Hydrablog

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/world/asia/us-and-pakistan-hint-at-afghan-supply-route-deal.html
July 2, 2012
U.S. and Pakistan Hint at Deal to Reopen NATO Supply Routes
By ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [112th congress, 2nd session] [NSC principals … bureaucracy] [GSAVE in AfPak] [Obama tried to time his strategic framework with Afghanistan for this meeting] [use psci 355-455] [this is not the first time that “progress” has been presaged in the strange Kabuki theater between the U.S. and Pakistan] [followup, June 13] [truth is this roller coaster has heaved toward rapproachment then renewed disruption for months] [*]
WASHINGTON — American and Pakistani officials voiced cautious optimism on Monday that a deal to reopen NATO’s supply routes into neighboring Afghanistan was near, a move that would end a seven-month stalemate between the two countries.
Previous predictions of an imminent agreement have not been borne out, and officials from both countries refused on Monday to discuss details of what might be in the works, as if not to jinx this latest effort.
“Stay tuned,” one top American official said.
“Fingers crossed,” a senior Pakistani counterpart added.
The latest microburst of optimism followed a flurry of recent contacts between top American and Pakistani officials. Gen. John R. Allen, the American commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, met last week in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, with Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief of staff, to discuss counterterrorism strategy and the supply routes.
Over the weekend, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton telephoned her congratulations to Pakistan’s new prime minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, and brought up the supply routes. And on Monday, Thomas R. Nides, a deputy secretary of state, visited Islamabad to discuss — what else — the supply routes.
Using the military’s acronym for the supply routes, known as ground lines of communication, Victoria Nuland, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters on Monday, “We’re continuing to talk about the GLOCs, and we will until we have resolution of the issue.”
Senior Pakistani government and defense officials were scheduled to meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue, Reuters reported.
Pakistan closed the supply routes in November after an American airstrike mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at an outpost near the Afghan border.
Since then, the two countries have struggled to resolve the impasse. When an American team of technical specialists left Pakistan about three weeks ago, many of the nuts-and-bolts issues seemed to have been worked out.
Pakistan, stung by the suspension of American military assistance last year, at first demanded a fee of $5,000 for each truck that crossed its territory from the port in Karachi to Afghanistan. Before the November attack, NATO had paid $250. Pakistan later reduced that demand to about $3,000 a truck; the United States has offered $1,000 per vehicle, although some officials say the two sides have settled for about half of that.
The United States has agreed to pay for repairs to the port of Karachi and road improvements near the border crossings, but rejected Pakistan’s request for indemnity waivers in case American cargo is damaged en route.
But the major stumbling block has been Pakistan’s demand for a more formal American apology for the fatal airstrike in November. The Pentagon and the White House have adamantly opposed any additional apology beyond the several expressions of regret and condolences offered by many American officials.
Some State Department officials, however, have held out hope that if artfully worded and delivered, an apology of sorts was not just possible but prudent to end the crisis. One former senior American official who has worked on South Asia issues said Monday that just such an apology was “being mulled over.”
Other American officials, however, said it would take diplomatic gymnastics of extraordinary proportions to pull of such a feat at this point, with both countries seemingly dug in on whether or not to say sorry.