Conversations With History - Tariq Ali

welcome to a conversation with history I'm Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies our guest today is tariq Ali a writer journalist filmmaker and the author of a new book the dual Pakistan and the flight path of American power Tariq welcome back to Berkeley very good to be with you again Harry why did you write the book I wrote the book because my publisher at Scribner said that u.s. citizens know very little about Pakistan so it is your duty to write a book which at least tells them a bit and then as while I was writing it the situation was getting more and more tense so I thought Americans better know something about a country if they're preparing to invade it and you call a Pakistan a dysfunctional state and you trace in this great book the history of its birth and I want to walk you through your analysis of why it's a dysfunctional state and let's start in a way with the beginning tell us a little about how Pakistan came into being in on the Pakistani side or the future leaders side it was in a way unexpected that the British would create a Muslim state it was unexpected that this would happen but increasingly in India you had a sprinkling of well-educated Muslim layers who felt that they needed their own state you know Harry some did it because they wanted to use it as a bargaining counter a chip with which they could negotiate with the Indian Congress others were more serious in any case what really happened was that the party which created Pakistan the Muslim League backed the British during the second world war and the Congress party didn't Gandhi in fact chose that particular moment the Second World War to demand that the British quit India and launched a whole quit India movement in 1942 just after the fall of Singapore and so the Muslim League you know played with with the British were very close to it collaborated with it and Pakistan I've argued was a thank you present thing you've been good with us we'll be good with you we'll give you a state now had the Congress supported the war effort as well and backed the British during the Second World War it's an interesting counterfactual what would have come into being but in any case that's what happens so Pakistan was formed but from the very beginning you had a structural contradiction in the creation of this state that the basis of it was the Muslim majority areas of India so that you got what is now Pakistan but you also had East Pakistan half of Bengal East Bengal was Muslim majority so Bengal was divided an East Bengal became East Pakistan no links with the West except Pakistan with West Pakistan except religion divided from West Pakistan by a thousand miles of Indian territory different language different culture even a different take on Islam itself so this didn't last too long I mean you know in 1972 for reasons I described in my book in great detail that state broke up and ever since the breakup of that state there's been a problem in what has been left in Pakistan and we should point out to our American audience that the we're talking a thousand miles separating East from West Pakistan yeah yeah now the brita you make an interesting point that I want to mention which is with that both in the case of Israel and in the case of Pakistan we wound up with with states with a religious identity which has come to haunt us in both cases it's absolutely true it's it's religious identity and the equation of religious belief with ethnicity and in both cases the leaders who led these struggles to create these countries were themselves not religious at all we know that virtually the entire leadership of Israel were either atheists or agnostics they certainly weren't Orthodox Jews by any stretch of the imagination and in the case of Pakistan this many Muslim League leaders paid lip service to the religion Jinnah Muhammad Ali Jinnah the founding father excuse me Muhammad Ali Jinnah the founding father according to many reports was not even a believer so it was an attempt to utilize the fact that the religion was under threat or siege whichever way you want to look at it and carve out a state and one of Pakistan's worst military dictators General Zia luck used to compare when I first made the comparison with Israel people really shock anger why did you then General Zia made the analogy said Pakistan is like Israel a religious state and he wanted to be but like Israel and and I I guess the the if we look at this in the broad sweep of history what happens over time is in both cases the threat to the regime becomes comes from the fundamentalists communities that in some cases well I guess in both cases weren't partly nurtured by the regime absolutely I mean in Israel it's the settlers who were completely nurtured by the regime special apartments special blocks were built for them they're provided with security and now they're turning on it and in Pakistan and of course we know the history full well it wasn't just the Pakistanis who nurtured religious fundamentalism as we know it now I don't talk about moderate religious parties it was done by the Pakistani dictator totally backed by the West I don't know how many of your listeners will know Harry that all the early jihadi manuals and books which are taught in the religious schools were actually printed go to the University of Nebraska and this is