The developments signal something of a rapprochement between the two countries, but tensions are likely to bedevil what has long been a brittle relationship, scarred by mistrust on both sides. Many in Washington believe Pakistan is supporting the Taliban, making the Afghanistan war unwinnable.

The U.S. expressed regret for the airstrikes and has been quietly pressing Pakistan to reopen the routes over the last two weeks. Washington and NATO stepped up those efforts in recent days, and officials had said Islamabad would not be welcome at the two-day summit beginning Sunday in Chicago unless it did so.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen phoned Zardari on Tuesday afternoon to invite him to the meeting, according to a statement from the Pakistan government and NATO.

“This meeting will underline the strong commitment of the international community to the people of Afghanistan and to its future,” NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said in Brussels, where the alliance is based. “Pakistan has an important role to play in that future.”

Nadeem Hotiana, a spokesman for the Pakistani Embassy in Washington, said Zardari “is likely to attend.” He said the Pakistani leader’s participation wasn’t conditional on reaching an agreement with the U.S. over reopening the supply routes to Afghanistan.

“The invitation we received is unconditional,” he said.

Pakistani civilian and military leaders met Tuesday to discuss the possibility of lifting the supply line blockade. In a statement, the Cabinet’s defense committee endorsed the invitation to Chicago, suggesting that Zardari would accept it.

It stopped short of saying the supply routes would be immediately reopened but said that talks with the U.S. and NATO over the resumption should be “concluded.” The full Cabinet is scheduled to meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was cautious, saying U.S. and Pakistani officials were still negotiating in Islamabad on reopening NATO supply routes. She said that a deal before next week’s NATO summit would be a “wonderful signal” but that the alliance decided that Pakistan should participate regardless of whether an agreement is finalized.

Pentagon spokesman George Little said the U.S. was hopeful that “in the very near future” the lines would reopen.

Pakistan sought to use the deadly American air strikes in November to extract new terms from the United States in what has always been a tense and largely transactional relationship. Noone expected the blockade to be permanent, so the main question became what concessions Islamabad could receive for reopening them.

The government has said it wants more money from the U.S. and NATO for hosting the supply routes, something Washington has indicated it could do.

The country’s parliament also demanded an apology from Washington for the border incident and an end to America’s drone strike campaign against militants in northwestern Pakistan, but neither appears likely, U.S. officials say. Negotiators from both countries have been discussing the drone strikes, which are unpopular in Pakistan, but Washington has said it will not stop them because they are vital to keeping al-Qaida on the defensive.

The defense committee only said the country “would remain engaged” with the United States on the question of an apology and the cessation of drone attacks.

By maintaining the blockade, Pakistan’s teetering economy risked missing out on millions of dollars in international development and loans, as well military aid. It was also facing the prospect of being left out of discussions on the future of Afghanistan.

The blockade forced NATO to reorient its logistics chain to more expensive routes across Russia and Central Asia. While the war effort has not suffered, the Pakistani routes will be more important in coming months as NATO begins to pull out of Afghanistan, with a 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops.

Pakistan has some bargaining power of its own because its cooperation is seen as important to striking a peace deal with the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan that would allow foreign troops to withdraw without sending the nation into further chaos.

The weak government risks some backlash from nationalist and Islamist groups, as well as militants, by reopening the supply lines. But the powerful army, which has influence over much of the country’s media and some of its most firebrand politicians and clerics, is likely to tamp down the outrage.

More than 50 heads of state will attend the meeting in Chicago, including President Barack Obama who will be speaking in his hometown.

___

Lekic reported from Brussels. Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Kabul, Munir Ahmed in Islamabad and Bradley Klapper and Lolita Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.

The U.S. expressed regret for the airstrikes and has been quietly pressing Pakistan to reopen the routes over the last two weeks. Washington and NATO stepped up those efforts in recent days by making it clear Islamabad would not be welcome at the two-day summit beginning Sunday in Chicago unless it did so.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen phoned President Asif Ali Zardari on Tuesday afternoon to invite him to the meeting, according to a statement from the Pakistan government and NATO.

“This meeting will underline the strong commitment of the international community to the people of Afghanistan and to its future,” NATO spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said in Brussels, where the alliance is based. “Pakistan has an important role to play in that future.”

