Pakistani officials on Monday condemned the US for carrying out its first drone strike in the country the parliament in Islamabad demanded they end two weeks ago. However the Pakistani officials qualified that it should be seen in light of the presence of Islamist militants on Pakistani soil. The mixed signals indicate the delicate tightrope the government is trying to walk with the American attacks. The attacks are very unpopular in Pakistan, so opposing them makes sense for political reasons. However the government does not seem to want the strikes to thwart any attempts to patch up ties with the US, which could free up over $1 billion in American military aid. The Pakistani foreign ministry issued a statement saying that the strikes which killed three suspected militants in the North Waziristan tribal area Sunday \"are in total contravention of international law and established norms of interstate relations.\" The statement said: \"The government of Pakistan has consistently maintained that drone attacks are violative of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.\" The Pakistani parliament has demanded an end to the strikes in mid-April, when it approved new guidelines for the country\'s relationship with the US. Washington had also hoped that Islamabad’s decision would pave the way for Pakistan to reopen supply lines for NATO troops in Afghanistan. These lines were closed in November, in retaliation for American airstrikes that mistakenly killed 24 Pakistani troops. The drone attacks have been a stumbling block. However, Pakistani prime minister,Yousuf Raza Gilani, struck a moderate tone Monday when he seemed to link the strikes to the continued ability of Islamist militants fighting the government and international forces in Afghanistan to operate on Pakistan\'s territory. Gilani pointed out that the resolution passed by parliament, also stipulated that foreign fighters must be expelled from the country, and that Pakistani soil should not be used to attack other countries. Gilani said: \"So, when we plan a strategy with the US, all these aspects would be discussed.\" The US has repeatedly demanded that Pakistan target Taliban and al-Qaeda militants who use its territory to launch cross-border attacks. The Pakistani military has however refused, claiming that its forces are stretched too thinly by operations against homegrown militants battling the government. However, many analysts believe Pakistan is reluctant to target militants with whom it has historical ties because they could be useful allies in Afghanistan after foreign forces withdraw. The issue of the drone attacks is complicated by the fact that some elements of the Pakistani government, including the military, have helped the US carry out strikes in the past. That cooperation has come under strain as the relationship between the two countries has deteriorated, but many analysts believe some in the government still support the programme at some level. It is also interesting to know that these Pakistani officials believed to support the attacks are the ones that often protest them in public, due in large part because they are so unpopular in the country. Many Pakistanis also believe these drone attacks kill most civilians, an allegation disputed by the US and independent research. A Pakistani intelligence official said the most recent strike seemed to be a message from the US. Speaking on condition of anonymity, he said \"It\'s a message that things are going to continue as usual irrespective of what we say”. It\'s not the first time the US has ignored Pakistan\'s parliament, which has called for the drone strikes to end since 2008. The US president, Barack Obama significantly ramped up strikes in Pakistan when he took office in 2009. While the US has said little publicly about the attacks, American officials have argued in private that they are critical to targeting Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters who threaten the West. Drones are not the only issue complicating Pakistan\'s decision to reopen the NATO supply lines. The parliament in Islamabad has also demanded that the US provide an \"unconditional apology\" for the deaths of the Pakistani troops in November. The US has expressed regret, but has declined to apologise, a decision that appears to be driven by domestic political considerations. The US has said its troops fired in self-defence. This claim however is disputed by Pakistan, and the White House could be concerned about Republican criticism if it apologises.