the period in which the the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and the the Reagan administration well actually goes back to the Carter right other wasn't reg initial Scott oh and prisons Yeah right who essentially began supporting the Muslim groups within Afghanistan when a socialist leader came into power the Soviets were drawn baited and drawn in because Brzezinski wanted to create a Soviet Vietnam essentially yeah and then when Reagan comes in there easily carries on carries that's where we get the these manuals that we and this I want to get to the US and a moment but I think it's very important in understanding Pakistan I what what never was achieved was a national identity and I think you're arguing that was the case because the the if the maybe the country shouldn't exist but if it does exist it really has to be based on the the ethnic identities of the different areas well you know this is a problem with Pakistan that it was always a state never a nation and the interesting question is that India Pakistan giant neighbor from which it was carved out never had that problem that you have many different nationalities 36 different languages spoken in India if not more but yet if you ask any Indians what their nationality is they say Indian they say I'm from South India North India but they're Indians Pakistan never quite succeeded in doing that and one reason was that it was you know it was cursed with an incredibly corrupt and greedy elite largely composed of visionless people who were baked basically into making money initially small amounts of money but as years went on large amounts of money and so politics became in enmeshed with building personal fortunes which is a big was a big tragedy for the country and secondly the Pakistani elite never permitted serious land reforms the Indians pushed through land reforms ended the power of big landlords Pakistan never did that so there was always a feeling of ambiguity towards the country and its apparatus from lots of ordinary people in all the different parts of Pakistan and after the breakup of Pakistan well the basic idea on which it had been built of uniting the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent no longer existed it was dead and gone and buried so what was the new state going to be that was the big question and Benazir Bhutto's father's will forgot early Bhutto did dream about making it a modern social democratic state but he could never deliver that and then he was dumped on kissinger's orders and we had the worst military dictatorship in our history which further weakened the state and its hold over the population so in this with this lack of a national identity the the there was a constant search in a way for a substitute and after the the breakup of the separation of East Pakistan from West Pakistan anti Hindu anti in the focus on the threat from India became very important and what Pakistan fell into was a series of military regimes so that whose main support group was the military and and so these two things came together to form a substitute identity for Pakistan this is absolutely true and then when Pakistan finally obtained nuclear weapons that became a central feature we are the only nucleus Muslim State which has nuclear weapons and that gave it a sort of a sort of spooky identity but nonetheless a strong identity and it's but that identity created by a show of military strength is always superficial really it doesn't go deep enough I mean you have very real problems in this country hairy poverty large-scale illiteracy no education system no health service worth talking about I mean the figure I give in my book you know normally I can say that very little shocks me when I read starve or go to Pakistan I am prepared for everything one thing they'd shock me it's the figure provided by the UNDP report the United Nations Development Report which said that 60% of children born in Pakistan are born stunted 60% in other words the height of the average Pakistani is going down and this is to me just so deeply shocking in such a commentary on the corruptions of the military political elite that has run this country that they don't care about it this is happening under their eyes they just don't do anything and in as you said land reform never occurred you say in the book large landowners own 40% of the land and control the irrigation and some 56 million Pakistanis nearly 30% of the population now live under the poverty line and it didn't get any better under Musharraf no yeah it didn't get any better under Musharraf because Musharraf and his gang were living under the illusion that we could all now be like the United States and that as long as the fat cats in Pakistan grew rich as long as Porsche opened a new garage this was signs of modernity you know these people who grew rich lived in a bubble and they were quite happy living in that bubble Musharraf first Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz was a Citibank employee quite wealthy let's not say anything beyond that but quite wealthy and he was trusted by the United States to be in there and trusted by the Musharraf regime because of his contacts of the United States but these people never did anything for the poor of the country or never even tried to do elementary things Harry liked giving us country an education system people say why all