Posted on 07/04/2012 5:03:03 PM PDT by Jyotishi
How US apologised to Pak without uttering A-word?
By S. Rajagopalan
The Pioneer
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Washington - Was it an "apology" that Islamabad insisted upon all along, or just a
"sorry", along with an iteration of "our deepest regrets" for the NATO airstrike that
killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November?
It being the run-up to a tough election, the Obama Administration could not have tendered
an explicit apology and handed the Republicans another stick to beat it with. The
Administration is clearly relieved that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has
successfully done the balancing act with an artfully-worded statement, mouthing the S-
word, instead of the A-word.
As it turns out, Clinton's statement took several weeks of working on drafts that included
a discussion of the precise language with her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar, to
ensure that the formulation is mutually acceptable. "This was jointly done," an official
told The New York Times.
Asked if it would be fair to consider this an apology, State Department spokeswoman
Victoria Nuland said she would not parse the words used by Clinton, adding: "The statement
speaks for itself, the words are all there, and I'm not going to improve on it here."
At one point, Nuland noted that both sides were sorry, saying: "As the statement makes
clear, there were mistakes made on both sides that led to the tragic loss of life, and we
are both sorry for those."
Officials have indicated that both sides stand to gain by ending the seven-month standoff,
which cost NATO forces an additional $100 million per month to ferry the supplies through
the alternative Central Asia route.
While lifting the blockade, Pakistan has also agreed to drop its demand for a 20-fold
increase in transit fee to $5,000 for each truck carrying NATO supplies through its
territory to Afghanistan. Instead, it will continue to collect $250 per truck.
The Obama Administration, in turn, will ask US Congress to reimburse Pakistan about $1.2
billion for costs incurred by 150,000 Pakistani troops carrying out counter-insurgency
operations along the border with Afghanistan.
Although the blockade issue is finally out of the way, noted South Asia expert Lisa Curtis
believes the apology deal is just incidental to the real issue at stake in US-Pakistan
relations. The deal "does not address the fundamental problem of continuing Pakistani
support for the Taliban and Haqqani network that are killing US and coalition forces on a
daily basis in Afghanistan", she said.
"Pakistan has never explained - let alone apologised - for its lack of action against the
enemies of the US that find sanctuary on its soil," said Curtis, noting that the US and
Pakistan are striving for different outcomes in Afghanistan.
She believes that Pakistan is focused on ensuring that a regime friendly to it emerges in
Afghanistan, with the possible inclusion of elements aligned with Al Qaeda, whereas the US
cannot afford to allow the Taliban to regain influence.
"Until Pakistan aligns its goals more closely with those of the US and NATO in Afghanistan
and confronts the Taliban and Haqqani networks inside Pakistan, tensions between the US
and Pakistan will persist," Curtis commented.
Let me guess; it started with a $-sign and ended with a $-sign?
I’ve got a word or two for Pahkeestahn, but neither start with an ‘A’...
Yup, the Pakis have been sucking $$$ out of US taxpayers’ pockets for decades.
FUP!
Yes and where’s Pakistan’s apology for 9/11?
Please see:
U.S.: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia aided al-Qaida
Oakland Tribune | 6/20/04 | Josh Meyer
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157081/posts
an apology means a payoff - how much this time??
> an apology means a payoff - how much this time??
From the article:
While lifting the blockade, Pakistan has also agreed to
drop its demand for a 20-fold increase in transit fee to
$5,000 for each truck carrying NATO supplies through its
territory to Afghanistan. Instead, it will continue to
collect $250 per truck.
The Obama Administration, in turn, will ask US Congress
to reimburse Pakistan about $1.2 billion for costs
incurred by 150,000 Pakistani troops carrying out
counter-insurgency operations along the border with
Afghanistan.
1.2 Billion dollars is the downpayment, with more to follow.
these people usually want their money up front, not after the fact.
Apology is not the a-word that comes first to mind when somebody says Pakistan.
An apology without the dough is an empty apology and even Pakistan will not stand up for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.