Reopening the Nato supply route
It is appropriate that the matter is now being decided by the executive since parliament had its opportunity to give its recommendations but took the safe option of deferring any decision on the subject. After initially trying to link the opening of the supply routes to a complete halt in drone attacks, opposition parties opportunistically stayed silent in the final resolution and punted the matter to the government. This will allow them to claim plausible deniability and attack the government should the supply routes be opened to Nato trucks. The trick for the government is to make the correct call but also convince the public that the opposition parties are complicit in the final decision since they opted for political point-scoring rather than resolving the conflict.
It’s not as if the government has any choice but to reopen the supply routes. The US could simply take the more costly option of using Central Asia as a more expensive alternative route and then deduct the difference from Pakistan’s total aid package. With our economy still shaky, that is a course of action we should avoid at all costs. Instead, we should use negotiations with the US to work out a better deal that would allow us to collect greater tolls and taxes to pay for the damage done to our highways by Nato trucks. The final decision should be a practical, not emotional, one. For the sake of better relations with the superpower and to stay financially afloat, the government needs to bite the bullet and give in to the US.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 19th, 2012.
COMMENTS (4)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Just wondering, how much do you estimate is the 'damage' to the roads due to NATO trucks? Pakistan anyways get the benefit of added economic activity due to NATO trucks from transporters fee, drivers employment etc. AFAIK it generally costs 2 mn USD/Km of 4 lane highway (one time capital cost)
Continuing on as is is an imperative for Pakistan. The closure is biting the Americans, which is why their "strategic patience" is wearing thin. Despite the threats and perceived leverage of the US, it is in Pakistan's interest to gain cash and lines of communication during this phase. An apology will come. The supply routes will open, but more Haqqani and Taliban attacks will also occur on occupation forces. Pakistan has no obligation to help in securing the interests of the US/Nato; or in defending their troops. While gaining cash from the supply lines, Pakistan is ensuring that Afghanistan in the future is mindful of its concerns at the same time. Unfortunately, more attacks in Pakistan. But i doubt that ET has any concern for the lives of Pakistanis.
It said so often that you must believe it --- not sure why? Seems to me that by the time you get around to figuring out your revised "red lines" NATO may just ignore your offer and continue on as is. Chances are NATO troops will be departing sooner than expected and everything seems to argue that your leverage was overstated from the beginning and getting smaller day by day. Why do just give the people what they want -- say no to USA and NATO and live with the consequences.
But where is the public apology first from US, which is the cornerstone of our argument before opening the supply route?