ISLAMABAD, July 5: When Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said ‘sorry’ for losses incurred by the US in the war on terror it was a mere expression of regret for the loss of American lives in terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, the Foreign Office explained on Thursday.

“I think loss of lives is always regrettable and of course you feel sorry for that,” Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Khan said at his weekly media briefing.

The statement issued by the US State Department on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s July 3 conversation with Ms Khar said: “The foreign minister and I were reminded that our troops -- Pakistani and American -- are in a fight against a common enemy. We are both sorry for losses suffered by both our countries in this fight against terrorists.”

Some diplomatic observers feel that this particular reference to both Clinton and Khar saying ‘sorry’ for the lives lost while fighting terrorists was actually put in the US statement to define Secretary Clinton’s ‘sorry’.

The United States was reluctant to apologise over the Salala incident in which 24 Pakistani soldiers had been killed in a Nato attack and after protracted negotiations both sides settled for the word ‘sorry’ to meet the Pakistani demand for apology for moving forward with the relationship.

Spokesman Khan insisted that Ms Clinton saying ‘sorry’ had different connotations as compared to the two saying sorry for the losses in the war on terror.

The Foreign Office’s interpretation of Ms Khar’s ‘sorry’ as just ‘regret’ could intensify debate in the country where critics are lashing out at the government and military for agreeing to reopen the routes without getting an unconditional apology as demanded by parliament.

Prior to Secretary Clinton’s ‘sorry’ the US had offered regrets over the Salala incident on almost 20 different occasions, but that failed to convince the Pakistani leadership which kept insisting for a clear apology.

The spokesman who had to do a lot of explaining at the briefing about the Pakistan-US deal that led to the reopening of suspended Nato supply routes, also denied that Ms Khar had accepted that mistakes had also been committed by Pakistani troops in the events leading to the Salala incident.

“First of all, I think the para does not say that they ‘accepted’. It says they ‘acknowledged’. And as far as my understanding of this para is concerned, Foreign Minister Khar did not say that she accepted or acknowledged that mistakes were made on our part,” he noted.

The State Department’s statement had said: “Foreign Minister Khar and I (Clinton) acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives.”

A Pentagon investigation into the Salala incident had concluded that mistakes were committed by both sides. But the report was rejected by the military and Defence Committee of the Cabinet in January.

Mr Khan advised the media against getting into semantics and said that instead this development needed to be seen in the context of a larger objective of peace and stability in Afghanistan and the region and the cooperative relationship that Pakistan had with the 50 member states of Nato and Isaf (International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan).

“Let me also assure you that the decision has been made in the larger national interest and in the light of parliamentary recommendations,” he said.

“The decision to block Nato supplies was made to ensure that the country’s sovereignty was not violated again and our red lines are respected, and of course, we would not take the losses of our forces lightly.”

The statement by Secretary Clinton, he underscored, clearly indicated that “the Americans understand our sensitivities and respect our sovereignty”.