Lally Weymouth
NEWSWEEK



From the magazine issue dated Oct 6, 2008


With the security situation in his country steadily deteriorating, and Taliban activity on the rise, Afghan President Hamid Karzai sat down in New York last week with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth to discuss the future of Afghanistan.



Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: How is the situation in your country? Reportedly the Taliban is gaining strength and the NATO position is deteriorating. Is that an accurate assessment?
KARZAI: The Taliban are not strengthening, [but] we are not doing things that we should be doing.
Such as?
Such as, we did not pay attention in time to the sanctuaries of the Taliban.

Do you mean sanctuaries in Afghanistan or in Pakistan?
Sanctuaries in the region. I am trying to be very careful now.

Are you saying the international community should have paid more attention to the tribal areas?
Absolutely.

What should they have done?
They should have done all that was needed to be done—political and diplomatic, the right concentration of both.

You mean they should have gone in there militarily?
Not militarily. They should have used and kept open all options in order to bring security to Afghanistan.

Didn ' t former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf try quite a few

options?
Maybe he did try, maybe the West did try it with him, but we did not see the results. And as we see now, unfortunately, the problem has gone deeper into Pakistan. The bombing recently in Islamabad [of the Marriott hotel]—unbelievable, shocking. I've had so many lunches and dinners in that hotel.

Unless you spray Afghanistan ' s poppy fields and kill the crops, some argue there is no way you can ever win against an insurgency fueled by so much heroin money.
Spraying is not a total solution. We have been able to bring a decline in poppy production in Afghanistan. We have freed 18 provinces in Afghanistan from poppy production. We have reduced poppy by 19 percent this year in Afghanistan. If we continue to work that way, Afghanistan will over time be free of poppies. Spraying will alienate the population.

Did you meet with [newly elected Pakistani President Asif Ali] Zardari when you were here in New York at the United Nations General Assembly?
I just met him. We should all help President Zardari because he has the right intentions and the right policy for Pakistan and for the region, and I think he deserves our assistance.

Reportedly, ISI [Pakistan ' s intelligence agency] was implicated in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan. So the question for Mr. Zardari is, Can he get control of the people in ISI who are sympathetic to and supportive of the Taliban?
That is a very important question. I think we have to enable the current Pakistani government to do that. They have the right attitude. They are on our side. They are on the side of the international community in fighting terrorism. That is good for Pakistan as well. We have to give them the support and the means to deliver that.

But the army is very strong in Pakistan.
It is. And I hope there will be changes of attitude in the army as well.

Do you have faith in the new chief of staff [Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani]?
I have faith in Zardari, and I am sure he will deliver. I am hearing good things about General Kiyani as well. Afghanistan will do everything to give them a sense of confidence.

Both U.S. presidential candidates say they would send two to three more brigades to Afghanistan. Do you think that there is any point in additional American troops going to Afghanistan when American casualties are so high there unless there is a change in strategy?
The American casualties are not high, and the American casualties will not be high.

They are higher than they are in Iraq.
In the past three months, yes. Because of the things that we did not do for the past six years. The Afghan people are not bringing casualties to the American forces. It is the terrorists who are also attacking us in Afghanistan. That is why we have to have the right approach. A surge is good to concentrate at the right place. But at the same time we must fully back the training and equipping of the Afghan army and police, and we must prepare for a day where Afghanistan will be no longer a burden on the shoulders of the United States and the rest of the international community.

Are you asking President Bush for more forces?
I will not be specifically asking for more forces. It is a … U.S. plan to send more forces to Afghanistan. What we would ask is that these forces be deployed in the right places … and there must also be a lot of concentration on training the Afghan army and the police.

Have you met the U.S. presidential candidates?
I met Governor Palin yesterday. And I will be talking on the telephone with Senator Biden, whom I have known for a long time.

What did you think of Sarah Palin?
A very capable lady. She asked the right questions.

So you have met McCain and Obama in the past?
I have met them both, yes.

Do you care who wins? Do you think one would be better for your country?
Afghanistan has bipartisan support in America. And I am sure that whoever comes will be looking after Afghanistan equally well.

Are you going to run again, Mr. President?
I was asked this question yesterday and my answer was the poem by Robert Frost: "The woods are lovely, dark and deep/But I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep …"

So can I say yes, you are going to run again?
Yes.





