VCheng]

I would like VCheng to comment on this thread

The outcome was never in doubt, but it could, and should, have been handled better by both sides.

Anyway, it is good that this important bilateral relationship has moved forward. It would be prudent to prevent a repeat of recent setbacks by being proactive in resolution of potential future issues rather than reactive.

Such is the art of good diplomacy.

 

[Saleem]

there is a very good historical parralel ----egypt from 1884 to 1952 ---they had parliament, election and all that nonsense but the brits ran the show and even fought a world war over it's territory [remember rommel was trying to liberate egypt and sadat was trying to help the germans.....

 

[foxbat]

The Diplomatic

Something happened recently that forever destroyed the goodwill of an apology and set a new Gold Standard for ambiguous responses to future diplomatic screw-ups.

On July 3, 2012, US Secretary Hillary Clinton issued a statement over the Salala massacre in Pakistan last November – which had, inter alia, the words “regret”, “condolence”, “mistake” and “sorry” at strategic places with enough ambiguity to leave something for everyone.

For the last seven months, the entire journalist-analyst-strategist universe was incessantly speculating on whether or not the US should apologise over the Salala massacre and its possible implications.

Why an apology? Here’s a small background. As it dawned on Obama that he is at heart a republican, and sovereignty is just a myth, he decided to have some fun with his drone toys and bomb away the bomber-friendly regions of North Waziristan in Pakistan. On November 26, 2011 US-led NATO troops also decided to join the fun and promptly attacked two border patrol check-posts in Salala killing 24 Pakistani soldiers. The troops were carrying just two Apaches, a gunship and were accompanied by a couple of fighter jets for good measure.

This led to a lot of bitching on both sides with claims of “you shot first” and “no, you shot first”, till everybody stopped caring. Pakistan immediately closed all routes of NATO supplies to Afghanistan and the US stopped dropping bags of cash on the roofs of the military and ISI headquarters.

Fearing a backlash from the world peace activists of Difa-e-Pakistan and the rising popularity of the messiah of the masses, Imran Khan, Pakistan started begging the US for an apology so that things could go back to the normalcy of the great old days of sovereignty, democracy and peace. And like an estranged couple with a love-child unable to bear the expenses in this neo-austere world, they decided to mend their relationship – but ONLY for the sake of their beloved Afghanistan. Which meant a cool billion dollars thrown at Pakistan by the US, and Pakistan throwing open the far cheaper GLOC supply routes.

Coming back to Hillary’s statement, the was-it-or-was-it-not apology sent journos, analysts, strategists and their half-brothers into a tizzy in their effort to make sense of the statement and spin it to support their version.

To understand what I am trying to say, let us see some of the tweets.

@nytimes: Pakistan Opens NATO Supply Line as Clinton Apologizes

@pragmatic_d: Ha. NYT headline says Clinton Apologizes whereas the story actually explains why it is not an apology.

@dawn_com: Pakistan opens Nato routes after US apology

@OmarWaraich: Artfully diluted in 2 ways: mutual acknowledgment & passive voice in describing mistakes. Not: “We’re sorry for what we did.”

@CChristineFair: Pak Opens GLOCS as Clinton Apologizes

@dhume01: Obama non-apology: the president “personally express(ed) his condolences on the tragic loss of 24 Pakistani soldiers this past week.”

@India_Today: Pak to reopen NATO supply routes as Clinton says ‘sorry’ for air strikes

@seemasirohi: “Sorry”= apology (suppose) but Clinton didn’t admit attack as mistake. Clever drafting on display.

@dhume01: Sorry @Reuters but if @AP @WSJ & @NYTimes agree that it’s an apology, then it’s a US apology

@d_jaishankar: The US “apology” to Pakistan (Statement by Secretary Clinton on her Call With Pakistani Foreign Minister Khar) actually reads more like an acknowledgment of Pakistani culpability.

@chellaney: U.S. and Pakistan kiss and make up after a 7-month standoff. All it took was a U.S. apology, with a mollified Pakistan waiving transit fee.

@MichaelKugelman: Hm…good post by @FiveRupees; seems Clinton didn’t really apologize after all. But apparently it sufficed…

@pragmatic_d: Yes, that’s why it is not an apology but a regret. US-Pak Bottomline: Not a penny more for NATO trucks, no apology for Salala attack, no end to drone strikes. But wait for Pak spin now.

