Tweet
By ADAM ENTOUS And TOM WRIGHT
WASHINGTON—Pakistan agreed Tuesday to reopen North Atlantic Treaty Organization supply routes to Afghanistan after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani troops in a November border clash, apparently ending a seven-month standoff that complicated U.S. war aims.
The U.S. apology was an about-face for the Obama administration, which had refused to say it was sorry for the Nov. 26 incident along the Afghanistan border.
"We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military," Mrs. Clinton told Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, according to a statement issued by the State Department. "We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again."
The attack and its aftermath strained ties between the two countries, and prompted Pakistan to close the land routes. The closure forced the U.S. to bring in supplies for troops by air and by a more expensive northern route through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently estimated that Pakistan's closure of the supply routes to Afghanistan cost the U.S. about $100 million extra a month.
The decision to issue an apology now was driven in large part by administration concerns about those mounting costs, as well as the realization that a smooth and timely withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan would depend on using land routes through Pakistan, U.S. officials said.
A Pakistani official confirmed the country had agreed to reopen the supply lines. Pakistan's Cabinet must endorse the decision at a meeting Wednesday—considered a formality—after which supplies will resume, the official said.
"We appreciate Secretary Clinton's statement, and hope that bilateral ties can move to a better place from here," said Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. "I am confident that both countries can agree on many critical issues, especially on bringing peace to the region."
The two sides remain at odds about what transpired on Nov. 26. According to the U.S. account, a 150-man U.S.-Afghan commando team near the Pakistan border came under attack and called in air support. U.S. helicopters fired on two Pakistani border posts. The Pentagon said Pakistani troops at the posts opened fire first. Pakistani officials accused the U.S. of provoking the incident by deliberately firing at its troops.
For Pakistanis, the killings were yet another U.S. affront to national pride. Only seven months earlier, the U.S. sneaked elite special forces into the country to kill Osama bin Laden. Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan have likewise stoked Pakistani public outrage at the U.S.
Officials said the statement by Mrs. Clinton was carefully worded as not to make the U.S. fully culpable for the Pakistani deaths. Officials said the decision was made not to use the word "apologize" as some had suggested after the Nov. 26 incident. But Pakistani officials made clear the phrase "sorry for the losses" amounted to an apology and was sufficient for them.
Islamabad had demanded an apology before agreeing to reopen the border crossings. The Obama administration has come close to apologizing to Pakistan several times since Nov. 26 but White House and Pentagon officials changed their minds at the last minute, U.S. officials have said.
Some U.S. officials said an apology was unjustified. Pentagon opponents of an apology pointed to mistakes by both U.S. and Pakistani forces during the November incident. Administration officials have also argued that an apology would be unjustified because Pakistan hasn't cracked down on militants who attack U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Some U.S. officials have also said they worried that an apology could hurt President Barack Obama's standing in an election year. Republicans have sought to cast Mr. Obama as what some call an "apologist in chief."
There was no immediate reaction to the developments from the campaign of likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Tuesday's decision was a victory for the State Department, which has long pushed for an apology.
The closest the U.S. came to apologizing was in February when Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to meet with Mrs. Khar in London. But while Mrs. Clinton was flying over the Atlantic, the White House had a change of heart: the apology was called off. Violent protests had broken out in Afghanistan after U.S. military personnel burned Islamic books, including Qurans, drawing an apology from Mr. Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a personal letter. Apologizing to Afghanistan and Pakistan on the same day was too much for the Obama administration, officials said.
Defense Secretary Panetta, who opposed apologizing, welcomed Pakistan's decision to reopen the supply routes. "We remain committed to improving our partnership with Pakistan and to working closely together as our two nations confront common security challenges in the region," he said in a statement.
Proponents of an apology said that in addition to saving money, the move was the best way to jumpstart talks on other issues, including ways to counter militants. In Tuesday's statement, Mrs. Clinton said she and Mrs. Khar talked about the "importance of taking coordinated action against terrorists who threaten Pakistan, the United States and the region."
The two countries remain at odds, however, over which militant groups to target and the Central Intelligence Agency's drone program in Pakistan. Islamabad has called for the drone strikes to stop.
It wasn't immediately clear how much it will cost the U.S. and its NATO allies to bring in supplies through the newly reopened Pakistan routes.
In talks to reopen the crossings, Pakistani officials initially demanded transit fees totaling as much as $5,000 per NATO container entering Afghanistan. U.S. officials rejected that demand and offered about $500 per container, more than twice the fees paid to Pakistan before the Nov. 26 incident.
The Pakistani official said the per-container charge wouldn't change. U.S. officials couldn't immediately confirm that.
"It had stopped being about money a while ago," the Pakistani official said.
Under the new agreement, NATO will ship only non-lethal supplies—not weapons and ammunition—through the routes. Officials say the Pentagon typically flies in arms so the demand is unlikely to affect U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
As part of the deal, the U.S. is also expected to transfer more than $1 billion in military aid that had been frozen, a first installment on arrears which Islamabad says Washington owes.
U.S. officials said the closure of supply routes through Pakistan was having no effect on day-to-day U.S. operations in Afghanistan but acknowledged that it would eventually complicate withdrawal plans. The U.S. will need to transport huge amounts of equipment out of Afghanistan as it pulls out before the end of 2014. U.S. officials say land routes through Pakistan will be the easiest and cheapest way to do that.
Corrections & Amplifications
Thomas Nides is a deputy U.S. secretary of state. A previous online version of this article misspelled his surname.
