NATO Using Smugglers along Pakistan's Border

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

NATO relying on smugglers along Pakistan's border, Pakistan official say​

With the Pakistan border still closed, NATO relies on smugglers to bring needed supplies to troops in Afghanistan.

Aamir LatifJanuary 24, 2012 07:25

The border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been closed to NATO and US forces, who have used the route to funnel supplies to troops fighting in Afghanistan. (Joel Saget/AFP/Getty Images)​

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — With few other options available to it since Pakistan closed its border crossings almost two months ago, NATO has at times resorted to paying local smugglers to get much-needed supplies to its troops fighting in Afghanistan, Pakistani officials say.

The Pakistani and Afghan smugglers, who must pay bribes to militants to travel safely through some areas, navigate treacherous routes over the 1,800-mile mountainous divide that separates the two countries to bring containers of oil, food and other essential items — all at a price — to soldiers on the other side.

“Borders mean nothing to us. We have been crossing in and out for centuries,” Sahib Khan, a smuggler who said NATO had hired him, told GlobalPost.

The hiring of illegal smugglers came after a failed attempt by NATO to pay private companies, which truck goods across the border under the Pakistan-Afghanistan Free Trade Agreement (PATA). These private companies, Pakistani officials said, were secretly swapping out their normal cargo for NATO supplies until Pakistani security forces caught wind of the scam.

A senior officer for the Frontier Corps, an elite military unit that is responsible for security along the border, told GlobalPost that a total ban on the movement of containers under PATA, which was signed in 2010 to promote bilateral trade, eventually foiled the strategy.

“We had concrete evidence that some of the containers being imported by private companies, under PATA, were being used to smuggle supplies for NATO troops under cover of commercial imports,” the official said.

The official said that 12 containers loaded with oil were intercepted on Jan. 19. Several more containers were stopped at the Torkhum border two weeks ago, he said.

A NATO official said he could not comment on the seized containers and denied that it is using any unconventional means to ship supplies to its troops.

“In fact, we are not facing any problems vis-à-vis logistics at the moment,” said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for coalition forces based in Kabul. “However we would welcome the reopening of the two supply routes in order to normalize ties with Pakistan.”

Pakistan shut the two main border crossings into Afghanistan, which have long been the most important routes relied upon by US and NATO troops, in November after US helicopters attacked a Pakistani military outpost, killing 24 soldiers.

A US report issued last month claimed the attack was a mistake and that blame should be shared between the two sides. But already weary of drone strikes operated by the CIA in North Waziristan, and bruised by the Navy Seals raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, the Pakistani military maintains that the United States was wholly in the wrong.

“The US investigation report is structured around the argument of ‘self-defense’ and ‘proportional use of force,’ an argument which is contrary to the facts,” a Pakistani military spokesman said in a statement issued to the press on Monday.

Despite Pakistan’s defiant tone, the country’s parliament agreed in principal last week to reopen the border in February. Lawmakers, however, will also be seeking a formal apology from the Americans, something that has so far not been forthcoming.

A Pakistani official in the country’s foreign ministry said the reopening of the border might also be contingent on NATO’s agreement to pay new taxes on any supplies it ships through Pakistan. Before the border was closed, NATO had been shipping between 70 and 80 percent of its non-lethal supplies through the Pakistani border.

NATO developed an alternative route through the Central Asian States but, according to the Pentagon, the strategy is costing the United States six times more than it did to ship supplies through Pakistan.

Smuggling between Pakistan and Afghanistan has long been a profitable and vibrant business. Various trade agreements have been signed between the two neighbors in a bid to contain the practice, but high import and export taxes coupled with little government oversight, thwarted those attempts.

Mostly items like flour, edible oil, lentils, dried vegetables, contraband cigarettes, and animals for meat are smuggled into Afghanistan, while spare auto parts, electronics and unregistered vehicles are smuggled the other direction.

Smuggling is so widespread that it has become the backbone of the economy in towns and villages along the border, where locally it is treated simply as normal trade. The mountainous terrain provides an edge over security to smugglers who regularly trickle across the border without any trouble.

Sahib said that most of the food and oil supplies he has carried across the border for NATO originate from the southern port city of Karachi, and are moved through Peshawar and Quetta, and finally through Pakistan’s tribal areas, which are largely under the authority of various militant groups.

