Q. Do you see signs of change in America’s policy of supporting General Pervez Musharraf against all odds?

A. I think that the American Congress in particular, and especially the democrats, believe that the United States needs a Pakistan policy and not a Musharraf policy. We have been tied to Musharraf for far too long. We need to reach out to the Pakistani people and to engage them rather than simply have a military alliance with a president who has the lost the confidence of the Pakistani people. I think Senator (Barack) Obama has said that on several occasions now and I think the direction you will see in the United States moving (away from Musharraf).


Q. How do you think this Democrat thinking will materialise into policies if a Democrat is in the White House?

A. It’s too soon to make any calculation as to who will win in November (in the presidential elections in the United Sates). But I think Senator Obama has made it clear that in his view the presidency taken by Musharraf has long passed the point where he lost the confidence of the Pakistani people and thus we became charged in the opinion of Pakistani people of supporting a dictator. He has also made it clear that this new direction for Pakistan in the United States is not only because of the critically importance of Pakistan itself – it’s one of the largest Muslim countries in the world and is strategically located – but also because we cannot win the war in Afghanistan and the war against al-Qaeda without Pakistan being on our side.

Q. But the Democrats must have a way to get where they want to…

A. (The Democrats) will significantly increase American assistance to Pakistan but it will not just be military assistance any more. There ought to be a significant economic component. (Democratic) Senator Byd has sponsored new legislation to increase economic assistance to Pakistan by three times — $ 1.5 billion a year and guaranteed assistance for ten years. Senator Obama is a co-sponsor of that bill and I am confident that if the Democrats are elected this fall they will proceed to try to increase the assistance to Pakistan — not just the military channel, although that is important too but also in terms of trying to build infrastructure, trying to improve education and other things that help Pakistani people prosper.

Q. What is it that Americans would want Pakistan to do in return?

A. I think what the American people are looking for from Pakistan is help in the war against terrorism and extremism. I think we need a partner in Pakistan that is fighting extremism and violence and I think the good news for the United States in Pakistan is that your democratically elected government –headed by Prime Minister Gillani – has said that it wants to take on that role. He said it in Washington, he said it to Senator Obama and he said it to President Bush and that is good news for America. That’s exactly what we are looking for in help from Pakistan in fighting against violence. After all, these extremists groups are almost certainly are responsible for the murder of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto back in December.

Q. The elected government will hardly be able to achieve all this without the military being behind it. How should the imbalance between the civilian government and the military be addressed in Pakistan?

A. I think that’s an important question and I think I cannot give you a significantly clear answer but I think the history of Pakistan over the last sixty years has been a repeated story of civilian democratic governments having difficulty in gaining full control over the army and the intelligence agencies and this was the question very much on the minds of the people who met prime minister Gillani (during his visit to the United States): To what extent does he have full control over the army? To what extent is the army on board with his policies of fighting extremism? All the recent stories about ISI (the Inter-Services Intelligence) make this question all the more serious.

Q. How is the US viewing the recent leadership changes in Pakistan’s military and intelligence services?

A. I think it is a mistake to be focused solely on an individual. The question is about an institution that has repeatedly come out of the barracks and into the political arena. I think that is bad news for Pakistan. The Americans hope that Pakistan has a more normal relationship between the civilian authority and the military authority. In democracies, the military authorities are under the control or the command of the democratically elected civilian authority. I think Pakistan will be a more normal and healthier country if it had the civil-military relationship in the democratic norm.

Q.What is it that still worries the United States about Pakistan’s nuclear programme and weapons?

A. I think there are very serious questions still about Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan’s activities. More importantly, though, there are questions about the extent to which these were his own activities – that of a single individual – and to what extent whether or not they reflected much broader policy from the army and the ISI. Dr Khan has himself raised this issue in a several recent interviews. I think this is a very important question that ought to be thoroughly investigated first and foremost by the Pakistani authorities themselves. I find it hard to believe that Dr A Q Khan was the nuclear Houdini doing it all by himself but this is what Musharraf has been saying. This question needs to be looked into much more and I hope in time the civilian governments in Pakistan will look into questions such as that. I realise it is a very delicate, political issue but it is an important issue, nonetheless.

Q.What do you make of all the peace deals that Pakistani authorities have done with militants in tribal areas?

A. There is a great deal of scepticism in the United States about these kinds of arrangements. Musharraf negotiated several of them himself during the last seven years and they did not work out very satisfactorily either for the United States or for Pakistan. So this is a definitely an area where the United States is going to be sceptic but we are hoping the Pakistan government will show it can be effective.

Q. What is the way forward?

A. The elections of last February have shown that these extremist do not have the support of the majority of people in the North West Frontier Province and the Federally Administered Tribal Area or Balochistan. That’s good news. Now that we have a democratically elected government at the national level, at the provincial level and in the tribal areas, we would hope the democratically elected governments will be able to isolate extremism and think about a better future for all their constituents and close down the safe havens these extremist groups have built over the last decade in those border areas.

Q. . How do you think the situation in Afghanistan is impacting the one in Pakistan and vice versa?

A. The United States and NATO cannot succeed in Afghanistan, if there is a haven for terror across the border. We know from the history of Afghanistan for the last quarter century that country cannot be stable unless there is stability on the other side of the border. It is absolutely critical to the success of the war in Afghanistan and the future of Afghan people that these safe havens and sanctuaries are shut down in Pakistan. That means that the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people have to be part of that process. There is no unilateral way to do it that without their help. So, it is important that we have had the first visit of a democratically elected prime minister of Pakistan to Washington in the last nine years. Now that Pakistan has a civilian government with a democratically elected prime minister we will see a closer, common approach to the problem of extremism.

Q. Is focus in the United States finally shifting to Afghanistan?

A. Senator Obama has said repeatedly that he believes that Afghanistan is a forgotten war. It is in fact the central front in the war against the terrorist atrocities of 9/11. The essential front against al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan and the border lands of Pakistan. Afghanistan is where 9/11 was planned. I think all Americans and all Pakistanis should be seriously concerned that there shouldn’t be another terrorist attack on the United States or on American interests abroad that seems to come out of Pakistan. That will create very serious problems.

Q. With such dire warnings, why should people in Pakistan expect that the ongoing tango between their country and the United States will last?

A. Anyone who looks at Pakistan, understands that it is an extremely important country – it’s one of the largest Muslim countries, it is a strategically located country, it’s a nuclear weapon state and it is on the frontline in the battle against extremism and al-Qaeda. It has been a victim of too many, horrible incidents of terrorism. The United States has an interest in a strong, democratic Pakistan that can serve as an example of a Muslim country fighting against extremism and violence and can contribute to the regional stability and the global stability. I would hope the next president of the United States is able to work with Pakistan on this ambitious agenda. There is awful lot the United States and Pakistan can do together.

Q. But their relationship has vacillated…

A. The evidence of the American intentions and our actions has often been disappointing. The United States on far too many occasions supported the military rule in Pakistan where it should have supported democracy. I think mistakes ought to be ones we learn from. In future the United States ought to be clear and unequivocal that it wants a democratic Pakistan and it will work for the democratically elected government to meet all the aspirations of the Pakistani people and the American people. - Conducted via email by Muhammad Badar Alam