these religious schools madrassas good question but you know if a cleric a mullah comes to your house you're a poor guy either unemployed or a peasant or part-time worker you have six kids let's leave aside the question of why you have six kids maybe you shouldn't you do and the mullah the cleric says to you give me one of your sons we look after him we'll educate him will clothe him we'll feed him and he'll grow up to be a fine man the Jesuits used to say this give us someone at seven and we'll show you the future and the mullah say what they don't tell the parents is we might train him to be a jihadi they don't naturally data but families are so desperate for their kids to be educated they say fine go at least you're getting something why hasn't the spark Astana state from 1947 till 2008 when we are talking succeeded in building an education system which can educate the entire people it's got nothing to do with Islam Malaysia a large large ish Muslim state has managed to educated citizens give them the ability to learn English as a Second Language 90% of Malay speak English and dr. Martine when I asked him once he said we did this 30 years ago precisely because we didn't want our poor people to suffer from not speaking English why shouldn't they have access to all the books and technology and go for further education in Pakistan this didn't happen and the reason it didn't happen because the elite guards its privileges very strongly and that is a big tragedy and it's a tragedy no-one cares about people talk about war occupation military fine we have to discuss those things but what I'm describing to you is the real tragedy of Pakistan and and what is remarkable in your account as you you record Pakistan's modern history is the extent to which what you're saying is true whether it's civilian leaders or military so what you have is civilian leaders military leaders and civilian leaders and at the core and so we look at somebody like Benazir Bhutto's father who essentially is the one who starts the nuclear program Benazir Bhutto comes in there's really no change and in fact her husband the current president now was apparently on the take mister 10% I guess they called him so so this this corruption continues over time and you don't get the organization of meaningful political parties talk about that because when when democracy returns which apparently is important for the United States it doesn't take hold and change things in the way you're talking about no and I remember discussing this with benazir bhutto many many years ago and she said the world has changed people like you won't accept it and now it's all about money politics is all about money and there was of course a strong element of truth in this Harry because it you know the fact that you have sent her left and center-right parties with no basic differences between them on the big issues of the day as a universal phenomenon in Pakistan it worked out especially badly because the needs of the population were very large very great and one reason why we never developed a proper political party I think is that military dictatorships disrupted the organic flow and development of politics you a country needs fifty to sixty years to do that and in Pakistan this was never permitted so you had the party that created the country degenerating into a clutch of quarrelsome gangs fighting each other desperate for power desperate for the accoutrements of power flying the flag on their cars being saluted getting into entry into the VIP lounges or the VVIP lounges I mean that is what characterizes most these people a desire to be beyond the on top put tobin Aziz father could have created a party which was different and initially to be fair he did try to his party grew out of the radical movement of 1968 which toppled the Ayub dictatorship but soon Bhutto as he settled down to power wouldn't tolerate dissent within his own party and once you don't tolerate dissent within your own party it becomes difficult to tolerate dissent within the country at large that is what we see in many different parts of the world and his rule did become more and more authoritarian and he basically laid the basis for a military takeover you see the question I always ask is when he was hanged nobody came out onto the streets very revealing and even the dictator who hanged him was amazed because they had made all the preparations I think there are two reasons for that one is that people were scared no doubt about it they were scared and they thought why should we give up our lives for him when ultimately our conditions haven't improved that much it was as straightforward as that so we had this network of dictators and political elites till now as soon as you say it's reached a tragedy it's a would be a comic tragedy were it not so serious that benazir bhutto in her will and testament if she wrote it in some doubt but who knows her official will and testament bequeaths her political party to her family as if it were an heirloom a piece of jewelry from Tiffany's here it is my son will be President for life of this party this is a kid who's 18 19 years old till he comes of age his father my husband will run the party and all these functionaries of this political organization bow and you know touch their forelocks and say fine fine mean it's it's free of joke really answer very her husband