WASHINGTON—Pakistan agreed Tuesday to reopen North Atlantic Treaty Organization supply routes to Afghanistan after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton apologized for the deaths of two dozen Pakistani troops in a November border clash, apparently ending a seven-month standoff that complicated U.S. war aims.
The U.S. apology was an about-face for the Obama administration, which had refused to say it was sorry for the Nov. 26 incident along the Afghanistan border.
"We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military," Mrs. Clinton told Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, according to a statement issued by the State Department. "We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again."
The attack and its aftermath strained ties between the two countries, and prompted Pakistan to close the land routes. The closure forced the U.S. to bring in supplies for troops by air and by a more expensive northern route through Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently estimated that Pakistan's closure of the supply routes to Afghanistan cost the U.S. about $100 million extra a month.
The decision to issue an apology now was driven in large part by administration concerns about those mounting costs, as well as the realization that a smooth and timely withdrawal of heavy equipment from Afghanistan would depend on using land routes through Pakistan, U.S. officials said.
A Pakistani official confirmed the country had agreed to reopen the supply lines. Pakistan's Cabinet must endorse the decision at a meeting Wednesday—considered a formality—after which supplies will resume, the official said.
"We appreciate Secretary Clinton's statement, and hope that bilateral ties can move to a better place from here," said Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. "I am confident that both countries can agree on many critical issues, especially on bringing peace to the region."
The two sides remain at odds about what transpired on Nov. 26. According to the U.S. account, a 150-man U.S.-Afghan commando team near the Pakistan border came under attack and called in air support. U.S. helicopters fired on two Pakistani border posts. The Pentagon said Pakistani troops at the posts opened fire first. Pakistani officials accused the U.S. of provoking the incident by deliberately firing at its troops.
For Pakistanis, the killings were yet another U.S. affront to national pride. Only seven months earlier, the U.S. sneaked elite special forces into the country to kill Osama bin Laden. Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against suspected militants in Pakistan have likewise stoked Pakistani public outrage at the U.S.
Officials said the statement by Mrs. Clinton was carefully worded as not to make the U.S. fully culpable for the Pakistani deaths. Officials said the decision was made not to use the word "apologize" as some had suggested after the Nov. 26 incident. But Pakistani officials made clear the phrase "sorry for the losses" amounted to an apology and was sufficient for them.
Islamabad had demanded an apology before agreeing to reopen the border crossings. The Obama administration has come close to apologizing to Pakistan several times since Nov. 26 but White House and Pentagon officials changed their minds at the last minute, U.S. officials have said.
Some U.S. officials said an apology was unjustified. Pentagon opponents of an apology pointed to mistakes by both U.S. and Pakistani forces during the November incident. Administration officials have also argued that an apology would be unjustified because Pakistan hasn't cracked down on militants who attack U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.
Some U.S. officials have also said they worried that an apology could hurt President Barack Obama's standing in an election year. Republicans have sought to cast Mr. Obama as what some call an "apologist in chief."
There was no immediate reaction to the developments from the campaign of likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney.
Tuesday's decision was a victory for the State Department, which has long pushed for an apology.
The closest the U.S. came to apologizing was in February when Mrs. Clinton was scheduled to meet with Mrs. Khar in London. But while Mrs. Clinton was flying over the Atlantic, the White House had a change of heart: the apology was called off. Violent protests had broken out in Afghanistan after U.S. military personnel burned Islamic books, including Qurans, drawing an apology from Mr. Obama to Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a personal letter. Apologizing to Afghanistan and Pakistan on the same day was too much for the Obama administration, officials said.
Defense Secretary Panetta, who opposed apologizing, welcomed Pakistan's decision to reopen the supply routes. "We remain committed to improving our partnership with Pakistan and to working closely together as our two nations confront common security challenges in the region," he said in a statement.
Proponents of an apology said that in addition to saving money, the move was the best way to jumpstart talks on other issues, including ways to counter militants. In Tuesday's statement, Mrs. Clinton said she and Mrs. Khar talked about the "importance of taking coordinated action against terrorists who threaten Pakistan, the United States and the region."
The two countries remain at odds, however, over which militant groups to target and the Central Intelligence Agency's drone program in Pakistan. Islamabad has called for the drone strikes to stop.
It wasn't immediately clear how much it will cost the U.S. and its NATO allies to bring in supplies through the newly reopened Pakistan routes.
In talks to reopen the crossings, Pakistani officials initially demanded transit fees totaling as much as $5,000 per NATO container entering Afghanistan. U.S. officials rejected that demand and offered about $500 per container, more than twice the fees paid to Pakistan before the Nov. 26 incident.
The Pakistani official said the per-container charge wouldn't change. U.S. officials couldn't immediately confirm that.
"It had stopped being about money a while ago," the Pakistani official said.
Under the new agreement, NATO will ship only non-lethal supplies—not weapons and ammunition—through the routes. Officials say the Pentagon typically flies in arms so the demand is unlikely to affect U.S. operations in Afghanistan.
As part of the deal, the U.S. is also expected to transfer more than $1 billion in military aid that had been frozen, a first installment on arrears which Islamabad says Washington owes.
U.S. officials said the closure of supply routes through Pakistan was having no effect on day-to-day U.S. operations in Afghanistan but acknowledged that it would eventually complicate withdrawal plans. The U.S. will need to transport huge amounts of equipment out of Afghanistan as it pulls out before the end of 2014. U.S. officials say land routes through Pakistan will be the easiest and cheapest way to do that.
Corrections & Amplifications
Thomas Nides is a deputy U.S. secretary of state. A previous online version of this article misspelled his surname.
Comment