Pakistan’s Foreign Policy

Publisher and Managing Editor IKRAM SEHGAL delivered a lecture to the students of the Department of International Relations, Karachi University, on Saturday 15 March 2003. This is the transcript of the lecture and the “Question and Answer” Session that followed.

Short introduction by Dr. Moonis Ahmar, Head of the Department of International Relations, Karachi University

Let me introduce our Guest Speaker, Mr. Ikram Sehgal. Actually he does not require an introduction in the first place because he is a well-known person – a renowned security analyst, also Editor-in-Chief of Defence Journal magazine and he is very much involved in Pakistan's foreign policy affairs. He will speak on Pakistan's foreign policy in the wake of Iraq-US crisis, which is very important for our country. This will enable you to derive answers to some of the questions that may be in your minds a policy on the part of Pakistan as far as the US-Iraq tensions are concerned. Is that policy really covering the national interest or is it the policy of some of the interests of individuals? Is that policy rational, is it pragmatic? Is there a need to review Pakistan's foreign policy and make it more an outcome of the realities of what we see today? Basically since you are either studying this course or have already completed it, this should be of great interest and utility to you.
I must thank Mr. Ikram Sehgal for accepting our invitation to come and speak. He has just undergone a surgical operation for removal of his gall bladder. Despite this he agreed to come because he had made a commitment to do so. We are indeed very grateful to him.
He will primarily speak on the topic for about 25-30 minutes after which there will be a short break leading to the questions and answers session. I must also thank Mr. Sehgal for all the material he has provided in the shape of hand-outs and documents and frankly this is the first time that a Guest Speaker has provided documents of this type. We also hope to have Mr. Sehgal's cooperation in our future programmes also.
Over to Mr. Ikram Sehgal.

