Pakistan’s major foreign policy issues seem to be following a pattern to get stuck on points with such a single-minded rigidity that they end up becoming pointless. The decision to close the NATO supply routes after the Salala tragedy in November 2011 elicited a unanimous patriotic response within the country, while the US and its allies did not consider it more than mere petulance of a smaller partner. Despite repeated demands for an apology for the killings, when none was forthcoming, Pakistan remained determined and the US became impatient. It culminated in the passing of resolutions in the US Congress, threatening stopping of aid to Pakistan if the US’s demands — including opening of routes to Afghanistan — were not met. The last minute invitation to the NATO summit in Chicago and the cold attitude of President Obama towards President Zardari spoke louder than any verbal reprimand that the US meant business. NATO’s signing of a deal with Central Asian states on Monday is a clear indication of the US and its allies’ resolve to go ahead with or without Pakistan’s cooperation. Notwithstanding the financial expense of transporting goods to troops in Afghanistan through alternate routes, the US instead of offering the demanded apology to Pakistan, has decided on exactly that. The process of transportation of goods through Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan is more time-consuming and expensive than through Pakistan. However, the mood in Washington vis-à-vis Islamabad’s ‘unreasonable’ demand and its non-cooperation with the US has set a grim mood among the US Congress, Administration, media and even the public. Albeit discussions are ongoing, the US’s present behaviour indicates its anxiety — and anger — over Pakistan’s ‘stubbornness’, adding to the gigantic expenses of a war that is already a financial nightmare. The announced withdrawal of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan by 2014 underlines the importance of reopening of the routes to Afghanistan immediately. The logistics of that operation are tremendous. Troops posted in a country for a decade cannot be extracted in one go. The removal of a huge amount of hardware will take time and money. Added to that will be the extra expense of transportation through new routes in Central Asia. It makes eminent sense to evacuate through Pakistani routes, thus the US’s pressure on Islamabad. The consequences of a refusal to open the NATO routes will be too drastic for an already economically enfeebled Pakistan. The US has already threatened to minimise or sever interminably the aid to Pakistan, thus ensuring a scenario where the latter would have no choice but to comply. Moreover, repayments of almost eight billion dollars to the IMF are due, and Pakistan, in its ‘splendid’ economic foresight, plans to request the IMF for a fresh loan to repay the older loans! The US’s veto as a superpower could halt any such bailout. It is time for the government to devise a workable policy that resolves this conundrum before it is too late. *