Chicago hiccups

The message to Pakistan is clear: either open the Nato supply routes immediately or prepare to face the consequences.


Editorial May 21, 2012

As one would have expected, the Nato summit in Chicago seems to have run into quite a few hiccups, especially as far as Pakistan and America are concerned. Their bilateral relationship has, of late, been clouded by the Nato supply routes closure issue and it seems that leaving it unresolved was perhaps not such a good idea for Islamabad. President Asif Ali Zardari met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the body language that could be seen in the photographs of the meeting was one that showed the Pakistani side playing on a relatively weak wicket. The message sent to Pakistan is clear: either open the Nato supply routes immediately or prepare to face the consequences. More than a billion dollars in coalition support fund rest on our playing ball with the US, while reopening the supply routes will allow us to earn around one million dollars a day in tolls and fees.

For now, the main sticking point appears to be an apology for the Salala attacks. At this point, Pakistan should try and understand that it is unlikely to receive any apology. This is a presidential year in the US and Obama has already been slammed by his opponent Mitt Romney for always apologising for America. An apology for Salala will only make Obama seem weaker and unfortunately Pakistan will have to bear the brunt of this reality. The other outstanding issue is drone attacks. The Parliamentary Committee on National Security demanded an end to drone attacks as a precondition for reopening Nato supply routes. This, too, is an exercise in futility, not least because several drone strikes have taken place in recent weeks following the committee declaring its demands. Drones, America says, are a key feature of its war on the militants, and are feared as such by the latter. So perhaps, what Pakistan can demand is joint ownership or a joint monitoring mechanism. Besides, had we not allowed the sanctuaries to exist in parts of Fata and had shown the will to take them out, perhaps we wouldn’t have had to deal with the drones issue in the first place. We should realise that time is running out and that the rest of the world will move on, without us if it needs to. The endgame in Afghanistan has already been set into motion and Pakistan will find itself cut off and isolated should it not be open to compromise.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 22nd, 2012.

COMMENTS (16)

harkol | 9 years ago | Reply

Marium: Pakistan was not at 'war' with its own citizens back in 1971. In fact, majority of killings happened before the declaration of war.

Besides, US is in war with terrorists. It has stated that it mistook Army post for terrorist bunkers. As far as it is conerned it was part of fighting a war. Even the violation of Pakistan's sovereignty to kill OBL was the same. In case, PAF would've tackled the US team, you think they wouldn't have shot down a few Pakistan planes?

They killed Pakistan army men as part of their war effort. And they won't apologize for it.

That's the context.

Amjad | 9 years ago | Reply

The civilian Govt has no power over security or foreign policies. It is a puppet for the armed forces. The armed forces want the NATO routes opened and the release of coalition funds. However, they have painted themselves into a corner with their demands and by whipping up anti American hysteria in groups like Difa Pakistan. By refusing to open the NATO routes until the Parliamentarian demands are met ( which demands are in effect the demands of the army) Zardari has played a master stroke and the ball is back in the army’s court. At this time the army has neither the coalition funds, nor military aid, nor the money from the NATO routes, nor an apology, nor adulation from the public. What the army does have is its unsavory strategic assets and right wing parties, over whom it is fast losing control!

VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

E-Publications

Most Read