is elected indirectly as president of the country not directly and as you said he's known for being corrupt there's no doubt about that but he's also charged with murder which a case never came to trial accused of killing his brother-in-law Benazir Bhutto's brother this is the guy who is currently running the country and he's as sleazy as anything you can even see it when he sort of makes sort of slightly off-color jokes with Sarah Palin you can just see what sort of guy he is and it's Pakistan's tragedy that having got rid of a military dictator this is a civilian president they've been lumbered with Luther's father was killed by General Zia and General Zia did two things he embraced Islam in an extraordinary way and and unfortunately in this recent American movie Charlie Wilson's War I don't know if you saw it he was he was kind of made a into a nice guy basically but he he also became a key agent in the funding of the Mujahideen by the United States as part of this this dealing with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that we were talking about talk a little about that because I think it becomes very important because this leads us into the second part of your book which is a theme that goes throughout the whole book namely the role that the United States plays in this vacuum because it's the relationship with the United States that that funds and fuels especially the military as it becomes a continuing presence in the leadership group well the period of dictatorship under generals al Huck which lasted from 1977 to 88 was the worst period in our country's history the previous dictator Ayub wasn't great Nature had not endowed him with a great intellect but he wasn't a bigot he was sort of fairly easy going general general sale hug is trained at Fort Bragg trained in counterinsurgency as a young officer one of his first tasks is he seconded to the Jordanian army as a brigadier to help wipe out the Palestinians in black September that should have alerted Porto who had him leap over five more senior generals and become commander-in-chief the Pakistan Army in any case because he was a Uriah Heep figure constantly playing the clown in front of Bhutto yes no sir wherever you want sir he was promoted and he did the u.s. is bidding there is no doubt that if the US had instructed him not to hang Porter he would have spared him but he their butchers execution was green-lighted because he'd lied to the US and told them he wasn't making a bomb when he was I mean that's the real reason and everyone knows it so Bhutto is hanged and he is hanged three months before no not three months before about six to seven months before the Russians and turf gana Stan it's the Russian entry Soviet Red Army troops entering Afghanistan which transforms their standing in the world and he becomes irreplaceable he becomes a very crucial player for the United States and he says he's going to Bea's a soldier of Islam and this war can only be fought by hardcore religious elements against the Russians who feel that atheists and unbelievers have taken over the country and so he's given all sorts of backing you know Charlie Wilson's was a joke movie based on fantasy the war was decided during the Carter regime if anyone's if it was anyone's war we would have to call it presents gates war he was the mastermind behind it he had a clear plan as we discussed earlier he wanted the Russians to feel the pain the US had felt in Vietnam had been defeated and from that point of view Brzezinski triumphed but the cost of that was the creation backed by the Pakistani state and funded by the u.s. of large numbers of jihadi groups people were brought in from Egypt from Saudi Arabia we know that and that is still now haunting the country so once you sow dragonseeds then you have to be prepared for the results and we are now witnessing the results today and history doesn't go away Harry you know things you've done 20 years ago stay there and won't you which is why it's worth discussing when we come to it what the US is about to do now in Pakistan seems to many of its people possibly normal but it'll come back to haunt them not before too late and just firm it staying with the Zia period that this goes then back to your earlier reference to the manuals that the jihadists were using were written in in the United States because we were training this this first generation of terrorists and hoping that they would use what they learned against the Soviets with no future orientation to see that some point they might turn on us it was short-sighted but serve the needs of the u.s. at the time this is what imperial powers often do that their short-term interests often override long term strategic thinking and that is what they did in the case of Afghanistan and they defeated the Russians but they paid a heavy price for it and they gave Pakistan its only victory ever when Benazir and the military sent in the Taliban to take Kabul it was under her watch that the Taliban takeover of Kabul was completed it was essentially a military operation but that is the period when it was put into place a direct outcome of what had happened before and it's not that they didn't know even in the 50s during the Cold War if you look at textbooks written for US universities at the time they were saying that good people in these countries whether it was Indonesia or Pakistan