Yesterday’s apology by U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, may help to smooth over the dispute, but lasting damage may have been done to an already troubled relationship. Patterson expressed regret for the loss of life incurred when U.S. helicopters fired on a Pakistani military post.
The problem arose just one week ago, when NATO helicopters crossed over into Pakistan’s territory, in pursuit of suspected terrorists. A military post fired warning shots, in response to which the helicopters released missiles that destroyed the post. Pakistan has claimed that the attack resulted in the deaths of at least two of its security forces, while four others were injured.
As a result, Pakistan closed one of the major supply routes used by NATO trucks ferrying supplies into Pakistan. Torkham, the border crossing in eastern Afghanistan, remained shut for a seventh day, although both sides are predicting a rapid resolution to the problem.
Over the past week, more than 40 NATO fuel tankers have been torched in Pakistan, allegedly by Islamic fundamentalists intent on punishing NATO for the attacks.
Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan told reporters that the United States had a right to defend itself under rules of engagement agreed with Pakistan. But the current situation, according to Pakistan, did not fall into this category. Instead, Pakistan insists that the United States crossed a “red line” when it unleashed attacks against its personnel on Pakistani soil.The United States has been operating a widening program of drone strikes against terrorist networks based in Pakistan, but does not have troops on Pakistani soil.
“We have been silent for a long time about the drone strikes, but these helicopter attacks are a violation that cannot be tolerated,” said an unnamed official of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency (ISI), quoted by various news agencies.
Torkham is one of the major supply routes for NATO; hundreds of trucks cross the border daily, bringing fuel and other supplies to NATO troops.
Nevertheless, NATO insisted that its operations had not been affected by the closure, and tried to downplay the tensions that had precipitated the crisis.
NATO spokesman General Josef Blotz told the BBC that NATO was adequately supplied by its other routes, in the south and north of Afghanistan. The Torkham closure would not affect operations, he said.
Blotz added that NATO was working on resolving the problem.
“We have good cooperation with our Pakistani partners,” he said.
But tempers in Pakistan are running high, and it may take more than an apology to cool the ire of the people.
“The Torkham supply route will remain closed until the emotions of Pakistan’s citizens have calmed, and until we are sure that the supply route is secure,” said Abdul Basit, spokesman for Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry.
Basit emphasized that there was no definite deadline for the reopening the supply route.
The fuss over Torkham is only one of the major bones of contention between Pakistan and its NATO allies, particularly the United States.
Pakistan is considered an important partner in fight against terrorism, and reaps millions in assistance dollars yearly, to compensate it for its efforts.
Yet NATO has doubts about Pakistan’s commitment. More and more, the NATO allies regard Pakistan as part of the problem rather than the solution, with its support for the Taliban and other insurgent groups on Afghan soil.
On Wednesday, October 6, the White house released a report criticizing Pakistan’s lack of commitment in fighting terrorist networks that operate solely in Pakistan, such as the group under Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son, Sirajuddin, which is based in Paksitan’s largely lawless North Waziristan.
The report notes that from March to June, the Pakistani military "continued to avoid military engagements that would put it in direct conflict with Afghan Taliban or [al Qaeda] forces in North Waziristan. This is as much a political choice as it is a reflection of an under-resourced military prioritizing its targets."
U.S. President Barack Obama has long understood that Pakistan is the root of the problem, according to a new book by veteran reporter Bob Woodward.
“The cancer is in Pakistan,” Obama reportedly told a White House meeting in November, 2009.
Observers note that the U.S. forces are now accelerating their drone operations inside Pakistan. But this is unlikely to raise Pakistan’s enthusiasm for confronting the insurgent networks directly.
“Pakistan is playing a double game in the region,” said Noorulhaq Ulumi, a Parliamentarian and prominent military analyst. “It receives billions of dollars in the name of the fight against terrorism, but on the other hand it provides secret support and advice to the Taliban leadership. This is nothing new. Pakistan is making noise to deceive the international community. It muddies the waters and then fishes in them.”
Other analysts agree.
“Pakistan is under intense pressure from the international community to close down Taliban and al Qaeda networks,” said Brigadier General Abdul Hadi Khalid, former Deputy Interior Minister for Afghanistan. “The international community wants them to carry out large-scale operations against the enemy.”
According to Khalid, Pakistan is unable to respond sincerely to these demands. First of all, the Taliban and al Qaeda are by-products of Pakistan’s ISI, and Pakistan wants to gain military and financial benefits from the international community’s engagement in the region.
Second, Pakistan is trying to shore up its shaky internal politics, which have been harmed by its support for terrorist networks.
The drone strikes will undoubtedly continue, with Pakistan’s grudging cooperation. But direct attacks are likely to remain a step too far for Pakistan.
“We will defend our soil,” said Pakistan’s Information Minister, Qamar Zaman Kayra, speaking to reporters in Islamabad. “This will prove to be a major defeat for those violators who attack our sovereignty, whether they are NATO or someone else. In no way will we tolerate this. If need be, the entire nation will rise up and fight shoulder to shoulder alongside the army.”