Source

Lally Weymouth
NEWSWEEK


From the magazine issue dated Oct 13, 2008


In New York for the United Nations General Assembly, Iran's tough-talking Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki sat down with NEWSWEEK's Lally Weymouth to discuss how he sees U.S.-Iranian relations and Iran's growing power.



Excerpts:

WEYMOUTH: Do you believe there will be an Israeli or an American attack on your nuclear facilities?
MOTTAKI: No.

If there were such an attack by Israel, would you regard it as an attack by the United States?
In the Middle East, [no one] makes a distinction between the U.S. and Israel.

Reportedly, officials in your administration have talked about shutting down the Strait of Hormuz in the event of an attack.
A number of American and Israeli officials express military comments and take military positions. Naturally, they will get military responses.

President Bush called Iran part of the Axis of Evil. Then, last July he sent one of the top U.S. State Department officials, William Burns, to attend negotiations with Iran. That was a pretty big change …
We welcomed the participation by Mr. Burns in the Geneva talks. We feel that if this is the real approach taken by the U.S. right now vis-à-vis the nuclear issue, they must continue with such efforts.

So you ' re happy with the U.S. approach?
The American administration has taken the first realistic step.

Just in sending Burns or in what Burns said?
Previously, the U.S. administration attached certain provisos to their presence in the talks. [Burns's] presence in Geneva meant that those were no longer in play. An effort has started and if it is to succeed in resolving the nuclear issue, we have to take it to the next step.

But you are not going to abandon your nuclear program?
What we are doing is completely legal … For us to arrive at a mutual confidence, we need to negotiate.

But Iran is the only member of the United Nations that has talked about wiping another charter member off the face of the earth — Israel. Pakistan has the bomb, India has the bomb, but they have not threatened to annihilate another country. How do you gain confidence in a country if it says it intends to wipe another country off the face of the earth?
We do not officially recognize this regime … Going back to the nuclear issue, I will continue by saying that our activities are completely legal.

The International Atomic Energy Agency says that Iran has not reported a lot of what it has been asked for and that it is continuing its uranium enrichment.
We are continuing with enrichment, which we have every right to do.

What about the other charges in the IAEA report?
The resolutions of the U.N. Security Council [against Iran] are unlawful and illegal. Last year we responded to all the questions that were given to us by the agency. Later, it became quite clear that the questions were given to the agency by the Americans. After we were through with one set of questions, the Americans came back with new claims that they gave the agency to look into.

The U.S. ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has said that Iran is applying heavy pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki not to sign the Status of Forces Agreement [governing the presence of U.S. troops]. Is this so?
Whenever the U.S. fails in imposing their policies, they say Iran is to blame.

So you do oppose the Status of Forces Agreement?
At the end of the day, the points of view and the wishes of the [local] people have to be respected.

Do you think that Iran and the United States share any common interests in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and do you see any basis for the two countries working together in those areas?
Our position when it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan [is] we want security and stability for those countries. We are calling for the determination of the fate of those two countries to be handed over to the people and to the legally elected governments of those countries. If the U.S. has the same point of view … [it] has chosen the wrong policies to go about this. Because in six years in Iraq and seven years in Afghanistan, [the United States] has failed to materialize [its] goals. Therefore, [it] needs to fundamentally change such policies. We are saying that the American administration needs to take a correct set of decisions, and one of those decisions has to do with [setting] a timetable for pulling out the troops.

Do you think Senator Obama would be better for Iran since he has called for a withdrawal from Iraq?
Whatever candidate becomes president will have to bring about fundamental changes in U.S. policy regarding its relations with different parts of the world, including the Middle East.

I get the impression that Iran owes the Bush administration a big favor — that Iran ' s power has increased immensely thanks to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The difference between us and some others is that they like to interpret everything through a lens of might and power. What we like to do is to look at issues through the perspective of justice and our principled ideas and positions. We feel that perceived power in today's world cannot be the only device utilized in playing a role and being influential. The American military might has not become weakened. What is lacking on the side of the American administration … has to do with their logic. They have failed to persuade the international public opinion to see matters through their perspective.