In Islamabad, Zardari’s spokesman Farhatullah Babar said the president would consider the invitation, which he said was not linked to any reopening of the supply lines.

The invite came hours ahead of a meeting in Pakistan of civilian and military leaders to discuss the supply line blockade. A lawmaker said participants would consider reopening the routes. Their recommendations would be sent to the Cabinet, which will meet on Wednesday to formally approve the decision, he said on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.

A NATO diplomat in Brussels, also speaking condition of anonymity for the same reason, said the invitation to Zardari was meant as an inducement to the Pakistani government to reopen the borders.

By maintaining the blockade, Pakistan’s teetering economy risked missing out on millions of dollars in international development and loans, as well military aid. It was also facing the prospect of being left out of discussions on the future of Afghanistan.

The blockade forced NATO to reorient its logistics chain to more expensive routes across Russia and Central Asia. While the war effort has not suffered, the Pakistani routes will be more important in coming months as NATO begins to pull out of Afghanistan, with a 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops.

Pakistan sought to use the deadly American air strikes in November to extract new terms from the United States in what has always been a tense and largely transactional relationship. The government has said it wants more money from the U.S. and NATO for hosting the supply routes, something Washington has indicated it could do.

The country’s parliament also demanded an apology from Washington for the border incident, and an end to America’s drone strike campaign against militants in northwestern Pakistan, but neither appears likely, U.S. officials say. Negotiators from both countries have been discussing the drone strikes, which are unpopular in Pakistan, but Washington has said it will not stop them because they are vital to keeping al-Qaida on the defensive.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said Monday that Islamabad had made the right decision to close the border, but strongly suggested that it was time to reopen it, saying that Pakistan couldn’t afford to alienate the world for much longer.

Pakistan has some bargaining power of its own because its cooperation is seen as important to striking a peace deal with the Taliban and their allies in Afghanistan that would allow foreign troops to withdraw without sending the nation into further chaos.

The weak government risks some backlash from nationalist and Islamist groups, as well as militants, by reopening the supply lines. But the powerful army, which has influence over much of the country’s media and some of its most firebrand politicians and clerics, is likely to tamp down the outrage.

More than 50 heads of state will attend the meeting in Chicago, including President Barack Obama who will be speaking in his hometown.

In Kabul, Afghanistan’s deputy foreign minister Jawed Ludin said there are “some positive signs from Pakistan.”

“It may be resolved today or tomorrow, but as it stands, it’s still unresolved,” Ludin told reporters on Tuesday.

___

Lekic reported from Brussels. Associated Press writers Deb Riechmann in Kabul and Munir Ahmed in Islamabad contributed to this report.

The Pakistani government initially welcomed the raid that killed bin Laden in his three-story compound, but within hours the mood changed as it became clear that Pakistan’s army was cut out of the operation. Any discussions over how bin Laden managed to stay undetected in Pakistan were drowned out in anger at what the army portrayed as a treacherous act by a supposed ally.

That bin Laden was living with his family near Pakistan’s version of West Point — not in a cave in the mountains as many had guessed — raised eyebrows in the West. The Pakistani army was already accused of playing both sides in the campaign against militancy, providing some support against al-Qaida but keeping the Afghan Taliban as strategic allies.

A week after the raid, President Barack Obama said bin Laden had a “support network” in Pakistan and the country must investigate how he evaded capture. Pakistan responded by announcing the formation of a committee to investigate bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan as well as the circumstances surrounding the U.S. raid.

Soon after it began its work, the head of the committee said he was sure that security forces were not hiding bin Laden. Other statements since then have also suggested the report will be more of a whitewash than a genuine probe.

Last week, committee spokesman retired Col. Mohammad Irfan Naziri said its findings were being written up but they might not be released publicly.

“We’re disappointed,” said a U.S. official about the investigation. “They promised to do it, but they haven’t yet.”

The public line of the Obama administration is that no evidence has emerged to suggest bin Laden had high-level help inside Pakistan. Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency said bin Laden’s long and comfortable existence in the country was an “intelligence failure.”

But suspicions have increased following recent disclosures by one of bin Laden’s wives in a police interrogation report that the al-Qaida leader lived in five houses while on the run and fathered four children, two of whom were born in Pakistani government hospitals.