Thank you Dr. Moonis Ahmar for your kind words.
First of all as Dr. Moonis Ahmar has said I have just had an operation. I would like to apologize for wearing this attire (T-shirt) but because of the stitches I have to wear something loose.
The subject is Foreign Policy. Do we have a foreign policy? I regret to say that we do not have a foreign policy but what we do have is an "Opportunistic Policy". We go wherever opportunism suits us. Now that could be the basis of a foreign policy but even opportunism must have some relevance to ground realities. Unfortunately, our foreign policy is based on individual preferences, it has no relevance to ground realities and it does not take into consideration short-term, medium-term or long-term interests of the State. I would like to just go over the parameters of foreign policy. Foreign policy is dictated by the necessity of the relationship that exists between States in the region, between States outside the region, their economic interests and vital long-term strategic interests of the State. Now let us take our foreign policy.
First of all we must take it for granted that the States around this region will not go away, we may change the name of the State but the ground will remain the same. We may call India, Bharat; India may be divided into thirteen states, Afghanistan may be divided into three states, Iran into six states, Iraq into five but in all cases the ground will remain the same and the people will remain the same. So first of all let us come to terms with this reality that the world around us, the immediate world around us will not change. It is here to stay.
Secondly, let us go back into our history, our culture and our religion. We go back to the time of our Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and see the pragmatic manner in which he conducted his foreign policy and the pragmatic way in which he conducted his relations not only with the various tribes but also with the many religions and the States around him. Primarily, the long-term interests of Islam dictated his foreign policy. So we have to conduct ourselves as a foreign policy by taking into consideration that we have India as a big neighbour to our east that will not go away, China our great neighbour to the north-east will not go away, Afghanistan and Iran are also there to stay. This is the first aspect of our foreign policy that we must realize. In this context there are some options that we can adopt, firstly, we know that India is a dominant power and this is reality not a falsehood and being a dominant power it has bullied all the other States in its vicinity. It has problems with Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It has already subjugated Maldives and Bhutan. India harbours ambitions to be a world power and wants to have hegemony; only we stand in its way. We should not have any problems with India becoming a world power but certainly not at our expense. Let them become a world power, they are a big country and if they become a world power, it is their destiny but not at our expense. Therefore, there are three strategic options open to us. Because of Kashmir we have gone into the first strategic option and that is adventurism. Unfortunately, because of the lessons learnt in Afghanistan where we found that we could interfere in the internal affairs of another country we thought we could apply the same logic to the disputed territory of Kashmir. However, the world kept changing, adventurism became a bad word and after the events of September 11 adventurism is out. In fact adventurism is now out to such an extent that they now link Jihad, which is a pure struggle against oppression, to terrorism. This is a very unfortunate development but it has happened because of our own mistakes. But now we cannot afford to make such mistakes in this unipolar world. In the unipolar world of today we see the United States of America having differences with its allies, I call it a temporary difference, this difference is not a clash of civilizations but a difference of materialism over the cake of Iraq. Once they have come to a decision as to what portion goes to whom these differences will go away. So Adventurism is out.
The second state is Neutrality. Neutrality, like that being seen in Maldives and Bhutan and to an extent like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka who have only now started fighting back. Our culture does not allow us to accept anyone trying to dominate us. We accept friendship on an equal and a regional basis but we do not accept dominance. Therefore, both the first option, Adventurism as well as the second option, Neutrality are out.
The third option is Constructive Engagement while retarring our nuclear deterrence. Constructive Engagement means that we have a long-term, well thought out and mature, well-adjusted, realistic and pragmatic foreign policy. That foreign policy must cater to the ground realities and by preserving our deterrence. Today, we are the only Muslim country in the world having such deterrence and that is our nuclear deterrence, tomorrow, perhaps Iran may acquire the same. By preserving our nuclear deterrence we have a Constructive Engagement.
After September 11 what are our interests or what could be any country's interests? A country's interests are the people's interests. But what are the people's interests, what do they want? First of all they want security for themselves and their children, they want food, shelter, medicine, education, facilities of transportation, etc, etc. These are the fundamental premises and in order to achieve these, they need security. Security is provided by having deterrence and this deterrence comes in the form of the Armed Forces. The deterrence also comes in the form of having a constructive, non-aligned foreign policy that takes into consideration the long-term measures.
Now let us take a long look at ourselves. We should not become the champion of all causes. I ask you about the 2,000 people who died in Gujarat, were they Pakistanis or Muslims? Of course they were Muslims but why did not our brothers in 51 other Muslim countries raise their voices? Why were we the only people to do so? Simply because we feel for them. So if the other Muslim countries did not raise their voices in protest (and I am not even going to talk about Kashmir about which absolutely no one, apart from one or two countries, have ever cared), why should we become the champions of Palestinian causes? Have we heard Mr. Yasser Arafat or any Palestinian ever say something good about Kashmir or about Pakistan? If anyone in the audience has ever heard them say something please raise your hands. Nobody? OK. But we are always the champions of Palestinian causes!
The other day a gentleman came to me and said to me that Israel is doing such and such and the Jews are doing this and doing that. I told him that may be so but had not our Holy Prophet (PBUH) entered into a Treaty with the Jews? We can have good relations and a treaty with communist China who are Kafirs but they remain our very good friends. It should not matter to us what they are, it should only matter that they are our friends. Why should we be against any religion and why should we go after another country just for the sake of religion? I am not propagating that we go and become friendly with Israel or that we should have relations with them but the ground reality is that we should not become the champion of the Palestinian cause and be at the forefront against Israel. What happens then is that the Jewish media, which controls all the propagation in this world, find it convenient to use the print and electronic media to spread falsehood and lies about us because of which we are forced to keep on denying things that are totally untrue in the first place. If we had a pragmatic foreign policy and told the Israelis that they are the ones who are giving aerial vehicles to India in addition to artillery units and radars would they like it if we were to give nuclear weapons to Syria or Libya? Of course, we do not give anything to Syria, Libya or any other country because our nuclear policy is very mature and we are not taking advantage of the constructive engagement. We must speak in terms of our own strength, and use this strength to counter that of our opponents.