@binaryfootprint: She is sorry for the loss of lives not the attack..

You get the point by now.

Anyway, the masterfully-drafted statement by Madame Hillary seems to make everyone happy, with enough material to justify saying “what they have always been saying” and to justify doing “what they have always been doing.”

It also had something for the Taliban. And the religious groups of Pakistan. And Difa-e-Pakistan. They have the NATO supply trucks to attack! And they promptly pledged to die for their cause by killing the drivers. And they have 72 virgins waiting for them in heaven.

All’s Well That Ends Well.

I, for one, can never trust an apology anymore. I am going to put my fingers in my ears and go “Salalalalalalalalalala” blocking out the apologies and feeling nostalgic about the good old days when “lalalalala” meant a young and gorgeous Preity Zinta frolicking under a waterfall and going “Ya Hoooooo!!!”.

 

[FaujHistorian]

the OP is clearly incorrect.

Pakistan is getting money from USA in the tune of $billions. What is that money for?

Even ghar-damad doesn't get that big of monthly allowance.

 

[VCheng]

from: Pakistan and America: Making up, a bit | The Economist

Pakistan and America
Making up, a bit
Pakistan once again agrees to accept supplies bound for Afghanistan
Jul 7th 2012 | ISLAMABAD | from the print edition

After seven months of bitter haggling, the word “sorry” has at last been uttered in Washington. That allows Pakistan to begin to restore its ties with America, after they were strained—almost to breaking—following the deaths, in November, of 24 Pakistani soldiers manning a post on the Afghan border. American aircraft killed the soldiers in a dreadful, and confusing, night-time “friendly fire” incident. In retaliation, Pakistan stopped the transport across its territory of supplies for NATO forces in landlocked Afghanistan. That added about $100m a month to the cost of the war, as the coalition turned to a much longer resupply route running through Central Asia.

Pakistan had demanded an apology and new terms for its alliance with America. Pakistan’s armed forces even suggested that the border deaths had been “deliberate at some level”. But, despite raising the stakes, Pakistan managed to get surprisingly little out of the deal that was announced on July 3rd.

American officials had got close to saying sorry in February, and it is unclear what, if anything, has changed in the months of talks that followed. The apology itself sounds rather mealy-mouthed. America’s reluctance to say sorry fully, in turn, is because of its own anger at continued operations by Afghan insurgents, crossing from bases on Pakistani soil, who attack and kill NATO soldiers.

Pakistan dropped a demand for a transit tax (at first it had sought $5,000 per lorry) on NATO supplies, which had in effect been given free passage since the Afghan war began in 2001. Now its officials emphasise that what matters is not “financial gains” but “the principle of sovereignty”. Yet that leaves unclear just why Pakistan argued for months over the tax.

America will however release over $1 billion in reimbursements owed to Pakistan for the costs of military operations along the Afghan border, boosting the country’s anaemic budget. America is also likely to support a new IMF loan programme for Pakistan. However a demand for an end to missile strikes by unmanned American “drone” aircraft in Pakistan’s tribal areas is unlikely to be met.

It is possible that Pakistan buckled after pressure behind the scenes. Some American officials want to pronounce as terrorist groups the Haqqani network, a fearsome Afghan insurgent outfit, and Jamaat-ud-Dawa, an India-focused Islamic extremist organisation. Both of these are comfortably based on Pakistani territory. Designating them that way, in turn, would make Pakistan, in America’s eyes, an official harbourer of terrorists.

Another factor may have been the recent capture, in India, of an alleged militant said to have been present in a Karachi “control room” in November 2008 to help direct a devastating terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai. Pakistan risks looking ever more exposed. Given that, it would much prefer to keep America as its ostensible ally, not a declared enemy.

 

[VCheng]

Would it be reasonable to say that most of my contentions regarding reopening of the supply routes are now proven to be correct? Pakistan only dug itself deeper into a hole without any benefit to show for the unnecessarily prolonged blockade.

The reason I am making this post is to provide some food for thought at how to handle the next inevitable crisis in a much better way. After all, the best thing about a mistake is learning from it.