No Plan ‘B’ to replace US official apology

Ikram Ullah Khan

Pakistan blocked the NATO supply into Afghanistan after the unprovoked Salala check post incident on Nov.26, 2011. This action was followed by the many “emotional” statements by Pakistani leaders. Shamsi air base evacuated, Envoy Conference was called to review the Foreign Policy of Pakistan.
The same sentiments were expressed in the recommendations set by the participants of the conference. government, parliament, coalition partners, opposition, and almost all relevant sectors emphasized that U.S has to kneel down in front of Pakistan and must officially apologized over the Nov.26 “NATO” attack.
The key prerequisite was set by Pakistan, a formal U.S apology to resume the NATO supply with other important prerequisites. But more or less six months have passed U.S is not ready to apologize. Simultaneously it is almost, the end, of Pakistan capacity to withstand on its decision.
Nov. 26 attack was launched by NATO forces, but we only demanded U.S apology and now after six month crisis, Pakistani government is changing its stance, as PM Gilani said “it is the matter of 48 countries not only U.S”.
The real question arises that at what time it was only the matter of one and all other NATO / ISAF members have no liability of this matter. Gilani is tacking this stance just after the failure of his government policy to cope with the crisis emerged after Nov. 26 attack.
Surely , PM and all other respectable policymakers of Pakistan were aware of this fact that the blockade of NATO supply will not only hurt U.S forces stationed in Afghanistan but NATO forces would also face the difficulties in this situation. And they should be, because NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan are equally responsible for the martyrdom of 24 innocent Pakistani soldiers.
So Pakistan did right, the action was good, but something went wrong, its leadership targeted U.S through emotional public statements and they didn’t consider liable the “NATO” as a whole. The purpose of emotional public statements could be to cool down the anger which was on its apogee at that time but it left an impression that the U.S is not our friend but it could be termed as a “foe”.
So any country which is U.S partner to launch Salala check post attack, it has to bear the same treatment for a time being. In fact Pakistan didn’t calculate the tremendous political pressure; it has to face in future, if it continues to block the NATO supply for indefinite time period. In fact the same thing happened for which Pakistan policymakers seemed oblivious, as an extensive political and diplomatic pressure is coming on Pakistan.  This is the reason, now our governmental position is that “Pakistan could not afford a confrontation with NATO nor could supplies be suspended indefinitely”.
All right, it is a reasonable statement and it is true also, but then what was the need to confront with U.S led NATO forces on the condition of U.S apology. Have you thought for once that if U.S does not issue a formal apology then what would be the “Plan B”?  A possible purpose of this pointless exercise has been given by Pakistan Foreign Minister, she had said that “Pakistan has made a point and now we can move on,”.
Not at all, it wasn’t a point game; it was a matter of Pakistan’s sovereignty and this matter yet has to resolve. U.S Drones are still violating Pakistan sovereignty. Moreover no formal assurance has been confirmed by U.S or NATO that incident like Nov.26 attack will not happen in future.
Further more, no positive outcome for Pakistan by any means but Prime Minister Gilani has already intended to open the NATO supply. His pre-DCC meeting statements and suggestion to resume the NATO supply left no real option for the DCC members except to endorse his suggestion.
The Ministers of his Cabinet will not go against his suggestion and military leadership can’t take a strict stance against the decision of political leadership, even if it wants to go against the suggestion/decision. Mainly because of two reasons, one that if military leadership does not agree with political leadership then it has to face the criticism that army is not ready to work under civilian control. Secondly, Western world could boost its propaganda that the unnecessary opposition by Pakistan army for the resumption of NATO supply is an effort to strengthen the Afghan Taliban led insurgency inside Afghanistan.
The aforementioned statement seems an act of negligence but meanwhile it appears an intentional effort to make “a point” in front of world’s power to safeguard his convicted prime ministership.
Every loyal citizen of Pakistan either civilian or army person wants democratic rule in Pakistan and has willingness to strengthen the democratic values in the country. But it is the responsibility of elected representatives of the government not to disappoint the populace and only serve the nation to achieve national interest rather than for personal interests.
Political leadership has to realize the difference between the public and policy speech. It should always keep its door open for every one either for any person or for a country. It should not associate the state affairs with any single issue without realizing its consequences and with flexibility to modify the declared stance, if it becomes compulsory.
