Transcript

Host: This is On the Line, and I'm Eric Felten.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack says that in the wake of elections that brought opposition parties to power, the U-S will reach out to "moderate forces within Pakistan's political system [who] have pledged to work against violent extremists":

McCormack: "What we will urge is that those moderate forces within Pakistani politics who now have a seat at the table, so to speak, in winning seats in the parliament should band together, should work together, for a few goals that are in the interest of Pakistan, broaden and deepen Pakistan's economic and political reforms, remain committed to fighting violent extremists and terrorists in the region and on Pakistani soil. This is in the long-term interest of Pakistan and the Pakistani people."

Host: Mr. McCormack says that while the United States will continue to work with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the people of Pakistan are the focus of U-S efforts:

McCormack: "We have a real interest in maintaining that relationship of cooperation, fighting terrorism with Pakistan and remain committed to the Pakistani people in helping them realize a different, more democratic, more prosperous future. Fundamentally, regardless of who is sitting in the prime minister's chair, the foreign minister's chair, the defense minister's chair, primarily that's our interest is remaining committed to the Pakistani people."

Host: What do the results of the parliamentary elections mean for Pakistan and for the U-S relationship with a key ally in the war against terrorism? I'll ask my guests: Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation; Shuja Nawaz, Journalist and Author of the forthcoming book: "Crossed Swords: Pakistan, its Army, and the Wars Within" and Kevin Whitelaw, a senior writer at U.S. News and World Report magazine. Welcome, thanks for joining us today.

Shuja Nawaz, let’s start by talking about the election itself. How big a win was this for the opposition in Pakistan?

Nawaz: It was a huge win, but I think it was a bigger win for the people of Pakistan. And one of the more interesting shifts in the emphasis from the U.S. administration this week was the fact that, for the first time, the administration was talking about the people of Pakistan, which has been the mantra of Congress. And I was pleased to see that Senator Biden and Senator Kerry were there in Islamabad because Senator Biden has been pressing for a change along these lines, for a shift from a policy focused on an individual to that of a country.

Host: Lisa Curtis, is it too late or is the time right to make this shift to no longer having what’s been referred to as a Musharraf strategy as opposed to a Pakistan strategy for the U.S.?

Curtis: No, I don’t think it’s too late, and I think the administration has been slowly shifting its policy. Let’s not forget the administration did prevail on President Musharraf to step down from the Chief of Army Staff position last fall. So I think we have seen a gradual shifting of the administration position, and I think it’s critical now that the administration put some distance between it and Musharraf, and I think it’s wonderful that President Bush has welcomed the elections, has said he looks forward to engaging with the new civilian government, but there have been some statements that the administration says it would hope that the new government works with Musharraf. And I think the administration needs to be careful when it’s talking about President Musharraf because certainly, he’s in a precarious position now, and it looks as if there will be pressure on the PPP-led coalition. It’s a coalition government, which means the Pakistan Peoples Party will need to listen to its other coalition partners. And we know that Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League party is already calling for the reinstatement of the independent judges, which, of course, could eventually lead to the ouster of Musharraf, if they, for example, decide that his presidency is illegitimate.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, on this point of one of the stated short-term goals of the party of Nawaz Sharif being to reinstate the judiciary -- you had the Supreme Court and other members of the judiciary who were pushed aside by President Musharraf -- not long ago, President Musharraf in an interview said that, on the restoration of the judiciary: “There’s no room for it. Legally, there’s no way this can be done. The Supreme Court and high courts are full.” Now, this was after the election, so does this promise to be a point of some conflict?

Whitelaw: It will be a point of conflict, but it is not just a point of conflict between Musharraf and the party of Nawaz Sharif, but it’s also potentially a conflict between the PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s party because the Pakistan Peoples Party and its temporary leader, who is the husband of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, faced some corruption charges that Musharraf dismissed but that the courts were trying to reinstate. So they have an interest, perhaps, in keeping the Musharraf judiciary in place. So there’s some very difficult things that would have to be resolved between these two parties for them to actually work together. That question -- the question of how you deal with both fighting terrorism and dealing with the United States but also how to go against the extremists and the militants operating in the tribal areas of Pakistan, are a couple different things that are going to have to be smoothed over before we could even get to a coalition government. And even if we get to a coalition government, we should also point out that, in terms of really challenging the rule of Musharraf, in general, it’s not clear they’d have a two-thirds majority in the lower house of Parliament to impeach him, and the Senate still remains firmly [under the] control of President Musharraf.

Host: Shuja Nawaz, on this question of the possible conflict between Musharraf and the Parliament and whether it might lead to impeachment, President Musharraf had this to say: He said, “The President has his own position, but he has no authority running the government. Any clashes that might come about would be if the Prime Minister and President would be trying to get rid of each other. I hope we would avoid these clashes.” What’s this going to look like, the state of power in Pakistan? Where’s it going to be based, and who’s going to be wielding it?