We do not want war with India and as I said in the beginning India will not go away. We must have peace with India. Many of you may be surprised to learn that at one time South Asia was the economic giant of the world which was based on two areas (1) the Indus Valley and (2) the Golden Valley of Bengal (Sonar Bangla). The people of these two areas could at one time not even feed themselves but were then able to feed the whole of India giving them rice, wheat, jute, textiles and various other commodities. A lot of people do not know that till 1757, 80% of all textile exports to the world used to come from Bengal. When the British arrived in India they realized that this was a threat to their textile business in Manchester and Liverpool so they cut the hands of the craftsmen who used to make muslin. This is just an example to illustrate the importance of economy and we must concentrate on economy because it makes us strong. Economy is everything and our economic power must be based on other people's requirements. Here I would like to give another small example, that of Dubai. Do you know who created Dubai, it was Pakistan. Pakistan has a very immature policy which stipulates payment of duties on TV sets, refrigerators, electronic appliances, etc, etc but hardly anyone ever pays duties. All these items arrive in Dubai and are smuggled through Pakistan either directly or through Central Asia, into India and Iran and Afghanistan and no one is paying any duties on these items. Just four years ago about 1.5 million TV sets left Dubai for Pakistan and our Customs department collected duties on only 100,000 sets. It is on such wrong policies that we have made Dubai what it is today. Just imagine if we had brought the duty down and said that there would be no more duties anymore there would have been a mushrooming of factories in Karachi. Karachi is one of the greatest cities of this world because it has a port that has a river, it is a hinterland of agriculture. Now let us look at Dubai, it has a port but no river and no agriculture, Abu Dhabi is a port but has no river and no agriculture. Look at various other countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore. They do not have the natural ingredients that we have and that is why first of all we will have to look inwards to our foreign policy and we have to see our interests first. Recently, a campaign has started for putting TV sets onto the Afghan transit trade but everybody and his uncle knows that the TV sets are not going to go to Afghanistan but will go to Pakistan.
During World War II there were 30 million refugees who were then sent to different countries but no country received more than 1 million refugees. Pakistan became the hosts of 3 million Afghan refugees out of which 2 million will never go back to Afghanistan. There are people who say that Afghanistan is a Muslim country and we must have good relations with it but the fact remains that we do not need Afghanistan as much as Afghanistan needs us. They need us, we do not need them. Once this is settled we are ready to give them our goods and our produce. I will tell you some things which you may never have heard about, there are Atta (flour) factories in Rahim Yar Khan which are producing Atta only for Afghanistan and their products are sold even before they go into the flour mills. All this Atta does not come to Karachi and it doesn't come to Lahore, it is meant only for Afghanistan. My point is that they need us and we do not need them. Therefore, the first premise of foreign policy is to be strong and to have your own absolute, clear-cut understanding of what your long-term aims and long-term objectives should be. Here I would like to quote George Washington, the first President of the United States of America who upon leaving office said in his farewell address, "Do not make inveterate foes and inveterate friends" which means that one should not make prominent friends or prominent enemies as friends and enemies change. Do not think that someone can be your friend forever as the day may come when he will let you down.
Now please let me give you a fact of life. During the 1965 war as many of you young gentlemen may have heard the Muslim countries stood by us. Iran stood by us but they did not give us even a measly spare part for our aircrafts in either 1965 or 1971 despite requests from our side. Turkey, UAE, Saudi Arabia all did and to an extent Malaysia but except for these four countries nobody helped us out. Therefore, we see that foreign policy is also based on what the other person reciprocates to you, what are you giving to him in return? Foreign policy cannot be one-sided, it has to be based on reciprocity.
I fully understand the implications of my lecture here today and I will talk about Iraq and I will develop our foreign policy based on Iraq. On the one hand Mr. Saddam Hussein has killed more Muslims than Halaku Khan and Changez Khan put together and this is another fact of life. He has used poison gas on his own people and used this gas on countries around him but then so many other dictators in the world have done the same. He has never spoken up for Pakistan and has always been pro-India. In 1974 he sent in 500 weapons into Pakistan to destabilize Pakistan at the insistence of India and Afghanistan. So we should have no love for Mr. Saddam Hussein. However, Iraq is a Muslim country and we are emotionally attached with it, more so because after Makkah, Madina and Al-Aqsa most of the Muslim holy shrines are located in Iraq. So what should our foreign policy be? Should we say let America attack Iraq or should we oppose any attack on Iraq? We have two sides of a coin, America is attacking Iraq to get rid of Saddam which is all right with me as far as I am concerned but what we do not like is that America may stay there and may sit on Iraq's oil and may dictate terms to all the Muslim countries in the region which should be against our interests. Therefore, our option is very clear, we want Saddam Hussein to go but not Iraq. As far as Iraq is concerned we have to be very clear that we cannot allow war on the Iraqi people because they are Muslims and they are not responsible for the deeds of their leaders.
At the same time the US is exerting pressure on us and everyone must remember that the US can do a lot if it wants to – such as stopping our exports to the world, allowing India to attack us, pressurizing Saudi Arabia and UAE not to give us oil, etc, etc. Iran in any case is not much of a friend. So we turn to the fact of real politik. Real politik dictates that we have one true friend who according to Muslims is a Kafir and that friend is China. China is a very good friend who has helped us out many times in our hour of need, quietly and effectively, they have always supported us.
Our foreign policy option should have been based by keeping the pivot as China then seen a pragmatic foreign policy with India as far as Kashmir is concerned. Today or tomorrow we have to open up economic considerations with India because that is what, excuse me for using the word, the banya, will understand. We have to explain to India that if it wants to pass through Central Asia it will have to come through Pakistan and if it comes through Pakistan it will have to have relations with us. As far as Kashmir is concerned we will not ask for it to be handed over to us but ask them to give enough concessions to the people of Kashmir so that they are not oppressed.
Why is Kashmir important to us? Not because of the Kashmiri people only but because it sits on three major rivers and if the waters were to be stopped it won't be Sindh and Punjab but it will be Punjab and Sindh. We must be very clear about what is important to us. Yes, the Kashmiri people are important to us but more important is the headwaters which lie in Kashmir. We must now make a concerted effort to speak to the Indians and explain to them that neither they nor we are going to go away from this world.
So at the end of it all, the foreign policy must be dictated out of pragmatism based on self-confidence.

