The NATO attack on a Pakistani outpost on November 26 has resulted in another cold phase in the relations between Pakistan and the U.S. Pakistan reacted strongly to the attack and blocked all NATO supplies to Afghanistan, asked the U.S. military to vacate the Shamsi base and boycotted the Bonn conference. The main question now is whether the two states will still be able to find avenues to improve their relations. Much depends on whether the U.S. will prove willing to address Islamabad’s concerns regarding the future of Afghanistan.

BACKGROUND: On November 26, NATO helicopters and fighter jets attacked two military outposts in northwest Pakistan killing as many as 24 troops in the Baizai area of the Mohmand Agency about 2.5 kilometers from the Afghan border. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani declared it an attack on the sovereignty of Pakistan and stated that “we will not let any harm come to Pakistan’s sovereignty and solidarity.” Pakistan’s Foreign Office addressed the matter in the strongest terms with NATO and the U.S. Immediately after the attack, Islamabad decided to block all NATO supplies, told the U.S. to vacate the Shamsi air base in Baluchistan, and boycotted the Bonn conference.

The response of especially regional states such as China and Russia was supportive of the Pakistani position. According to media reports, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that “a nation’s sovereignty should always be upheld,” whereas the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi stated that the violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty “would not be acceptable.” NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed regret over “the tragic death” of Pakistani soldiers and General John Allen, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, offered his condolences to the families of any Pakistani soldiers who “may have been killed or injured” during the incident on the border. The U.S. Ambassador in Islamabad Cameron Munter stated “I regret the loss of life of any Pakistani servicemen, and pledge that the U.S. will work closely with Pakistan to investigate this incident.”

Soon after the attack and the strong reaction from Islamabad, NATO sources claimed that the Pakistani Army was informed in advance about the attack, a claim that Pakistani army officials strongly rejected. Major General Athar Abbas, the spokesman for the Pakistani Army, said that the location given by NATO ahead of the attack with reference to this operation was far from Salala, where the attack eventually took place.

Regarding the current attack, Islamabad was informed of a NATO operation in the Gorapria area of Afghanistan according to Major General Abbas. The Pakistani Army informed that they had no deployment in that area. However, the attack did not take place in Gorapria but at Salala. The U.S. report on the incident fails to provide adequate answers. Since the attack, Islamabad has taken a strong position and is currently reviewing its foreign policy in general. The U.S. claims that this was an accident and/or a response to initial fire from the Pakistani post. However, it remains to be explained why the attack went on for hours despite contacts from the Pakistani side to their counterparts, according to media reports. Recently, Washington decided to freeze US$ 700 million in aid to Pakistan until it gives assurances of its help to fight the spread of homemade bombs in the region. Even if this is not directly linked to the current crisis in Pakistan-U.S. relations, the timing of this decision cannot be ignored.

IMPLICATIONS: Almost one decade after its arrival in Afghanistan, the U.S. has declared that it will withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014. The U.S. performance in Afghanistan is debated, it has failed to achieve many of its objectives and the country continues to be largely lawless. Many observers believe that Afghanistan will face another civil war after the U.S. withdrawal.

2010 has been a tough year for Pakistan-U.S. relations. 2010 witnessed increasing distrust between the two countries and a stronger belief in the U.S. that Pakistan is a major problem in relation to Afghanistan. Many analysts draw a parallel with the Vietnam-Cambodia situation in this view. From a U.S. perspective, Pakistan is supporting the Taliban and the Haqqani network in spite of its position as a frontline state in the war on terror, and is the place where Bin Laden was hiding at the time of his killing by the U.S. Navy SEALs. Islamabad is of the view that its contribution and sacrifices in the war on terror are ignored and that it is being scapegoated for the overall international failure in Afghanistan, while being bypassed in strategic decisions for the region which will nevertheless have implications for Pakistan.

It was in this atmosphere of distrust that the incident took place. A report based on an inquiry conducted by Brigadier General Stephen Clark stated that the NATO and U.S. forces acted in self defense as the first fire came from the Pakistani side. Many observers have questioned Clark’s impartiality as he had commanded the same company which was involved in the attack. The report, instead of providing clear answers, repeats the earlier stance. Islamabad’s rejection of the report, emphasizing that this was an attack on its sovereignty, can best be understood in the context of overall frustration mentioned above.

That is exactly why Islamabad decided to boycott the Bonn conference, even though many in Pakistan suggested that participation in the conference would have allowed Pakistan to address issues of vital importance regarding the future of Afghanistan with direct implications for Pakistan. Islamabad could also have used this forum to protest and voice its concerns.

At the heart of the issue is the failure on the part of the U.S. and the West to take into account Islamabad’s threat perceptions and interests in the region. Pakistan and Afghanistan have a history of issues which cannot be ignored. Primary among these is the Durand line, which remains an unresolved issue between the two countries. Kabul continues to contest the validity of this border between Pakistan and Afghanistan as it wants to keep the issue alive. Its opposition to border fencing is a case in point.

Islamabad has seemingly decided to review all agreements with the U.S. and the deployment of an air defense system on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, while a U.S. Congressional panel agreed that US$ 700 million in military aid to Pakistan would be frozen. Reactions to the NATO attack highlight the urgency in reassessing relations between Pakistan and the U.S., where both sides need to engage each other seriously and objectively as crumbling relations between Pakistan and the U.S. would be detrimental to the region and the ongoing war against terror. However, for such a dialogue to take place, Pakistan’s legitimate concerns regarding Afghanistan must be acknowledged.

During a recent unannounced visit to Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta acknowledged that “it has been said a number of times that ultimately we cannot win the war in Afghanistan without being able to win in our relationship with Pakistan as well … It is going to be important, as we continue to move and progress in our efforts in Afghanistan, that we continue to outreach to Pakistan. This has been a difficult and complicated relationship but it is an important relationship.” It is, however, difficult to assess the degree of U.S. resolve to improve the relationship, which remains stalemated for the time being.

CONCLUSIONS: The NATO attack and Islamabad’s reaction should not be viewed in isolation. For Islamabad, it is yet another sign of the distrust and deterioration of its relationship with the U.S. As 2012 begins, there is an urgent need to improve these relations. The two countries need each other and their mutual interests go beyond the war against terror. However as the bigger partner, Washington must understand Pakistan’s concerns regarding Afghanistan. Former Indian Prime minister Vajpayee once said that “you cannot change your neighbors”. This is perhaps the important point to be kept in mind when addressing the Pakistan-Afghanistan issue. What Pakistan-U.S. relations will look like in 2012 will depend on whether the two sides can establish confidence and trust in each other and whether Islamabad’s legitimate concerns are addressed.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Rizwan Zeb is with the Centre for Muslim States and Societies (CMSS), University of Western Australia.