Transcript

Host: This is On the Line, and I'm Eric Felten. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is promising to cooperate with the Afghan government to stop al-Qaida and Taleban attacks. “We must rescue our societies from this danger,” General Musharraf said, “and work together until we defeat the forces of extremism and terrorism.” But Pakistani officials also insist that there be no outside intervention in the tribal areas along the Afghan border over which the Pakistani government has little control. Tasnim Aslam is a spokeswoman for Pakistan’s foreign ministry:

Aslam: “If there are any terrorist elements hiding in our tribal areas it is for the security forces of Pakistan to take action against these elements.”

Host: President George W. Bush says that it is in Pakistan’s interest to stop al-Qaida: 

President Bush: “In my discussions with President Musharraf, I have reminded him that we share a common enemy. Extremists and radicals who would like to do harm to our respective societies. In his case, they would like to kill him and they’ve tried. I have made it clear to him that I expect there to be full cooperation in sharing intelligence, and I believe we’ve got good intelligence sharing.”

Host: Along with pressure to do more to fight terrorism, Mr. Musharraf is facing growing political unrest inside Pakistan. Government efforts to remove the country's chief justice and censor the media were met with widespread protests. And activists are demanding that elections scheduled for October be free and fair. 

Can Pakistan move toward greater democracy while fighting the terrorist threat? I'll ask my guests: Lisa Curtis, Senior Research Fellow in the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation; Kevin Whitelaw, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report; and joining us by phone from Lahore, Pakistan: Ahmed Rashid, author of the books: Taleban and Jihad. Welcome and thanks for joining us today.

Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf, went to Afghanistan to participate in the peace jirga, or conference to discuss how to end the Taleban infiltration into Afghanistan. And, at that meeting, this is what Pervez Musharraf had to say. Let's take a look:

Musharraf: "The issue, then, is of winning hearts and minds of people who are not militant and weaning them away from the diehards. It is for the Afghan leadership and especially for respected elders and representatives of the jirga here to accomplish this process of peace and harmony."

Host: And President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan thought things went well. Here's what he had to say:

Karzai: "I pray for the good relationship between these nations. The result of the jirga was excellent. I am very happy we had respectful leaders from both sides in this jirga."

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, how important was this peace conference in Afghanistan?

Whitelaw: We weren't even sure if President Musharraf was going to show up for a little while, but he did make the journey in the end. I think it was important as a gesture, but, obviously, there are much deeper issues here about trouble that's been along the border and the real question is going to in the end be to what degree the Pakistani government can ever really get control of those tribal areas along the Afghan border. And the history on that is not terribly encouraging.

Host: Lisa Curtis, Pakistan has maintained for some time that if there's problems going on in Afghanistan, that's not anything coming from Pakistan. This is something happening on the Afghan side of the border. Has there been any change in that position from Pakistan?

Curtis: Actually, there was. In his statement, he acknowledged that the Taleban were in Pakistan and coming from Pakistan. He didn't say anything about the government support, but he did acknowledge that there was Taleban finding safe haven on Pakistani territory. So this was something new. And I think it was very symbolically important that he did end up going. I think it was a big letdown when he said he would not go for the opening ceremony last Thursday. So, when he did turn up at the closing ceremony, I think this was symbolically important. It was also an opportunity for him to show his statesmanlike credentials at an important international event, which I think did help him.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, you raise this issue of sort of whether or not Pakistan can get control of the tribal areas. What are the challenges in trying to have control over what is part of Pakistan?

Whitelaw: It's part of Pakistan in name but not always in reality. There's a long history of tribal control and sort of government standoffishness and, indeed, exclusion at times. So part of the recent trouble stems from a deal that the government had brokered with the tribal areas for the tribals to sort of take care of security. That really didn’t work very well and helped al-Qaida and the Taleban establish what U-S intelligence officials call a safe haven in Pakistan. So they really have a lot of room to operate. Where the Pakistan government is running into trouble right now is the al-Qaida and Taleban are there. They're Pashtun. So are a lot of the tribal folks there. So they've kind of been granted, if you like, a certain amount of friendly access, and they have sort of a protected status there. And, to the degree that the Pakistani government moves against them, they risk triggering a Pakistani concept called “badal” which means “revenge.” So they risk actually turning more of the tribals against the government by moving against the guests -- the Taleban in particular but also al-Qaida there, as well. So the Pakistanis have often been hesitant to try to move against it too much, for fear of creating, indeed, more suicide bombers. And there are some indications that some of the recent attacks by the government against some of the Taleban there have, indeed, created some new suicide bombers among the tribals.

