It has been three days since the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued an apology to her Pakistani counterpart for the November 26, 2011 Nato attack on a Pakistani military check-post in the tribal regions, which led to the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers. While the apology has led to the reopening of Nato supply routes to Afghanistan, it has also raised a plethora of questions and issues over Pakistan’s relationship with the US and how it will or will not change over the course of the coming months.
The decision to allow the resumption of supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan has come under severe criticism, which keeps on growing, from the opposition and religious parties. It has been, at the same time, hailed as a much-needed breakthrough in the deadlock with the world powers.
Prime Minister Raja Pervaiz Ashraf has insisted that the decision was taken “in the best interest” of the country, it is not clear if any major gains are to be achieved for Pakistan. As things stand, Pakistan will not be charging the US any fee barring the commercial costs of clearing and transporting the shipping containers. The PM also highlighted the importance of this decision in the light of the withdrawal of Nato and Isaf forces from Afghanistan and its ramifications on regional peace. However, there has been no apparent change in the Pak-US policy Vis-à-vis Afghanistan. Pakistan finds itself at risk with local Taliban (Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) as well as attacks and incursions from Afghan militants across the border. How will the renewed ties improve the security situation along the border?
Much furore has also been created over the wordings of the apology issued by Secretary Clinton. The use of the word ‘sorry’ for the second time in the statement comes where the US secretary says: “We are both sorry for losses suffered by both our countries in this fight against terrorists,” where ‘both’ refers to herself and Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. Some observers have been critical of Khar’s inclusion in the apology. How important, really, were the exact words of the statement? Will the apology go a long way in actually strengthening Pak-US ties? What will Pakistan gain from the mending of ways?
Dawn.com invites its readers to share their opinion and suggestions..
Calling Hillary Clinton’s words an apology may be ok for non English speakers. For any body that speaks English, it is obvious that it is the equivalent of any of us paying condolences and saying, “I’m sorry that your family member passed away.”
In fairness, it would be silly on the part of the US to issue an apology without Pakistan issuing a few dozen such apologies for the deaths of US soldiers at the hands of the Taliban that enjoy safe havens south of the Durand Line.
Pakistan is a new country. It doesn’t know how to do things that are absolutely necessary but lacks public or parliamentary support. There must be a way to do it. All countries face such situations from time to time.
I can’t foresee how US-Pak relations can really improve when 74% of the Pakistanis see the US as an enemy while only 59% see India as an enemy.
Ref: PEW Research Center Global Attitudes Project June 27th 2012
If it is so, then the responsibility lies squarely on US shoulders which in its arrogance has alienated Pakistani Populace.
a) FIRSTLY, there was NO APLOGY from the US side. The US ONLY said we are SORRY for the loss of lives. When asked to elaborate US State Dept. Spokeswoman Ms. Nuland said mistakes were made by BOTH SIDES and both US & Pak expressed sorry for the loss of lives……which literally means NOTHING!
b) US-Pak relations will ultimately depend on how far Pakistan is willing to help Afghanistan in the peace process and stop the attacks by the Haqqanis and others, especially given that the US draw-down is fast looming and after 10 years of bitter fighting & 1000’s of US & Nato lives lost, they will surely not want to leave the field open for the Taliban to recapture power.
Short of these steps all other talk of US-Pak bonhamie is mere fantasy and ONLY for public consumption.
Unfortunately, while Pakistan had a lot of real issues and bones to pick with the USA, it;s inability to handle either it’s own internal infighting cadres of politics, armed forces, intelligentsia, media and judiciary or the external world through good diplomatic abilities, made sure the sorry episode made the Pak nation a laughing stock. The wording agreed to by Khar and team certainly is a joke – not an apology, but “we did it together and are together sorry” message.
Bigger picture however was that Pakistan was able to publicly celebrate a moral victory and move on grudgingly and save face before reopening NATO routes – the reality is that the US badly needed the pakistani routes.
