FINALLY, Pakistan has lifted its seven-month-long ban on the NATO supply route in return for “I’m sorry.” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week.
Though Pakistan had steadfastly insisted on an “unconditional apology”, Washington cut it short by saying “Very sorry.” Even these magical words were uttered by Secretary of State and not by President Barack Obama, as insisted by Pakistan.

All this makes it clear that Pakistan has given up its rigid stand – backed by fundamentalists and powerful army – for the sake of billion-dollar U.S. civilian and military aid.

Ironically, both countries rode high on the idea ‘who will bow first.’ While Washington has been observing how long Pakistan would sustain its economy without the US aid, the latter at the same time has been watching how far US manages to route  supplies to NATO forces through lengthy and inaccessible routes.

The fact remains that blockade had forced the United States and its allies to rely on longer, more expensive northern routes through Central Asia, Russia and the Caucasus, costing the U.S. military about $100M a month, according to the Pentagon.

Having both sides at the loser’s end for seven months, it was ultimately Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton who broke the deadlock by saying the U.S. was “sorry” for the deaths of the Pakistani troops. But she didn’t offer the “unconditional apology” as demanded by the Pakistan Parliament.

Clinton reiterated that mistakes on both sides led to the air strikes on two army posts on the Afghan border, disputing Pakistan’s claim that the U.S. was wholly at fault, and carried out the attack deliberately.

Not surprisingly, the decision to go soft on the crucial issue was taken a month earlier when Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar had announced that Pakistan was mindful of the economic and political power of the NATO partners, and could not afford to alienate them by making their forces suffer in Afghanistan due to the stoppage of their supplies.

She had also announced that Pakistan was willing to separate the matter of drones from the supply route issue, and would pursue it with Washington till an agreement was reached in favour of Pakistan.

This was enough indication that Pakistan had started realising the impact of aid withheld by US against its blockade decision. Notably, Pakistan receives civil and military aid worth billions of dollars for aiding the US in its war against international terrorism.

There is no denying the fact that even before Pakistan shut down the supply line in November, the relationship was plagued by anger and mistrust, as Islamabad was livid with the unilateral U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, and a CIA contractor who shot to death two Pakistanis a few months earlier.

The deadlock over NATO supplies ultimately ended last Tuesday, when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called up Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar and expressed “regret” for the NATO air strike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers in Salala region.

There were expectations that the accord would ease tensions, but the chances seem dim, as other issue, like a halt to drone attacks by the US, and Pakistan’s indirect support to the Haqani network and Afghan Taliban remains un-tackled.

Moreover, the two sides are unlikely to trust each other, as the long stalemate that followed the November attack intensified bad feelings in both capitals.

Undoubtedly, the reopening is likely to save the U.S. hundreds of millions of dollars, as Washington would no more have to use a longer, costlier and tedious route that leads into Afghanistan through Central Asia. Pakistan is also expected to gain financially, since the U.S. intends to free up $1.1 billion in military aid that has been frozen for the past year.

Apart from that, Pakistan has also demanded much higher transit fees during the months of negotiations – up to $5,000 per truck – but agreed in the end to maintain the $250 price levied before the attack.

In the meanwhile, the deal is likely to cost both the countries. In the US, tax payers castigate their government for spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan and in the Arab region without any substantial gain.

Washington is also under severe criticism for doling out huge civilian and military aid to Pakistan — an important ally in the war against terrorism – in terms of billions of dollars, despite knowing that the latter is spending the same on terror infrastructure rather than on development projects.

Most importantly, Pakistan is also to face a domestic backlash, given rampant anti-American sentiment in the country and the government’s failure to force the U.S. to stop drone strikes targeting militants.

Pakistan has already been fighting a bloody insurgency by domestic Taliban militants. The situation is going to get worse as the supplies have resumed. The fact remains that there have been a series of suicide bombings in Pakistan’s various cities whenever the US utilise its land, air and sea for targeting Islamic mercenaries in Afghanistan and its interior areas.

Anti-NATO supply demonstrations have already begun in many parts of Pakistan, with the people coming out on the roads demanding an immediate halt to convoys carrying food and fuel to foreign forces stationed in neighbouring Afghanistan.

This is clear from the statements emanating from Pakistani hardcore religious leaders. “It is an insult to our nation,” said Maulana Samiul Haq, chairman of the hardline Difah-e-Pakistan.
“The rulers have put national interest at stake just to please America.”

Haq warned that his group would launch nationwide protests against the government’s decision, and called for Pakistanis to peacefully block NATO trucks from reaching Afghanistan. “It is mandatory for every Muslim to do everything possible to block such supply” to their enemy, he said.

Apart from DeP, the Pakistani Taliban also immediately threatened to attack trucks that resume carrying supplies into Afghanistan, where most of the 128,000 NATO soldiers are due to withdraw by the end of 2014. In the same vein, Jamati Islami of Pakistan has also urged its cadres to block all the supplies passing through Pakistan.

In the midst of all this hue and cry, it is ultimately Pakistan which is at the winner’s end. The fact remains that US is not only economically sound, but also militarily strong, while Pakistan is almost a failed state, with its economy in shambles, law and order machinery in the doldrums, terrorists ruling the roost and army having upper hand over government. This fact has even been realised by Pakistan itself when US withheld $800 million in aid.

The fear of missing US aid as well of other NATO donor countries is believed to have humbled Pakistan to allow US to resume sending supplies through its land.

Keeping in view the present chaotic situation in Pakistan, it is better for the country to have good relations not only with the US, but also with India, as both can help the Pakistan economy grow, and make the country self-sustainable, which will be good for its citizens as well as for the entire region.

The future of US aid will depend on how Pakistan and its military behave. Exporting terror will have harsh consequences. Pakistan has to get its act together; otherwise, it will be a failed nation.