Source

__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.

EXCERPTS: Charlie Gibson Interviews Sarah Palin


Republican VP Candidate Speaks with ABC News' Charlie Gibson in Exclusive Interview

Sept. 11, 2008—

The following excerpts are from the ABC News exclusive interview with Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in Fairbanks, Alaska, conducted by "World News" anchor Charlie Gibson on September 11, 2008

Sarah Palin on Experience:
GIBSON: Governor, let me start by asking you a question that I asked John McCain about you, and it is really the central question. Can you look the country in the eye and say "I have the experience and I have the ability to be not just vice president, but perhaps president of the United States of America?"
PALIN: I do, Charlie, and on January 20, when John McCain and I are sworn in, if we are so privileged to be elected to serve this country, will be ready. I'm ready.


GIBSON: And you didn't say to yourself, "Am I experienced enough? Am I ready? Do I know enough about international affairs? Do I -- will I feel comfortable enough on the national stage to do this?"
PALIN: I didn't hesitate, no.


GIBSON: Didn't that take some hubris?
PALIN: I -- I answered him yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can't blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we're on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can't blink.
So I didn't blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.


GIBSON: But this is not just reforming a government. This is also running a government on the huge international stage in a very dangerous world. When I asked John McCain about your national security credentials, he cited the fact that you have commanded the Alaskan National Guard and that Alaska is close to Russia. Are those sufficient credentials?
PALIN: But it is about reform of government and it's about putting government back on the side of the people, and that has much to do with foreign policy and national security issues Let me speak specifically about a credential that I do bring to this table, Charlie, and that's with the energy independence that I've been working on for these years as the governor of this state that produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy, that I worked on as chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, overseeing the oil and gas development in our state to produce more for the United States.


GIBSON: I know. I'm just saying that national security is a whole lot more than energy.
PALIN: It is, but I want you to not lose sight of the fact that energy is a foundation of national security. It's that important. It's that significant.


GIBSON: Did you ever travel outside the country prior to your trip to Kuwait and Germany last year?
PALIN: Canada, Mexico, and then, yes, that trip, that was the trip of a lifetime to visit our troops in Kuwait and stop and visit our injured soldiers in Germany. That was the trip of a lifetime and it changed my life.


GIBSON: Have you ever met a foreign head of state?
PALIN: There in the state of Alaska, our international trade activities bring in many leaders of other countries.


GIBSON: And all governors deal with trade delegations.
PALIN: Right.


GIBSON: Who act at the behest of their governments.
PALIN: Right, right.


GIBSON: I'm talking about somebody who's a head of state, who can negotiate for that country. Ever met one?
PALIN: I have not and I think if you go back in history and if you ask that question of many vice presidents, they may have the same answer that I just gave you. But, Charlie, again, we've got to remember what the desire is in this nation at this time. It is for no more politics as usual and somebody's big, fat resume maybe that shows decades and decades in that Washington establishment, where, yes, they've had opportunities to meet heads of state ... these last couple of weeks ... it has been overwhelming to me that confirmation of the message that Americans are getting sick and tired of that self-dealing and kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite.


Sarah Palin on God:
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God." Are we fighting a holy war?
PALIN: You know, I don't know if that was my exact quote.


GIBSON: Exact words.
PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln's words when he said -- first, he suggested never presume to know what God's will is, and I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words.
But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side.
That's what that comment was all about, Charlie. And I do believe, though, that this war against extreme Islamic terrorists is the right thing. It's an unfortunate thing, because war is hell and I hate war, and, Charlie, today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas with his Stryker brigade, 4,000 other wonderful American men and women, to fight for our country, for democracy, for our freedoms.
Charlie, those are freedoms that too many of us just take for granted. I hate war and I want to see war ended. We end war when we see victory, and we do see victory in sight in Iraq.



GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln's words, but you went on and said, "There is a plan and it is God's plan."
PALIN: I believe that there is a plan for this world and that plan for this world is for good. I believe that there is great hope and great potential for every country to be able to live and be protected with inalienable rights that I believe are God-given, Charlie, and I believe that those are the rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That, in my world view, is a grand -- the grand plan.


