subscribe: Posts | Comments

leader

American Apology and Pakistan

2 comments

Font Size » Large | Small


Apologies, reopening GLOC & border attacks

By S. M. Hali

The long awaited apology rendered by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her Pakistani counterpart Hina Rabbani Khar for the NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last year, finally prompted the Defence Committee of the Cabinet (DCC) to take the decision for the reopening of the Ground Lines of Communication (GLOC). The NATO supply routes or GLOC as termed in the official jargon, transiting through Pakistan had been blocked by the DCC and endorsed by the Parliament among a number of punitive measures taken following the attack on Pakistan’s military check post at Salala on 26 November 2011. The DCC, which met on July 3, 2012, presided over by Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, attended by key federal ministers, services chiefs and relevant officials; took the decision in view of Pakistan’s deteriorating relations with the 49 members of NATO/ISAF and Secretary Clinton’s “apology”. 

Pakistan has also assured that it will not demand any additional transit fees for the transportation of the NATO/ISAF supplies. This puts to rest the accusations by the US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta that Pakistan was gouging for a tariff-hike for NATO/ISAF logistic containers transiting through its territory. This statement came despite Mr. Panetta’s admission that the closure since November has cost the US more than $2 billion. During Pakistan’s closure of the GLOC, the US was forced to use the more expensive Northern Distribution Network through Russia and Central Asia. Panetta estimated the cost at an extra $100 million a month. He had warned that costs would escalate as the U.S. commenced withdrawal of equipment in advance of the 2014 troop drawdown in Afghanistan. 
It is ironical that knowledgeable scholars like Dr. C. Christine Fair, a specialist on South Asian affairs, chose to take a swipe at the issue of “apology”. She writes that “many Americans are waiting for the following apologies from Pakistan:

1) WE are sorry for the sad fact that your navy seals had to bust in and kill and nab UBL who hanging out in UBLpur merrily begetting a human shield with the help of erection aids, porn and a gaggle of terror wives ensconced leisurely with him. Oh yes…a wee distance from Pakistan's PMA. 2) We are sorry that we claim to be sovereign but can only arrest the doctor who helped catch UBL…not any of the IB wallahs who likely knew or the slews of doctors who whelped UBL's clatch of children or even the owner of the house. We keep asking for proof of any such culprits. 3) We are sorry for continuing to support in every possible way JuD/LeT and the menagerie of murderous nuts attacking Indians, Afghans, others in the region. 4) We are sorry for the thousands of American, ISAF and Afghan troops killed by proxies directly supported by us perfidious Pakistanis (e.g. Haqqani, LeT, Af-Taliban and so forth). We really want to toss off our jihadi addiction. 5) We are sorry for all of the above because we've done it while taking US cash to help the GWOT or whatever you folks are calling these days.”

Christine Fair discloses that she had argued long ago that the US should render an apology but she surmises that the US army—unlike the Pak army—is not “rogue” and remains a professional military. She claims that the US dishonored its own military culture by refusing to do the right thing and apologizing immediately. However, instead of linking the apology to the GLOC reopening the US should have linked the apology to a larger discussion of Pakistani “perfidy”. She goes on to highlight the rancor by recommending that the GLOCs should have stayed closed until the “perfidy” issue was resolved, construing that “It's cheaper to pay 140 million per month in the long term if it means diminishing Pakistan's space for jihadi chicanery.” She drives the proverbial dagger deeper in Pakistan’s heart by stating: “However, I am not holding my breath for one such apology. So Pakistan can pocket yet another apology but thousands of US troops have families that will likely keep waiting for their apology from Pakistan's men on horseback.”

Christine Fair should take cognizance of the fact that Secretary Clinton has confirmed that she and her Pakistani counterpart were “both sorry for the losses suffered” by both countries in the fight against terrorists. This is a far cry from the position adopted by Pakistan, which had constantly maintained that the strikes on border posts were deliberate and planned. As for her claim that the US Army is not rogue, she should refer to  Gareth Porter, writing for “Counterpunch” in his Op-Ed titled: ‘US military killed Pakistani soldiers one by one long after being informed it was attacking Pakistani positions’ carried onJanuary 26, 2012, who had poked holes in the inquiry. Perhaps Christine Fair can recall the cases of “The US Kill Teams”, US GIs’ images urinating on dead Afghan corpses and the deliberate desecration of pages of the Holy Qur?n and then decide which is the rogue army?