It is too odd that you consider U.S liable for NATO attacks and block the NATO supply mainly on a single condition “a formal U.S apology”. Definitely Pakistani nation was furious after Nov. 26 attack but it was the responsibility of the leadership to channel this anger through political process in the country.
But it never happens and the leadership launched an unnecessary and preventable anti-U.S campaign in the public through emotional statements that U.S has to apologize. Interestingly there is not a single statement that if U.S does not issue an official apology then we will consider the “Plan B” i.e. huge amount of blood money for martyrs of Salala check post incident, reimbursement for the infrastructure damage. Moreover, Western partners should establish a welfare trust for the families of all those people those have sacrificed their lives for the success of Global War on Terror and much more for the socio-economic development of Pakistan.
Russia has a deep rooted enmity with U.S and despite of this Russian leadership exploited the weaknesses of U.S with intellectual wisdom. Russia has got financial and political objectives including its entry into WTO by allowing U.S to continue NATO supply through Northern Distribution Network.
Russians have achieved their desired objectives and Pakistan was in a position to achieve its desirous objectives if it had not publicized the matter in a manner which explore the U.S weaknesses in the eyes of its public and among its global partners.
If in contemporary environment Pakistan drops its stance over the unconditional U.S apology then it would be its loss of face, dignity and respect among the international community. Our leadership has no alternative policy to preserve the dignity of Pakistan due to its emotional statements to gain political leverage in domestic politics.
The decision to resume the NATO supply will trigger turbulence in the country as government remained unable to achieve its declared promises over this matter.
Pakistan cannot afford such situation in the light of forthcoming budget and due to the continuous rapid decline in its economic condition. So, in this context, now even you have decided to resume the non-lethal NATO supply then it would be better that negotiate a written agreement through the mediation and with the guarantees of common friends present in NATO / ISAF. US has to stop its unlawful drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas in the respect of Pakistan sovereignty and dignity.
The other issue is the release of a fair-minded reimbursement fund for the infrastructure loss of Pakistan which happened due to the commencement of NATO supply through Pakistani land routes to support the Global War on Terror.
Certainly Pakistan would accept the economic aid offers by U.S and other NATO members but it would be better option along with this financial support, now our political leadership, make sure that at least U.S. or NATO headquarters should issue a formal apology to the families of martyrs of Nov. 26 NATO attack.

Pakistan blocked the NATO supply into Afghanistan after the unprovoked Salala check post incident on Nov.26, 2011. This action was followed by the many “emotional” statements by Pakistani leaders. Shamsi air base evacuated, Envoy Conference was called to review the Foreign Policy of Pakistan.The same sentiments were expressed in the recommendations set by the participants of the conference. government, parliament, coalition partners, opposition, and almost all relevant sectors emphasized that U.S has to kneel down in front of Pakistan and must officially apologized over the Nov.26 “NATO” attack.  The key prerequisite was set by Pakistan, a formal U.S apology to resume the NATO supply with other important prerequisites. But more or less six months have passed U.S is not ready to apologize. Simultaneously it is almost, the end, of Pakistan capacity to withstand on its decision. Nov. 26 attack was launched by NATO forces, but we only demanded U.S apology and now after six month crisis, Pakistani government is changing its stance, as PM Gilani said “it is the matter of 48 countries not only U.S”.  The real question arises that at what time it was only the matter of one and all other NATO / ISAF members have no liability of this matter. Gilani is tacking this stance just after the failure of his government policy to cope with the crisis emerged after Nov. 26 attack. Surely , PM and all other respectable policymakers of Pakistan were aware of this fact that the blockade of NATO supply will not only hurt U.S forces stationed in Afghanistan but NATO forces would also face the difficulties in this situation. And they should be, because NATO forces stationed in Afghanistan are equally responsible for the martyrdom of 24 innocent Pakistani soldiers.   So Pakistan did right, the action was good, but something went wrong, its leadership targeted U.S through emotional public statements and they didn’t consider liable the “NATO” as a whole. The purpose of emotional public statements could be to cool down the anger which was on its apogee at that time but it left an impression that the U.S is not our friend but it could be termed as a “foe”.  So any country which is U.S partner to launch Salala check post attack, it has to bear the same treatment for a time being. In fact Pakistan didn’t calculate the tremendous political pressure; it has to face in future, if it continues to block the NATO supply for indefinite time period. In fact the same thing happened for which Pakistan policymakers seemed oblivious, as an extensive political and diplomatic pressure is coming on Pakistan.  