In Khalid Hasan’s
Honor
Pakistan: Dream Deferred or Denied?
(continued from Home page)
Responding to a question about the Obama administration’s policy as
compared to the Bush’s policy toward Pakistan, Professor Cohen commented
that the Bush administration focused on the Islamic extremism and used a
military instrument (predators) which in some
cases was appropriate with minimal collateral damage. He added that it
may have Pakistani sensibilities but they are effectively killing the
right people and not killing the wrong people most of the time.
He pointed out that the Bush administration paid a little or no
attention to the future of Pakistan itself which was seen as a problem
it could deal with down the road and added that obviously the
perspective of a government is what’s going to happen tomorrow. He
explained that both administrations are driven by the threat of a
terrorist attack from Pakistan and Afghanistan area.
As for the Obama administration, he told the audience that it concerned
on the issue and the Biden-Lugar Bill, which is now Kerry-Lugar Bill,
really addresses the questions of Pakistan’s integrity, stability, and
development, though it won’t take effect in a short time.
Replying to a question about the drone attacks inside Pakistan’s border,
Professor Cohen stated that he talked to several officials in the NWFP
province in the course of last six months and they believed the predator
attacks were quite effective in killing the bad people without much
collateral damage. He said they didn’t like it but they didn’t seem to
be upset either.
To a question about the collaboration of the Taliban factions under
Baitullah Mehsud J. Alexander Thier responded that there was a worrying
sign that operationally the Taliban had become more sophisticated in
their attacks across the Afghan-Pakistan border. He said many people
show a great concern about the talk of a pushtun insurgency in
the sense that the individual groups that have grievances may coalesce
into something broad.
Referring to someone else’s views Alexander commented that the alliance
of the Taliban could also present opportunities either in the shape of
making their leadership an easy target or engaging them in negotiations.
However, Professor believed that like the communists in the past it
would be hard for the Taliban groups to work together due to differences
of ideology and tribal ethnicity. He said even if they succeeded in
forming a coalition and for instance took Peshawar (capital city of the
NWFP) for a day –that’s where I think we are heading to not in the
distant future – ultimately it would be a Punjab effect and the Punjabis
would have to deal with it.
Responding to a question about the stability of Pakistan, Professor
Stephen Cohen mentioned that there was a poll in India Today in which
almost 80 to 90 percent Indians expressed their will to invade Pakistan
militarily. “But of course when you remember that Pakistan is a nuclear
state you quickly look on to other solutions,” he added.
The professor stated that it was the purpose of the Mumbai attackers to
create anger among Indians and derail the process of normalization
between India and Pakistan. He suggested that India should address the
issue of what kind of Pakistan it wants to live with down the road. He
commented that India has to decide whether it wants to play cricket with
Pakistan, wants to destroy Pakistan, or wants a nuclear war with
Pakistan.
He recommended that India should take the lead in shaping the future
with Pakistan because of all the countries including the US, India is
the most influential nation.
To a question about the Supreme Court’s decision to disqualify the
Sharif brothers from elected office and President Zardari’s decision to
impose governor’s rule in the Punjab province,
Ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer termed it a crisis of the state.
She told the audience that during her recent visit to Pakistan she came
across this general view that the federal government was composed of
people who were good at manipulating politics and were little interested
in day to day boring things of making and implementing policies.
She added that it also answered the question which was being asked in
the past 24 hours that President Zardari is going to destabilize the
Punjab government. “Technically it seems to be an act of the courts.
There seems to be a very widespread view that the courts were at least
egged on by the government. And I think this is a very troublesome
decision. It poses a serious threat certainly to the democratic
credentials of the present government but more generally to the efforts
to give democracy deeper roots,” she said.
She said from the civilian-military relationship perspective, the
military does not want to rule Pakistan, at least for now but at the
same time it wants to have upper hand in security policy, sometimes
contrary to the government’s approach.
The ambassador mentioned that the third consequence of the developments
would be economic destabilization whereas the fourth manifestation of
the crisis would be problems for the domestic insurgency Pakistan is
facing at present.
(Continued)
[Top]
