U.S. bristles at stiff Pakistani NATO fees

[VCheng]

..................
Their brave faces indicated that either Pakistan had not realised the gravity of the situation or they had come prepared not to sign on the dotted lines, come what may, and therefore were ready face the consequences....................

The former phrase in bold is more likely than the latter, for Pakistan surely is not ready to face the consequences.

 

[Jango]

The former phrase in bold is more likely than the latter, for Pakistan surely is not ready to face the consequences.

Going to agree with the point, we were simply too short-sighted. Made a hash out of things.

It could have been solved in February for all we know, but that Parliament topi drama had to happen, and we told US to wait for the apology. The issue drags along and we are stuck here now. Shows a bit of bad managing by the Foreign policy department IMO. Foreign policy is never a thing for the parliament, especially when there are matric pass people in there.There needed to be some thinking in this, not sheer sentiment.

 

[VCheng]

Going to agree with the point, we were simply too short-sighted. Made a hash out of things.

It could have been solved in February for all we know, but that Parliament topi drama had to happen, and we told US to wait for the apology. The issue drags along and we are stuck here now. Shows a bit of bad managing by the Foreign policy department IMO. Foreign policy is never a thing for the parliament, especially when there are matric pass people in there.There needed to be some thinking in this, not sheer sentiment.

The biggest, and the most damaging, complaint against the Pakistani approach from the NATO side is the impression that "there is no coherent plan" that can be codified to move things forward.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

"there is no coherent plan" that can be codified to move things forward.

1. Apology for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops by the US
2. Jointly operated drone strikes on Pakistani soil
3. A higher transit rate on NATO supplies through Pakistan

The three points above have been largely the same since the US murder of Pakistani troops, and since the PCNS recommendations came out, so what is so incoherent about the Pakistani position?

The argument that the 'Pakistani position is 'incoherent' is just the latest 'talking point' to malign Pakistan out of the US Deep State's propaganda arm.

 

[VCheng]

1. Apology for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops by the US
2. Jointly operated drone strikes on Pakistani soil
3. A higher transit rate on NATO supplies through Pakistan

The three points above have been largely the same since the US murder of Pakistani troops, and since the PCNS recommendations came out, so what is so incoherent about the Pakistani position?

The argument that the 'Pakistani position is 'incoherent' is just the latest 'talking point' to malign Pakistan out of the US Deep State's propaganda arm.

Please do not misread what I said. You are correct that Pakistan position on two of the three points you mention has been consistent, except #2, which was originally calling for a halt to all drone strikes.

What I actually said was there is no coherent plan that can be codified.

I have already agreed with you that perhaps waiting for an apology until after the Presidential election might be a better idea. Pakistan still has to present an effective alternative to stopping drone strikes, unless of course the call for "joint operations" is an official Pakistani position, which may not be the case, but only your suggestion. And the higher transit fees are under active negotiations.

All of these should hopefully result in a plan with a complete implementation code.

 

[PoKeMon]

US do killed 24 pakistani soldiers. Thats the acknowledged fact.

If not intentional, what's the problem in issuing an apology?

 

[karan.1970]

US do killed 24 pakistani soldiers. Thats the acknowledged fact.

If not intentional, what's the problem in issuing an apology?

Because the official US stand is that the fault was on both sides...

 

[PoKeMon]

Because the official US stand is that the fault was on both sides...

Ok...still its pak soldiers who die with no damage to NATO forces.

At least for courtesy/humanity basis they could have apologized the death of ally soldiers.

IMO it was intentional and I am afraid such incidents may repeat. US is on some mission.

 

[VCheng]

.....

At least for courtesy/humanity basis they could have apologized the death of ally soldiers.

...............

USA did express appropriate regrets and condolences soon after the accident.

 

[PoKeMon]

USA did express appropriate regrets and condolences soon after the accident.

There is a difference between regret and apology.

 

[Jango]

1. Apology for the murder of 24 Pakistani troops by the US
...

Not going against our demands or anything, but sir, Hina Rabbani Khar said that we should forget Salala and move on, move to the future. THis is all that the government has been doing. Shortsightedness. Sometimes, the army keeps them in check, and sometimes, it is someone else.

Case in point, the parliament topi drama. Did the government consult the parliament before happily trodding on to their masters in Chicago? Was the parliament taken in confidence on anything else?

The 3 points that you mentioned are valid, but compromises will have to be made. Pakistan cannot afford to bear US led sanctions (God forbid), with the current state of the economy, and lavish spending. The US cannot neglect us out of the endgame, and as a consequence, invite further trouble.

So some solutions that could come up.

Drones: Pakistan does benefit from the drones, until the Haqqani network or TTP gets targeted, because their fallout is going to come on us, not the US. So, we want the drones to continue on Afghan Taliban, not TTP. We want to take care of the TTP through our own ops, not the US due to reasons above. We have tried to give US assurances that we will bring Haqqani to the talking table, and then try to be negotiator between US and Haqqani. The compromise that can happen is that US stops it's unilateral drone strikes, and takes us into confidence, the we then own up to these strikes, and tell the people that it is us who make these drone strikes now, and we should be having our input as well, and drone strike should be with out consent.
You have said that already, i.e jointly operated drone strikes.

NATO supplies: We all very well know that the US is not going to straight away accede to our demands of $5000, but the need us at the same time, and we want to get some money. so a middle price around $2500 to $3000 should be okay.

And most important of all, the truth should be told to the people, the people, not Parliament, through a TV address maybe, and then explain all things, such as the drone stance etc. Atleast tell the people what you are setting out for. The government at this moment has no idea what it is going for, when the FM tells to move on from Salala, but then another statement from some other person says to remember salala, it raises doubts.

As much as I hate it, we still have to do some compromises, but a compromise does not mean that the other guy can do whatever it wants.

 

[VCheng]

There is a difference between regret and apology.

There is also a difference between an accident and an intentional attack.

 

[PoKeMon]

There is also a difference between an accident and an intentional attack.

For accident, apology should be there along with regret.

Do you think that was intentional??

 

[Jango]

There is also a difference between an accident and an intentional attack.

You have doubts whether this was intentional or not?

A 2 hour long mistake?

 

[PoKeMon]

You have doubts whether this was intentional or not?

A 2 hour long mistake?

A 2 hour long mistake/accident!!! ok even if we take it as accident, why they are shying away from an apology??

And if that was intentional, then they need not to apologize. In this case, pakistan must have taken more severe actions than it took.