GIBSON: But then are you sending your son on a task that is from God?
PALIN: I don't know if the task is from God, Charlie. What I know is that my son has made a decision. I am so proud of his independent and strong decision he has made, what he decided to do and serving for the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not choosing a real easy path where he could be more comfortable and certainly safer.


Sarah Palin on National Security:


GIBSON: Let me ask you about some specific national security situations.
PALIN: Sure.


GIBSON: Let's start, because we are near Russia, let's start with Russia and Georgia.
The administration has said we've got to maintain the territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you believe the United States should try to restore Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
PALIN: First off, we're going to continue good relations with Saakashvili there. I was able to speak with him the other day and giving him my commitment, as John McCain's running mate, that we will be committed to Georgia. And we've got to keep an eye on Russia. For Russia to have exerted such pressure in terms of invading a smaller democratic country, unprovoked, is unacceptable and we have to keep...


GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals.That's why we have to keep an eye on Russia.
And, Charlie, you're in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They're very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.


GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?
PALIN: They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.


GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they're doing in Georgia?
PALIN: Well, I'm giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.


Sarah Palin on Russia:
We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We've learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.
We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it's in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.


GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.


GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...


GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to -- especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.


GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.
And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.
It doesn't have to lead to war and it doesn't have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.
His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that's a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.


Sarah Palin on Iran and Israel:


GIBSON: Let me turn to Iran. Do you consider a nuclear Iran to be an existential threat to Israel?
PALIN: I believe that under the leadership of Ahmadinejad, nuclear weapons in the hands of his government are extremely dangerous to everyone on this globe, yes.


GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who's right?
PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we're talking about Israel, we're talking about Ahmadinejad's comment about Israel being the "stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth," that's atrocious. That's unacceptable.


GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?
PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.


GIBSON: But, Governor, we've threatened greater sanctions against Iran for a long time. It hasn't done any good. It hasn't stemmed their nuclear program.
PALIN: We need to pursue those and we need to implement those. We cannot back off. We cannot just concede that, oh, gee, maybe they're going to have nuclear weapons, what can we do about it. No way, not Americans. We do not have to stand for that.


GIBSON: What if Israel decided it felt threatened and needed to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities?
PALIN: Well, first, we are friends with Israel and I don't think that we should second guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.


GIBSON: So if we wouldn't second guess it and they decided they needed to do it because Iran was an existential threat, we would cooperative or agree with that.
PALIN: I don't think we can second guess what Israel has to do to secure its nation.


GIBSON: So if it felt necessary, if it felt the need to defend itself by taking out Iranian nuclear facilities, that would be all right.
PALIN: We cannot second guess the steps that Israel has to take to defend itself.



Sarah Palin on 'the Bush Doctrine':
GIBSON: We talk on the anniversary of 9/11. Why do you think those hijackers attacked? Why did they want to hurt us?
PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us and now we are at a point here seven years later, on the anniversary, in this post-9/11 world, where we're able to commit to never again. They see that the only option for them is to become a suicide bomber, to get caught up in this evil, in this terror. They need to be provided the hope that all Americans have instilled in us, because we're a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.


GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?


GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.


GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.


GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: I agree that a president's job, when they swear in their oath to uphold our Constitution, their top priority is to defend the United States of America.
I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people.


GIBSON: Do we have a right to anticipatory self-defense? Do we have a right to make a preemptive strike again another country if we feel that country might strike us?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.


GIBSON: Do we have the right to be making cross-border attacks into Pakistan from Afghanistan, with or without the approval of the Pakistani government?
PALIN: Now, as for our right to invade, we're going to work with these countries, building new relationships, working with existing allies, but forging new, also, in order to, Charlie, get to a point in this world where war is not going to be a first option. In fact, war has got to be, a military strike, a last option.


GIBSON: But, Governor, I'm asking you: We have the right, in your mind, to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government.
PALIN: In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go and even who we target.


GIBSON: And let me finish with this. I got lost in a blizzard of words there. Is that a yes? That you think we have the right to go across the border with or without the approval of the Pakistani government, to go after terrorists who are in the Waziristan area?
PALIN: I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hell bent on destroying America and our allies. We have got to have all options out there on the table.





Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures


Source

__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.

Asif Ali Zardari used to sport a full moustache, jet black and rakish in the style of the avid polo player he once was. But sometime in the past year he trimmed it short and let its salt-and-pepper colors show. It befits the sober role he has now assumed, at 53, as the president of Pakistan, probably the world's most difficult -- and dangerous -- political job.




Mr. Zardari shows no signs that he is stepping into that role diffidently. In an interview last Saturday with The Wall Street Journal, held under tight security at a midtown Manhattan hotel, he crafted his phrases in a tone of command. Pakistan's war, he says, is "my war," its fighter jets "my F-16s," its Intelligence Bureau "my IB." When he discusses Pakistan's economic crisis -- the central bank has about two months' worth of foreign currency reserves left to pay for the country's imports of oil and food -- he says he looks to the world to "give me $100 billion."
For a man who has been president for less than a month, that's an ambitious request -- all the more given his checkered past. Mr. Zardari is, of course, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, the former two-time Pakistani prime minister assassinated last December shortly after her tumultuous return from an eight-year exile. He invokes her name repeatedly throughout our interview, at times to stress the importance he attaches to women's rights and empowerment, at other times to underline how personally he takes the threat of Islamic radicalism.
But Mr. Zardari is also known as "Mr. Ten Percent," a moniker he acquired thanks to his legendary reputation for graft. At one time or another, he and his late wife were suspected of profiting (or seeking to profit) from corrupt schemes involving everything from the purchase of Polish tractors and French jets to the import of gold bullion. In 2006, he even produced a diagnosis of dementia from two New York psychiatrists as part of an effort to defend himself in a corruption case in Britain.
These days, Mr. Zardari seems to be in excellent mental health -- if indeed he was ever unwell. Nor does he seem particularly vexed by his own past notoriety: All charges against him were eventually dropped in a political deal the previous government of President Pervez Musharraf struck with Bhutto, and as president he enjoys legal immunity. As for the broader corruption concerns, he all but waves them away as irrelevant. The corruption issue, he says, "has been used for a long time as a political tool," particularly by "radicals" trying to sully democracy's good name. Foreign investors, he adds, have been coming to Pakistan for decades, and "none of them have complained about corruption."
That last observation may come as news to at least a few investors -- Pakistan ranked near the bottom of Transparency International's corruption perception index in 1995, the last full year during which Bhutto was in power. Investors might also have memories of the circumstances in which Bhutto's second government collapsed in 1996.
"Since her re-election to office in 1993, [Ms. Bhutto] has run roughshod over strict fiscal and economic targets laid out by the International Monetary Fund for Pakistan's anemic economy," wrote Journal reporter Peter Waldman in November 1996. "In one of her more perplexing moves, she kept the Finance Ministry portfolio for herself, making it virtually impossible for her coalition government to muster the political will to curb Pakistan's gaping budget deficit. The lack of confidence in her government recently reached crisis proportions, with Pakistan's foreign-currency reserves plummeting below $700 million, or less than a single month's imports." At the time, Mr. Zardari occupied the post of Pakistan's minister of investments, reporting to his wife.
Put simply, the economic crisis Mr. Zardari faces today is, at least in part, a crisis of confidence in him. He alludes to this problem only once in the interview, noting that before he can hope to get foreign help he will "have to make my credibility, my case." Still, he has a simple and powerful argument to make that the world cannot allow his government to fail -- not when it's becoming increasingly plausible that Pakistan itself, with its stockpile of as many as 200 nuclear warheads, could be toppled by al Qaeda and its allies.
"I need your help," he says more than once. "If we fall, if we can't do it, you can't do it."
In asking for the help -- and $100 billion is no small request, even (or particularly) in the age of AIG -- Mr. Zardari is keen to insist that it not be described as aid. "Aid is proven through the researches of the World Bank . . . [to be] bad for a country," he says. "I'm looking for temporary relief for my budgetary support and cash for my treasury which does not need to be spent by me. It is not something I want to spend. But [it] will stop the [outflow] of my capital every time there is a bomb. . . . In this situation, how do I create capital confidence, how do I create businessmen's confidence?"