Hopefully going ahead they shall sort out their differences with more dignity and ensure the war on terror or on whatever they call it, is carried out quickly and the ACTUAL targets of this are hit and made to run as against the soap opera we saw. US has to use this gesture from Pakistan to try and improve their stock in Pakistan, where it is at an all time low, and actually, now the subcontinent trusts US even lesser than it did earlier – we all see the shabby treatment of Pakistan and the public fun they made of Pakistan as an example of how far US can go to meet it’s own ends.
this relationship has destroyed Pakistan over the years, the sorry in my opinion is useless. We are fighting someone elses war, we are losing money on defence, our people are dying because of the drone attacks, our tourist attraction places are a mess…..let me mention a line from an American Movie “US does not have friends it has interests”
What is that American saying? Democracies don’t go to war against each other? Unfortunately America has a patent on this saying and wouldn’t hesitate to attack any democracy if it suits it’s national security interests.
When the self-appointed Field Marshal Ayub Khan cosied up to the Americans he wrongly perceived some semblance of equality in relationship on the basis of quid pro quo. The Americans were looking for quick fixes to their grand global design of world domination. A disillusioned and remorseful Ayub Khan then summed up his experience in the title of his book ‘ Friends not Masters.’ Pakistan’s position has not changed since and the US perspective of other small nations ( be it in South America, Africa, Middle East) has not changed either. US dollars for unquestioned loyalty. Read any Congressman’s or Senators recent pronouncements towards Pakistan, Egypt or any other recipient of US aid.
Pakistan should be tieing knots with its neighbours for long term benefits for the country and its citizens. You can not have equal relations with a super power other than do its bidding. Tomorrow Pakistan will surely be involved in US proxy war against Iran (for sure) and other countries. Just see whose proxy war is Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar engaged in against Syria, Bahrain and Yemen. Pakistan should learn from its neighbour when Panetta had to leave India in a hurry. The message to Panetta was loud and clear ‘as friends – yes; as masters – never’
It is not the matter of saying “sorry” or “apology”. In fact, Pakistan should not compromise on its interests. It is barren excuse to say that we cannot face the anger of America and European countries. Pakistan needs to strengthen its internal position by resolving all sectarian conflicts going on in the country that they can respond democratically, by democratically i mean devising foreign policy that represent the entire nation. Pakistan should keep relations with other countries including US and India on equal basis. Those relations are fragile which are built on unequal grounds. It is neither in interest of America nor Pakistan to doge each other. They should establish and promote such sort of relations which are durable and everlasting.
Well put, Ranjan. Pakistan is in a big mess. Most memebers of the ruling class are perpetually worried about their remaing days in power and they are busy minting money by corruption. They are the product of the worst era of educational system in the history of the country. Unfortunately, they know only one thing and that is corruption. This is the main reason they are incapable of thinking about any solution or at least have a coherent national policy on any front. Individuals don’t make government it take a solid think tank to deal with issues of Hamaliya’s size. We can only hope for the best. Thank you for high lighting the issues. Regards
I have yet to read ‘apology’. Sorry isnt the same. Weaning Pakistan from the USA might initially be difficult
for both, but babies always grow up.
South Asia, especially Pak-Indo subcontinent had been the center of attention among the major powers from the very begining of medieval times. After the glorious Muslim rule, the French exploited the resources of this mineral riched land. Then came the British and fought with each other but eventually the charismatic leadership of our freedom heroes and the sick economic and military conditions of British forced them to retreat. Now its Americans turn since took the responsibility to further the mission left uncomplete by British. Thus, globally politicised this obscure region should be led intelligently and peacefully without contentious intentions in current alliance system where deteriorating relation with one means with all. We must blindly believe in the strategic competence of our policy makers that they are there defend our national interests at any cost.
You commentary sound incoherent in terms of ideas and also the facts. It seems that you have have just translated a chapter of some Urdu History book.
please rectify if the facts are altered
OK, let me pick my favorite nit!
“We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military”, said the Secretary of State. That’s an expression of sympathy, not an apology
“We are sorry for CAUSING the losses suffered by the Pakistani military.”? That’s an apology – but was not said by the Secretary of State.
How does the first quote translate into the second?
I also note that the SoS preceded the first quote with “Foreign Minister Khar and I acknowledged the mistakes that resulted in the loss of Pakistani military lives.”
So CAUSING the losses has been accepted by both countries as having been done jointly? No apology from either one was in order, then!
I’m glad both sides are satisfied with what they have given/received, though I do think the use of the English language, exclusively, has conferred an asymmetrical advantage to one of the parties.
But, no doubt, history will be written independently, and with traditional flexibility, by both sides, so future generations of scholars are well protected there!
“Love means never having to say you’re sorry” is a line from the novel and 1970 film Love Story starring Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal. The line was actually misspoken from the script, which read “Love means not ever having to say you’re sorry.” Long live love between USA and Pakistan
did Hillary say a clear sorry? – the answer is No.
It is sad that US couldnt issue a clear appology for the deaths of pak soldiers.
friends – dont do that to each other.
The US and Pakistan current relationship is easily comparable with the famous Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. There is a proverb goes with that treaty “England and Egypt are like a married old couple, they may quarrel,but they never break their bond”. The relationship between Pakistan and the US is almost same. Sometimes it is clear, most of the times it remains cloudy. As a matter of fact the whole relationship between the twos are based on useless and inefficient way!
US wants Pakistan to fight US war. Front line are Pakistani soldiers only who sacrifice their lives. Simply, US pays Pakistan to sacrifice its soldiers for the US war. I pay you and you finish the job. If US soldier dies, US has to pay a huge cost to the victims’ family. Contrary to this Pakistan’s soldier has a cheap blood and Pakistan’s government can easily get away by paying few hundred thousand rupees to the victim’s family. To fight this war, Pakistanis has the right to know and it is an obligation of Pakistan and US government to make clear to Pakistanis the aid or benefit Pakistan will get in return. Details of the meeting should go public. It is not clear what Pakistan will achieve. It is utterly not wise for Pakistan Army to fight the war alone. It must ask NATO and US soldiers to join this so called US war. I wonder if Hillary Clinton used the word “Apologize”. Sorry is just like you hit someone accidentally in the street and say “Sorry.”
History repeats itself over and over again. The relationship with Pakistan and USA is that of a Bad Husband and wife . The abuse that Pakistan can taken from USA, it just shows that USA will continue with it’s ill treatment. Pakistan needs a stability and growth. Most importantly needs to get away from the begging bowl for AID. Grow up to it’s responsibilities.
The problem with Pak-USA relationship is that both countries have different geo-political interests and employ various means to achieve these. Looking at the American past dealings with non- western allies, it becomes very clear that USA policies are very shortsighted and selfish. Besides, the element of mutual respect, care and local considerations are always missing from their considerations.
On top of this, USA looks at Pakistan only as a security partner and not as a long term friend, whose importance should go further than fighting the Taleban. Pakistan is very centrally placed in the the region, is an atomic power, the second largest Muslim country and a close ally of China. All in all, Pakistan does not need USA as much as peole would like to believe.
US and Pakistan relationships suffer because of the transactional nature of the relationship as opposed to values based relationship. By mending the ways, Pakistan stands to gain for increased trade, loans from IMF and one country who can help her rise out of the internal radicalization of society (China will not help Pakistan shut down fundamentalists but the US will). To make this work, Pakistan must have clear cut policies that reject fundamentalism and corruption and take the steps necessary for economic and social revival.
The “NO APPOLOGY” appology is not worth the cost of the phone call Hillary Clinton made to her Paksitani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar. The word appology was NEVER mentioned. It was the only way to get the Pakistanis out of the corner they had painted themselves in to in the mistaken notion of their self importance.
The whole world knew how this will end and it did (end) exactly as predicted. That said, it is good this unnecessary conflict ended. It may yet bring some good to the relationship between the two contries.
i think so,it is interest of the both countries to reopen the NATO routes on behalf of US apology about the killing of Pakistani soldiers in tribal areas last years.the Pakistan herself facing the problem of security owing to strong hold of TTP in tribal areas.secondly ,Pakistan and USA having common interest to deal with the Taliban in area.so, the neutral and stable Afghanistan is interest of the both countries Pakistan and Afghan .it is only way to retain the peace and prosperity in the region.
I am sorry but this ‘sorry’ reflects pakistan sorry state
What is an apology, anyway? For one party it is like saying that our relationship is more important than this apology; for the other party it is just a way to satisfy its ego; But it all depends on how much the parties concerned change after this apology. The truth s whether we mention it or not, some one reminds us or not, we must move on.