Sunday, January 29, 2006
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, a crucial U.S. ally in the war on terrorism, has a message for President Bush. Interviewed after the recent U.S. airstrike against alleged al Qaeda targets in the north of his country, the former army general discounted the importance of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, who are thought by some to be hiding somewhere in Pakistan. A military strategy alone won't defeat the forces of extremism, the Pakistani president told Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth last week at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking in English, the 62-year-old Musharraf outlined his view of how to win the war on terrorism. Excerpts:
Last month the U.S. attacked al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Was this attack coordinated with Pakistan?
This was definitely not coordinated with us. We condemn it and have objected to it as an issue of sovereignty. [But] we do know there are foreigners and al Qaeda in that [area]. It is my regret that there are [such] people there.
Arabs and al Qaeda?
Yes, indeed. We are investigating who got killed there. Probably -- and I use that word carefully -- there were five or six Arabs or foreigners killed there.
It was reported in the U.S. that top al Qaeda members were killed.
While this [strike] is a violation of our sovereignty, I also consider the presence of al Qaeda and foreigners a violation of our sovereignty. Let's not play into the hands of extremists [who say] that sovereignty is only violated when someone comes by air.
If the U.S. has intelligence that a terrorist leader is hiding in a certain house -- would there be time for the U.S. and Pakistan to coordinate?
You have to compromise on these things. Our capability is not as much as the U.S., but that doesn't mean that we should allow U.S. forces to operate in Pakistan.
In other words, the U.S. should turn the intelligence over to Pakistan?
There is a lot of coordination going on [in] intelligence.
The argument they use in Washington is that intelligence is short-lived and action is necessary.
How is that? Are they sitting in a jet? Getting ready to take off? . . . One has to see from situation to situation. But it is very clear: There is a domestic sensitivity, which is very important.
You recently opened a dialogue with Israel, which was not popular among radical groups in Pakistan. Where is the relationship going and why is it good for Pakistan?
If it is a few radicals, I don't care. . . . As far as the strategic issue of the Palestinian cause, we have not changed course. We are for the creation of a Palestinian homeland although we accept Israel's reality as a state. So this stand is no change. I feel we can contribute more strongly toward this cause if we are talking to Israel, so this is why we did it.
What brought you to make this decision?
I initially said if there is some development indicating progress toward resolution of the Palestinian dispute, we might be able to consider our diplomatic stance toward Israel. And I think this pullout from Gaza was a major decision by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. We thought this needs to be encouraged and it is the right direction to move, and we thought we should take a step.
What is your expectation for Iraq? Are the three groups willing to share power or will the country head toward civil war?
They must share power. We are for the integrity of Iraq and for representation and harmony among the three communities. How it is to be done is an issue.
Has the U.S destabilized the region by entering Iraq?
They have had elections and that is good. The constitution is written. It is correct to be raising an Iraqi force. They need to strengthen it so the Iraqis gradually take over and the foreign troops -- U.S. and British -- withdraw, ultimately leaving the area.
Reportedly, Pakistan's relations with India are deteriorating. How do you assess the situation?
Relations with India have never been as good as they are today. We have no tension, and there is no firing on the line of control. . . . My disappointment is that we are not going forward on the dispute resolution -- especially on Kashmir.
You made a proposal about self-governance for Kashmir.
I give proposals, and they don't give counterproposals. They don't comment on my proposals and say I am talking to them through the media.
The Indians say they have not been more forthcoming because of cross-border violence conducted in India by Pakistani-backed terrorist groups.
These are independent groups acting without any guidance or support from anyone, following their own agendas. . . . If the Indians think we sponsor [these terrorist groups], I don't even want to reply to that kind of accusation.
How do you feel you're doing [controlling] the terrorist groups that tried to kill you?
Very well. They have all been eliminated. Either killed or arrested.
Lashkar-i-Taiba and Jaish-i-Muhammad wiped out?
They didn't attack me. Whoever did is gone. And these groups are all banned.
Don't they change their names?
They change their names and they reemerge. . . . We have arrested about 50 percent of them. The rest are underground.
Do you think that Pakistan can eliminate the top [al Qaeda leaders]?
We can, whenever we get targets. We have eliminated their sanctuaries. We have suffered casualties -- about 200 dead soldiers.
People in America can't understand why it's so hard to find Osama bin Laden.
Because they don't know the environment. . . . There are very high mountains, between 10,000 and 15,000 feet, no communication infrastructure, and some people [are] abetting [them].
Do you think President Bush is going about the war on terrorism the right way? Do you think the U.S. understands the Muslim world?
Certainly there are a lot of loopholes in the West's understanding of the Muslim world. . . . Pakistan is against terrorism and extremism in its own interest, not because of the United States or the world.
Do you think President Bush has the right goal -- to eliminate al Qaeda?
The goal is correct, but it's limited because military action is not an end in itself. One must remember this. Military action buys you time to utilize all other instruments to get to the core issues which are spawning terrorism. If we cannot see beyond terrorism, we will never succeed. . . . Having bought this time -- what is the overall strategy?
We must deal with extremism. . . . Extremism spawns terrorism. Is the United States thinking of addressing extremism? We don't even understand what extremism is. We always confuse terrorism and extremism. Terrorism is one thing, extremism is another. Each needs a totally different strategy.
What is that strategy?
I have given the idea of enlightened moderation where the Islamic world combines to reject terrorism and extremism and goes on the social and economic path. . . . Every Muslim country should see what its environment is and act accordingly. We have adopted a strategy against extremism: (1) All these banned organizations: Don't let them reemerge, get hold of all their leaders. We are doing that. (2) Misuse of loudspeakers in mosques to spread hatred and militancy: Stop it. We are doing that. (3) Publications and hate material inciting people to militancy: Ban it, get hold of printers, publishers, distributors. We are doing that. (4) Syllabus and curriculum in our schools which have led to sectarian disharmony [and] religious misunderstanding: Redo the syllabus where the real essence of Islam -- which deals more with responsibilities to the nation and the family -- is taught. (5) Reform the madrassas and mainstream the students.
We are the only country in the world that has adopted a strategy on how to combat terrorism and extremism.
The U.S. has failed to understand the need to use more than military might?
The military is not the ultimate answer -- you can kill people, [but] you are not going to achieve anything. People think "Get Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri." You get Osama and Zawahiri, okay, you kill them tomorrow, I can assure you [that] you will have achieved nothing. Let it be very clear.
Because the real problems won't have been addressed?
Of course. For heaven's sake, let's not be shortsighted. These two people mean nothing. Do you think the man sitting in these inaccessible mountains is commanding what to do in Spain and London? You are sadly mistaken. . . . There is no milk and honey flowing after you get these two people.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.