Question and Answer Session

Q. 1 Why should we have any dealing with States who do not subscribe to Islamic Belief?
Ans. Not at all. That is why I have constantly referred to China. The ideological fundamental of the state is basically Islam. Islam does not say that you will not have relations with other people but it does say that will not allow them dominance over you. Do not let others dominate you and that is my reason of referring to China again and again. With all due respects as I have great love for China and yet they are good friends. In pure sense of the word, China is a Kafir State, I will just go a little personal on this. In 1970 I was in the Pakistan Army flying a helicopter mission. I was attached to the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army in the Khunjerab Mountains in the Karakoram Highway which was under construction at that time. I had been brought up on a diet of comic books in my younger days which said that all Chinese were “yellow commies”, etc, etc as such I was very apprehensive when I met them for the first time. But now I can say that the best time of my life was spent with the Chinese on the mountains, they were so loving and affectionate. The first day I landed across the border they gave me a prayer-mat (Ja'Namaz) and showed me the direction of the Qibla and even brought over a local moulvi to help out. What I am trying to explain is that their policy was very pragmatic and has always been. Dr. Moonis Ahmar had asked me whether we could depend on China. My answer is yes, we can depend upon them because their relation with us is not emotive but it is practical. If they lose us and they may have to face Russia, India, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam, in fact they are surrounded. We are their opening and have been since a long time. But as things stand today they are exasperated with us and are frustrated with our foreign policy as they see us dilly- dallying, yet they are our friends and they stand by us. So we will be diverging from our fundamentals only when we do not believe in what we are. We do not stop being Muslims if we are friends with China and they do not stop being communists because they are friendly with Pakistan.

Q 2. What in your opinion is the reason for Pakistan not having a realistic foreign policy?
Ans. The first undercurrent that does not allow us to make foreign policy is the bankruptcy of our leadership. We have had leaders who do not deserve to be called leaders. They did not understand anything but their own self-interests and are concerned only about their own survival. Then we have the bureaucrats who have been brought up in a certain way and who believe in 9 to 5 routine, only whiling away their time and coming back the next day. We do not have a foreign policy that is practical, pragmatic and consistent because we have had leadership which has not been true to the country.

