SINCE the events of 9/11, Pakistan’s relations with the US have experienced numerous ups and downs. Even during periods of honeymoon there has been no smooth sailing. Ties have often been marred by tensions due to differences of policy, perception and objectives.

From its ‘do more’ mantra, where terrorism is concerned, to the controversial Balochistan resolution in the US Congress — although the administration has distanced itself from it — the American strategy in dealing with Pakistan has been one where Washington’s own security and economic requirements could be met.

Terrorism, military aid, financial assistance, the Indian factor and Afghanistan have marked the on-off relations. However, since the unprovoked Nato strikes in Salala that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers last November, ties have been particularly turbulent.

Even after three months no common ground has been found for cooperation, and the two sides are still striving to come to a mutually acceptable, workable formula.

In this regard, it is worth noting what US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had to say recently. “I’m sure we will continue to have our ups and downs but this relationship is simply too important to turn our back on — for both nations. And we both remain committed to continue working to improve understanding and cooperation.”

A US investigation into the Salala incident — Pakistan refused to hold a joint probe — was rejected by the military here, which maintains that the strike occurred because of the failure of the US and Isaf forces to share information on their border operation with Islamabad and the violation of all mutually agreed upon procedures.

Pakistan has decided to review its relations with America and for this purpose the parliamentary committee on national security has submitted its recommendations. However, our parliament has yet to decide on the matter, and further delay is likely as internal issues of political rivalry take precedence. The Obama administration has urged Pakistan to expedite the parliamentary review of its ties with Washington.

With both sides trying to break the deadlock, it is clear that neither can afford to shun the other. Firstly, a cooperative relationship is critical to defeating the militants or to sitting across the table with the Taliban in a bid to restore peace in Afghanistan. Without active teamwork on the part of the two countries, this will be difficult to achieve. The Afghan tangle forces them to move forward and embrace each other.

Secondly, a peace deal with the Taliban is a prerequisite for the safe withdrawal of US-led Nato troops from Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama hopes to get US and Nato forces out of Afghanistan by 2014. The US priority is to manage an honourable withdrawal which is linked with fruitful parleys with the Taliban and Pakistan. If any party — the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan — is kept out of a peace agreement the outcome would mean a repeat of previous deals that fell apart.

Thirdly, Pakistan’s economic vulnerability is expected to make its stand flexible. On the other hand, if the US leaves Pakistan and Afghanistan alone it might cause terrorist networks and safe havens, on both sides of the porous Durand Line, to be rejuvenated. In such a scenario, peace in Afghanistan will remain a pipe dream.

It is in the interest of the two allies to move beyond the Salala incident and intensify efforts to find some common ground for putting their tense relationship on the track of active collaboration and to ensure that cooperation and interaction on the tactical level with Pakistan’s military across the Durand Line continues. The US had already showed flexibility while expressing readiness to discuss the Salala incident further. The two countries have entered a decisive phase for the redefinition of relations.