THE proposal to link the reopening of the Nato supply route to the US stopping the drone strikes in the northwest ups the stakes on the revival of relations between Washington and Islamabad.

The terms of engagement seem to be getting tougher as the government tries to reach a national consensus on restoring ties with the United States. Predictably, the entire policy review process has descended into chaos, making it increasingly difficult to get the parliamentary approval sooner on a viable policy framework.

For the Obama administration, the proposed linkage presents a serious dilemma as it struggles to come up with a viable Afghan exit plan. While the reopening of the Pakistani supply route remains important for allied forces in Afghanistan, the drone campaign against militant sanctuaries in the tribal region is a critical component of the US counterinsurgency strategy. It is a tough deal to negotiate for both Washington and Islamabad.

To be sure the linkage is the strongest leverage Pakistan can use to force the Obama administration to re-examine its drone campaign, which has become the major source of tension between the two estranged allies. But it is not certain whether it can work. There is also a danger that the toughening of Pakistan’s stance could push matters to a point of rupture, which both countries have been trying to avoid.

The recent meeting between President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on the sidelines of the nuclear summit in Seoul signalled the resumption of contacts between the two countries at the highest level.

Meanwhile, military-to-military links suspended for the past four months were also revived following the visit last week of Gen James Mattis, Centcom chief, and Gen Allen, the commander of Nato and US forces in Afghanistan. But any further progress towards restoration of the relationship awaits the conclusion of the parliamentary review.

Some US officials dismiss the criticality of the Pakistani supply route as a ‘myth’, arguing that the closure would not affect the military campaign in Afghanistan. But others agree that the cost of alternative routes has been very high and their reliability is questionable. This is perhaps the reason why the Obama administration has been insisting on the reopening of the routes before the start of any substantive talks on the future of the relationship between the two countries. Until two years ago, almost 90 percent of Nato’s non-military supplies to Afghanistan were routed through the port city of Karachi. But since 2009 the alliance has increasingly been using northern routes, through Russia and the Central Asian states as the supply convoys came under frequent attacks by militants in Pakistani border areas. Though costing twice as much, the shift significantly reduced US reliance on Pakistan.

As much as 40 per cent of the total logistic supplies to the US military in Afghanistan is now routed through the Northern Distribution Network. According to US media reports, the Pentagon plans to shift 75 per cent of the overall traffic to this route by the end of the year. The process could be speeded up with the continuing stalemate with Pakistan. Though costing twice as much as the Pakistani route, the northern route is still cheaper than airdrops.

But there are many problems with this route, which involves a number of former Soviet states besides Russia. It relies on a complex network where the cargo after landing at various sea ports is loaded onto trucks and railway wagons to be carried thousands of miles into Afghanistan. There is also the question of reliability. Last November, Russia threatened to stop Nato using its territory to supply troops in Afghanistan over its objection to a US missile shield for Europe. Although the situation seems to have normalised for now, the threat still looms large.

Furthermore, the military surge and the drawdown of forces in Afghanistan have increased America’s logistical needs which could not be fully met by a hugely stretched northern route. That makes the Pakistan route still more favourable to the US and Nato as they need to ship home military equipment after the withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan in 2014. But the proposed linkage seems to have made the issue more complicated.

There is no indication yet that the US will halt drone strikes in return for reopening of the supply route. In fact, the attacks have intensified while the Pakistani civil and military leadership struggles to conclude the review.

The Obama administration, however, may agree to limit the strikes and conduct them in coordination with the Pakistani intelligence services. Given the volatility of the situation, it would be extremely difficult for the government to allow even a limited operation on its territory.

Instead, Pakistan has suggested that it could use F-16 jets to target the militant hideouts on intelligence provided by the US.

There is also a proposal for joint ownership of the drone campaign. But all that is not likely to break the stalemate.

It is quite apparent that the review process has spiralled out of the government’s control. It is still likely that the parliamentary committee may reach a compromise on a new and tougher policy framework. But a major question is how Pakistan can negotiate those terms of engagement with the US. Do we have any clear policy if the stalemate continues over the drone strikes?

The government seems to have got trapped in its own populist rhetoric. The dragging on of the review process has given huge space to elements opposed to any ties with the US. That has made it more difficult to pursue a more rational path which can serve not only Pakistan’s national interests but also the cause of regional peace.

The writer is a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre, Washington DC.

zhussain100@yahoo.com