Q 3. The Soviet Union has never been on friendly terms with Pakistan and has left no opportunity to harm our interests. What do you think is their ultimate aim, to break Pakistan?
Ans. First of all we do not know if the Soviet Union wanted to invade Pakistan in 1979. Secondly I would like to point out that if the Soviet Union wanted a road to Gwadar what was the harm in it? We are today looking for a road into Central Asia. So let us not have preconceived ideas as the Soviet Union was looking after its own interests. You must understand that in early Afghanistan the Communist Party had two factions, the Khalq faction and the Parcham faction which were fighting against each other. When the Parcham faction started becoming stronger the Khalq faction started supporting the Soviet Union and the Russian troops were brought in. Once the Russian troops were brought in who were fighting their battle? Most of the battles were fought by the Taliban who came from the Madressas. The Tajik, Ahmed Shad Masoud had a truce with Russia for 3 years. The Uzbek, Dostum was raised by the Russians also, he is still there today. Who fought their battles, it was the Pakistanis, thousands of Pakistanis have given their lives in this fight and I honour all of them.
Secondly, who created the Taliban? We certainly did not. They existed much before but because of circumstances the Taliban came into power and we thought it expedient to support them. But after some time the Taliban went out of our control also. Riaz Basra who was the most wanted man in Pakistan for the killing of people of the Shia community continued to live openly in Pakistan for four years and nobody could touch him. So what was this great ISI control over the Taliban if they could not even touch Riaz Basra? When history is written and facts are known sometimes people take credit. When the Taliban government came into being some officers decided that they had made the Taliban. Just because of these officers Pakistan has got a bad name. In 1994 Gen Waheed who was the COAS of the Pakistan Army instructed very clearly to stop all Afghan contacts and to remove all pro-Afghan officers from the ISI. Lieut Gen Ashraf Qazi who was the Railway Minister, (and may probably become the Railway Minister again), became the DG ISI and removed all pro-Afghan officers. Actually when September 11 came along the ISI had very little information about the Taliban.
Since the subject has been opened up, can anybody name one person from Al-Qaeda who is a Pakistani? Of course no one can. Yet we Pakistanis are labelled in the world as being the biggest supporters of Al Qaeda. Mr. Osama bin Laden simply did not trust us, we who had provided the maximum number of people who died in Afghanistan, were not trusted by him. We provided maximum support yet Mr. Laden who came from Saudi Arabia had Yemenis, Egyptians, Syrians, Libyans, Kuwaitis, Palestinians, Iranians, etc, etc, but no Pakistanis. You are all intelligent people, just ask yourselves this question, why did he not have any Pakistanis in his hierarchy?

Q 4. With respect to formulation of foreign policy, what is your advice to students? How can we contribute?
Ans. Well. I have outlined some steps, strategic options in my Concept Paper of June 5, 2002 which I will advise you to read. Our foreign policy is like a cricket team, it is beaten even before it goes into the ground and winning or losing is subject to the appearance of the moon. My point being that there is no consistency in our foreign policy and we must bring in consistency and the ones who can bring in this consistency is you people because you will be projecting the literate aspirations of the masses of Pakistan. The poor peon outside cannot do it, he will listen to propaganda and will be full of emotion and will go out on the street and die for something which he probably did not even understand. But you are the literates, the educated ones and you must read and satisfy yourselves and then let the other person satisfy you.

Q 5. From the present scenario in Iraq in which the US used a pretext to inflict war on Iraq, it is generally believed that they will go after other countries having nuclear capability such as Pakistan. Do you think that holds true?
Ans. I think your observation is very correct. If we go by US foreign policy their first target will be to neutralize the nuclear option and since we are the only Muslim country with the nuclear option we will be the first target. But always remember that being Muslims we believe in faith and destiny. What will happen once they go into Iraq? It will destabilize Syria, destabilize Jordan, destabilize Saudi Arabia, destabilize UAE, destabilize Egypt – they will have their hands full, twenty years later they will think about Pakistan. Moreover, their assumption about the Iraqis will to fight is wrong. The Iraqis may not fight for Saddam, he will fight for Iraq. Wars cannot be planned on wishful thinking. Let me tell you that howsoever unfortunate, one of the facts of the war in Iraq actually works in our favour, in a wrong way.

