Rules of engagement

Islamabad blocked the NATO supply line to Afghanistan in retaliation to a border strike by NATO forces last month that killed 24 of its soldiers. The ban on NATO supplies is already in its third week, which is the longest closure since the start of the Afghan War in 2001.

In a recent interview with the BBC, the Pakistani premier hinted that it could take "weeks" for his government and the NATO to resolve this issue.

'Credibility gap'

Pakistan also ordered the United States to vacate its Shamsi airbase, which was supposedly used by the US for drone attacks against the Islamist militants in Pakistan's recalcitrant northwestern tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

For the first time in 10 years, Pakistan threatened to reconsider its decade-long support to the international "War on Terror" in Afghanistan.

NATO and US officials expressed their regret over the attacks and announced to set-up an inquiry to investigate the incident. Yet no formal apology has been handed over to Islamabad.

Pakistani Prime Minister told the BBC there was a "credibility gap" with the United States.

"We are working together and still we don't trust each other. I think we have to improve our relationship," he said. "We want to set new rules of engagement and cooperation with United States. We have a resolve to fight against terrorism and therefore we want to set new rules of engagement," he added.

Alternative supply routes

Pakistani journalist Mohsin Sayeed told Deutsche Welle that if Islamabad played its cards well, it could use the ban to its benefit, as Pakistan "provides the shortest and the cheapest route" for NATO supplies to Afghanistan.

"Pakistan has a geographical importance that nobody can deny. I don't think the US would go for alternative supply routes because they are expensive and also lengthier," said Sayeed.

US politicians have, however, said President Obama's administration should consider alternative supply lines, as Islamabad is not a reliable partner in the "War on Terror."

US officials accuse Islamabad, in particular its spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for backing Taliban militants. The United States has provided billions of dollars to Islamabad for fighting the Islamists yet it is not happy with Pakistan's efforts to eliminate terrorists' sanctuaries on its soil. There has been growing frustration in Washington with Islamabad's "double game" vis-à-vis the Taliban.

'Islamabad's hypocrisy'

For Mohsin Sayeed, Pakistan's reaction to the deaths of its 24 soldiers was justified albeit hypocritical. "Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have been killed by Taliban militants in the past years. The government doesn't consider it an act against national sovereignty. On the contrary, Islamabad has been in talks with the murderous Taliban," said Sayeed. He also opined that the Pakistani government never reacted in such a way to US drone attacks "that also kill innocent civilians."

Confiscation of NATO arms by Taliban

Pakistan's former interior minister Iqbal Haider told Deutsche Welle that Pakistan could not afford to antagonize NATO and the US. He also said Islamabad "must ensure a safe and secure route" for NATO supplies as it was in its own interest. He mentioned Russia and some Central Asian states had already offered their routes.

Attacks on NATO convoys

Meanwhile on Monday, gunmen attacked NATO oil tankers stranded in southwest Pakistan for the second time in days. No group has claimed responsibility of attacks.

Haider believes there is a pattern to these attacks.

"In the last three years, 28,802 containers carrying NATO supplies have been hijacked and confiscated be the Taliban. There has been a pattern to it. The Taliban steal the NATO arms, and also the fuel in the tankers, and set the containers on fire. Islamabad knows about it. I complained about it in 2008 at a conference in the Hague," said Haider, who believes the issue of NATO arms falling into the hands of the Taliban is a much bigger issue than NATO attacks on Pakistani soldiers.

Blockade not in Islamabad's favor

Some Pakistani experts are of the opinion that the blockade of the NATO supply line will be more harmful for Islamabad than for Washington. Pakistan depends heavily on US aid and receives a large amount of money in return for assuring NATO safety. A longer blockade will not only weaken Pakistan's frail economy but will also continue to raise the question: Whose side is Pakistan really on?

Author: Shamil Shams
Editor: Sarah Berning