- House passes VA reform compromise
- Obama admin to blame for HealthCare.gov woes, $840M cost: GAO
- Al Gore’s climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Army’s 3-D printed bombs will create ‘a whole new universe’ of deadly capabilities
- Hamas calls on Hezbollah to join in fight against Israel
- Senators to FIFA, others: Don’t reward Putin with the World Cup in 2018
- U.S. condemns Israeli shelling of shelter in Gaza
- Obamacare shoots premiums up by 88 percent in California
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
New U.S. leverage seen in talks with Pakistan
Question of the Day
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — The U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in November. Prior to the attack, the U.S. and other NATO countries shipped about 30 percent of their nonlethal 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 U.S. and leverage over Pakistan, especially against those who said the U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. airstrikes that killed the 24 Pakistani soldiers at two Afghan border posts in November brought outrage in Pakistan. The U.S. military has said the attack was an accident, but the Pakistani army has claimed it was deliberate.
TWT Video Picks
Exchanges reveal an ugly American abroad out to bring down conservatives
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Al Gore's climate-changers at EPA hearings foiled by cool temperatures
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- House unveils bill to speed deportations of illegal immigrant children
- HURT: Impeaching Obama is a losing strategy for the GOP
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- House votes to sue President Obama over claims of presidential power
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world