‘A Front-Line Ally’ on Terrorism

Since Sept. 11, Pakistan has become a pivotal nation in the administration’s war on terrorism. Late last month, Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri met with The Times editorial board to discuss his country’s changing relationship with the U.S. What follows was excerpted from that conversation. Both questions and answers have been edited, or sometimes combined, for clarity. Complete audio of the interview, along with video excerpts, can be found on The Times Web site at www.latimes.com /pakistan.

*

Question: As plans for a U.S.-led war against Iraq unfold, what role do you see Pakistan playing?

Answer: We are a front-line ally of the United States in the war against terrorism. The level of Pakistan’s commitment can be judged from the fact that last year, when 1 million Indian troops were concentrated on our border, we nevertheless spared 70,000 troops to secure the border with Afghanistan. The largest number of Al Qaeda operatives handed over by anybody were handed over by Pakistan. More than 460 operatives were handed over to the United States. This has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic. We have a situation on our borders already, and if war is declared on Iraq, Pakistan, like other countries in the Muslim world, will face a backlash.

It’s not that the fallout cannot be controlled. We are an elected government. We will try and explain to the people why it is in the national interest of Pakistan to adopt one policy or the other. But our problems will be eased if the action is sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council. We would find it easier to explain to our public. The fallout may still be there, and our political opponents may try and exploit those sentiments. But they will be controllable. We value our relationship with the United States but we continue to advise, as good friends always must, that it’s better to carry the international community on this issue, even if that takes a few weeks or a few months.

Q: Other than getting international support for actions in Iraq, what other steps can the U.S. take to help minimize the backlash?

A: We are a small country, and many Pakistanis feel that the U.S. government needs us and then forgets us. Secretary of State Colin Powell has told me personally that this time America’s commitment to Pakistan is not focused on one issue. But the United States tends to forget because on its radar screen we may appear as a blip and then we disappear. Something else appears on the screen. We would definitely welcome a long-term commitment by the United States.

We would like greater access to your markets. If we can address the question of poverty, then extremist forces of our country would have less to exploit. The U.S. has helped us with the multilateral agencies. It has helped us with our loan being renegotiated. Now, if it could remove its travel advisory, that would have some impact. Another thing the U.S. government could do is encourage American businesses to invest directly in Pakistan. All these things would help.

Unfortunately, I must register my grievance here also. Historically, we have bought our weapons from America. The Indians have bought them from the Soviet Union. They continue to get them from Russia and from other sources. But the U.S. has stopped selling us conventional weapons. That has added to the conventional weapons disparity between Pakistan and India. That is what encourages India. Only a madman would think of using nuclear weapons, so India assumes that Pakistan will never use those weapons. We don’t want offensive weapons. But at least we should be in a position to buy defensive weapons.

Q: There have been allegations lately, including by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, that you’ve been sharing nuclear technology with North Korea. Will you comment?

A: My short comment is that it is totally wrong. It is alleged that we wanted missiles and that in return we gave them uranium centrifuges. But we don’t need anything from North Korea. Our missiles are more advanced than Korea’s. We ask our American friends, if you have evidence, give it to us. Even if something happened in the past, we will investigate. But absolutely no evidence has been given to us.

Q: Another assertion made in the New Yorker piece is that there are Al Qaeda sympathizers who worked in the development of your nuclear program.

A: That is total nonsense. And let me just add that all our scientists are under close observation. They don’t easily travel. The Pakistani nuclear program is under very tight control. There are currently five rich members of the elite flock of nuclear nations. There are two poor members -- Pakistan and India -- knocking at the door, and they are not being let in. It’s not in the interest of either Pakistan or India to increase the number of those who are knocking. It is not in our interest to increase the number of states who possess nuclear weapons.

Q: Back to the potential war on Iraq. Is it the feeling of the Pakistani government that the region would be more stable without Saddam Hussein?

A: Saddam Hussein does not loom so large on our horizon. We’ve not had very close ties with Iraq. Pakistan is not a world power. Frankly speaking, we are worried about where the next meal is coming from. We are more interested in what is happening in India and Kashmir than in who is the president of which country.

Q: You have had elections in Pakistan. There have been elections in Kashmir. Does the installation of new governments hold hope of renewed talks between India and Pakistan?

A: When I became foreign minister in Pakistan, one of my top priorities was to improve relations with India. Some people in our press did not like it, and they editorialized against me. But I believe that unless India and Pakistan make up, we will not be able to address problems of poverty. So I made that statement. There’s been absolutely no reaction from the Indian government. The current government of India feels that it is to its electoral advantage to keep the rhetoric against Pakistan high -- and not just against Pakistan, but also against the Muslims of India. Still, the tensions are blamed on Pakistan. The war of liberation in Kashmir has been going on for 50 years. This current phase of violence has gone on for 11 years. Pakistan did not start it. We want improvement of relations with India. I took the first step.

Q: There has been concern in this country about the madrasas, Pakistan’s religious schools. They are seen as breeding grounds for Islamic fundamentalists. Has the Pakistani government taken steps to deal with them?

A: The madrasas are basically a reflection of the poverty of the state, which cannot invest in education or even provide basic social welfare. For children of poor people or orphans, the only place they can go where they are given board and lodging is a madrasa. So the schools perform a great social service. What we need to do is improve the state’s school system, but we need investment to do so. That is another thing the U.S. and the West could definitely help us with. We are trying to change the nature of the madrasas, but this can’t be accomplished overnight. We just don’t have the resources to take over all the children going to madrasas and who have nowhere to live. At the schools, they are given clothes to wear, food to eat and beds in which to sleep.

The state doesn’t have the money to take over all those expenses. So we’ve decided that a two-pronged policy is better. First, as long as madrasas are there, they should have a more modern curriculum. Students should be taught English, physics, chemistry and even computers. In the long term, we would like to have far greater resources to invest in education.

Q: Have you been able to develop any control over the border in the tribal areas?

A: There are areas in which Pakistani law does not prevail. It’s all local tribal law. For the first time in 150 years, we have sent our troops into these regions. We are cautious, but we are slowly moving toward integration of the tribal areas into Pakistan. They have their own way of life. They have historically lived by manufacturing weapons and selling them to anybody who would buy them. It is not a matter of just controlling these areas. It is a matter of integrating the tribal areas into Pakistani territory and subjecting them to Pakistani laws. That will be a slow process.

Q: It’s been a year since Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl was murdered. What lessons did your government learn from that tragedy?

A: The lesson we have learned is that we are prepared to give all possible protection to people who would inform us of their actions. But when journalists go totally on their own and take risks, we can’t protect them. Pakistan is a free country of 155 million people. And the city of Karachi, where Daniel Pearl was abducted, is a city of 13 million to 14 million. It’s one of the largest cities in the world. There are all sorts of people all over. He was a daring and brave journalist who wanted to get to a source. He was obviously trapped. My advice would be that journalists should get protection from local security agencies. Sometimes there are problems. But there is no lack of resolve. We managed to catch the murderers of Daniel Pearl.

Q: With all the things we’ve talked about, do you have anything to add that we neglected to ask you?

A: Yes. I appeal to the international community, including the U.S., to take a greater interest in a resolution of Kashmir problem. There will be no stability in South Asia until that happens. I’m not going after any set solution. Anything that is acceptable to the people of Kashmir, we are willing to go along with.