Zia Says Soviets Seek Afghanistan Pullout

President Zia ul-Haq of Pakistan, during a lengthy interview last week at his palace, said the Soviet Union appears to be seriously interested in exploring a political settlement to the six-year-old war in Afghanistan.

Zia, in office now for nearly nine years, also spoke about Pakistan’s relations with India, about the Middle East and of the progress of democracy in his own nation.

Unlike some Washington analysts and officials, Zia believes the Soviets may want to pull out of the country they invaded in 1979; he bases this on more than educated guesses.

“We are in touch with them directly and indirectly,” he said, “and from all counts, the signals we are receiving are that the Soviet Union wishes to withdraw.”

Referring to a recent speech in which Soviet leader Mikhail S. Gorbachev called Afghanistan “a bleeding wound,” Zia said, “Let us believe what the Russians say. It can’t be any worse than it is now.”

Zia added: “Inside Afghanistan, if you look at it from the Russian point of view, things are not going so well. I’m sure they can’t afford to suffer as many casualties as they are suffering today. So, from that point of view, they also appear to be keen to resolve the issue of Afghanistan.”

Zia, reaching for a well-worn atlas to help explain why he believes the Soviets originally invaded Afghanistan, dismissed Soviet claims that they were invited in by a friendly power.

“It was a fear of a neighboring country not being friendly,” he said, “and also acquiring a very important strategic position. If they move here (he pointed on the map to Pakistan) over the bodies of Pakistanis, they are at the mouth of the gulf, and whoever controls the Strait of Hormuz, controls the gulf. In one move they have threatened to secure the Strait of Hormuz, encircle Iran and tell the Chinese, ‘We are on your flank.’ So strategically speaking, this is ideal.”

In Washington there is continuing debate over whether it is necessary to increase aid to the moujahedeen, the Afghan resistance fighters. Those who favor an escalation of aid argue that it is necessary to inflict greater casualties on the Soviets to force a political settlement.

Zia disagrees. “To expect that the greater the insurgency, the less the time the Soviets will spend in Afghanistan, is wrong,” he said. “You’ve got to find a political solution to the problem. The insurgency is a tactic. It will help find a political solution, but it will not bring about a solution. So, if anybody’s thinking that the greater the heat of the insurgency, the easier the solution, he is wrong. The freedom fighters must continue their effort at the present level.”

Zia did not hide his concern that an escalation of Western aid to the resistance could bring attendant dangers for Pakistan, which is now is home for more than 3 million Afghan refugees. Moreover, Pakistan provides a base for the resistance fighters--and a route for supplies and arms to enter Afghanistan. Thus far, said Zia, Soviet incursions into Pakistan have been minimal. But if further provoked, the Soviets could cause trouble.

To date, Pakistan’s president has played the political game with considerable skill, minimizing the East-West aspects of the Afghan struggle while enabling the resistance to receive covert aid. The strongest evidence of his success is the most recent United Nations vote, where 122 out of 159 members voted to condemn the situation in Afghanistan.

“The question is at what temperature does the kettle boil?” Zia said. “If it’s too high, the lid will fly off.”

Zia outlined his idea of an acceptable political solution.

“The Soviet Union must withdraw,” he said. “The refugees must return and it would be left to the people of Afghanistan to decide what kind of a government they want. We grant the Soviet Union that a superpower cannot tolerate a hostile neighbor.” But he noted ironically that Afghanistan was pro-Soviet and hostile to Pakistan long before Soviet troops marched in.

Pakistanis are especially fearful of a two-front war: Afghanistan, a battleground for the last six years, to the northwest, and India, Pakistan’s traditional enemy, to the southeast.

Until recently, Pakistani-Indian relations seemed to be improving, with the successful meeting in December in India between Zia and Rajiv Gandhi. Despite the fact that Gandhi recently postponed a visit to Pakistan--claiming that normalization was not proceeding at a satisfactory pace--Rajiv is a major improvement over his late mother, Indira, according to Zia. “We have already made good progress, and I hope it continues,” he said.

As for India’s close relations with the Soviet Union, Zia predicted there will be no change. “It’s not possible,” he said, “if you analyze the Indian position, you will see that their entire military is dependent on the resources of the Soviet Union . . . . Even if the leadership desires to change, it’s impossible.”

Zia continues to regard the United States as an ally, but he is pragmatic. “One must not expect too much, even from one’s wife,” he said. “Then you’re not disappointed. If Pakistan starts expecting that the U.S. will bring American troops and fight both against India and the Russians, the Pakistanis are expecting too much. If the Pakistanis are expecting that the U.S. will open the gates of Fort Knox and throw all the gold for Pakistan, it’s also expecting too much. We should expect from the U.S. only what we think is necessary and essential and then we will not be disappointed.”

The president discussed the fact that there seems to be much anti-American feeling in Pakistan. He said Pakistanis found it hard to accept that in certain areas, such as Israel, U.S. and Pakistani interests diverged, while in other areas they coincided.

For example, Pakistan would not consider following Egypt’s lead and open relations with Israel. “We will be the last to recognize Israel,” Zia said, “Even before Pakistan came into being, it always supported the cause of Palestine. The Palestinians must get a land of their own.”

U.S. experts, concerned with the danger of nuclear proliferation, have charged that Pakistan is doing everything short of actually detonating a bomb--a device that has been labeled the “Islamic bomb.” Zia repeated his oft-stated position on the subject: “Pakistan has no intentions, neither the desire, nor the equipment to build nuclear technology for military purposes.” Asked about Pakistan’s acquisition of krytons, used to trigger a nuclear device, Zia said they had other uses. Nuclear experts say this is not the case.

Zia is now preoccupied with events in his own country where, after nine years, martial law has been lifted and democracy is coming in stages. First, there has been an election of a national assembly, which has begun to function like a parliament. Zia has also appointed a prime minister, Mohammed Khan Junejo, leaving to himself the positions of president and army chief of staff.

Today much of the day-to-day government business has already shifted to the new prime minister. The fact that Junejo, rather than Zia, attended Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme’s funeral was read here as a sign that he is accumulating more and more power. There are rumors that Zia will step down as army chief of staff by the end of the year and become a civilian president. But he said he is not ready to do that yet.

Pakistan is not a homogeneous nation but one of sects, united by the army. Without the army running things, skeptics say, the Pushtun, the people that dominate in the northwest frontier, could perhaps be more attracted to a separatist movement fueled by the Soviets. The same might also one day prove to be true for both the Baluchi and the Sindhi, sects that have felt underrepresented in a nation run and dominated by Punjabi.

Meanwhile, those Pakistanis optimistic about the democratic process, such as Fakhar Imam, the Speaker of the assembly, say that democracy is the only hope for Pakistan--the only way to counter the battle that could perhaps erupt for the hearts and minds of the Pushtun.

Many questions remain for Pakistan. Democracy is still in a transitional stage. When power lay solely in the hands of one man, Zia, it was easier to run a covert war. Now there is a prime minister who must respond to questions. He must take into account resentment felt by Pakistanis at the presence of 3 million Afghan refugees, draining resources from an already impoverished nation.

But these questions are not of concern only to Pakistan. Zia emphasized the importance of the Afghanistan situation: “It is the concern of the entire globe. I don’t call this a regional problem, I call this a global problem. Because if you accept in Afghanistan that might is right, that a superpower can walk in and subjugate a country, then we are leaving very little for posterity and the free world will have nothing to offer.”