The most amazing aspect of the negotiated settlement between Pakistan and US government regarding the resumption of Nato supplies is that the understanding between the two nations in this regard will not be considered as an agreement: That is what our esteemed Information Minister Qamer Zaman Kaira says. 

But how can one arrive at an understanding about something without reaching an agreement is for the minister to solve. 

Is the information minister telling us that the conditions agreed upon are so vague that these give maximum lee way to the US to use the permission of supplies for transporting anything they please? Or that like old times of Musharraf there is an unwritten agreement very much against the wishes of the parliament. And since it is not written in black and white it cannot be shown to the nation. 

Was it not, the express promise of the government that there will be no unwritten understandings or agreements! Was it not the understanding that whatever the two governments agreed to would be crystal clear and there will be no grey areas! 

By telling us not to fall in play of words and split hair as to the difference between ‘sorry’ and ‘apology’, the minister is confusing the nation. He, however, by saying that the understanding regarding the resumption of supplies should not be termed as an agreement, baffles us more. 

Is it a tacit agreement? If it is so then a tacit agreement is usually shameful for one party or the other. Make a wild guess as to who will be the shamed party if the points of the unwritten ‘understanding’ are exposed. We know that Americans have not budged an inch from their stand; in fact, they have gained from the situation. They are now not required to give even the two hundred dollar per container they used to. Could it be that the two governments have come up with an illicit way of paying the per container tax; that is why we don’t have an agreement but an ‘understanding’. 

However, the US has agreed to pay $1.18 billion that would go into making a very small dent in deficit of our budget. 

We were told that President Obama himself will ask for apology from Pakistan. This did not happen. Now we are being told Hillary Clinton did say ‘sorry’ to Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar. Shouldn’t there have been a written statement from the US secretary of state? 

Trying to make light of the difference between ‘sorry and ‘apology’ is not going to fool anyone; the US government knew the difference that was why they didn’t use the word ‘apology. 

You can be sorry about a thousand things: like you can be sorry that America was hit by storm causing thousands of deaths; you can be sorry that Pakistani economy has taken a nose-dive and you can be sorry that this country’s most dynamic leader Benazir Bhutto was snatched away from us as a result of a conspiracy. But all these instances of ‘sorry’ do not implicate those who are sorry. 

But if one apologizes for the storm in America, one would be saying that one is responsible for the storm, no matter how unbelievable it may sound. Similarly if one apologises for the murder of Benazir Bhutto, one would indeed be admitting to ones role in the tragedy. 

Similarly, if the Americans say they are sorry about the Salala incident, they are not admitting to any guilt or crime or even mistake. Had the US apologised, instead of saying ‘sorry’, it would have been a clear manifestation that US or Nato forces committed the murders of the twenty-four young soldiers who had to face a massive armed attack from a country which called itself a friend and strategic partner in the war against terrorism. Sorry, my foot! It means nothing! Yet the US government may be sorry over one aspect of the consequences of Salala attack: That it had to spend over a billion dollars extra during the months that the supply route via Pakistan was closed. 

Coming to the war on terrorism: Has the Pakistan government taken any guarantees that US will not harbour militants who keep on attacking Pakistan. Has answer to the question as to who is providing safe haven to Fazlullah and his ilk, been given. 

All these are major concerns and the government should bring all these in the open, in the Parliament, and let the MNAs vote up or down on the agreement reached between Pakistan and US. Anything less than that will not be acceptable to the people of this country. If the government does not rectify the agreement by the Parliament, it will further expose the government’s sham claims that the Parliament is supreme.