 Meanwhile, US media and western opinion builders have been vocal that cross border attacks by Taliban are hurting them deep as their troops and counter insurgency/counter terrorism wherewithal are targeted by the terrorists who pour into Afghanistan from bordering Pakistan. This propaganda had reached a crescendo targeting Pakistani leadership as the US presidential began to draw near. Like Christine Fair’s diatribe quoted above, some of the pet slogans of the US media and statesmen have been that "we (US) are funding Pakistan for getting our troops killed in Afghanistan". The hard fact is that Pakistan has been the victim of cross border attacks by Afghan armed groups / militants (from Kunar and Nuristan provinces of Afghanistan) who frequently launch brutal attacks against Pakistani border outposts and civilian population, in Dir and Chitral regions. Numerous innocent people have lost their lives while soldiers belonging to Border Security Forces have been captured and cruelly slaughtered. The US policymakers remain oblivious of these gory episodes, which we hope the reopening of GLOC will now bring an end to.

 

GD Star Rating
loading...
American Apology and Pakistan , 9.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings
468 ad
  1. Who the hell is this idiot Christine Fair? Expert of South Asia? these Usans produce dime a dozen experts of everything masters in none
    when it comes to Pakistan they are so scared because irrespective of the pathetic quality of Pakistani leaders they are SMART enough to have nuclear technology and this is what the creeps hate
    Equally inportant the
    US is RETREATING
    3 surges and still the bastards are losing
    Pakistan is VERY important STRATEGICALLY and they have not managed to have a crusader sahib like in Arabia
    Pakistanis are smart enough to know their importance and value
    bloody bitter pill for the scum to swallow
    GREAT!
    POLICY BRIEF: Was Pakistan Wrong In Reviewing U.S. Ties?
     
    Most NATO member countries were untouched by Pakistan’s blockade of US military supplies. The theories about Pakistan’s isolation are also inaccurate. So why did Pakistan go back on its decision to withdraw the container transport facility without an agreement on new terms & conditions for Pak-US ties?
     
    Policy Brief | Released in Islamabad on 5 July 2012 | Project For Pakistan In 21st Century
     
    This Policy Brief is critical read for members of the Pakistani media, students of Pakistan policy, Pakistani lawmakers, diplomats, members of the federal government and armed forces of Pakistan.
     
    This document is tailored for policy makers and analysts. Author and researcher Mehmood Maajid tackles five important questions that Pakistani decision makers confronted when Pakistan temporarily withdrew the facility to United States government to transport US military and NATO war supplies through Pakistan to Afghanistan.
     
    Critics of the Pakistani decision argued that Islamabad needs Washington to secure a role in the Afghan end game. They said Pakistan cannot afford to confront forty-nine member countries of NATO. And that the decision to withdraw the facility has rendered Pakistan diplomatically isolated.
     
    The first stunning revelation in the Brief deals with the question of ‘confronting 49 nations.’  Research shows that 33 NATO countries in Afghanistan have less than 1,000 soldiers, meaning the Pakistani blockade did not affect them. More surprisingly, of the 33, 16 European countries have less than 100 soldiers stationed in Afghanistan.
     
    The Brief proves that NATO member countries were almost unmoved by Pakistan’s blockade of US military supplies. None of the NATO countries was desperate to engage Pakistan to restore the container transport facility.  The only country that was desperate to engage Pakistan to restore the supply routes was the United States because the blockade affected its own military.
     
    This and other insightful and direct points raised by this Policy Brief show that Pakistan had a solid opportunity to restructure Pakistan-US relations on terms fairer to Pakistan. It also shows that the reasons given to prematurely end the Pakistani blockade are inaccurate, raising the question: What are the real reasons for the embarrassing Pakistani retreat on restructuring Pakistan-US ties?
     
    To read the Policy Brief, click here.
    US army—unlike the Pak army—is not “rogue” LOL
    yeah sure
    LOL
    that is why each and every COUNTRY refuses to have the mass murdering , rapist, pedos of couse except the crusader whores the disgusting revolting barbarians without whom they will be in jails for CRIMES against the humanity

  2. Fair what apology are you talking about?
    the author of the article says "specialist"
    so show us your "specialist credentials" all you have done is show a crass, pathetic racist zionist ideology and no expertise
    Let’s Search Together For Your Apology, Mrs. Clinton
     
    Pakistani journalist and television anchor Syed Talat Husain published an online column in Urdu today. The column provides an accurate translation of Mrs. Clinton's statement announcing reopening US military and NATO supply routes through Pakistan.  The US and Pakistani governments call this statement an apology for the deliberate US military massacre of 25 Pakistani soldiers at Salala border checkpoints on 26/11. Hussain asks a simple question: Show me the apology in this letter.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Human Verification: In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.