Host: Lisa Curtis, when Pakistan made this deal in the tribal area a while ago, saying that the tribal area would be in charge of sort of keeping out al-Qaida and security, it couldn't have been a surprise that that wouldn't really work. Was Pakistan really expecting the tribal leaders, where al-Qaida had been along, to now, all of a sudden, crack down and kick out al-Qaida?

Curtis: You're absolutely right. I think, for most observers at time, one could not understand how this peace deal could work. If the Pakistan military couldn’t address the threat, how were the tribal leaders going to face down these al-Qaida extremists and Taleban? So I think it was quite clear to a lot of observers that the peace deal would not work, and, in fact, it hasn’t. But not only has it not worked, in that it has allowed al-Qaida and Taleban elements to have a safe haven, it's also backfired on Pakistan itself, because it has allowed these leaders to start instituting Islamic edicts -- closing down girls' schools, threatening violence against barbershops. So it has allowed the Talebanization of not only the tribal areas but even beginning to happen in the settled areas of the North West Frontier Province. So it has really had a double impact -- double negative impact. So it's really in Pakistan's interest to get back control of the situation, and I think that's going to have to include military operations. The military is going to have to come out of the barracks, increase their patrols, and take targeted military action when the intelligence is good. And there are signs that Pakistan is moving in this direction. We've seen some engagement with the militants in the past couple weeks. Unfortunately, we have seen increased attacks on Pakistan military targets, as well. But I think there really is no other choice but to go back on the military offensive in order to get control of these areas. And then, of course, the U-S can support these efforts, once the areas are under control, by helping to provide assistance for reconstructing schools, health facilities, winning over the hearts and minds of the Pashtun population there.

Host: Let's ask. We're joined now by phone from Pakistan. Ahmed Rashid, who is author of the book “Taleban” and the book “Jihad,” and an expert in the area. Ahmed Rashid, are you there by phone?

Rashid: Yeah, I am.

Host: Hi. Welcome. Thanks for joining us today. What's your sense of the situation in the tribal areas along the Afghan-Pakistan border and whether the situation is changing and what Pakistan is going to be able to do there?

Rashid: I agree with what Lisa is saying, but I think there was an underlying message in those peace deals that were conducted last year, and that was that, I think, al-Qaida and the military had an agreement by which they would not attack Pakistani forces. And, of course, what you saw during those many months of the cease-fire, Pakistani forces were not attacked, but attacks against American forces inside Afghanistan increased. And that is why I think, really, that the Americans got extremely upset, because what they saw was this very one-sided kind of deal. I think now, after all the pressure that has come, there has been a deployment of Pakistani troops -- as many as twenty thousand regular army -- rather than paramilitary forces. Regular army troops have gone into North Waziristan, which is one of the most troubled areas. And we have not yet seen them take the offensive. What we have seen is that they have re-entered those pickets and those outposts that they had abandoned as a result of the cease-fire. They're occupying those positions now. We are waiting to see if they're going to go on the kind of targeted attacks and offensives that Lisa was talking about.

Host: Ahmed Rashid, one other question that comes up is whether President Pervez Musharraf really has control over the security services in Pakistan, which have long had a relationship with the Taleban. Is Mr. Musharraf in a position to really see a full crackdown and make sure that his government is all on board with a crackdown against the Taleban?

Rashid: Yes. I think that the assumption is now that, after eight years in power, six years since 9/11, several purges of the intelligence agencies -- particularly the ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence -- President Musharraf is very much in control. And certainly what has been happening in recent months -- such as the breakdown of the cease-fire, et cetera -- I think all this has been done really from the top. The decision making has not been done by rogue elements or by midlevel officers. It's been done very much by the top.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, how does what's going on now in the tribal areas and this change of policy, how does it relate to what's going on within Pakistan itself -- the siege at the Red Mosque and efforts by extremist Islamists in Pakistan to gain more power?

