Karachi Airport, 2008. Photo by plasticshore.
Four million childrens' textbooks destined for Afghanistan schools stuck at the Karachi airport -- that's just one of the problems created by the closure of the Northern Distribution Network, the distribution route for supplying NATO troops in Afghanistan, as we learn from today's press briefing at the State Department. After a series of altercations with the US, including Pakistani outrage that they weren't clued in to the raid on Osama bin Ladn on their territory, and after 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed by US troops in a raid, Pakistan refused to allow transit through their land to Afghanistan, idling hundreds of trucks and holding uploads all over.
Recently when the Pakistani lawyer Shahzad Akbar was here in New York speaking on behalf of his clients, victims of US drone attacks, I asked him why he thought the US wasn't apologizing, and why the US apology of "regret" wasn't enough. I was among the people in the audience asking whether in fact we were at war with Pakistan. Of course we aren't, formally, but then, lots of wars happen that aren't formally declared or supported by Congress. There is this fiction always around Pakistan that they are allies in the war on terrorism, get their intelligence people are always helping the Taliban, or their own franchised Taliban -- which is why the US didn't trust them with logistical information about the bin Ladn raid.
Now, this strike against the 24 was in my mind's eye, after only reading the newspapers like anyone else, was an example of "an accident" or perhaps "friendly fire". If it *were* friendly fire, however, why couldn't we apologize more profusely? After all, we apologize profusely for far less, like accidently burning the Koran or allowing a soldier with a history of violence to be overdeployed a few too many times to kill a dozen villagers on a rampage.
I've wondered about this. Was there more to it with the incident itself or the relationship with the Pakistanis?
Akbar simply pointed out that the attack was by helicopters, not drones, and lasted two-and-a-half hours. You have to wonder how something that lasted two-and-a-half hours was "accidental". And that even if you got accidental targeting data about supposed militants on the border that were in fact Pakistani soldiers, how could you keep shooting and killing for two-and-a-half hours without somebody finally reaching you and telling you to knock it off, it was the wrong people?
But we are not apologizing, possibly because this was a firefight with a unit that we believed was on the wrong side..or something...and because we're not apologizing, we're not inviting the Pakistanis to the NATO summit...and because we're not inviting them they aren't opening up the NDN, after there were a number of reports that they were relenting on this, and we were going to pay them now a lot of money, which they realized they needed now.
Another thing that puzzles me is why famed Twittering defense analyst Joshua Foust writes "Dear NATO: excluding Pakistan and Iran from a summit about Afghanistan's future is not a smart decision."
Well, they won't re-open the NDN? What's a military alliance to do? Why would they invite them to their summit, which is about the future of NATO, really, not so much the future of Afghanistan? They're leaving Afghanistan. If Pakistan is not interested in helping NATO leave, and is interested in making it as costly for NATO as possible, what cooperation can they expect from the US?
Here's the text of the news conference:
QUESTION: Do you have any updates on the status of the discussions with the Pakistanis over the reopening of the transit – of the supply routes? The foreign – the Pakistani foreign minister said this morning that they think that they have made their point now with the shutoff of the routes, and – which many are taking to be a suggestion that they’re about ready to allow you guys to start using them again. What is the status of that? And is there any update on whether they will be going to Chicago or not?
MS. NULAND: Our team is still in Islamabad working on the land route issue. My understanding this morning is that they have made considerable progress, but they are still working. They are not yet finished with the Pakistanis. I don’t have any further update from what we said on Friday with regard to an invitation to Pakistan from NATO for the summit in Chicago. You heard what Secretary General Rasmussen had to say, but I don’t have anything further.
QUESTION: And then just on – well, on the talks, who is – who’s got the lead on this? Is it you or is it the Pentagon?
MS. NULAND: My understanding is that --
QUESTION: And so when you’re saying “our team,” who is that?
MS. NULAND: -- is that it’s an interagency team I believe the State Department is leading. It’s at a technical level, but let me get that for you, Matt.
QUESTION: Is --
QUESTION: Still on Pakistan?
QUESTION: Just to follow up?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Is Pakistan – during those meetings there, is Pakistan attaching any sort of preconditions before they’re able to open these routes, like levying new taxes or something like that?
MS. NULAND: Well, again, I’m not going to get into the substance of the discussion, but we’re having a full review with the Government of Pakistan on how this transit system works, and all of the issues are on the table in that context.
QUESTION: And how important is that to the invitation about the – Chicago summit?