Nawaz: Pakistani history has a very funny way of repeating itself, and I think he has obviously been reading a little bit of Pakistani history. In the 1990s, we had a situation where the President and the Prime Minister were at loggerheads, and in the end, it was the army chief who had to step in, even though he had no constitutional role, to send both of them home. And I think that’s probably what he’s referring to. Unfortunately, in his case, since he’s no longer the army chief, and the current army chief, General [Ashfaq] Kiyani, has withdrawn the military away from the political scene. He’s not sure of how much support he has within the military should it come to a battle between Parliament and the President or the Prime Minister and the President. So, if anything, it’s in his interest, as well as in the interest of whoever is going to lead the government and Parliament, not to provoke a serious conflict to re-create the instability that led to the original state of emergency and that led to, in fact, to previous coups.

Host: Lisa Curtis, let’s talk a little bit about one of the other aspects of this election, which was the question of how the militant Islamic parties did in the election. What were their results like?

Curtis: I think this is one of the major victories of this election, and it’s extremely important that this was basically a referendum on the religious parties and extremism, in general. What we saw happening, particularly in the northwest frontier province, which borders Afghanistan, an absolutely critical province, particularly because of the tribal areas, which we have seen Al-Qaeda, Taliban strengthen their safe haven and even begin to try to spread Talibanization throughout the rest of the province. This is by closing down girls’ schools, barbershops, video stores, through violence and intimidation. The religious party that controlled the province was thrown out. It was defeated by the Awami National Party, a secular Pashtun party. So I think that this is a strong statement, that the people of this region do not want this kind of Talibanization or spreading of strict Islamic practices in the region, and this is extremely important, given the criticality of this particular area of Pakistan and the interest the U.S. has in seeing this terrorist safe haven uprooted. I think we have an opportunity to cooperate with the new government, the new provincial government there, who will have basically the same interests as us, rather than the religious parties, who we know had ties to the Taliban and probably weren’t as motivated to take some of the actions that we in the U.S. would have liked to have seen taken.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what’s your sense of how efforts against extremism and terrorism are going to change in Pakistan given the results of this election?

Whitelaw: It’s really interesting. You’re starting to see some of these opposition parties talk about a new approach to dealing with the militants involving negotiating with some of the extremists out in these tribal areas, and, “A,” that’s really not a new approach. President Musharraf has done that a few times, come to a number of tribal deals, every single one of which has backfired on him and the government tremendously and often strengthens some of the tribal leaders with whom these deals were made. And so I think that’s going to be a very worrying sign for, certainly, officials in Washington but I think also some people in Pakistan who are not quite sure that this is always the best way to do it. It’s perhaps more popular on the street, given that, obviously, the military’s more strong-arm tactics have often not been popular, but at the same time, so many of these deals have ended up, again, strengthening some of those figures that it’s not clear what approach could actually be different here.

Host: Shuja Nawaz, what’s your sense of these statements from both of the main party leaders, that they’re looking to have a new dialogue with the Taliban types in the border provinces?

Nawaz: I agree with Kevin. I think it would be foolish and foolhardy to take an approach of strictly negotiating with them. The big change that is going to occur, I hope, is that this will now become Pakistan’s war, and it won’t be seen as a U.S. war, that it’s important for the government to work with the military, and, also, on the economic end, the political and the social framework for those regions, to bring them into the rest of Pakistan so that they’re not treated as an appendage, and then to treat it as Pakistan’s war and not something that is being fought on behalf of the U.S. Another important issue, to follow up on what Lisa was saying, the Islamic militants are being defeated, but an important Islamic mainstream party, the Jamaat-e-Islami, sat this election out. And it’s probably one of the better-organized groups, and it’s important now for whoever is in government to reach out to the Jamaat-e-Islami and to bring it back into the mainstream because part of the battle for the space that is being occupied by the Islamic parties is the battle between them and the militants. And it’s in the interest of the political system for the Jamaat-e-Islami, for the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, to fight that battle against the militants, politically, and to win it so that you don’t have to resort to military action.

Host: Lisa Curtis, one of the things that Shuja Nawaz brings up is what Mr. Zardari has talked about, this idea of making it clear that it’s Pakistan’s battle to defeat the terrorists, that the terrorists pose a threat to the nation of Pakistan every bit as much as to America. What can U.S. policymakers do to help bolster the case that this is a Pakistani war against terrorists, not just a war being fought on behalf of the U.S.?

