What's new

U.S. doesn't expect Pakistan to reopen Afghan war supply routes soon

Edevelop

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
14,735
Reaction score
23
Country
Pakistan
Location
Turkey
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Taliban kicks off its spring fighting season in Afghanistan, an agreement with Pakistan that would help NATO supply its troops there could be weeks or months away, forcing military leaders to spend two-and-a-half times as much to ship some supplies through Central Asia.

The Obama administration remains locked in negotiations with Pakistan to reopen the key supply routes into Afghanistan, and officials do not expect talks bogged down over proposed tariffs and U.S. military assistance to reach resolution anytime soon.

The continued closure of ground routes, which Islamabad shut after two dozen of its soldiers were killed by NATO aircraft in November, poses one more challenge to U.S. President Barack Obama's already troubled campaign in Afghanistan.

A deal is almost certainly impossible before May 20-21, when Obama will host NATO leaders in his hometown of Chicago. There, Western leaders will define plans for moving out of Afghanistan and for funding local troops they hope can contain a resilient insurgency when NATO withdraws.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that talks in Islamabad between Pakistani and U.S. officials on supply routes, were continuing this week, but "no decisions are imminent."

"There's value in continuing to have those discussions, but there's no sense those talks are going to turn into decisions" shortly, the official said.

A deal would require agreement on Pakistan's proposal to impose tariffs on NATO supplies, including how tariffs would be formulated, where that money would go, and how the West would ensure those funds were being used appropriately.

Another issue stalling the talks is disagreement over how much the United States should reimburse Pakistan for counter-terrorism activity by Pakistani forces.

The United States believes it owes Pakistan about $1 billion in arrears for that program, called Coalition Support Funds, while Pakistan contends the figure is much higher, perhaps over three times as much. The Pentagon has approved over $8.8 billion in military reimbursements for Pakistan since 2002.

NEW ARRANGEMENT

Once those arrears have been paid, both countries appear to want to set up a new arrangement for providing U.S. financial support for Pakistan's anti-militant activities.

Pakistan's supply routes have been closed since the November 26 cross-border NATO air attack that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers and plunged already tumultuous ties between the two uneasy allies to their lowest point in years.

Before their closure, the two land supply routes through Pakistan accounted for just under a third of all cargo that the NATO-led force in Afghanistan shipped there. The closure has held up thousands of tons of equipment.

Pakistan has said it will impose tariffs on ports and roads used by NATO, in part to express Pakistani outrage over the border deaths and in part to shore up funding for its fight against militants that target the Pakistani state.

The Pentagon says the route closure has not yet had a real impact on the fight in Afghanistan. "Obviously it gets more challenging as we get closer to 2014," the U.S. official said, when most foreign combat troops will make their way home.

In a report released this week, the Defense Department warned that a prolonged closure of the supply routes could "significantly degrade" withdrawal operations as NATO nations try to establish a modicum of stability in Afghanistan before most of their troops are pulled out at the end of 2014.

While the Taliban has been pushed out of some areas since 2009, when Obama began a troop surge designed to turn around a long-neglected war, the insurgency remains resilient.

The talks come as the Obama administration tries to repair ties with Pakistan also damaged by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistani tribal areas and the U.S. raid that killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last year.

They also come at a sensitive moment in Pakistan, where the parliament has approved recommendations from its national security committee on ties with the United States, including a demand to end drone strikes and an apology for the soldiers' deaths.

"Certainly the domestic situation in Pakistan has a role to play" in the negotiations, the U.S. official said.

http://
U.S. doesn't expect Pakistan to reopen Afghan war supply routes soon - chicagotribune.com
 
Obama's stubborn attitude towards Pakistan is surprising.
 
Obama's stubborn attitude towards Pakistan is surprising.


How about the other way? "Pakistan 's stubborn attitude towards USA is surprising."

We can discuss both.
 
He is getting ready to win next elections...
I doubt that he will win next elections. Would be interesting elections though.

How about the other way? "Pakistan 's stubborn attitude towards USA is surprising."

We can discuss both.
My point is in regard to Salalah incident.

Obama can issue a formal apology for this incident in a manner that it shall be acceptable to both sides and justify his decision on the basis of interest of the nation, which is more important then his personal ego.
 
...........
Obama can issue a formal apology for this incident .................

What does Pakistan offer in return that would make an apology possible?
 
What does Pakistan offer in return that would make an apology possible?
Why should Pakistan offer anything in return for an apology for an incident that was entirely the fault of the US, given that the initial operation (even if it did come under fire from Pakistani troops) was launched without informing Pakistan - a decision that caused the entire series of events even by the US version?
 
Why should Pakistan offer anything in return for an apology for an incident that was entirely the fault of the US, given that the initial operation (even if it did come under fire from Pakistani troops) was launched without informing Pakistan - a decision that caused the entire series of events even by the US version?

Pakistan is perfectly within its rights not to offer anything in return. Of course, it should expect the same response from the other side too. After all, bilateral relationships are two-way streets.
 
Pakistan is perfectly within its rights not to offer anything in return. Of course, it should expect the same response from the other side too. After all, bilateral relationships are two-way streets.
The 'two way street' in this case is one where the US has to apologize for being responsible for killing Pakistani troops - Pakistan has already 'offered' the lives of its troops here - the ball is in the US court now.
 
.......... the US has to apologize for being responsible for killing Pakistani troops - Pakistan has already 'offered' the lives of its troops here - the ball is in the US court now.

Considering the way you handle dissenting points of view on DefPk, all I will say here most humbly is that an formal Presidential apology for the Salala accident would be highly unlikely, and even if finally offered, would not mean much in terms of realities on the ground. That is all.
 
Opening of supply routes?

The on-going drone attacks indicate that re-opening of the routes is not important enough to affect the US policy. Pakistan has played its trump card, and now must consider what is remaining it its hand for the rest of the game.
 
The on-going drone attacks indicate that re-opening of the routes is not important enough to affect the US policy. Pakistan has played its trump card, and now must consider what is remaining it its hand for the rest of the game.
Well obviously! USA is a powerful nation and has proved its mettle since the Salalah incident, which was uncalled for by the way. However, humiliating Pakistan is not the best course of action for Obama. I understand that he may have some disagreements with some decision makers in Pakistan but his approach is not the best one.
 
The on-going drone attacks indicate that re-opening of the routes is not important enough to affect the US policy. Pakistan has played its trump card, and now must consider what is remaining it its hand for the rest of the game.
1. No CSF reimbursements since 2010
2. No cessation of drone strikes
3. No apology
4. No indication of greater market access to the US
5. No indication of any 'strategic cooperation' on issues such as civilian nuclear energy
6. No involvement in the Afghan 'endgame'

Pray tell what advantages Pakistan is to accrue by succmbing to the US at this point over the issue of apology, drone strikes ,NATO supplies etc.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom