| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Inside the US 'Apology' to Pakistan |
| 2012-07-06 |
| U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "sorry" to Pakistan Tuesday and announced that Pakistan would resume allowing U.S. military goods to flow through its border with Afghanistan, but her near-apology was only one piece in a much larger set of moving parts in the effort to restore some normalcy to the troubled U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Tuesday's announcement came after months of protracted and often excruciating negotiations between the two governments. The internal U.S. process that led to today's remarks by Clinton was extensive -- and rocky at times. Three administration sources confirmed that between December and early spring, the National Security Council convened at least 8 separate high-level meetings to debate the apology, and ultimately, the White House earlier this year decided to issue one. The Pakistani government in early Spring asked the White House not to issue the apology because the Pakistani parliament was in the middle of its comprehensive review of the bilateral relationship. Then, following [Pakistan-based Haqqani network's] deadly attacks in Kabul on NATO forces in April, the White House took the apology off the table. That's why Tuesday's comments by Clinton came as a huge surprise to many Pakistan-watchers. But experts saw in her comments a careful dance that the administration thinks represents a compromise, because Clinton never actually said the word "apology" or "apologize." Asked directly at today's press briefing if the "sorry" comment constituted an "apology," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland wouldn't say that it did. In conjunction with Tuesday's announcement, the Obama administration has agreed to hand over about $1.2 billion to the Pakistanis in Coalition Support Funds (CSF) that were owed but delayed as part of the overall unhappiness between the two governments, two administration sources confirmed. Pakistan, which views the funds as reimbursements the United Sates agreed to pay in exchange for Pakistan's help in fighting the war on terror, argues that America owes it a larger sum. The deal may not stop there. Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, warned that the relationship is still very fragile and that any number of things could send it spiraling downward once again, including a clumsy drone strike, a U.S. troop incursion into Pakistan, or another attack on NATO forces by Pakistan-based militants. "This is only a Band Aid for this relationship. Any number of new crises or recurring crises is likely to trigger another round of recrimination," he said. "'Sorry' was the hardest word, but it's a bit too early to celebrate. We're not yet out of the woods." Lord Elphinstone was unavailable for comment. |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #3 The people killed in that strike were firing on US troops. The incoming fire was pin pointed. The resulting strike silenced the fire. Turned out the shooters were Pakistani troops. And Hildebeast is apologizing for taking out those responsible for shooting at Americans. Never forget that! |
| Posted by: Chomoting Thud4721 2012-07-06 18:39 |
| #2 They let us know their true intentions, drop them like a bad habit when we are done with them. |
| Posted by: Large Darling of the Antelope3345 2012-07-06 12:35 |
| #1 "This is only a Band Aid for this relationship. Any number of new crises or recurring crises is likely to trigger another round of recrimination," he said. "'Sorry' was the hardest word, but it's a bit too early to celebrate. We're not yet out of the woods." translation: "Our boodle demands |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-07-06 11:26 |