The Pakistani Spectator

Observing current relative tranquility in the country its difficult to imagine how Pakistan seemed to be in critical condition just a few months back. For example, on January 14, 2008, my friend Ruth Dominguez, who authored this report, and I attended a gathering in Washington’s centrist think tank names New America Foundation (NAF). The topic was Pakistan in Peril, A Report from the Field on Bhutto’s Death, Terrorism, and U.S. Policy. In the event, some well known journalists spoke with hundred of interested people. Steven Clemons, Director, American Strategy Program of NAF moderated the seminar.

Flynt Leverett, former Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council, framed some of the problems in terms of U.S foreign policy. He wanted policy makers to look into some realities while making policy toward South Asia. His first proposition was that people need to see Pakistan and Afghanistan as a strategic complex matter rather than a simple foreign policy paradigm.

In other words, the region of Noth West Pakistan and South East Afghanistan could not be seen as isolated from each other. In his
second proposition, he suggested that policy makers have to recognize that there are limits to what Pak can do and what Pakistanis leaders are willing to do. He clarified by saying that interests in the region don’t necessarily overlap.

According to Leverett, Pakistan has some limits how far she could go to meet U.S. foreign policy objectives and we should recognize and respect that. In introducing his third proposition, he said that as a result of Bush foreign policy the situation has become worse since 9/11. The biggest mistake Bush adminstration made was not to finish the job on Usama Bin Laden (UBL) and his cadre of leaders. The error was compounded when he escaped Afghanistan and took refuge in Pakistan.

Peter Bergen, Senior Fellow and CNN Terrorism Analyst said in the case of fair and free elections, the Islamic Parties are going to lose to secular parties like PPP and Nawaz Sharif’s PML (N) in NWFP.

Nicholas Schmidle, a journalist who had been living in Pakistan for a couple of years and was deported a week ago after his article, “Next Gen Taliban” that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday, said Pakistan Tehrike Taliban—the Pakistani off-shoot of Afghanistan’s Taliban—has changed the dynamics of politics in Pakistan. He said that there was a fracture within the religious establishment, and that the Taliban movement is mostly comprised of marginalize and fractured groups.

Steve Coll, New America President and New Yorker staff writer said that the Red Mosque insurgency was a band of radicals and that the movement was not a coherent “monolith.”

He also agreed that it was striking how quickly things were changing in Pakistan and that broader developments had been occurring within the past 6 months. The state is weakening, he observed. According to Coll, Musharraf is reinventing his constitutional role as a former army chief. Musharraf is of the mind-set that he is still the boss
because the current army chief, Kiani, is his protégé.

For example, at one point sitting next to Kiani, Musharraf contradicted himself about sending the Pakistani army to oversee the election. While suggesting two opposite propositions about the army’s role in election, Musharraf totally ignored the fact that it was not for him, but it was for General Kiani to decide if army troops should be sent to supervise the election.

An Indian-American journalist named Goyal asked Schmidle that since Pakistani journalists in Washington cannot imagine being deported from the States for saying and writing something inappropriate, how did he feel being deported from Pakistan just because Pakistani
government did not like something he wrote in the New York Times. Then he asked what was the point of giving Pakistan 10 billion dollars while the country was unable of doing a small thing for America, like catching UBL?

Kami Butt, this reporter, said that some political circles in Washington say that some Pakistani politicians would sell their mothers to stay in control once they are in the seat of power. In the context of that statement Musharraf too turned out to be selfish and power-hungry.

This reporter elaborated on his statement by saying that after 9-11, Pakistan earned huge U.S. good will, which Musharraf forfeited by perpetuating his stay in power rather than cashing in on the American good will to resolve the very difficult Kashmir issue. Coll responded by restating the question that it was really about the
effect of Pakistani instability on neighbor India. Then he responded by saying that India wants a stable, but not necessarily a strong Pakistan.

In the response of a very senior Washington Post Journalist, Coll said that Pakistani leaders had done more for America than they had done for their own country. Having felt gallant of his question of the selfishness of Pakistani rulers, at the end of the seminar
this reporter asked Coll if he could be quoted on the statement of Pakistani politicians doing more for America than for Pakistan itself. Coll said that this reporter could quote him by saying that Pakistan did a lot more for America than she did for Pakistan.

Sindhi nationalist named Monawar Lughari asked the speakers what their observation was of Sindhi and Balauchis longing to have sovereign states. An Indian retired Colonel named Data expounded on Lughari question by saying if Lughari was right than what would happen with Pakistani nuclear weapons after the break up of Pakistan. He was responded by the suggestion that it would be almost impossible for Americans to get the control of those weapons very safely and the U.S options about this matter were very limited.

On elaborating UAE and Saudi Arabian influence in Pakistani politics through BB and Nawaz Sharif, the journalists agreed that the both countries basically compete with each other, one supporting BB and the other (S. Arabia) going with Sharifs.

On the issue of sticking with their nationalist and religious agenda the speakers said that National Awami Party condemn Musharraf by saying that he is killing Pukhtoon and Islamic leader Fazal-Ur Rehman says that Musharraf is killing Muslims in Waziristan.

At any rate, the South Asians observers in Washington feel the length of relative peace in Pakistan is very much depending on Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif’s political wisdom and their abilities of keeping Mohajir Qumi Movement and National Awami Party under the same tent, even they have different political agendas.