Petrolhead
Minister (2k+ posts)
Pakistan and America
Making up
Jul 4th 2012, 14:35 by The Economist online
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 strainedalmost to breakingfollowing 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, friendly fire incident. In retaliation, Pakistan stopped the transport across its territory of supplies for NATO forces in land-locked Afghanistan. That added at least $100m a month to the cost of that war, as the coalition turned to a much longer resupply route through central Asia.
Islamabad had demanded an apology and new terms for its alliance with America. Pakistans armed forces even suggested that the border deaths had been deliberate at some level. But, after raising the stakes for itself, Pakistan managed to get surprisingly little out of the deal announced on July 3rd.
American officials had offered to say sorry back in February, and it is unclear what, if anything, changed in the subsequent months of talks. The apology itself sounds rather mealy-mouthed. Americas reluctance to apologise fully, in turn, is because of continued operations by Afghan insurgents, from Pakistani soil, who attack and kill NATO soldiers.
Pakistan dropped a plan for a transit tax (initially it sought $5,000 per lorry) on NATO supplies, which had in effect been given free passage since the Afghan war began in 2001. Now officials emphasise that what matters is not financial gains but the issue of sovereignty. Yet that leaves unclear just why Pakistan haggled for months about the money.
America will however release over $1 billion in reimbursements owed to Pakistan for the costs of military operations along the Afghan border, boosting the countrys 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 Pakistans tribal areas is unlikely to be met.
It is possible that Pakistan submitted to decisive pressure behind the scenes. Some American officials want to pronounce as terrorist groups the Haqqani network, a fearsome Afghan insurgent outfit, and Jamat-ud-Dawa, an India-focused Islamic extremist organisation. Both of these are comfortably based on Pakistani soil, which would make the country an official harbourer of terrorists.
The recent capture, in India, of an alleged militant who was apparently present in a Karachi control room, to help direct the devastating 2008 terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai, may also have had an influence. Pakistan would much prefer to keep America as its ostensible ally, rather than a declared enemy.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bany...merica?scode=3d26b0b17065c2cf29c06c010184c684
Making up
Jul 4th 2012, 14:35 by The Economist online

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 strainedalmost to breakingfollowing 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, friendly fire incident. In retaliation, Pakistan stopped the transport across its territory of supplies for NATO forces in land-locked Afghanistan. That added at least $100m a month to the cost of that war, as the coalition turned to a much longer resupply route through central Asia.
Islamabad had demanded an apology and new terms for its alliance with America. Pakistans armed forces even suggested that the border deaths had been deliberate at some level. But, after raising the stakes for itself, Pakistan managed to get surprisingly little out of the deal announced on July 3rd.
American officials had offered to say sorry back in February, and it is unclear what, if anything, changed in the subsequent months of talks. The apology itself sounds rather mealy-mouthed. Americas reluctance to apologise fully, in turn, is because of continued operations by Afghan insurgents, from Pakistani soil, who attack and kill NATO soldiers.
Pakistan dropped a plan for a transit tax (initially it sought $5,000 per lorry) on NATO supplies, which had in effect been given free passage since the Afghan war began in 2001. Now officials emphasise that what matters is not financial gains but the issue of sovereignty. Yet that leaves unclear just why Pakistan haggled for months about the money.
America will however release over $1 billion in reimbursements owed to Pakistan for the costs of military operations along the Afghan border, boosting the countrys 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 Pakistans tribal areas is unlikely to be met.
It is possible that Pakistan submitted to decisive pressure behind the scenes. Some American officials want to pronounce as terrorist groups the Haqqani network, a fearsome Afghan insurgent outfit, and Jamat-ud-Dawa, an India-focused Islamic extremist organisation. Both of these are comfortably based on Pakistani soil, which would make the country an official harbourer of terrorists.
The recent capture, in India, of an alleged militant who was apparently present in a Karachi control room, to help direct the devastating 2008 terrorist attack in the Indian city of Mumbai, may also have had an influence. Pakistan would much prefer to keep America as its ostensible ally, rather than a declared enemy.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bany...merica?scode=3d26b0b17065c2cf29c06c010184c684