Whitelaw: Obviously, we've seen Musharraf in sort of an unprecedentedly weak position -- at least, for his time in office. He's sort of under fire from a number of different sides, both the secular opposition but also, to some degree now, the religious right, if we could call them that. In the wake of the siege on the Red Mosque and some of the violence that ensued there, that obviously inflamed a certain amount of passion. And so he has to guard against a number of different flanks right now, and so a number of different defensive positions, not to mention, obviously, pressure from the United States to crack down. But, again, even as he's starting to move in some of these tribal areas, he has to be very careful about the reaction that he's going to trigger. Pakistani officials have told us that as many as half of the suicide bombers in the past year or two actually are Pakistani tribals who are carrying out these revenge attacks I was talking about earlier. And there's also some evidence that a lot of the followers in the Red Mosque indeed were Pashtuns from these tribal areas, so that every action does have a reaction. And that's sort of where the president has to walk an extremely fine line, sort of juggling both sides here.

Host: Lisa Curtis, we've had not only pressure from extremists and stepped-up terrorist attacks, but we've had a great deal of sort of popular opposition ground swell going on in Pakistan over a number of issues -- the effort to get rid of the chief justice of the Pakistan Supreme Court, effort at media censorship -- both things that were pushed back by popular opposition. Where does that political upheaval stand, and how does it relate to the pressure Islamists in the country?

Curtis: I think there are a lot of moving pieces in Pakistan right now, and one of those pieces is pressure for a credible election. The Pakistan policy actually needs a credible election in order to channel the energy right now. I think that President Musharraf floated this idea of instituting emergency last week. And I think actually the U-S took the right step in discouraging this, because, I think, that would have created more problems than it resolves. The Pakistan military actually needs the support from the civil society to carry out a crackdown on the extremists, so I don't see how implementing an emergency would have helped in attacking the extremist threat. The extremists are actually taking advantage of the political uncertainty in the country. So it is a very unstable time in Pakistan. It's a very critical time. But I think there's no choice but to move forward with the democratic process, which means free and fair elections. And, of course, we've all heard about the Benazir Bhutto-President Musharraf meeting, which reportedly took place a few weeks ago. And I think there was a sense of relief among Pakistanis that perhaps there is a process of compromise happening between the military government and the political parties. There are a lot of questions that still remain about what's happening, and, of course, there has to be transparency and accountability and political choices. This is all part of the democratic process. But I think there was a sort of sense of relief that, on the same day that you had this attack, when the Red Mosque was reopened, and street clashes, that you also had reports that there might be some political reconciliation happening. And this is very important in terms of cooling the passions of the Pakistani civil society.

Host: Ahmed Rashid, what's your sense of how efforts to gain stability in Pakistan relate both to political reform and the effort to have a security crackdown against terrorists?

Rashid: I think it's just becoming increasingly difficult for Musharraf to do both jobs at the same time. He's very, very unpopular now, and the situation is very unstable. And I think really what ought to be happening right now, I think there should be international support for a speedy resolution to the present political crisis, and that would be through early free and fair elections. And I think, until you get over this political hump, the military and the country is really not going to be able to respond in any kind of major crackdown against al-Qaida. So I think you need political stability. You need the elections. It might take a few months to do, but it really needs to be done. Musharraf needs to determine what position he's going to occupy. He needs to conciliate with the major political parties. And we some degree of stability before we can take on the terrorists once again.

Host: Ahmed Rashid, what's your sense of the prospects for Benazir Bhutto returning to Pakistan and being part of that political process?

Rashid: Certainly, I don't think we have a deal between Musharraf and Bhutto yet. But certainly I think she could help -- her return. And elections in which presumably her party does quite well would help stabilize the situation to some extent and would give Musharraf some allies. At the moment, he lacks any allies. But the problem is that there are enormous forces -- right-wing forces, religious extremist forces, and even people in the military -- who are very much against this deal and against Bhutto coming back. And that, of course, is creating some of this instability I'm talking about.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, what's your sense of prospects for something robust in the way of democratic political reform in Pakistan?