For those militants, the smugglers have been an important source of income. Smugglers are required to pay “rahdari,” or “passage,” an unofficial tax that allows them safe passage.

“Once we are onto the route, it’s the responsibility of those who receive rahdari to ensure we are able to safely enter into Afghanistan,” Sahib said.

Any smuggling that is done on behalf of NATO can in no way make up for the closed borders, however. Smugglers say they carry between 20 and 25 small containers a day while, when the border crossings were open, NATO shipped an average of 250 large containers a day — making the reopening of the borders essential to the war effort.

NATO relying on smugglers along Pakistan's border | GlobalPost

 

[VCheng]

...................


“In fact, we are not facing any problems vis-à-vis logistics at the moment,” said Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for coalition forces based in Kabul. “However we would welcome the reopening of the two supply routes in order to normalize ties with Pakistan.”​

The lines in bold say it all.​

 

[fd24]

^^^^^

On the one hand they play down the significance of the effect of the closing of the borders - on the other hand they are begging and encouraging smuggling to take place. Wish they would make their mind up. They are simply untrustworthy and notorious liars that are running low on supplies.......

 

[DANGER-ZONE]

Why to cry on NATO and what ever they do, dear.
Our top rulers are responsible for this.

 

[VCheng]

^^^^^

On the one hand they play down the significance of the effect of the closing of the borders - on the other hand they are begging and encouraging smuggling to take place. Wish they would make their mind up. They are simply untrustworthy and notorious liars that are running low on supplies.......

The mind is clearly made up: it is the single-minded pursuit of national interests, and thus whatever needs to be done to get the job at hand done, it will be done.

What is there that is not clear?

 

[RazPaK]

Smugglers need to be shot on sight to send a message that it is absolutely unacceptable.

 

[VCheng]

Smugglers need to be shot on sight to send a message that it is absolutely unacceptable.

Perhaps you missed this line in that story:

............................
“Borders mean nothing to us. We have been crossing in and out for centuries,” Sahib Khan, a smuggler who said NATO had hired him, told GlobalPost................

Why would that change now?

 

[RazPaK]

Perhaps you missed this line in that sotry:

There's nothing to miss. The smugglers are compromising the security of the nation and must be shot on sight.

 

[haviZsultan]

The lines in bold say it all.

Really? Then whats this?

APNewsBreak: Pakistan’s closure of supply routes costs US 6 times more for new route​

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is paying six times as much to send war supplies to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes after Pakistan’s punitive decision in November to close border crossings to NATO convoys, the Associated Press has learned.

Islamabad shut down two key Pakistan border crossings after a U.S. airstrike killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in late November, and it is unclear when the crossings might reopen.

Pentagon figures provided to the AP show it is now costing about $104 million per month to send the supplies through a longer northern route. That is $87 million more per month than when the cargo moved through Pakistan.

While U.S. officials have acknowledged that using alternate transportation routes for Afghan war supplies is more expensive and takes longer, the total costs had not been revealed until now. The Pentagon provided the cost figures to the AP on Thursday.

U.S. officials said Thursday the elevated costs are likely to continue for some time, as U.S.-Pakistan tensions remain high and Pakistan has not yet offered to restore the transport arrangement or to begin negotiations on the matter. Until the closure, the U.S. had relied on Pakistani routes to move about one-third of all war supplies for Afghanistan.

The U.S. has given Pakistan more than $20 billion in aid since 9/11, including civilian and military assistance. But over the past year, relations with Islamabad have been strained by a series of incidents, including the U.S. assault in Pakistan last May that killed Osama bin Laden.

Pakistani leaders have also complained about repeated U.S. drone strikes into their country. The strikes, largely by the CIA, target militants hiding along Pakistan’s border who launch attacks against NATO troops in Afghanistan.

The final straw, however, was the Nov. 26 cross-border attack, which hit two Pakistani border posts, enraging the Pakistani government and further eroding already shaky relations.

The U.S. blamed the errant airstrikes on a series of communications and coordination errors on both sides. American officials expressed regret but have not apologized for the incident, insisting that Pakistan fired first. Pakistan denies that and has called it an unprovoked attack.

