U.S. bristles at stiff Pakistani NATO fees

[bindaas]

Its good news. Americans upset to having to pay half as much as they want to on Pakistani routes.

I think that the difficult thing to swallow is the fact that Pakistan is standing up to them. They are used to countries being subservient to them

It seems Americans will adjust that somewhere else most probably by reducing direct aid.

 

[lem34]

It seems Americans will adjust that somewhere else most probably by reducing direct aid.

Yea well they cant call it aid can they?

 

[WAQAS119]

Yea well they cant call it aid can they?

Great point.... Curtailed direct AID(s), less leverage US will be enjoying in bilateral issues. Indirectly more leverage to Pakistan diplomatically.
But I hope supply route does not open and it will not be for sure, otherwise peoples party is doomed.

 

[VCheng]

Excerpt from: General Allen plays down urgency of Nato supply deal - geo.tv

CHICAGO: The US commander in Afghanistan told Reuters he would not be disappointed if a long-sought agreement with Pakistan on supply routes failed to materialize by the end of the Nato summit in Chicago on Monday.

General John Allen, who is also the International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) commander, said in an interview he was confident a deal would eventually be struck but "whether it's in days or weeks, I don't know."

Many Obama administration officials had hoped for an agreement with Islamabad in time for the Sunday-Monday summit that would end a nearly six-month ban prohibiting trucks in Pakistan from carrying supplies to Nato forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

Islamabad cut off the ground supply routes after a Nato air strike in November killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, causing a rift with the United States and forcing Nato commanders to look to alternative, most costly routes to supply the war effort.

Asked if he would be disappointed if Pakistan - whose president will attend the summit - didn't strike an agreement before the end of the Chicago talks, Allen said: "No."

"I don't need the (ground supply lines) to be open to support the campaign. But they're helpful to us in sending home our equipment," Allen said.

"We don't want an agreement fast, we want an agreement that's right. So we're going to take the time to get it right."
..................

So how strong can Pakistan's position be if the routes are not "needed" but are merely "helpful", and that too only for withdrawal?

 

[lem34]

Excerpt from: General Allen plays down urgency of Nato supply deal - geo.tv



So how strong can Pakistan's position be if the routes are not "needed" but are merely "helpful", and that too only for withdrawal?

well it was Americans who would one minute say that they are important next minute they are not. Not only that they have been playing carrot stick game. If they are not a bog deal there is no compulsion on Americans to use them they can continue through northern network or even Iran lol for all we care

 

[regular]

Well...as your politicians have now realised, the new dustbin is a lot worse than the old one!

Yes!! offcoarse its getting HELL more worst than that...dude.....

 

[mdcp]

5000 dollar per container is a joke to pakistan, its not only abnormal load but also very very dangerous plus no control

First we must not allow cuz its danger to our own security

Since the nato supply is blocked less bombings i think many bombs were coming from nato containers

Worst to worst if they want a million dollar per container is even cheap otherwise leave it

 

[Awesome]

So how strong can Pakistan's position be if the routes are not "needed" but are merely "helpful", and that too only for withdrawal?

This MEANS

Military is getting its supplies from the North route, so it does not care.

It will only care once the military can't get the supplies.

People who worry about this are the people who have to pay to keep the Northern route open = Obama n all. So they can go ahead and pay the higher ticket price.

Notice how he said I need to take stuff home.

That means the exorbitant costs of taking equipment home has not been okayed by the US government so far through the Northern Route, thats where the Northern route will hit them.

So obviously the US isn't going to shut down its campaign even if the costs were 6 times what it would be through Pak, especially since it only need to keep it going till 2014 - we never said our goal is to get US to shut down its campaign either. So lets not talk in those terms.

But other than that, ultimately to go home, the US needs the supply route. To continue the campaign beyond its 2014 deadline to say another 20 years it needs the supply route.

And of course, the US needs to say these things to ensure Pakistanis don't come too hard on them on the bargaining table.

 

[VCheng]

This MEANS

Military is getting its supplies from the North route, so it does not care.

It will only care once the military can't get the supplies.

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

But other than that, ultimately to go home, the US needs the supply route. To continue the campaign beyond its 2014 deadline to say another 20 years it needs the supply route.

And of course, the US needs to say these things to ensure Pakistanis don't come too hard on them on the bargaining table.