Q 6. What about our neighbour Iran, we have strained, if not outright hostile, relations with them. What is the reason for this?
Ans. Iran's foreign policy during the Shah's time was focused on Balochistan and on Balochistan's oil. There is a Balochistan in Iran as well as a Balochistan in Pakistan. In Iranian Balochistan there is oil and it was their thinking that there will also be oil in Pakistan's Balochistan. The Shah of Iran in fact coerced the Pakistani leadership not to search for oil in Balochistan. Let me tell you something interesting about Iran. When we were fighting the 1971 war with India and just four days after the war ended we were readied to be rushed over to Balochistan. Being members of fighting units we could not understand this, the enemy being India so why were we being rushed to Balochistan? It turned out that Iran, taking advantage of our war with India, had amassed its army on the borders in order to annex Balochistan if we were defeated. This was our friend.
Their policy is dictated out of their faction and religion and because of this they started interfering and we in fact became a proxy battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran. In all the proxy Shia-Sunni wars, the Sunni element was backed by Saudi Arabia and the Shia element was backed by Iran and we became a battleground. Unfortunately, that is Iran's stance and the leadership in Iran has not thought of it. Look at Iran, on the one hand it calls America a Kafir whereas India, the land of idols is okay with them with whom they also have a Treaty! Therefore, it is not a question of principles but it is a question of pragmatism.
Here I would also like to add that Iranian policy is anti-Arab.

Q 7. Do you think Pakistan will be pressurized by US with respect to Iraq?
Ans. Pakistan can be pressurized in the present situation vis-à-vis Iraq, this is unfortunate. The second question is that repercussions will be very bad internally because obviously the people do not like it. But I think the US will start sweetening the pill. Just today in the morning the US lifted all sanctions against Pakistan. This is a pragmatic annunciation of their foreign policy. I also think that at the end of the day the street protests may not materialize to that extent, if it did not materialize during the time of Afghanistan I do not believe it will materialize this time to an extent to bring down the government.

Q 8. So far our government has bowed down to US pressures and accepted whatever their terms. Do you think that the government could have acted more wisely and less hastily and have at least got the US to give Pakistan something back for our cooperation, like other countries have?
Ans. I must reluctantly agree with you even though I agree with Gen Musharraf's policy after September 11. We could not be on the side of terror and he took a very good decision at that time. But we should not have signed on the dotted line and we should not have accepted all the points, we could have negotiated with them just like Turkey has done. Turkey is negotiating in a very nice manner and we all know that tomorrow they will vote and the day after tomorrow they will allow the US troops use of their facilities but by that time Turkey will have 35 billion dollars in their kitty. Turkey has no love for Iraq so for them it makes no difference and furthermore Turkey knows that if it does not allow US troops then Kurdistan may well be created.

Q 9. What is your opinion of Pakistan's current foreign policy with respect to our foreign policy during the 1991 Gulf War?
Ans. I think here we are following a policy which is at the moment, surprisingly, not a bad foreign policy and its not as bad as previously. Let me give you an example of a bad foreign policy. In 1991 we had a bad foreign policy when Iraq invaded Kuwait and we on the one hand supported Saudi Arabia and Kuwait while on the other hand our Chief of Army Staff was saying that Iraq is doing “strategic defiance”. We lost out as this was a wrong policy but now our foreign policy is more consistent. It says that we do not like Saddam Hussein, we think that Iraq should not have weapons of mass destruction because it has not exercised maturity in using the same but we do not want war to be inflicted on Iraq. So I feel they are consistent.

Q10. The US is the only Superpower left and is imposing its will on Iraq. Popular world opinion is against this, yet the US insists on going ahead, why do you think that is?
Ans. I agree with you that the USA is nobody to decide. But let me tell you that this is a very unfortunate world where might is right. You may be morally right but might in the end comes out right. In the unipolar world of today all the might is with the USA. Despite this even they are now facing difficulties because in the clash of civilizations, the old civilization consisting of Germany and France have gone against the new civilization while the nation of shopkeepers i.e. Britain keeps on changing steps everyday.