or the Arab world whether her enemies are were religious groups the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt the jamaat-e-islami in Pakistan and the jamia Islam in Indonesia were groups the u.s. worked with against the Communists in these countries so it was one step more from there to start creating new groups which were more violent which could be trained and which would do the u.s. is bidding but once you stopped funding and arming them they became free agents and the last time it has to be said that al-qaeda in particular people close to it we use was in Bosnia as late as the 90s it's a very universe right spoke to looming tower the history of al-qaeda it's a very interesting book with lots of good stuff in it but there is virtually nothing on the last joint u.s. al-qaida operation which is in Bosnia and I always wondered why especially as he writes some of the most interesting information we got was from an al Qaeda guys computer in Bosnia well so he knows they were there so why not cover this in detail so it's not even as late as the 80s it's as late as the mid 90s that the last joint operations took place and we should explain to our audience that Bhutto benazir bhutto support this is after the Soviet Union left there's a civil war in in Afghanistan and the Taliban which I think means students yeah so so it actually madrazo yes it takes us back to what you were saying earlier namely that that the poor parent would send their child because the state wasn't providing the social welfare that one would expect for mistake but the Pakistanis they didn't care about delivering it no they didn't and these are the kids who find me as they grew up were trained linked to jihadi fighters who had fought the Russians given logistic support and weaponry by the Pakistani military and no doubt large numbers of Pakistani soldiers in civilian clothes joined them and they took Kabul this was the only victory the Pakistan Army has ever won in its entire existence and it immediately began to boast of having obtained a strategic depth visa V India it was foolish mm-hmm so so I think that before we get into a discussion of the US which is kind of a lurking presence here we do have to talk a little about how Zia and boutot saw these fundamentalists because we have you have a religious state the fundamentalists are an instrument so they're there Pakistan strategic goals were regional ones and and could be can be separated from the US interest and here that as you just said the focus is on the strategic threat that exists from India so and a Taliban in Afghanistan gives Pakistan strategic depth as it focuses on India yeah that is the military thinking yet as whether it's correct your honor yeah yeah that is that was certainly the thinking behind the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan and which is why the Pakistani military backed it but then that was their only victory as I've said but it's a victory they had to unravel very rapidly after 9/11 mm-hmm and one point I want to make about the military asked you about is what when you talk about military rule when you get this in fusion of American military can aid after 9/11 the military is the primary beneficiary not so much the the Pakistan economy but the play that out because we I think it's it's important to understand the how the military with its political power uses that to benefit the military and not just for more weapons its businesses to write its businesses to in the military owns lots of business yes by the way as armies do these days all over the world and so the ten billion dollars is used it's you know essentially to bring the military up to scratch on its competition with India so they buy a lot of weapons largely from the United States so a lot of that ten billion goes back to the United States and weapons purchases this is how the military-industrial complex works as you know and is kept happy so that that that happens very little of the money trickles down to any useful projects it's essentially shoring up the military-industrial complex of Pakistan by the military-industrial complex of the United States that's what the money is used for they get more aircraft fighters they have I think bought some anti-aircraft weapons from the Russians but apart from that because the Russians have state-of-the-art stuff on this but apart from that it's largely from the United States and I have no doubt they've also used that money to shore up security on the nuclear facility and all that I do but that's where the money goes yeah it's military-to-military so throughout this history that we're talking about I guess beginning in nineteen fifty because in the beginning you're saying that the US was reluctant to give a military aid but then as the Cold War heated up it has been so it's been a lurking presence throughout this history but so but it really becomes even more extreme after 9/11 I want to talk about that because the apparent victory of US forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 can be read many different ways and then then what we're going through right now follows from that so talk a little about that namely Armitage comes to Musharraf delivers an ultimatum and then what followed from that well the Armitage ultimatum is very straightforward it's delivered to the head of the Pakistani intelligence services who