Whitelaw: The problem is that Musharraf draws a lot of the power that he currently enjoys from his status as head of the army, and so the real question is how much he's willing to risk a loss in stature by sort of giving up that post, taking off his uniform, and, so far, that appears to be one of the major sticking points in the deal. And I think he is rightly concerned that, if he takes it off, he loses a heck of a lot of his stature. But, obviously, for the secular opposition and apparently for Benazir Bhutto, it's a key point.

Host: This issue of Musharraf both being the head of the military -- the military having come to power through a military coup -- and then running for president wearing the uniform --

Whitelaw: Right, which is banned by the constitution. One of the many things he's done, and he's got to figure out a couple ways around the constitution to sort of stay in power, and that's only one of them. Of course, Benazir Bhutto has to find a way around the constitution, as well, if she wants to be prime minister for a third time. So there's a number of issues that are challenging, from the sort of democracy perspective, if you like. So it's not really clear how this is a true democracy anytime soon, but, at the same time, there is at least a path that is possible that would be maybe a bit closer than what we're on today.

Host: Lisa Curtis, we've heard many times, when President Bush talks about Pakistan's need to fight against terrorism, it being personalized in the role that these are enemies not only of the U-S but enemies of President Musharraf, not necessarily being put in terms of it being enemies of Pakistan. Has the U-S invested too much in one man in its policy in Pakistan?

Curtis: The U-S needs to be very careful on this point. There's a lot of anger and resentment among the Pakistani population, who sees the U-S as propping Musharraf up against the will of the Pakistani people. So I think it's time for the U-S to extend a hand of friendship to the Pakistani people, to show its commitment to the relationship in general. But I think you're absolutely right, the U-S can no longer afford to have a single-minded policy which just focuses on ensuring Musharraf stays in power. The U-S has to acknowledge the push for democracy that is coming from the Pakistani people and understand that this is actually helpful in countering this parallel rise in extremism. And I think right now we're at a critical period. You've had a few developments back here in the U-S with the statements about unilateral military action in Pakistan, with the Congress instituting conditions on aid to Pakistan. These are all negative in terms of the Pakistani view of the relationship, and we're at a really critical point. And I think it is time for the U-S to show that it has friendship with the Pakistani people, has the best of intentions for the long-term stability of the country.

Host: Ahmed Rashid, what's your sense of what U-S policy should be, at this point, toward Pakistan?

Rashid: I really think, unfortunately, the U-S policy has been concentrated on a relationship with one man, rather than a relationship with institutions, political parties, the country as a whole. We're seeing, seventy percent of the aid that the Americans give is going to the military. And the relationship, now that the military has become so unpopular, is really rebounding on the Americans very badly. So, clearly, I think, America needs to reach out, I think, publicly to the opposition parties, to the leaders in exile. We had this really very disconcerting lack of any action by the State Department when, for four months, lawyers and civil society were demonstrating in the streets of Pakistan for the reinstatement of the chief justice. And the Americans were just -- There was deathly silence from the State Department and the White House. And I think that has angered an enormous amount of people, and the U-S really needs to now make amends very, very quickly. Otherwise, it's going to be a kind of shy Iran syndrome, where the U-S will be seen as hanging on to the sort of satrap of the departing dictator.

Host: Kevin Whitelaw, we have about thirty seconds left. Can the U-S get itself out of this position of being just behind Musharraf?

Whitelaw: We've watched, at the lower levels and the middle levels of the State Department, you're seeing a slight effort now to try to talk about some of the larger elements of democracy and some of the Pakistani government, referring to the Pakistani government rather than just Musharraf. But, at the very top, you're still seeing President Bush continually refer to Musharraf. Says, we know he's committed, because the terrorists have tried to kill him, too. So, at the very top -- and that's the signal that's going to be heard around the world -- it's still a very personalized policy that just hasn't changed yet.

Host: 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, Kevin Whitelaw, a senior writer at “U-S News & World Report” magazine, Lisa Curtis, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation in Washington, and author and newspaper columnist Ahmed Rashid, joined us by phone from Pakistan. Before we go, I'd like to invite you to send us your questions and comments. You can reach us through our website at www.voanews.com/ontheline. For “On the Line,” I'm Eric Felten.