To his credit, Mr. Zardari's answer involves more than simply passing around the collection plate. When I ask whether he would consider a free-trade agreement with traditional archenemy India, Mr. Zardari responds with a string of welcome, perhaps even historic, surprises. "India has never been a threat to Pakistan," he says, adding that "I, for one, and our democratic government is not scared of Indian influence abroad." He speaks of the militant Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as "terrorists" -- former President Musharraf would more likely have called them "freedom fighters" -- and allows that he has no objection to the India-U.S. nuclear cooperation pact, so long as Pakistan is treated "at par." "Why would we begrudge the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest democracies in the world?"
Not only does Mr. Zardari want better ties with Delhi, he notes that "there is no other economic survival for nations like us. We have to trade with our neighbors first." He imagines Pakistani cement factories being constructed to provide for India's huge infrastructure needs, Pakistani textile mills meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the congestion at Indian ones. For a country that spent most of its existence trying to show that it's the military equal of its neighbor, the agenda amounts to a remarkable recognition of the strides India has made in becoming a true world power.
But before Pakistan can hope to save itself by completely reshaping the situation on its eastern frontier, it has the more pressing problem of resolving the crisis to its west, in its tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. On the day of our meeting, there had been reports that Pakistani army forces had fired on U.S. aircraft operating along the border with Afghanistan, while Pakistani officials were taking an ever-tougher line against NATO commando raids against the Taliban on Pakistani soil.
Mr. Zardari seems anxious to downplay any differences with the U.S. "I am not going to fall for this position that it's an unpopular thing to be an American friend. I am an American friend." The firing on the U.S. aircraft was, he says, merely an incident, "and while incidents do happen, they are not important." He goes off the record to describe sensitive military subjects, but acknowledges that the U.S. is carrying out Predator missile strikes on Pakistani soil with his government's consent. "We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together."
He also acknowledges the problem that had bedeviled past efforts at U.S.-Pakistani cooperation, particularly in intelligence sharing: the widely held suspicion that Pakistani intelligence services continue to cooperate with, and even arm, the Taliban. "You know, you keep an uglier alternative around so that you may not be asked to leave," he says, in reference to Mr. Musharraf's habit of fighting Islamic radicals with one hand while protecting them with the other. Mr. Zardari refuses to go into further detail other than to say he "solved the problem"; the head of Pakistani intelligence was fired earlier this week.
Mr. Zardari seems to hope that, with the intelligence problem out of the way, a new era of cooperation can open up with the U.S. "We want to be able to share [U.S.] intelligence," he says. "We need helicopters, we need night goggles, we need equipment of that sort." He stresses the need for precision and finesse in fighting Islamic militants, rather than large-scale military force. "My eventual concept is that we should be taking them on as they are, as criminals." Of Osama bin Laden he says, "the minute I make anybody my enemy, he becomes as big as I am."
In recent weeks there have been reports that Pakistan has deployed F-16s against tribal insurgents, in part because the army's own frontier troops have been routinely routed in ground fighting. Their problems aren't simply tactical. "What kind of a joke is this that I cannot pay my security personnel more than the Talibs are paying?" he asks. "Those terrorists are paying their soldiers 10,000 rupees; I'm paying seven or six thousand rupees."
The effects of such a disparity are increasingly in evidence. The recent bombing of Islamabad's Marriott hotel, in an area that is under particularly tight security controls, is a fresh reminder that Pakistan's terrorist problem extends well beyond the tribal hinterlands.
Speaking of the attack, Mr. Zardari again brings the subject around to his economic problem. "If I can't pay my own oil bill, how am I going to increase my police?" he asks. "The oil companies are asking me to pay $135 [per barrel] of oil and at the same time they want me to keep the world peaceful and Pakistan peaceful."
It's a fair point. And it leads Mr. Zardari to a kind of peroration, the case he has to make that he is, after all, the right man for Pakistan in its hour of peril -- however improbable that may seem given everything that is known or suspected about his past.
"You know, every life has its end," he says. "So, before mine ends, I want to finish this job and I want them to remember that they did get my wife and I won't let them get away with it. I do not necessarily feel that death is a reality. I do not deny death. But the way they did it, they killed the mother of my children so it's very personal for me. And before I finish, when my life ends, I need this job done. The sooner the better."

Mr. Stephens writes "Global View," the Journal's foreign-affairs column.






Source : The Wall Street Journal

__________________
Regards

Aarwaa

Pakistan is ruled by three As - Army, America and Allah.