happens to be in Washington lunching with congressmen the day or breakfasting with congressmen sorry the day on that day on 9/11 and suddenly Twin Towers is up in flames so there's naturally a major crisis and even after that the head of the ISI tells them that you know we can rely on Malone more in Afghanistan he's not a bad guy as you think we'll naturally this slight consternation at this remark in the United States but they send an ultimatum through him explaining what facilities they want and Musharraf grants them he agrees there's a discussion in the military and they say we can't resist them and I think one factor will not often talked about but known is that if Pakistan had refused to offer its military bases and its airspace to the United States India was ready to do that and Pakistan knew that so they thought that would be a tragic for us if we allowed India to do it so let the United States KU's is base again they've been out of the country for some time we get them back money will flow and they did it but the result of that was that the Pakistani military also told the Taliban not to fight back and a bulk of them didn't Kabul fell without a struggle and which would never have happened at Pakistan not been on site if you remember in Iraq the resistance to the occupation began very rapidly taking US policymakers totally by surprise foolishly so and Afghanistan there wasn't one it grew more traditionally more slowly and is now reaching a frenzy as we speak but in the early days the Pakistani role was very crucial in enabling the United States to occupy and take Afghanistan now and was Pakistan was instrumental in opening the borders if they had power to close them I don't know - both Taliban and al-qaeda and they they went to the Northwest Territories is that is that the way they implemented what you just described well they told the Taliban that of course they were free to return and come back and a lot of people did at that time whether they had any direct contact with al-qaeda has to be proved but they probably did and mate whether they're this off we know it was made to the Taliban mullah omar didn't come back at that time he disappeared into the mountains where al-qaeda when they decided to move into the tribal areas if they are there we don't know too much on this it's very murky then they could have done it with or without the approval of the Pakistan Army they wouldn't have needed that mm-hmm now you you point out that I think it's important for our audience understand the the border provinces you make an interesting point that the the Northwest Territories is a province named by its geographical location so that so that it has never really been successfully integrated assuming that Pakistan has done that elsewhere which may not be the case but but it's kind of remained autonomous it has its own security forces and it has tribal leadership basically well know what you are talking about is the tribal area yeah the tribal area of the federally administered tribal areas which represent the border but with the borderlands between Afghanistan and Pakistan but then you also have a Northwest Frontier Province which is not called Pashtun Islam as Punjab Sindh Balochistan named after ethnicities the Northwest Frontier Province is not called Pashtun is done because of course the British created a border dividing pushed the Pashtun from each other in 1891 during one of their of Garn Wars and so the Durand Line which is the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan which Afghanistan's never recognized divided the Pashtuns and people didn't like it but the British and the Pakistani governments that followed never implemented this border that closely I mean the restrictions so if you were a Pashtun dressed in local clothes you could go travel across come in and out without showing a passport many most people didn't have passports so it was quite loosely applied and I think in the United States it's important to stress this that there are relationships they have tribal relationships family relationships on both sides that the Pashtun people know each other respect each other and that what is going on now is not just religious it is also an element of it could be described as Pashtun nationalism against an occupation and with this building over into Pakistan of course the situation becomes dangerous now to deal with the deteriorating situation now there is a going to be in both candidates for the American president agreed on a larger contingent of American forces and this is tied in with a strategy for the west and for NATO and and I think one of the really interesting points in your book is seeing the larger picture here the long-term goals here on the one hand but how they interface with the Pakistan that you've just described so let's talk about that what is the US and NATO up to in the new phase of the war that's supported by both presidential candidates in the United States well on the face of it it would seem that the aim of the operation in Afghanistan is limited to wiping out terrorism but this can mean lots of different things in fact we know that both the United States and the British are often talking to Taliban leaders or spokespeople behind the scenes because they want to incorporate them in running the country they know they can't do it with Hamid Karzai's a corrupt figure