Curtis: I think the first thing is to reach out and engage with the new civilian leadership, recognizing that there is a lot of common ground to work with. The Pakistan Peoples Party came to power on an election platform of countering extremism. This was very clear. And there’s even another op-ed by Asif Zardari today, in which he says Pakistan should lead an Islamic renaissance. So there is very much an interest from within the PPP. It’s a liberal democratic party, supports the same kind of values that the U.S. does. So I think there’s a lot of ground to work with, so I think, number one: reaching out and realizing that we can work with this new civilian administration. Number two: the U.S. military is going to have to continue its cooperation with the Pakistani military, and we’re going to have to continue supporting the Pakistani military. And I think we have a strong partner in the new Chief of Army Staff, General Kiyani, who has made clear that he sees the terrorists as much of a threat to Pakistan as to the international community. And I think he has shown an interest in improving the Pakistani army’s capabilities in dealing with this threat. So I think this is where we need to put our focus is allowing the PPP-led government to talk about the ideological challenges and the differences, why democracy is so important, and we just saw that happen, but also to support or bolster the Pakistan army’s efforts. And I just want to come back to statement about negotiating with militants. I think this is largely a statement that plays to the public. The public is wary of military operations, but this is, I think, largely some confusion about the threat, because we know some of these elements, these Al-Qaeda elements in the tribal areas, for example, are very dangerous. Fifty suicide bombings in the last eight months in Pakistan: I mean, these aren’t people you deal with lightly, so I think the idea of “You’ll just be able to negotiate away this problem” is not really realistic, and I think once a government gets into place and starts seeing exactly what’s happening and looking at the options for dealing with it, they’ll realize that the military option is going to have to be part of this, along with economic social development of these areas.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what’s your sense on this question of what U.S. policy should be to try to complement this notion of it being Pakistan’s effort as much as the U.S. effort?

Whitelaw: To a large degree, I think the U.S. is partially a bystander in some of this because it’s going to end up being a matter of how the Pakistani political leaders end up framing it themselves and how they’re able to end up either working together or not try to do this. So I think that there’s a part that the U.S. is going to be, and really should be, a bystander. I think that there’s one area where that could end up -- where the U.S. could end up having an effect -- for good or ill, though, I think is the degree to which it is seen as taking unilateral actions inside Pakistan. We saw a U.S. Predator strike on an Al-Qaeda terrorist in Pakistan recently. That appears to be something the U.S. just sort of went ahead and did and told Pakistan about later. If we see more of those kinds of things, that could play – It’s not quite clear how that’s going to play out in the new political scene. It could end up putting some tough pressure on some otherwise potential U.S. allies.

Host: Shuja Nawaz, how’s this going to play out, this relationship between the U.S. military and the Pakistani military in dealing in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

Nawaz: I think there’s already some very good relationship established between the two militaries. They have a lot of training facilities. There’s probably a need for a much more detailed examination of one of the U.S.-favored plans, which was to build up the Frontier Corps as a counterinsurgency operation. But if we are to remove the anachronism, which is Fatah, which is the tribal area, then the idea of having a Frontier Corps, recruited from the same tribes, fighting their own fellow tribesmen, and equipping them better, may not be a very bright one for the long term. It may make more sense to train the regular army in Pakistan because they have a much better level of training, and they have a shorter learning curve.

Host: And Mr. Zardari, though, is talking about trying to make this something for a police force as opposed to the army.

Nawaz: There’s already a police force, and a very ineffective one, and historically, since 1901, since the Frontier Corps was set up, whenever push comes to shove, the large numbers either don’t fight or they defect. So it’s not the ideal way in which to wage an effective counterinsurgency. But, going back to Lisa’s point, I think a quieter U.S. diplomacy, less public statements, less hectoring of the Pakistani leadership is probably going to be much more effective than it has been in the past.

Host: Lisa Curtis, opposition leaders have also suggested that Mr. Musharraf -- to the extent people are unhappy with Mr. Musharraf -- that that might also be unhappy to the extremists because, as the opposition leaders have suggested, they may be in cahoots, to some extent. And Mr. Zardari has said that President Musharraf is running with the hares and riding with the hounds at the same time. How is that going to play out?

Curtis: I think that’s the point is that this problem of extremism in Pakistan is larger than any one leader, and it’s going to be a long-term effort in uprooting this phenomena. Pakistan had long-supported religious militants to protect its strategic interests, vis-a-vis Afghanistan and India, so there are a lot of linkages that run very deep, and there’s a mind-set that has to change there, and this is going to take time. So, I think -- I would just point out that it’s not just about Musharraf, it’s not just about Zardari. There’s no one person that is going to be able to resolve this, and there’s going to have to be a long-term change in Pakistan. But I would note that the civilian leadership can lead in changing the mind-set of the people, and this is going to be extremely important in overcoming this threat. It’s going to be a long-term, multi-pronged effort, and, again, I don’t think that relying solely on negotiations is going to be the way that this problem will be dealt with. There are some elements that will have to be dealt with militarily.

Host: I’m afraid that’s going to have to be the last word for today. We’re out of time. But I’d like to thank my guests: Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation; Shuja Nawaz, author of the forthcoming book “Crossed Swords: Pakistan, Its Army and The Wars Within”; and Kevin Whitelaw of “U.S. News and World Report” magazine. Before we go, I’d like to invite you to send us your questions or comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On The Line,” I’m Eric Felten.