Where is the national pride – one hand you object to a foreign power ‘operating’ from your soil while another foreign power has actually ‘built’ an airbase on your soil?

Resumption of supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan through Pakistan reminds one of the Shamsi airbase incident of 2011. There was much hype in Pakistani last May with Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Firdous Ashiq Awan, announcing that the US had been asked to vacate Shamsi airbase albeit US had already halted drone strikes from Shamsi three months earlier post the Raymond Davis affair and all Predator drone attacks inside Pakistan since then were being launched from bases in Afghanistan.

There were calls of national pride getting hurt in letting a foreign power (US) operate from Pakistani soil. Then cropped the question as to who owned Shamsi? Brig (Retd) Farooq Hameed Khan, amongst others, asked, “Who is deceiving whom?” It emerged that Shamsi was built by Arab sheikhs for falcon hunting trips in the early 1990s but had been occupied by the CIA since at least 2004, when Google Earth images showed Predator drones parked on the runway. The base infrastructure had been expanded with new constructions including aircraft hangars coming up over the years. Confirmation came during the May 13, 2011, joint session of Pakistani Parliament (held in-camera) that the Shamsi airbase was under UAE Government’s authority and not under Pakistani Air Force control. So, where is the national pride – one hand you object to a foreign power ‘operating’ from your soil while another foreign power has actually ‘built’ an airbase on your soil?

There were feeble calls of the nation’s right to know the truth about the terms and conditions which Article of Pakistan’s Constitution or law had allowed such an agreement, which Pakistani Government or Parliament approved the deal, how could this happen in a ‘sovereign’ state, was the land leased or permanently transferred including aspects duration of lease, security responsibility, degree of Pakistani control and whether UAE could sublet this base to a foreign power. However, media was forced to shut down the issue altogether.

Now is the recent US-Pakistan agreement to revive the supply of NATO troops through land routes via Pakistan including the use of Pakistani ports? Remember the fracas and hullabaloo last November when a NATO strike killed 24 Pakistani soldiers. Pakistan cried blue murder suspending NATO supply routes via Pakistan, labelling it a deliberate act impinging on their sovereignty and demanding apology from US and complete suspension of US drone strikes inside Pakistan, failing which the NATO supply routes via Pakistan would remain blocked. Pakistan Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani even announced that Predators undertaking strikes inside Pakistan would be shot down. The Pakistani Parliament went in a frenzy hollering loss of national pride. The US responded by saying strike was conducted after receiving confirmation from Pakistani Army that the area was clear of their troops. Hillary Clinton categorically said there was no question of the US offering an apology. US never suspended drone strikes inside Pakistan and continues to do so. So, how has the agreement to resume supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan via Pakistan come about?

Pretty simple – it is raining moolah both ways plus Pakistan gets the opportunity to resume the game of ‘running with the hare and hunting with the hounds’ – national pride be damned! Though details of the accord are under wraps, reportedly Pakistan will be paid $1,500 to $1,800 for each truck carrying supplies that may total up to something like $1 million per day. Surely, there would be large fees at the ports as well and of course, as earlier, scores or rather hundreds of containers will go ‘missing’ with their wares landing up in local markets. Then is the trump card of targeting supply columns periodically through ‘out of control’ Taliban – notwithstanding they strike from terrorist training camps established by Pakistan along the international highway on pretext of housing Afghan refugees.

The views expressed herein are the personal views of the author.