incapable of uniting the country totally dependent on foreign troops to protect and guard him I mean corruption in Afghanistan is endemic and the West knows that all the intelligence reports coming out of Afghanistan are a bit like that Harry I mean the tenor of these intelligence reports said hey guys Afghanistan is like the Titanic we've hit the glacier but news hasn't spread but you should be in no doubt as to what's going on so the u.s. is keen to incorporate the neo Taliban as the British call it into the running of Afghanistan and for that they'll need Pakistani help but that is only if you understand what the long-term US strategy is drupe Scheffer the Dutchman who heads NATO said so to the Brookings Institution at a talk he gave in early 2008 when asked by fairly well-informed people what are we doing in Afghanistan he said it's not to do with good governance and it's only partially to do with terror the main aim is strategic to build bases in a country that borders China and Iran and Central Asia it's too good to give up and so this is what we're doing here which explains I suppose the ease with which Barack Obama accepted all this is something necessary for you as strategic interests and he and Michaela both demanding that more troops be sent there but there's a problem and the problem is that the people of that region don't want it the new america foundation conducted an opinion poll in pakistan you know a year ago i think well less than a year ago 70 % home almost 70 percent said that the biggest danger to the region the biggest threat to peace came from the united states a very large proportion seventy or eighty percent said they were in favor of negotiating with all the terrorist groups and reaching some agreement that is the feeling also in afghanistan now given this how in God's name is the United States going to keep bases in perpetuity in Afghanistan to try and surround China look what happened when they tried to do it Russia ultimately the Russians struck in Georgia made nonsense to say it's got anything to do with democracy it's a straight geopolitical thrust by the Russians and a warning a shot across the Washington bow saying you could do it in in you go for the former Yugoslavia we can do it too two can play that game and don't come turn all hypocritical on us they can do it the Chinese can do since this these announcements were made in Afghanistan or bases in perpetuity for the first time ever the Chinese and the Russians of engage in joint military maneuvers in that region so one because the Chinese are very quiet don't talk much about foreign policy shouldn't be imagined that they aren't watching the scene very closely indeed and their while the u.s. Lobby is the strongest Lobby in Pakistan the Chinese Lobby is also quite strong inside the military so so what I think you suggested book that one consequence of of America and NATO building up its intervention forces and actually I think you make a comparison with the Vietnam War and and going across the borders to Pakistan to to pursue I'm sorry not going across the border to to Cambodia to pursue that conflict you know back in the in the 60s and early 70s what what do you see as the consequences will it create greater support for the Taliban the very the very people that that we are opposing and then what will it do to whether Pakistan can hold together well it is very dangerous General Petraeus has warned and me this month and we're in September to await that if Pakistan more or less he said if Pakistan doesn't behave itself its own future is at stake quite an ominous warning Harry and of course if the US decide to enter Pakistani territory violating its sovereignty total breach of the UN Charter and the Pakistanis military has warned them not to do so why they are allies the reason is that the Pakistani military know full well that if there are incursions not just by drones and missiles but by US troops and special ops missions and Navy SEALs into that region unless they are resisted and fought back the very unity of the army is at stake and that is why lots of serious people in the US establishment generals any Richard Armitage himself warns earlier this year don't do it it's foolish to do that but I think the pressure from the generals on the ground in Afghanistan Lucy so war they can't win so they're saying the reason we can't win it is because these guys have sanctuary inside Pakistan that's the analogy the reason we can't win the war in Vietnam is because these guys have sanctuary inside cumber Cambodia so Kissinger and Nixon go to Cambodia and bomb the hell out of it with the results that we all know now if that is done in Pakistan it is going to create a virtual Civil War situation either the army fights back if the army doesn't fight back it will see divisions and splits within its ranks and Lots will go and fight in civilian clothes I I don't say this lightly I think this could happen so what is the point of destabilizing a country with nuclear weapons in this particular way there is no danger of Giada's coming even close to these weapons the military is strong but if you break up the military or behave in a way to encourage that military to split then all bets are off and you know there are analysts in Pakistan semi-official analysts who's saying the whole function of this is not because they think the Taliban or the