In addition to closing the border crossings, Pakistan ordered the U.S. to vacate Shamsi air base, which the U.S. was using to launch drone strikes at al-Qaida and Taliban militants.

Over the past year or so, the U.S. military has been shrinking its reliance on the Pakistani routes, which are used to transport fuel and other non-lethal supplies. U.S. officials say they could manage indefinitely without that access if Pakistan either makes the closure permanent or offers to reopen it under unacceptable conditions.

Officials said that moves by Pakistan to briefly close the supply routes on two previous occasions after disputes with the U.S. prompted the Pentagon to begin shifting more to the northern crossings. Officials also believe that even if Pakistan eventually opens the supply routes, that there will be additional fees charged, so the alternate routes would help avoid those extra costs.

On the other hand, sending NATO convoys through Pakistan is seen by Washington as a significant piece of the overall U.S.-Pakistani partnership. Failure to reinstate those routes would signal a more severe diplomatic breach between the two countries at a critical time in the Afghan war and the ongoing battle against insurgents who seek sanctuary on the Pakistan side of the border.

According to U.S. officials, 85 percent of fuel supplies for the war effort in Afghanistan are now going through the northern supply routes, along with 30 percent of the supplies that had routinely come through Pakistan.

The northern routes connect Baltic and Caspian Sea ports with Afghanistan through Russia and Central Asia and the Caucasus. And they combine sea, rail and truck transport.

There may be, however, some movement by Pakistan to allow certain civilian Afghan supplies through the closed routes.

Dependent on Pakistan for its imports, landlocked Afghanistan has asked authorities in Pakistan to release hundreds of vehicles stacked with goods and fuel that are being held up along with NATO supplies.

Pakistani officials say they are sorting through the thousands of stranded vehicles to push through supplies for Afghans. So far, the Pakistanis have given no indication of when they will open the border for NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

There has been limited contact between top U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Last week, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked by phone with his Pakistani counterpart, Army Gen. Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, their first contact since Dec. 21. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has not spoken to Pakistani leaders since the incident.

Why doesn't the US just apologize. Why keep your nose so high above the ground all the time.

 

[fd24]

Really? Then whats this?

Why doesn't the US just apologize. Why keep your nose so high above the ground all the time.

To apologize would be an acceptance of guilt. To accept guilt would mean a complete change in the playing field. Liars.

 

[VCheng]

There's nothing to miss. The smugglers are compromising the security of the nation and must be shot on sight.

The billions of dollars in annual smuggling pays rich dividends to those controlling that illegal trade, and those connections go deep into the Pakistan government itself. I don't think that is about to change anytime soon.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The lines in bold say it all.

Sure, you expected NATO to officially accept that they are paying smugglers to transport supplies?

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------

it is the single-minded pursuit of national interests, and thus whatever needs to be done to get the job at hand done, it will be done.

Yep, as any good old murdering, torturing Feudal Lord would do.

We get that part.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The mind is clearly made up: it is the single-minded pursuit of national interests, and thus whatever needs to be done to get the job at hand done, it will be done.

What is there that is not clear?

the good Brigadier would nail his butt on the wall if he says instead

OMG, it’s a disaster dude. Life Sux Mon. we be havin lota trouble since dos Pakistanis closed dem doors on us

 

[Leader]

The lines in bold say it all.

NATO supplies are caught twice under the documents of Afghan-Transit trade on Chaman border.

so kuch tou hai Brig Gen batana nahi chahtay

 

[VCheng]

Sure, you expected NATO to officially accept that they are paying smugglers to transport supplies?

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:55 AM ----------


Yep, as any good old murdering, torturing Feudal Lord would do.

We get that part.

Supplies to the troops are, and will remain, assured, no matter what it takes.

Personifying countries with personal attributes is an attractive, but ultimately erroneous exercise. That is the part that you have yet to get.

the good Brigadier would nail his butt on the wall if he says instead

OMG, it’s a disaster dude. Life Sux Mon. we be havin lota trouble since dos Pakistanis closed dem doors on us

Good One IB!

---------- Post added at 10:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:21 AM ----------

Really? Then whats this?.............

An extra 100 million a month is peanuts compared to the overall costs. What is the big deal here?