Good points, but the results of the negotiations will soon be evident, and thus make it evident just how important the Pakistani supply routes are based on what they get paid, and what other "goodies" are offered and accepted.

Right now, both sides do not seem to be in any rush, so that by itself means something.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No Meeting With Obama for Pakistan's President

Ayesha Tanzeem, May 20, 2012

CHICAGO - Hopes for a meeting on the sidelines of the NATO summit bringing together the U.S., Afghan and Pakistani presidents appear to have dimmed, and analysts say this is due to the lack of a full agreement with Pakistan on reopening NATO supply lines into Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama met on Sunday in Chicago with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, but his schedule includes no one-on-one interaction with Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari, and White House staff say the schedule is not expected to change.

Both U.S. and Pakistani officials were pushing for a trilateral meeting, with the main roadblock to such talks being the drawn-out dispute that has curtailed NATO's ability to supply coalition forces fighting in Afghanistan.

Pakistan shut down the transit corridors that NATO used for supply convoys last November, after U.S. airstrikes that mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani troops stationed near the Afghan border. The cross-border attack and its aftermath brought U.S.-Pakistan relations to a new low.

Pakistan’s prime minister indicated last week that progress had been made in negotiations with U.S. officials about reopening the supply routes, and he predicted an agreement would be complete “very soon.” NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen then called President Zardari to invite him to the Chicago summit.

Some South Asia experts suggest that while NATO's invitation to the president of Pakistan was unconditional, any interaction with the U.S. president might not have been so.

President Zardari did meet with President Karzai and with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Chicago, about Pakistan’s role in regional peace and the end stages of NATO's involvement in Afghanistan.

The meeting between Mr. Zardari and Clinton lasted for over an hour. Others present included Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S., Sherry Rehman, the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, and the U.S. government's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman.

Grossman told VOA the meeting included “a complete review of all of our bilateral partnerships.” He added that the purpose was to focus on “how to move forward in this relationship.”

The senior U.S. envoy said the talks on Sunday will help with the ongoing negotiations over the NATO supply routes, and he played down the significance of the Obama-Karzai-Zardari meeting that did not take place, saying it would be "better" for Afghanistan and Pakistan to hold direct bilateral talks.

Meanwhile, the meeting between Presidents Zardari and Karzai resulted in a decision to extend the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement to countries in Central Asia.

No Meeting With Obama for Pakistan's President

 

[The SC]

The US wants to stay on top of the world by using others resources, isn't that called imperialism.

 

[Awesome]

The other issue is that despite it was a Nato attack, it was American forces that killed Pakistanis. When money matters come in, I'm sure the media of all the Nato countries would be going like because America attacked Pakistan, we all have to pay more. Further complicating things.

Good points, but the results of the negotiations will soon be evident, and thus make it evident just how important the Pakistani supply routes are based on what they get paid, and what other "goodies" are offered and accepted.

Right now, both sides do not seem to be in any rush, so that by itself means something.

Hmmm I think the results will take a month, possibly even two.

It might hasten if the US president apologizes, since the naysayers in Pakistan will pick up the pace as well but if he apologizes, PPP will milk it. Most Pakistanis still don't want to give them the route after the apology, but there's an opening if he apologizes.

 

[clmeta]

See that's the advantage of having Zardari as your president. Mr 10%.

The other issue is that despite it was a Nato attack, it was American forces that killed Pakistanis. When money matters come in, I'm sure the media of all the Nato countries would be going like because America attacked Pakistan, we all have to pay more. Further complicating things.



Hmmm I think the results will take a month, possibly even two.

It might hasten if the US president apologizes, since the naysayers in Pakistan will pick up the pace as well but if he apologizes, PPP will milk it. Most Pakistanis still don't want to give them the route after the apology, but there's an opening if he apologizes.

 

[Awesome]

See that's the advantage of having Zardari as your president. Mr 10%.

This money or at least the extra money won't reach Pakistani economy.

This is an issue between Zardari and the US Administration.

 

[iPhone]

$5,000 per truck is very low. It should be atleast $10,000 per truck.

Here is a little lesson on US bartering, or white man's bartering and psychology. Never settle on the first price.
If Pakistan went asking for 300 USD per container the US would refuse that, too calling it steep and mentioning their dire economical situation.

On paper 5,000 USD sounds a lot but not as much as what they're paying through alternate routes. You want to barter with the white man you send in people who know the art of squeezing water out of a rock. Zardari currently fits that bill pretty well.