neo Taliban guerillas are finding sanctuary but to destabilize Pakistan and to defang take our nuclear fangs out because this is demanded by the Friends of the United States now what that to happen and if the Pakistani military allowed that to happen it's difficult to see the country staying together there would be big big problems so it's we're - where we are talking very serious business here Harry which is why there was a big divide in the US establishment on this and for Obama one of his advisors is presence key who knows better than most how unstable that world is how strong the culture of revenge on the northwest frontiers of Pakistan and in Afghanistan aha I mean someone should explain to the that what the problems are in that part of the world so so let me ask you two questions requiring brief answers what what could change things in Pakistan toward a positive direction well I do know there's nothing that can be done immediately because these problems have accumulated now for several decades but as I've argue in my book a non-stop we need a modernization plan an education system for all for everyone health shelter food subsidies to stop malnutrition just to give you five but this can't be done overnight I know that the question is will we ever get a government civilian or military that understands this has to be done that is the only medium term solution there no short term solution you can go and kill more people that always appears unit it appeals to military minds let's go and kill more people but the more people you kill the more replace them and you have to make a real structural shift inside that country and that cannot be done without tackling the country's social structure and you also think a regional solution is necessary that brings in regional actors to reach an agreement about Afghanistan yeah absolutely I think if the West was prepared to consider the West let's not mince words the United States was prepared to consider an exit strategy that exit strategy in my opinion would have to entail asking regional powers like India Pakistan Iran and Russia of which Iran and Russia are not u.s. favorites at the moment but certainly have been in the past I mean without Iranian support they couldn't have taken Iraq or Afghanistan so they need to register this fact publicly now were they to do this and say to these people I mean they these countries would be prepared because they all have support that to set up a national government in Afghanistan backed by these four bars who guaranteed stability for 10 years make sure there's no Civil War and begin a program of social reconstruction this country has been at war for 30 years now it's against Afghanistan it's a 30-year war and instead of looking for an exit strategy both political parties in this country wants to expand the war into Pakistan it's thoughtless it's mindless one final question then you're a student of Empire and of history how do you see the US what what is what accounts for its sort of lack of understanding of the dynamics on the ground is it that that in the e that in later stages all empires become so myopic that that they can't see the realities or is it is it part of being an empire with great power that you don't I think it's the letter yeah I think you are so strong militarily that you feel you can do anything you want to do because there is no the next eight countries after you in military strength even were they to combine they couldn't do anything to you that is true but that imparts let's say a false consciousness to the Imperial leadership which we witness in both Republican and Democratic parties at the present time and they think they can get away with anything but you can't because there are other factors at play a the world is not as simple as it seems it can be conquered militarily second the way you are behaving is encouraging regional hegemon to behave in the same way god this is what the russians have done this is what the Indians could do or the Chinese could do this is what the Brazilians could do in Latin America if they wish to say well we're a big bar we have military strength why don't we go and sort out this Colombian regime which is a pro-us regime why shouldn't we do it all Chavez you know anyone so it's a dangerous way to operate and I think what is the without any doubt that the u.s. is overstretched its attempts to surround the Russians with missile bases its attempts now to do the Chinese I think in the medium term not going to succeed and so expanding the war into Pakistan if you see it within that framework is a sort of short term measure which is going to create more problems than solutions and that is why it should not proceed any further well tarik I want to thank you very much I want to show your book again which I recommend to our audience and it's an important contribution to our understanding of a region where the the US has been a lurking presence and is becoming more involved in what may be a quagmire thank you very much thank you very much and thank you very much for joining us for this conversation with history you Oh

Channel: UC Berkeley Events

Views: 148,270

Rating: 4.8319325 out of 5

Keywords: uc, berkeley, university, california, united, states, pakistan, relations, foreign, policy, yt:quality=high

Id: FFDcGnupj8E

Length: 57min 22sec (3442 seconds)

Published: Fri Oct 03 2008