• Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Pakistan hints at retaliation after US withheld funds "negotiate access to air/land corridors"

Discussion in 'Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by NOWorNEVER, Jul 30, 2017.

  1. NOWorNEVER

    NOWorNEVER FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    244
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2016
    Ratings:
    +0 / 263 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    WAShington - Days after the Pentagon announced it is withholding $50 million intended for Pakistan as part of its Coalition Support Fund, the South Asian country's ambassador hinted at potential retaliation, possibly coaxing Washington to negotiate access to the country's air corridors, which Islamabad suggests have been taken for granted, reported Voice of America (VoA) on Saturday.



    Pakistan is ready to cooperate with the United States, Ambassador Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry said, though Washington may now end up having to negotiate with Islamabad on the corridors and other tangible assets, he added.

    "All that Pakistan has done in the fight against terrorism has not been sufficiently factored" into the US decision to reduce its support funds, Chaudhry lamented during a discussion this week at the Washington office of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

    Pakistan has facilitated air and ground logistical support for US troops in Afghanistan "like no one else", Chaudhry said, adding that "since 2001, all air corridors from Pakistan have been available to the United States free of cost."

    The reason Pakistan did so "was because we believed this was a common war," the ambassador said, but there have been occasions when US actions have left his country's leaders thinking "that perhaps we are not partners."

    Questions concerning Pakistan's commitment to bilateral partnership have also been raised by the US. A prime example was the discovery in 2011 that Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden had been living undisturbed near a key military facility.

    US Secretary of Defence James Mattis said he withheld $50 million in Coalition Support Funds because he couldn't certify to Congress that Pakistan had taken sufficient action against the Haqqani network, a Taliban-associated organisation which the US has deemed a foreign terrorist Organisation, since September 2012. The group has been blamed for attacks in Afghanistan.

    For its part, Islamabad's message is don't drop "every security lapse in Afghanistan on Pakistan's doorsteps," as the country's ambassador to the US put it.

    The Pakistani envoy's remarks came at a time when US President Donald Trump's administration has been reviewing its overall strategy toward South Asia, including India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. And his defiant tone may reflect Pakistan's decreasing dependence on the United States amid an influx of Chinese capital investments and a strengthening political relationship between Islamabad and Beijing.

    Chaudhry indicated in an interview with VoA that Islamabad had grown accustomed to having to negotiate with Washington. "These and all other issues are always negotiated, because that's in the nature of the business" between allies, he said. By contrast, he pointed to Pakistan's "unique" relationship with China, the top strategic rival to the US in Asia.

    Islamabad sees Beijing as its closest ally, he added, and the two countries find themselves completely attuned. There is "so much of a meeting of minds," he noted — with no "policy differences at all" dividing them.

    Chaudhry told VOA "the clearest example and manifestation" of Sino-Pakistan ties has come in the form of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, or CPEC, stretching 3,000 kilometres from Kashgar in western China's Xinjiang region to the port city of Gwadar on the edge of the Arabian Sea.

    Due to the strategic importance China attaches to Gwadar and its financial resources, Beijing agreed to build the port for free. China has publicly justified its investment in Gwadar as an alternate route for oil and other commodities headed for the Chinese mainland, but the port's potential for military uses has even more significance for strategic thinkers.

    Earlier this year, Pakistan announced it has leased operation rights for Gwadar to a Chinese company for 40 years.

    Andrew Small, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), said the formal terms are understood to be purely economic in nature. However, "that doesn't preclude its being developed for military purposes further down the line, and both sides certainly have that in mind," he added.

    Small is author of The China-Pakistan Axis: Asia's New Geopolitics.

    "As its need grows for friends who can facilitate the extension of its reach as a global military power," China is now trying to turn its relationship with Pakistan into a model for other potential security partnerships, Small said.

    The question before the United States as it debates its future approach toward Pakistan, in the context of its overall South Asian strategy review, Small said, "is still whether a coherent long-term framework for the relationship can be established, rather than continuing to be dependent on cycles of near-term goals."

    "For various reasons, Pakistan still values a good relationship with Washington," the analyst said.

    The challenge for Pakistan today, analysts said, is whether the country can seize its current opportunities and rise above a past laden with border disputes and domestic instability, so it potentially can be seen as "an emerging market, even a future rising power," in Small's words.

    "Over time, Pakistan would be better off charting its own course toward better relations with its neighbours, and lessening its dependence on both the United States and China," said Ambassador Robin Raphel, a former assistant secretary of state for South Asia.

    For now, however, Pakistan's Ambassador Chaudhry told VoA: "Both the United States and China have a global role to play, and Pakistan is a friend of both."

    In his view, the ultimate consideration for Pakistan's cooperation with China on Gwadar and CPEC, their economic corridor, comes down to the question of "economic empowerment of the people living in Balochistan and the rest of Pakistan."



    This news was published in The Nation newspaper. Read complete newspaper of 30-Jul-2017 here.
    http://nation.com.pk/national/30-Jul-2017/pakistan-hints-at-retaliation-after-us-withheld-funds
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 7
  2. Taimoor Khan

    Taimoor Khan SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,506
    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2016
    Ratings:
    +5 / 5,306 / -5
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    "since 2001, all air corridors from Pakistan have been available to the United States free of cost."


