NOTWITHSTANDING the hard-line positions adopted by some lawmakers and sections of the media on both sides, subtle messages seem to convey a positive mood in Islamabad and Washington. Being the aggrieved party, Pakistan has maintained a rigid stance and expressed its anger in more ways than one.

The hurt to Pakistan came in rapid succession the Raymond Davis shooting, the SEALs at Abbottabad and, to top it all, the Salala strike. The subsequent moves by the government were designed as much to express its justifiable anger over superpower recklessness as to placate angry public opinion.

The NATO supply line cut-off, the boycott of the Bonn moot, the Shamsi base closure and the no to the Marc Grossman visit were actions whose severity were noted by America, which at least on the Salala killings expressed regret, while insisting that commanders on both sides had made technical mistakes that led to the death of 24 Pakistani soldiers. Since then, behind the apparent impasse, the two sides have never really sat idle.

For Pakistan, the issue revolves round developing new rules of engagement as the prime minister repeated so categorically at Davos. This new relationship can be mutually fruitful, lasting and free from misunderstandings and perceived hurts if the two countries realise that there are limits to cooperation, especially because they do not and are unlikely to see eye to eye on the ambitions of some regional powers.

Whether the two sides are able to evolve a new, comprehensive but pragmatic relationship constitutes a challenge to their diplomacy. That the two countries need each other is a realisation that seems to restrain governments in Islamabad and Washington. The other day, US-made F-16s arrived in Pakistan. For a nation which has not forgotten Americas decision to hold back both the money and the planes Pakis-tan had paid for, the latest American decision should be considered a gesture.

At the same time, the New York Times has reported that the American administration is likely to apologise to Pakistan over the Salala carnage.

If true, Islamabad has to respond positively and realise that a strategic relationship with America is in the nations interests, no matter what position extremist parties adopt. One religious leader has said the resumption of Nato supplies will be treason, while another has threatened to besiege parliament.

While these visceral outbursts may have the general election in mind, the government must not lose sight of Pakistan's desperate economic condition, its long-term interests in a unipolar world and the new dangers lurking in its neighbourhood in Southwest Asia.Dawn