This is the reason, now our governmental position is that “Pakistan could not afford a confrontation with NATO nor could supplies be suspended indefinitely”. All right, it is a reasonable statement and it is true also, but then what was the need to confront with U.S led NATO forces on the condition of U.S apology. Have you thought for once that if U.S does not issue a formal apology then what would be the “Plan B”?  A possible purpose of this pointless exercise has been given by Pakistan Foreign Minister, she had said that “Pakistan has made a point and now we can move on,”. Not at all, it wasn’t a point game; it was a matter of Pakistan’s sovereignty and this matter yet has to resolve. U.S Drones are still violating Pakistan sovereignty. Moreover no formal assurance has been confirmed by U.S or NATO that incident like Nov.26 attack will not happen in future. Further more, no positive outcome for Pakistan by any means but Prime Minister Gilani has already intended to open the NATO supply. His pre-DCC meeting statements and suggestion to resume the NATO supply left no real option for the DCC members except to endorse his suggestion. The Ministers of his Cabinet will not go against his suggestion and military leadership can’t take a strict stance against the decision of political leadership, even if it wants to go against the suggestion/decision. Mainly because of two reasons, one that if military leadership does not agree with political leadership then it has to face the criticism that army is not ready to work under civilian control. Secondly, Western world could boost its propaganda that the unnecessary opposition by Pakistan army for the resumption of NATO supply is an effort to strengthen the Afghan Taliban led insurgency inside Afghanistan. The aforementioned statement seems an act of negligence but meanwhile it appears an intentional effort to make “a point” in front of world’s power to safeguard his convicted prime ministership.   Every loyal citizen of Pakistan either civilian or army person wants democratic rule in Pakistan and has willingness to strengthen the democratic values in the country. But it is the responsibility of elected representatives of the government not to disappoint the populace and only serve the nation to achieve national interest rather than for personal interests. Political leadership has to realize the difference between the public and policy speech. It should always keep its door open for every one either for any person or for a country. It should not associate the state affairs with any single issue without realizing its consequences and with flexibility to modify the declared stance, if it becomes compulsory. It is too odd that you consider U.S liable for NATO attacks and block the NATO supply mainly on a single condition “a formal U.S apology”. Definitely Pakistani nation was furious after Nov. 26 attack but it was the responsibility of the leadership to channel this anger through political process in the country.But it never happens and the leadership launched an unnecessary and preventable anti-U.S campaign in the public through emotional statements that U.S has to apologize. Interestingly there is not a single statement that if U.S does not issue an official apology then we will consider the “Plan B” i.e. huge amount of blood money for martyrs of Salala check post incident, reimbursement for the infrastructure damage. Moreover, Western partners should establish a welfare trust for the families of all those people those have sacrificed their lives for the success of Global War on Terror and much more for the socio-economic development of Pakistan. Russia has a deep rooted enmity with U.S and despite of this Russian leadership exploited the weaknesses of U.S with intellectual wisdom. Russia has got financial and political objectives including its entry into WTO by allowing U.S to continue NATO supply through Northern Distribution Network.  Russians have achieved their desired objectives and Pakistan was in a position to achieve its desirous objectives if it had not publicized the matter in a manner which explore the U.S weaknesses in the eyes of its public and among its global partners.If in contemporary environment Pakistan drops its stance over the unconditional U.S apology then it would be its loss of face, dignity and respect among the international community. Our leadership has no alternative policy to preserve the dignity of Pakistan due to its emotional statements to gain political leverage in domestic politics. The decision to resume the NATO supply will trigger turbulence in the country as government remained unable to achieve its declared promises over this matter. Pakistan cannot afford such situation in the light of forthcoming budget and due to the continuous rapid decline in its economic condition. So, in this context, now even you have decided to resume the non-lethal NATO supply then it would be better that negotiate a written agreement through the mediation and with the guarantees of common friends present in NATO / ISAF. US has to stop its unlawful drone attacks on Pakistan’s tribal areas in the respect of Pakistan sovereignty and dignity. The other issue is the release of a fair-minded reimbursement fund for the infrastructure loss of Pakistan which happened due to the commencement of NATO supply through Pakistani land routes to support the Global War on Terror. Certainly Pakistan would accept the economic aid offers by U.S and other NATO members but it would be better option along with this financial support, now our political leadership, make sure that at least U.S. or NATO headquarters should issue a formal apology to the families of martyrs of Nov. 26 NATO attack.