Why did Pakistan open Afghan supply lines? (+video)

Obama made no comments about Pakistan on Tuesday, leaving Clinton's statement as the only official U.S. explanation of the agreement. It was released as Pakistani civilian and military leaders were meeting to discuss whether to reopen the routes, and there was no confirmation from Islamabad of a decision for more than two hours.

"The main thing is that a superpower has acknowledged our principled stance, and they have shown flexibility," said Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira, speaking in Urdu. "It was not the issue of money. It was the issue of our sovereignty," he said, adding that American authorities assured Pakistan there would be no repeat of the incident.

The prime minister's office stressed that reopening the supply lines would help the U.S. pull out of Afghanistan sooner, saying the transition was in "Pakistan's interest." The statement sought to head off the inevitable political backlash in a country where anti-American sentiment is rife and the United States is often blamed for internal problems.

Still, Pakistan's more conservative political groups rejected the decision. Amirul Azim, a top leader ofPakistan's radical Jamaat-e-Islami party, said, "The main thing is that we should not reopen the NATO supply route, and we should isolate ourselves from this so-called war against terrorism."

The fallout could hurt Pakistan's civilian government, which was re-established four years ago after a history of military coups. It has struggled to assert itself against the powerful Pakistani army and hardline Islamist religious leaders and politicians, who will likely point to the several parliamentary demands the U.S. ignored, including the call for an "unconditional apology" for the attack. Washington mentioned mistakes on both sides.

Clinton said Pakistan wouldn't charge any new transit fee, and the reopening would help the U.S. draw down its forces in Afghanistan "at a much lower cost."

The U.S. government has never paid transit fees directly. Pakistan charges companies $250 per truck for transit, and the U.S. accounts for those fees in its contracts with those companies, so it pays indirectly. During negotiations Pakistan had asked for a flat fee of up to $5,000, but Washington offered extensive road construction projects to sweeten the deal.

With the supply lines closed, the U.S. has been forced to use more costly transportation routes through Russia and Central Asia. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had estimated the cost at an extra $100 million a month, warning that it could get more expensive as the U.S. started to withdraw equipment in advance of the 2014 troop drawdown in Afghanistan.

Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said that once the backlog of materiel clears the re-opened supply routes, "we expect to be able to save between $70 million and $100 million per month."

The $100 million a month estimate would mean the lengthy standoff cost U.S. taxpayers some $700 million and denied Pakistan's revenue-starved government millions of dollars in transit fees.

Panetta said he welcomed Pakistan's decision.

"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.

According to a senior defense official, the agreement also could cost the U.S. as much as $1.1 billion. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the details were not final, said the Pentagon intends to submit $1.1 billion in approved requests for reimbursement of money the Pakistan government has spent on counterterrorism operations that were incurred largely along the border.

The requests for aid are approved by the defense secretary, and then Congress is notified. Lawmakers can vote to reject them.

Rebecca Santana reported from Islamabad. Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor in Washington and Sebastian Abbot in Islamabad contributed to this report.

Previous

1 | 2