Q 11. Do you think Pakistan and Israel can have relations? What would you base this relationship on given that we have never been on any terms with them?
Ans. I accept that in the first instance. You go to Israel and say that you now recognize Israel on the basis that it will not support India against us. Today, many weapons that are not given to India by USA, Russia or France are being given by Israel and all these weapons have consequences for Pakistan as they are all hi-tech weaponry in the field of information technology, radar, intelligence and the like. Israel gives all this support to India and particularly on the media Pakistan is belaboured at every opportunity. As such we should say to Israel that since they are a nation based on ideology and we are the other nation in this world which has also been formed on ideology, we recognize it but on a bilateral basis that we will not pass on our know-how to your enemies and it should do the same. If it does pass on its expertise and know-how to our enemies then we will do the same.

Q 12. It is generally believed that because of Jewish influence on the USA, the USA has gone into Iraq as a sort of proxy for Israel. Would that assessment be correct?
Ans. I tend to agree with you. America may only be doing what Israel cannot do itself. Israel knows that the weapons of mass destruction that Iraq has will be first used on Israel. Israel itself cannot go against Iraq because of Syria and Jordan which lie between Israel and Iraq and also because it will sharply antagonize the whole Arab world. Europe may also not take too kindly to such a step by Israel. Israel has a great hold on the United States Establishment. While such a hold may not be on a day-to-day basis but if you look at the top hierarchy of policy makers in the US there are at least five or six decision-makers who have strong beliefs supporting Israel.

Q 13. Are we influenced by issues or principles?
Ans. What we can say is that we are influenced to a great deal by issues that should be more properly studied as far as Pakistan's vital national interest is concerned. It should always be a case of "Pakistan first" and not just by saying the words but "Pakistan first" in reality. Pakistan's independence should be first and keeping our nuclear option is extremely important for us and we must retain our nuclear option in this world. In doing so even if we have to support the attack on Iraq and receive an undertaking in writing that Pakistan will not be next it will be worth it. I get hurt as much as you people do when it comes to Iraq but I think I have the right to defend my house which is Pakistan.

Q 14. Iran follows a principled policy, why don't we?
Ans. India and Iran are having joint naval exercise just 200-300 miles off Karachi and one may well ask against whom are these exercises being carried out? We must first of all look at our interests then at other's interests. Had Iraq supported us even once Pakistan would have gone overboard in support of Iraq. After King Faisal was assassinated and the Baghdad Pact came to an end in 1958 Iraq has never once raised its voice in support of Pakistan.

Q 15. Everyone knows that the US views our nuclear capability with concern, specially when India keeps reminding it about this. Do you think the US would at any time do something about this?
Ans. Unfortunately, for America our nuclear deterrence, and there is no secret about this, is the bomb and the means to deliver this bomb. Over the years we have developed a Strategic Forces Command and we have the ability to deliver these bombs in enough numbers that the world will take notice. Take the example of North Korea. Why is America not doing anything about North Korea? Simply because the USA knows that if North Korea is attacked it will send missiles into South Korea, into Japan in fact all over the place. So fortunately for us we possess the means.
There is a very good TV programme called “The Situation Room” which has real people in it like Ambassador Oakley and various other US officials taking part in it in which they have discussed a war between India and Pakistan. In this programme they have openly deliberated whether to attack Pakistan or not in case of such a war because Pakistan has made its stance known that if the US does not stop India from attacking Pakistan, we will have no option but to use our nuclear options. After analysis of this scenario it was their decision that they cannot attack Pakistan as they may only succeed in destroying 20-25 of our nuclear sites leaving maybe another 50 sites intact which will give us the capability of delivering at least 50 bombs.