MS. NULAND: Well, I think you heard what Secretary General Rasmussen said. He didn’t make a direct link. He did say, however, that this is something that we want to resolve, that we think is important to resolve, and it’s important for support for Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Okay. And lastly, Foreign Minister Khar this morning said that there will be problems for Pakistan if land routes are not reopened. So has something been conveyed by that interagency team or the U.S. Administration to Pakistan during those meetings or otherwise to prompt that kind of a statement?
MS. NULAND: Well, I haven’t seen her statement, but I think you know this is an issue that we’ve been working on for a long time, that it’s an issue that is something that we’ve tried to cooperate with Pakistan on for a long time. The Secretary and Foreign Minister Khar spoke – I think it was a couple of days before Ambassador Grossman traveled to Islamabad to kick off the whole reengagement strategy. And it was in that context that we began the formal negotiations on the GLOCs [Ground Lines of Communication]. So it’s good news if Foreign Minister Khar is making positive statements about the importance of this for Pakistan, for Pakistan’s relationship with Afghanistan, for their relationship with us. But as I said, we haven’t yet completed the negotiations.
QUESTION: Just to follow up with this?
MS. NULAND: Yes.
QUESTION: At the same time, she also said, and also the prime minister of Pakistan, that before doors are opened, certain demands must be met by the U.S., which were given beforehand. Is there any comments? Or what are those demands? Or is U.S. ready to move forward?
MS. NULAND: Well again, I think I said here that there is a full discussion underway about all aspects of this, but we haven’t yet come to a conclusion on all the pieces.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can I ask you --
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- something different one – related to Pakistan. Do you have any comments or any information that former Pakistan ambassador to U.S., Mr. Haqqani, he’s seeking U.S. citizenship or maybe he has applied for the U.S. citizenship?
MS. NULAND: I don’t have any information on that. But that, in any event, would be a question for the Department of Homeland Security.
QUESTION: Just going back to the negotiations for a second?
QUESTION: Pakistan --
MS. NULAND: No – yeah.
QUESTION: The interagency – one of the demands – that the Pakistanis have had for a long time before they would reopen this was an apology for the – full-on, not this kind of half apology regrets that this and previous administrations are so fond of using. Do you know if the team that’s there is – do they have the power or authority to apologize on behalf of the United States if that is indeed a Pakistani demand to reopen the supply lines? Or is that issue, as far as you’re concerned, done?
MS. NULAND: Well, the team that’s working on this is a technical team. They are looking at the issues of how you move things from here to there and what the terms for moving them are.
QUESTION: Okay. So they couldn’t – they wouldn’t be in a position to offer an apology if you just --
MS. NULAND: That question is outside their purview. But I think as --
QUESTION: But in – so, okay. Regardless of whether it’s outside or inside their purview, and you’re saying it’s outside, but is that issue for the United States done now? Is that – that’s over?
MS. NULAND: I think we’ve said that we very much regret this incident and we want to move forward and we want to reengage.
Hello, Nicole.
QUESTION: Pakistan?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Last week, students and parents of Afghanistan urged the Government of Pakistan to – as you know, 4 million textbooks of Afghanistan are lying stranded at the Karachi airport after those routes were closed following November 26th incident. This issue has been taken up by the Afghan president himself at the highest level, but nothing has made – nothing – new progress has been made so far. Are you aware of the issue, and why the children of Afghanistan are suffering through no fault of theirs?
MS. NULAND: I wasn’t aware of this issue, but it makes sense in the context of the land routes being closed. And it speaks to the larger issue that it’s not just about support for the ISAF mission; it’s about support for Afghanistan in general, and in this case the children of Afghanistan.
QUESTION: Staying on Afghanistan?
MS. NULAND: Please.
QUESTION: Any comment on the --
QUESTION: Has the U.S. taken up this issue with the Pakistani authorities?
MS. NULAND: On the particular issue of the textbooks, I don’t have any information. But as I said, we are working very hard on the land routes.
Yeah.
QUESTION: As you’re aware, an Afghan peace negotiator was killed over the weekend. Any comment on that? And what does it say about your strategy of Afghan-led talks to try to find a political end to the conflict?
MS. NULAND: Arshad, I think the White House actually issued a statement on this issue on Saturday or on Sunday. But let me just reiterate here that the United States strongly condemns the assassination of Afghan High Peace Council member Arsala Rahmani. The High Peace Council has been working for a durable and long-term peace in Afghanistan, and those who attack members of the Peace Council are out of step with the Afghan people.
With regard to the larger question of our efforts to try to foster an Afghan-Afghan process of reconciliation, we remain committed to trying. It’s the Afghan – it’s the Taliban who have put a pause on the talks, as Ambassador Grossman and others have made clear.