“I just find the idea that he lived in a place like Abbottabad without the ISI’s knowledge strains credibility,” said Shawn Gregory, director of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Bradford University in the U.K. “It is ridiculous that he wasn’t being protected.”

Since the raid, Pakistan has tried to close one of the most notorious chapters in its history.

The three-story compound in Abbottabad that housed him for six years was razed by bulldozers in a surprise, nighttime operation. Just last week, his three wives and 11 daughters, children and grandchildren were deported to Saudi Arabia; their side of the story is unlikely to be told anytime soon.

In this relatively wealthy and well-ordered town that has become infamous for hosting bin Laden for so long, it’s hard to find anyone prepared to say they supported the American operation. Many don’t believe bin Laden ever lived in the house, reflecting the popularity of conspiracy theories in a country where the rulers often obscure the truth.

Umair Ishaq, who grows vegetables close to the empty lot, said he remained angry about the raid.

“You go there to the compound, there is a still a fragrance from those who were killed,” he said, referring to Islamic belief that those who die as a martyr to the faith give off a sweet smell at death. “They were innocent and they were martyrs.”

Most of the rubble has been hauled away from the site, on which local children now play cricket. Farmers cross over it on their way to the fields, and on a recent day older boys were smashing away at bits of masonry, trying to extract the metal poles inside so they could sell them.

After the helicopter-borne operation, the country’s generals retaliated by kicking out U.S. special forces trainers operating close to the Afghan border, cutting intelligence cooperation with the CIA and restricting the travel of foreign diplomats and aid workers.

Authorities arrested a Pakistani doctor who assisted America in tracking down bin Laden. The doctor remains in detention, facing possible treason charges. The country has made not made public the arrests of anyone connected bin Laden’s time on the run.

Relations had barely recovered when in November U.S. airstrikes inadvertently killed 24 Pakistani troops along the Afghan border. Pakistan immediately blocked U.S. and NATO supply routes across its soil into Afghanistan. They remain shut, despite U.S. attempts to renegotiate a new deal with Pakistan.

Even before the raid, anti-American sentiment was so rampant in Pakistan that anyone who opposed Washington was lauded by many sections of society. Bin Laden was no exception, even as his followers carried out numerous bloody attacks inside the country.

“OBL was considered as a hero by the general public at large, and his death generated a lot of sympathy,” said Aftab Khan Sherpao, a lawmaker from the northwest who has three times been targeted by Islamist militant suicide bombers. “No one has been able to control and contain his supporters.”

Despite reservations about Pakistan’s commitment to U.S. goals in Afghanistan and doubts over how bin Laden managed to evade capture for so long, the Obama administration feels it has little choice but to ally itself with the country. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and will remain important in the fight against al-Qaida in years to come.

Many believe Islamabad’s cooperation will be essential for getting any Afghan peace deal to stick, allowing the U.S. to withdraw troops.

___

Khan reported from Abbottabad, Brummitt from Islamabad.

The program is something of a success story for a government widely seen as corrupt and inefficient, as well as for international donors that help implement and fund it. But the very need for the scheme highlights the poverty stalking a country whose stability is seen as key to the fight against Islamist extremism.

Other cash-transfer programs in Pakistan have been plagued by graft and allegations that only supporters of the party in power received the funds. Many feared this program, named after Benazir Bhutto, the late wife of President Asif Ali Zardari, would go the same way.

But that hasn’t happened, at least not significantly. The program is modeled on similar efforts in Africa and South America, part of a quiet revolution in the way countries and development agencies are helping the poor. Initial concerns that recipients would fritter away the money have proven unfounded, and giving cash is now accepted as a vital and cost-effective aid tool.

“I spend the money on my kids, what else would I do?” said Rifat Parveen, a mother of five who sometimes has to serve only bread and boiled chili peppers for the evening meal. “Even if a poor person gets 10 rupees (5 cents), he or she will be grateful.”

When a woman is called, she goes to a room where her identity is checked against an electronic database and her thumb print taken electronically. A bank employee then gives her the card — and a crash course in how to use it — before she returns to her village.