Q 16. Do you think there is any possibility of ever improving our relations with the Soviet Union?
Ans. Let me make it very clear that anybody who now thinks, 50 years down the road, that the Soviet Union will become our friends at the expense of India, is wrong. It would not be wrong to say that both our policy and the Soviet Union's was not pragmatic. The Soviet Union did not really need India as the Czarist dream was really to have access to the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. Had they come to us and said that they would support us and our stance on Kashmir things would have been much better. However, as long as China is our friend the Soviet Union's policy towards Pakistan cannot change and as long as India and Russia are together their policy will be the same.
Please remember one thing, howsoever bad we may be, we are Pakistanis. We have great human resources and great material strength and we are the ones who made the nuclear bomb. Look around you, at our education system, it is very bad and yet we continue to produce people of good qualities. We are an island of stability and the US know it and if it does anything against us it knows that it will destabilize the entire region. It is our leaders who have let us down but the people are great industrious people and when they go out of Pakistan they are among the best, be it in America, England or anywhere else.
Let me tell you a small personal experience. On 22nd February 2003 I was in Abu Dhabi attending an Education Conference and I experienced pain in my kidney due to which I had to be hospitalized for a short while. In the night when I had to visit the hospital again for an injection I took a taxi from the hotel to the hospital. The taxi driver was a Pakistani and he started talking to me during the drive. On learning that I was having kidney pains he recounted his own experience with this ailment and how he had to drink lots of beer to overcome it. On arriving at the hospital I paid him but he refused to go away and said he would wait for me, he remained adamant despite all my requests. After about 30 minutes when I came out of the hospital the taxi driver was quarrelling with a couple who wanted to hire his taxi but he kept saying that he was waiting for someone who was not well. In short I had become his responsibility.
The same thing happened the next day when I had to go to the hospital for a scan. After I paid him, this taxi driver, another Pakistani, kept on waiting for me despite my pleas that I might be late. When the scan had been done the receptionist informed me that my friend was looking for me. Naturally, I was surprised as to who this friend could be and to see the driver waiting for me. The Pathan taxi driver was waiting for me all this time and said, "Sir, I will not leave you."
Believe me this makes your heart strong. Do not ever under-rate yourselves.

Q 17. What about our future relationship with Iran?
Ans. As far as Iran is concerned you should view it in the context of the experience we have had with Iran over the years.

Q 18. Do you think we young people can make any difference?
Ans. Yes. You can make a difference by writing about it, by speaking about it and by making the other person knowledgeable about it. As you all know I have just had a gall bladder operation but I did not want to miss this chance for anything in the world. It is more important for me to come here and tell you my ideas and to hear your ideas, it is a two-way process and I am sure when you go out you will speak to someone else and so on and so forth. No government can escape the mass public opinion. By mass public opinion I mean the educated public opinion and not the street opinion because I can never accept the rule of the mob. Public opinion that is formed on the basis of reality, on facts and figures, is mature and realistic, is pragmatic and brings Pakistan first is what we all should do.

Q 19. In the present scenario when America is making India stronger to ward off the Chinese threat what would happen if Pakistan does anything that does not go in favour of America?
Ans. We will definitely be put under pressure and that is why I am saying as a deterrence to such a situation we should recognize Israel. Tell me what difference would it make if we were to recognize Israel, do not Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan recognize this State? Saudi Arabia has openly stated if Israel were to fulfil certain parameters it will have no problem in recognizing it also. We should look out for our own interests. I am sure if we were to recognize Israel today most of our problems with America would simply go away.

Q 20. Over the years our leaders have been either from the armed forces or the same old faces from the politicians. These politicians come to power during elections because they have their own power base. Please let us have your views on both and what should be done for better leadership.
Ans. The leadership will not come from the army or the politicians, it always evolves itself from wherever. The Army should not provide leadership, I am an ex-army officer but it is not the army's role. Yes I agree with the coup of October 1999 but I agree with it only for a small time because intervention by the army is sometimes necessary but this intervention should be short, swift and over. The power should be with the people. Our problem is that our democracy is faulty. For example, there are about 70 people in this room and if five were to stand for election and anyone who gets 15 votes will be elected because the rest of the votes will be divided among the other four contestants. This is not correct and the proper way should be that if someone obtains 15 votes and the second person 12 votes then all the 70 people should be made to vote again for either of the two who have secured most votes.

Q 21. How does our leadership get influenced?
Ans. Unfortunately, if you go to Dubai you will find out that, with all due respects, many people from our CBR and Customs Department have supermarkets and huge buildings in Dubai. Of course the money came from somewhere. People have been bribed and people are amenable to bribes.