Alert Sign Dear reader, online ads enable us to deliver the journalism you value. Please support us by taking a moment to turn off Adblock on

Alert Sign Dear reader, please upgrade to the latest version of IE to have a better reading experience


New US leverage seen in talks with Pakistan

June 07, 2012


Pakistani truck drivers watch as traffic queues at the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan at Torkham on May 20, 2012. There was no sign on May 20 of Pakistan opening its border crossing to Nato trucks carrying essential supplies to Afghanistan, as President Asif Ali Zardari prepared to meet Western leaders.  – AFP Photo

KABUL: The US is trying to break deadlocked talks with Pakistan over reopening a route for Nato troop supplies into Afghanistan,  a deal that has proven elusive due to Islamabad's demands for more money and Washington's refusal to apologize for accidentally killing Pakistani forces.          

Now the US may have a little more leverage on its side, thanks to an agreement struck with some Central Asian countries to carry Nato equipment out through their territory.

Before this week's agreement, Pakistan provided the only available land route to pull out gear.

Peter Lavoy, a senior Defense Department official, is expected in Islamabad at the end of the week to try to resolve the current dispute.

Pakistan first closed the supply line in retaliation for US airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November. Prior to the attack, the US and other Nato countries shipped about 30 percent of their non-lethal supplies through Pakistan into southern Afghanistan.

Since then, the coalition compensated by using a longer, more costly route that runs through northern Afghanistan, Central Asia and Russia.

This alternative route was only available to ship supplies into Afghanistan until Monday, when Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan agreed to allow the coalition to withdraw equipment as well. Nato already has an agreement with Russia for the withdrawal of material.

Monday's deal means that the coalition will be able to ship back to Europe tens of thousands of vehicles, containers and other items as it seeks to withdraw most combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

''I think this will be an advantage for the US and leverage over Pakistan, especially against those who said the US was dependent and had no other choice,'' said Pakistani defense analyst Hasan-Askari Rizvi. ''I think greater realism will dawn on Pakistani policymakers that the US has shown it can use the northern channel, although it will be expensive and take more time.''

It's not exactly clear how much more expensive the northern route is compared to the one that was previously used via the Pakistani port of Karachi.

The top US and Nato commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Allen, said recently that the northern supply line through Central Asia was twice as expensive as the one through Pakistan. But Pentagon figures obtained by The Associated Press in mid-January indicated the US was paying six times as much to use the northern route.

Before Pakistan closed the southern route because of the November attack, it was charging $250 per truck. Now it is demanding $5,000 per truck, while the US has countered with an offer of $500.

''If most of the weapons systems and equipment ends up being transported out through the northern route, it means Pakistan would be losing out on a great opportunity,'' said Talat Masood, a Pakistani defense analyst and retired army general. ''It would be losing out both in terms of its economy and its relations with Nato.''

President Barack Obama made clear US anger at Islamabad's refusal to reopen the supply line at a Nato summit at the end of May in Chicago, where he refused to have a one-on-one meeting with Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari.

Pakistan's reluctance to reopen the route is linked to concerns about political backlash at home, where anti-American sentiment is rampant despite receiving billions of dollars in US aid in the past decade.

''Money is an issue, but public backlash is a greater concern because the government is unpopular and they don't know what to do about the response,'' Rizvi said.

The US airstrikes that killed the 24 Pakistani soldiers at two Afghan border posts in November brought outrage in Pakistan.

The US military has said the attack was an accident, but the Pakistani army has claimed it was deliberate.           Pakistan's parliament demanded the US apologize for the attack and also used the opportunity to press Washington to stop drone strikes in the country.

The Obama administration has expressed regret over the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers but has refused to apologize out of concern that it could open the White House to criticism at home, where anger at Pakistan is high because of its alleged support for militants fighting US soldiers in Afghanistan.

The US has refused to stop drone strikes in Pakistan's northwest tribal region because they are seen as a key tool in fighting al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

The latest success came Monday when a drone killed al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Abu Yahya al-Libi, in the North Waziristan tribal area.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made it clear during a trip to India on Wednesday that the strikes will continue as long as the US needs to defend itself against terrorists who threaten America.

The attacks are unpopular in Pakistan because they are seen as a violation of the country's sovereignty and many people believe they mostly kill innocent civilians, an allegation disputed by Washington. The complaints about sovereignty are also deem.