The stalemate attains another milestone. The US’s decision to withdraw its team of negotiators from Islamabad underlines its exasperation at another futile dialogue. Both sides’ inability to avoid the potential of building to a very uncomfortable crescendo, with bleak consequences for the already debilitated relationship between the two important strategic allies, is cause for serious concern. Albeit the foreign office’s spokesperson stressed that this was in no way ‘a breakdown in the relationship’, there seems to be more here than the apparent. The ‘snubbing’ of the US Assistant Defence Secretary Peter Lavoy, who was unable to meet General Ashfaq Kayani or any top foreign office dignitary during his two-day ‘official’ visit further strengthens the current ill will between Pakistan and the US. Lavoy left amidst speculations that his mission was aborted by Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta’s recent angry statements. Panetta blamed Pakistan for sheltering and patronising Afghan militants in the tribal areas, whose systematic and unceasing attacks wreaked havoc on the Afghan, NATO and US troops, worsening the conflict and raising questions about President Obama’s handling of the war back home. Ambassador Sherry Rehman’s insistence in Washington that the departure of the negotiators was not an ‘institutional pullout’, and Pakistan’s non-commitment to reopen NATO’S supply routes was justified in the absence of an oft-asked for apology for the Salala attack and refusal of the cessation of drone attacks does not negate the obvious escalation of tension between the big and small ‘strategic allies’. The question arises, if the pull out was a routine procedure, why a flurry of statements all around? A Pentagon spokesperson stated that the US’s belief that a resumption of NATO supply routes was on the cards had been negated with no scheduled date for a resumption of the dialogue. Nevertheless, the dialogue is still alive. Notwithstanding Lavoy’s failure to meet General Kayani, the Pentagon is hopeful about working out a cost-effective plan, in view of NATO and the US’s scheduled withdrawal of a gigantic logistical infrastructure from Afghanistan by 2014. The State Department’s spokesperson Victoria Nuland, with a slight variation, reiterated the Pentagon’s views, calling the recent development a ‘break’, with the team prepared to return at an ‘appropriate time’. Although she declined to comment on General’s Kayani’s apparent displeasure at Panetta’s recent negative statements about Pakistan, resulting in the ‘cold shoulder’ Lavoy received, her remark, “We stand by the statements that have been made”, demonstrates the US’s obvious rising resentment of what it sees as Pakistan’s ‘stubbornness’ in not complying with its demands. It is about time our decisison makers took a deep breath and put all these equations in order. Before the divide evolves into outright antagonism, it is imperative to meet halfway — for an apology acceptable to both sides, demands for an end to the drone attacks, Pakistan’s alleged enabling of the Afghan Taliban’s campaign, stopping the manufacture of IEDs and a suitable price for the NATO routes. Time is running out. *