    Time for free lunches are gone now. Either cough up money or find your way into Afghanistan via Iran or Russia. Yanks may end up with huge bills then those peanuts, few millions dollars they in their wisdoms stopped paying Pakistan. Pakistan needs to back date the bills all the way to 2001.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 16
  3. khail007

    khail007 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    858
    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2008
    Ratings:
    +1 / 604 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Arab Emirates
    American embassy/consulates footprint and manpower also to be reduced in reference to revised decision of both countries. Just like an example of Russian decision.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  4. Afzal2010

    Afzal2010 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    217
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 205 / -0
    Country:
    South Africa
    Location:
    South Africa
    Why did Pakistan continue to give the US free transit to Afghanistan? That doesn't make sense at all
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  5. Iron Stars

    Iron Stars FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,120
    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Ratings:
    +0 / 1,264 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    https://tribune.com

    By Shahbaz Rana
    Published: May 27, 2012


    ISLAMABAD
    : As Pakistan and the United States make some headway in bilateral talks, Islamabad’s demand for $5,000 per container for transporting goods to Afghanistan through its territory remains the biggest stumbling block.

    US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta has ruled out paying Pakistan this amount, but officials familiar with the talks say Islamabad’s demand is “neither irrational nor out of the blue.”

    The supplies made to Isaf and Nato forces stationed in Afghanistan have ruined Pakistan’s road infrastructure over the last nine years of cooperation, they added.

    The infrastructure was used for eight years without paying any charges. In the ninth year, the US started paying a nominal handling fee of $220 per container
    to National Logistic Cell – the army’s logistics arm, officials said. Terming Pakistan’s demand as “extortion,” Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential aspirant, had claimed that the US was paying $250 per container to Pakistan.


    Why $5,000?

    Roads in Pakistan are designed to have a life of ten years but have depreciated significantly since the damage caused by a single container is equivalent to 1,500 to 2,000 cars.

    Officials said the National Highway Authority needs $1.6 billion to rebuild the damaged infrastructure and, for this purpose alone, it has proposed a charge of $1,000 per container.

    The additional $4,000 includes charges for scanning, inspection and examination of the supplies, charges on account of road safety, environmental impact and port services, they added.

    For the last eight-and-a-half years, Pakistan allowed Nato and Isaf containers to leave the ports without scanning them. The Federal Board of Revenue, however, claims it had started scanning the containers but refused to speak on record. Officials said Pakistan will not provide security to the containers.

    __________________________________________________

    Just a week ago they sent about 800 Containers !! they should pay more or
    Re-carpet and work on the Widening of whole route of road network which they have been using from last 16 years....

    Its time to charge them $4k to $5K per-Container...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 4
  6. dsr478

    dsr478 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,009
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,541 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Because aid.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  7. SabzShaheen

    SabzShaheen FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    300
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 239 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    What aid? You mean pathetic reimbursements that don't even reimburse us fully for the costs of their stupid war?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  8. Afzal2010

    Afzal2010 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    217
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2017
    Ratings:
    +1 / 205 / -0
    Country:
    South Africa
    Location:
    South Africa
    From the little which I read on the internet, the aid was in respect of you clearing out your borders of Afghanistan of insurgents (which you did). Surely the US couldn't expect freebies for life from you simply because it aided you to assist it which you did.
     
  9. dsr478

    dsr478 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,009
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,541 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    They did give a hefty bit to be fair. But yes they are asking a little too much.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  10. dsr478

    dsr478 SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    4,009
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2,541 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    It was a lofty amount, it's our fault for getting involved in the first place.
     
  11. Oracle

    Oracle FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    390
    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Ratings:
    +1 / 696 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Australia
    Foreign office should clearly say that Pakistan was being payed / compensated in form of so called "Aid" , for giving free access of land / air route to Afghanistan for transporting military equipment.

    Now that the deal is no more , then Pakistan should impose heavy duty on military equipment being transported to Afghanistan. And Pakistan should not take any more Aid, we can get it in form of tax and duties , as NATO even import water / tea bags to military equipment through Pakistan.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  12. Narad Mian

    Narad Mian FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    126
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 158 / -5
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Well private pockets must have been warmed up by uncle Sam.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  13. Vapnope

    Vapnope FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,561
    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,918 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    Because the elite is corrupt to the core. Someone's bank account got fatter and whole nation takes the blame for receiving AID or whatever fancy name they call it.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 5
  14. maximuswarrior

    maximuswarrior BANNED

    Messages:
    5,183
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Ratings:
    +2 / 8,897 / -5
    Country:
    Netherlands
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Time to shut all corridors and supply routes. Enough of this BS already. America should find new routes to Afghanistan. These morons have the audacity to blame Pakistan yet they keep using our routes to feed their soldiers. Fvcking hypocrites.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  15. SabzShaheen

    SabzShaheen FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    300
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Ratings:
    +0 / 239 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    We didn't really have a choice to say "no" to the US to be fair. I mean, what ally of theirs can say "no"?