As they do elsewhere in the world, women in Pakistan must receive the money on behalf of their families because research shows they spend it more responsibly than men do. They must also first obtain a valid identity card to be eligible. Both requirements have been credited with pushing women, discriminated against in Pakistan, a little into the mainstream.

Recognizing that giving money doesn’t address the underlying cause of poverty, many schemes make the money conditional on certain actions by the recipient, such as sending one or more children to school or getting them vaccinated. The Pakistani program, which has so far handed out $1.3 billion to 5.2 million people, doesn’t do that, but plans to make some of the money conditional on school attendance.

The scheme has undergone several changes since it began in 2008.

Initially, local parliamentarians chose the beneficiaries and the money was distributed through the postal system.

Amid concerns that both systems had potential for abuse, the government surveyed 27 million households nationwide two years ago using a “poverty score card” to establish who qualified for the help.

Workers carried out detailed questionnaires on family size, salary and assets. They noted GPS coordinates of each household and whether the occupants had toilets, televisions or geysers to heat water. The data was then entered into a national computerized system. Beneficiaries are now being given debit cards, replacing the postal workers.

The U.S. government has provided $160 million, enough to provide two years of benefits to some 565,000 families — though it no longer funds the program and never intended to make it a long-term commitment.

The American aid was part of an expansion in U.S. spending in Pakistan to help stabilize the country, reduce anti-Americanism and steer it away from Islamist militancy. The U.S. aid effort in general has been criticized for failing to achieve its objectives, inefficiency and lack of coordination.

There have been a few reported incidents of people missing out on the money, or local politicians trying to direct its distribution. But the system that has been put in place makes it very hard for systematic abuse and those who feel they have missed out can, and do, appeal, said opposition politicians, diplomats, analysts and those working on the scheme.

“I really think that in comparison to what came before it, this program has done significantly better,” said Shazna Khan, a development consultant who has studied the scheme. “But there is always room for improvement.”

Kaiser Bengali, the economist who designed the initial program but is no longer affiliated with it, said it was so hard to steal from that some “shameless” local lawmakers “came and told me you have left nothing for us.”

Since taking office, Zardari has used every opportunity to play up his association with Bhutto, the daughter of an iconic Pakistani prime minister who founded the party he inherited on her death. Naming the program after Bhutto, and having her image featured prominently around the program, including on the debit cards, is an attempt to win votes on the back of the program.

Farzana Raja, the head of the program, a close friend of Bhutto and a member of Zardari’s Pakistan’s People’s Party, said like any government anywhere in the world, it wanted credit for its achievements. But she said the money was not being used to get votes in elections, which are likely to take place this year or early next.

“We have not, and we will not, use these funds for political reasons. That is crystal clear,” said Raja. “Transparency is why donors are attracted. We are doing everything according to international standards.”

Many of the recipients had to get identity cards for the first time to claim the money, meaning they are now eligible to vote. Women voters are believed to be more inclined to vote PPP, so the party is expected to pick up some support from them.

Still, Ayaz Amir, an opposition legislator whose constituency includes the Punjabi town of Kallar Kahar, said neither he nor any of his colleagues had concerns about the program.

“Some of the recipients might be more inclined to vote PPP, but it will not have much of an impact on the electoral dynamics,” he said.

Most of the criticism in Pakistan mirrors that of similar projects elsewhere in the world, namely that it’s better to give training, work opportunities or tools to the poor rather than cash handouts, which some say encourage a “beggar mentality.” But Raja said that reasoning ignores the fact that for many the money is a life saver, and there is no evidence it has been a disincentive to work.

Looking ahead, there are concerns the government will not have enough money to keep up the payments and cover the continuous testing to ensure targeting is accurate. The scheme is also branching out into other areas, including microfinance and health insurance, raising the possibility that it might lose focus.

Those concerns mean little to Khulsoom Bibi, who lives in a one-room, dirt-floored shack with her eight children in a Kallar Kahar slum. She, along with others in the district, is a grateful recipient of the funds. She pays about $10 a month in rent, and her husband’s wages as an occasional fruit picker are not enough to feed her family.

“We don’t even have flour some of the time,” she said as a child played at her feet, chewing on a filthy broken toothbrush. “I will give my vote to Benazir’s party. She has made us happy.”