Reopened supply routes signal deal

Washington took seven months to formally acknowledge its guilt over the killing of 26 Pakistani soldiers in November 2011. However, the acknowledgement was immediately followed by the Pakistan government's decision to reopen supply lines vital to NATO troops in Afghanistan. The reopening of the Ground Lines of Communication took many by surprise, the same way their closure did. But it is just another indication of the complexity of the relations between Pakistan and the United States.

Since early 2011, it has been quite clear that the government and especially Pakistan's armed forces want to review the terms of engagement with the US in the war on terror. This is natural considering the way Washington has increased the pressure on Islamabad by increasing the number of US operatives and their activities within Pakistan and ignoring, or rather bartering away, Pakistan's interests in Afghanistan.

But with mounting opposition in the US to its prolonged war in Afghanistan, Washington is desperately trying to make sure that it faces minimum hindrances to its withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it is trying to give the impression that the pullout is a sign of victory. With the presidential election coming up later this year, this has gained added significance. To ensure a smooth pullout, as well as stability after its troops withdraw, it needs Pakistan. So Pakistan's prolonged resistance to reopening the supply routes instead of meeting the demand to "do more" irritated Washington and further increased the mistrust between the two countries.

There was speculation, owing to mounting tensions between the two countries, as well as some threatening statements from Washington, that the US might even take direct action against Pakistan. However, this was always extremely unlikely, as the US cannot afford a new war in the region, at least in near future. The US also knows that alternative supply routes would cost it too much both financially and politically.

The seven-month closure of the supply routes led the US to realize that there are limits to its arm-twisting tactics and that coercion would not achieve the desired results. Thus, they reached the conclusion that a compromise would have to be made to move forward.

In the meantime, scared of its own weaknesses, the Pakistan government was also looking for a compromise. A diplomatic solution that could save face for both countries, while paving the way for further negotiations thus became predictable. Consequently as soon as a formal apology was forthcoming, the supply routes were restored.

While Pakistan's decision not to charge transit fees has countered the propaganda that Pakistan stopped the NATO supply lines to get money out of it, Pakistanis are wondering if the US' "we are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military" constitutes the apology Pakistan was looking for. Thus the reopening of the supply routes is being seen as a hasty decision. Consequently, a political backlash is expected against the government and guaranteeing the security of NATO supplies is likely to be a greater challenge now.

Will the reopening of supply routes promote a sustainable and stable relationship between the US and Pakistan? It is difficult to predict. Recent statements from both sides carry the impression that some kind of deal has been made, with both governments holding back the details to avoid any political fallout.

Washington is trying to give the impression that the "client state" has been duly disciplined, while Pakistan is trying to describe it as a "victory" without really disclosing any tangible gains.

The future therefore depends on what has been agreed on some crucial issues, such as drone strikes, US operations in Pakistan's tribal areas, the presence of US operatives and secret agents in Pakistan, and India's future role in Afghanistan. Clearly there is a need for Pakistan and the US to remove the ambiguities and spell out the areas and terms of their cooperation.

However, once the US election is over, the US is likely to follow a new game plan to accomplish its long-term objectives in the region.

The author is director-general of the Islamabad-based Institute of Policy Studies.

(China Daily 07/11/2012 page9)