http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/pakistan-transit-deal/
And officials are increasingly skeptical that such a deal will be reached in a timely fashion, conceding that efforts to get the deal in place in time for President Zardari’s Chicago summit visit might not be realized. US officials are complaining about the money Pakistan wants to charge, and are still reluctant to apologize for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers in a November attack.
Face Down, Cash Up, Then Pakistan Lets in Our Trucks
- May 17, 2012 |
- 10:07 am |
- Categories: Af/Pak
If the U.S. wants to ship goods for the Afghanistan war through Pakistan again, it may cost $5,000 per container. Photo: U.S. Air Force
Washington believes it has a deal, finally, to reopen Pakistan’s resupply routes for the Afghanistan war, saving a bunch of cash. But not before its Pakistani frenemies drive the price up.
Pakistan wants a $5,000 fee on every shipping container that passes through what NATO calls the Ground Lines of Communication, or GLOCs, on its territory. The old fee? $0. But that was before a U.S. commando raid in November on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border left 24 Pakistani soldiers dead. (Never mind that a U.S. investigation found that the Pakistani troops fired on the Americans first and repeatedly.)
Islamabad shut its gates immediately afterward, and kept them shut. The U.S. and its allies adjusted, resupplying the war through air routes running from the Manas airbase in Kyrgyzstan. But that’s much, much more expensive: the Pentagon says the air route costs $15,800 per container, compared to $6,200 per container trucked through Pakistan.
And so Pakistan has leverage. The Pentagon has tried to limit that leverage as negotiations to reopen the GLOCs have ground on, refusing to disclose exactly how much the GLOC closure has cost taxpayers, or even how many containers actually pass through Manas. (NBC’s Richard Engel reported on The Rachel Maddow Show on Wednesday that Pakistan’s fee will amount to $1 million per day from the United States — plus another $1.1 billion for “services rendered” in the 10-year war.) But that can only mitigate Pakistan’s leverage, not eliminate it. A $5,000 container fee will still be less than what it costs to ship through Manas.
You cannot hate the player here. Pakistan has something the U.S. wants: cheaper resupply for the war. And it has its own needs: simply reopening the route like nothing happened in November would be politically unacceptable; to say nothing of straight-up dumb. And the U.S. still operates its drone war over Pakistan, so Islamabad can always play that card, too.
If you want to hate, hate the game. The U.S. has given Pakistan something like $15 billion worth of mostly-military aid since the Afghanistan war began — sometimes literally in cash — and as long as the war grinds on, Pakistan has every incentive to keep its hand out.
The Washington Post reports that Pakistan’s desired $5,000 container fee “has been difficult for the Pentagon to swallow.” Get ready to swallow. Next week is NATO’s big summit on Afghanistan, occurring in Chicago — which, by the most astonishing of coincidences, is the home base of President Obama’s reelection campaign. Pakistan is invited and will attend. The cost for the show of unity on the war that the U.S. — and the Obama campaign — wants is the fee for the GLOCs that Pakistan will impose.
Maybe U.S. negotiators will get Pakistan to bring the fee down before the summit. Maybe they won’t. But it’s just another cost of doing business for a decade-long war that is increasingly dependent on the interests of the unreliable ally next door.
and....
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/18/nato-trucks-cross-pakistan-border-but-final-deal-elusive/
NATO Trucks Cross Pakistan Border, But Final Deal Elusive
Pakistani Opposition Slams Move to Reopen Border
by Jason Ditz, May 18, 2012
The first supplies to exit Pakistan for Afghanistan in months crossed the border today, coming in the form of four trucks full of “office supplies” for the occupation forces.Despite the crossing, a formal deal to reopen the border has not been signed.
And officials are increasingly skeptical that such a deal will be reached in a timely fashion, conceding that efforts to get the deal in place in time for President Zardari’s Chicago summit visit might not be realized. US officials are complaining about the money Pakistan wants to charge, and are still reluctant to apologize for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers in a November attack.
The sudden resolution of the border closure, the lack of a final deal notwithstanding, seems to have been almost exclusively centered around Zardari’s desire to be invited to the summit. NATO had previously insisted he was not welcome so long as the border was closed.
The move is not sitting well with Pakistan’s opposition, which is condemning the decision to reopen the border, despite the government failing to get anything that it wanted except for a single summit invite, as an embarrassing failure.
and....
http://news.antiwar.com/2012/05/18/hollande-french-troops-to-leave-afghanistan-by-years-end/
Hollande: French Troops to Leave Afghanistan by Year’s End
White House Meeting Doesn't Change Promised Pullout
by Jason Ditz, May 18, 2012
Speaking today in the wake of a high profile White House meeting, newly elected French President Francois Hollande insisted that his campaign promise to withdraw from Afghanistan had not changed.
Francois Hollande
“I reminded President Obama of the commitment that I made to the French people – the withdrawal of combat troops between now and the end of 2012,” Hollande said. Hollande defeated Nicolas Sarkozy in a run-off vote.
Obama, sitting next to Hollande during the comments, said that the two agreed on a “long-term” commitment to Afghanistan. France, as with the rest of NATO, is planning on funding Afghanistan’s massive military more or less forever.
But throwing money at Afghanistan and participating militarily in the occupation are two different things, and while both France and the US have seen polls showing overwhelming popular opposition to the occupation, France will be out at the end of the year. The US, by contrast, has a deal to keep troops in the country through at least 2024.
and....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/un-urges-participants-at-nato-summit-to-provide-massive-long-term-support-for-afghan-forces/2012/05/18/gIQAT1kdYU_print.html
UN urges participants at NATO summit to provide massive long-term support for Afghan forces
By Associated Press,
UNITED NATIONS — The United Nations has been urging participants at this weekend’s NATO summit to provide “predictable, massive, long-term support” for Afghanistan’s security forces to promote stability and ensure that the country is never again a base for international terrorism, the U.N. envoy to Afghanistan said Friday.
In the run-up to the summit in Chicago, the U.N. has been sending “a very strong message” to countries that are — and are not — part of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan that the heavy investment of the last 10 years, including thousands killed, must not be lost, Jan Kubis said in an interview with The Associated Press.
Ahead of the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan in 2014, Kubis said, the NATO summit should deliver “a clear commitment of individual countries” — not just general political pledges — to contribute as much as possible toward the $4.1 billion annual goal for the Afghan security forces for many years to come.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said he estimates that Afghanistan will need $4.1 billion annually to run its security services, of which it could pay $500 million itself and possibly more as its economy strengthens. Kubis said the figure was reached at a meeting co-chaired by the government and the U.N.
Unless there is significant financial support for Afghanistan, Kubis said, “we might face a nasty situation once again, so it’s a common strategic interest of all of us.”
Kubis, who will be accompanying U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to Chicago, said support must also come from regional countries that will be meeting in Kabul on June 14 to discuss confidence-building measures in combatting terrorism, the narcotics trade and promoting investment. Pakistan, China and Iran will attend, he said.
“Afghanistan will be firm and stand firm and stable only if there is support from regional countries,” he said.
Kubis said Ban will also assure summit participants that U.N. is prepared to continue its programs to help Afghanistan move towards democracy and to channel support for Afghan security forces, notably the police.
Asked whether whether the transition from international to Afghan-led security forces is taking place too quickly, Kubis said “it’s for Afghanistan to determine.”
He said “there are always risks and anxieties” when an international force leaves, but “I would say that’s a natural development.”
Despite the anxiety in Afghan society, he said the 2014 pullout will means “they have full responsibility for the future of the country and that is always a healthy process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment