|
Pakistan
With Mary Anne Weaver
Author
Thursday, Oct. 31, 2002; 2 p.m. ET
What is the future of Pakistan? Who is General Musharraf and what control does he have over Islamic militants? Is the Bush administration correct in its current relationship with the country? How has Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons changed the politics of the region?
Author Mary Anne Weaver was online to discuss Pakistan, the country's role in the war on terror and her new book "Pakistan: In the Shadow of Jihad and Afghanistan."
Weaver is a foreign correspondent for The New Yorker and the author of A Portrait of Egypt: A Journey Through the World of Militant Islam.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Mary Anne Weaver: My book came out at the best possible moment, Oct. 16th , six days after the elections. The elections were fascinating and we still don't know what kind of government will assume power in Pakistan.
Arlington, Va.:
What do you think the U.S. should be doing to help woo more of the Pakistani middle/lower class into our camp. Some seemingly good steps:
- Increasing their textile quota
- Distributing feel-good films about Muslims in America
To put it differently, if you were Charlotte Beers (currently U.S. Undersecretary of State for... Marketing-the-U.S.-to-the-World, or something like that), what would your marketing campaign involve?
Mary Anne Weaver: I think there would be three critical things. Increasing their textile quota is one. The U.S. should also be putting far more money into education. As we all know the madrassahs are turning out potential bin Laden's every day. Pakistan is a country with an illiteracy rate of almost 75 percent. Also I think that the U.S. has to be more consistent in their policies toward.
Harrisburg, Pa.:
What do you believe the United States government should do to best bring peace between Pakistan and India? Many have criticized American aide for being too focused on military objectives and not towards improving lives. What do you believe would be the most valuable things America could do for Pakistan?
Mary Anne Weaver: I thinking the context of India and Pakistan the most valuable thing the U.S. could do is become involved. The dispute of Kashmir is a dispute that is more than a half a century old. It is a dispute born on Indo-Pakistani independence 55 years ago. Until recent days one million Indian and Pakistani troops faced each other across the line of control in Kashmir. Kashmir, as Clinton said two years ago, is and was "the most dangerous place in the world." India and Pakistan have gone to war three times - twice over Kashmir - and that is before they gained nuclear weapons. The U.S. and the Western world has simply never engaged with India and Pakistan over Kashmir. There are dozens on UN resolutions calling for among other things a referendum in Kashmir which have lain dormant in most cases since 1948. The United States and Britain are not reprimanding the UN and Saddam Hussein for non-compliance for UN resolutions. Why is the same formula not being applied to Kashmir? These people must talk! There is an extremely volatile and dangerous dispute. This has gone on for far too long.
Herndon, Va.:
Recently I have read several regional scholars assert that Pakistan poses the most likely threat for a nuclear first strike scenario of any government in the world, including those striving mightedly to become nuclear capable. What's your assessment?
Mary Anne Weaver: I agree. I think this is obviously alarming. Pakistan as opposed to India has consistently refused to rule out a first strike scenario. I do not think Pakistan would intentionally lob weapons in to India but there is so much distrust that the chances of miscalculation can not be ruled out. For that reason I think that Kashmir - the primary nemesis between the two countries - has got to be resolved.
London, U.K.:
Given the revelations that have been made by the media in the U.S. about Pakistan helping the 'axis of evil' country -- North Korea -- in acquiring nuclear technology and given the fact that Pakistan is neck-deep in training and providing shelter to terrorists, why is it that the U.S. administration is sheltering the real evil that is Pakistan.
Mary Anne Weaver: opolitical imperatives. No country on earth is more critical to US military objectives including the campaign against terrorism than Pakistan is and so as the US 20 years ago turned a blind eye toward the internal politics to General Zia ul-Haq who was the general who launched Pakistan on its present militant Islamic course. The general who accelerated Pakistani's military program to develop a nuclear weapon, the general who opened the doors to collaboration to N. Korea and China. SO the United States today has turned a blind eye to Musharrif.
Singapore:
There is a groundswell of opinion amongst the Pakistani intelligentsia that U.S. strategic interests are always contrary to the public interest of Pakistan. This view goes further to blame the United States for the frequent strong doses of military rule in the country.
Would you agree with this? Will the side effects of propping up an unpopular Musharraf be so strong as destabilise the wider region?
Mary Anne Weaver: I agree with it completely and I think we saw some of the side effects to this on Oct. 10th when Pakistanis went to the polls for the first time since Musharrif seized control. We say an alliance of six hard lined religious parties making extraordinary strides politically. They captured 51 seats in Parliament. Compared to their last showing in 1997 in which they won only 4 seats. This means that they for all intents and purposes have become the king makers vis-à-vis the composition of the new Pakistani government, they will also control provincial assemblies in the two most sensitive and strategic provinces in Pakistan - the Northwest frontier and Balochisdan. Both of which border Afghanistan. Provinces in which according to Pakistani intelligence sources are now home to at least 5,000 fighters from al Qaeda and the Taliban including perhaps even Osama bin Laden himself. This religious alliance known as the MMA campaigned basically on three issues - the end of the American military presence in Pakistan, the embrace of the Pakistani supported jihad in the Indian state of Kashmir and the implementation of Shariah law. All of this obviously will impact very negatively on the future stability in Pakistan which in turn will impact negatively on the stability of the region.
Philadelphia, Pa:
Do you think that the outcome of the recent elections in Pakistan was designed by Pervez Musharraf? I believe it waw! Musharra is using these religious parties as a bargaining tool with the US and with the world. This way he can ask the world to ease up on him about cross-border terorrism in Kashmir, simultaneously asking the US to leave the North West frontier as that area is now under MMA (the coalition of religious parties). He is more shrewed than the western leaders realize. He is continuing the evil design Pakistan has drawn for the World!
Mary Anne Weaver: I think there is a certain amount of veracity to the conspiracy theorists at this point - who include some of the most respected editors in Pakistan. But if Musharraf, by his pre-election maneuvering, had hoped to produce a parliament of his own choosing, I think that in many respects that he has hoisted himself on his own petard. The religious parties that were meant to do well in certain areas did far far better than anyone, including members on Musharraf's military backed regime, expected them to do. By their sheer strength in numbers they can no longer be used by the Musharraf regime and, most importantly, by the powerful Pakistani military intelligence organization (the ISA) as a needle by which Musharraf can prick the U.S. Musharraf had hope through these elections - elections that were highly controlled well in advance of the actual polling - to increase his legitimacy. He has in fact badly diminished it. As one Pakistani friend who despite great odds won a seat in Parliament said, "Musharraf is first and foremost a commando. He is a brilliant tactician but not an overarching strategist." And I think that these elections are very emblematic of that.
Mary Anne Weaver: Thank you very much for having me.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Election
2002 at 3:30 p.m. ET
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
