default header
11 January 2008
Foreign Relations Scholar Discusses U.S. Policy Toward Pakistan
USINFO Webchat transcript with Walter Russell Mead January 10
Walter Russell Mead, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, answered questions in a January 10 USINFO Webchat on U.S. foreign policy toward Pakistan.
Following is the transcript:
(begin transcript)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of International Information Programs
USINFO Webchat Transcript
U.S. Foreign Policy Towards Pakistan
Guest: Walter Russell Mead, Council on Foreign Relations
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2008
Time: 3:00 p.m. EDT (2000 GMT)
Moderator: Welcome to today's webchat. The webchat will begin at 15:00 EST / 20:00 GMT. We welcome your questions now or during the live chat. Questions will not appear on this screen until they are answered by our speaker.
We do see your questions coming in. Thank you. Nothing will appear on this screen until the live chat begins at 20:00 GMT.
If you are unable to join us at 20:00, please visit our USINFO Webchat Station home page for a complete transcript within one business day.
Welcome everyone. We will be starting in just a few minutes. We have received numerous questions already and look forward to receiving more as the web chat continues.
Prof. Mead is reading the questions and will be responding soon.
Question [monior viewsonic]: U.S. claims for promotion of democracy in Pakistan but almost 80 percent of his aid was given to military government ... indicating wide gap in policy and actions. Is there any other mechanism to tackle terrorism rather than using force?
Answer [Walter Russell Mead]: First, let me thank everyone who is participating in this webchat and thanks also to the U.S. State Department for making it possible. I should begin by saying that I am not part of the U.S. government and I will be sharing my personal opinions and views, not those of the government. My organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, is a non-partisan, independent organization that does not accept money from the U.S. government. The Council does not take stands on issues, so I am not representing the point of view of the CFR. I will be speaking on my own authority as an observer of U.S. foreign policy.
As to your question, I think many people in the U.S. agree that the U.S. needs to do more to support democracy and democratic forces in Pakistan. I believe that there are plans to increase support for civil society organizations and universities. Already the program of Fulbright scholarships in the U.S. for students and faculty from Pakistan is the largest program of its kind in the world. As I understand it, the U.S. intends to step up its assistance for non-governmental organizations and the U.S. wants to see the establishment of a stable democratic government in Pakistan and is prepared to support such a government.
Q [Wajo]: Last year I got the opportunity to visit different states of America under IVLP program. It was a great opportunity to observe the inter/intra-state integration of American people/government. What stroked me there was the integration of Cherokee nation/tribes in overall framework of U.S. as federation both at social and political level. Similarly in Pakistan there is a great need of integration among different nations both at political and social level. A sense of mistrust between/among different nations/provinces is widening day by day and other threatening factors (terrorism etc.) are getting strong hold eventually. I wonder any policy exist that enables the small political streams (from small provinces) to learn from the experiences of U.S. vis-a-vis Cherokees (in Oklahoma/New Mexico) nation few centuries ago when federation was evolved? I believe a consistent effort from this front will help Pakistan to have a strong hold as a united nation and combat other emerging threats to Pakistan as well as the world.
A [Walter Russell Mead]: As a foreigner it is not for me to say how Pakistan should organize its domestic affairs, and we in the United States have made many mistakes over the years. But one key to the stability of our constitution (we have had the same constitution since 1789 and have never missed an election or had a coup) has been the way that it combines a strong federal government with powers reserved to each state. This balance has helped us enjoy a stable and democratic system for more than 200 years.
Q [Kuba]: Sir, what is current U.S. position on postponed elections? And if elections are postponed again will the U.S. react?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: As I understand it, the U.S. wants a rapid transition to full democratic rule in Pakistan, and hopes that the elections will take place as quickly as possible.
Q [Kuba]: Why U.S. did not provide special security consultation to Bhutto knowing she was threatened already before arrival?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: I am not familiar with all the details, but the information I have seen in the press suggests that the U.S. did provide security information.
Q [Rizwan]: I would like to understand that what are the grounds for U.S. concern about the safety of Pakistan nukes. Does the U.S. administration think that an extremist-friendly government in Pakistan could be a reality. Or does it think that fundos can capture them by force. - Mohammed Rizwan, Lahore, Pakistan
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Naturally when a country has nuclear weapons, other countries are concerned about its stability. When the Soviet Union fell apart, one of the major U.S. concerns was the security of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. Nobody thinks that Pakistan is falling apart, and I think that the media have exaggerated the concern people feel over the security of Pakistan's weapons.
There have been some concerns in the U.S. about the Pakistani nuclear program, especially because some rogue agents in the Pakistani nuclear program seem to have sold technology to various other states. This is probably the most important source of concern in the U.S. about the Pakistani nuclear arsenal.
Q [Rizwan]: How widespread is the thinking in the U.S. policymakers that Musharraf is the only bet the U.S. could have in this war against terror. Do you think the popular political force could still have a chance to rid the country of extremism? - Mohammed Rizwan, Lahore, Pakistan
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Informed people in the U.S. understand that the major Pakistani civilian political parties are pro-democracy and anti-extremism. This is why the U.S. supports a transition to democracy and free parliamentary elections. The groups who worry some people in the U.S. are those in the intelligence services and other parts of the Pakistani state who in the past have been sympathetic to radicals and extremists. The U.S. has hoped that Musharraf would marginalize these groups within the military/intelligence world while leading a transition toward full democracy.
The feeling now seems to be that some progress has been made in both areas -- but perhaps not enough. Certainly, the U.S. government would like to see a fast and stable transition to a democratic government and the end of the state of emergency.
Q [nasirjamal]: Don't you think that Washington's continuing support for Musharraf is a major roadblock in the way of democracy in Pakistan?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Again, I think that Washington is working to support a democratic transition and that President Musharraf knows that that is the U.S. policy.
Q [nasirjamal]: Why so much hype about Pakistan's nukes? Should a common Pakistani consider it a prelude to some kind military action?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: I don't see the U.S. as having any intentions to invade Pakistan.
Q [Rafiq]: I am Farhat Hussain, Librarian University of AJK Muzaffarabad, Pakistan. My question is: 'How American think tanks observe the crisis which has been happened in Pakistan?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: If my own think tank is an example, people here are following developments very closely. Everyone I have spoken to about recent developments has expressed grief and shock at the death of Benazir Bhutto and a continued hope for Pakistani democracy. Pakistan has many friends in the U.S. think tank community.
Q [Rafiq]: I am Muhammad Rafiq Khan from Lincoln Corner University of AJ&K Pakistan. My question is: 'General public comments that the U.S government is also involve in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto because the American policy makers did not want stability in this region'.
A [Walter Russell Mead]: People come up with all kinds of theories but it is hard for me to see why the U.S. should want instability in South Asia. The U.S. has armed forces in Afghanistan; we would like to bring them home. The U.S. wants a solution of the Kashmir problem to bring stability and prosperity to both India and Pakistan. The U.S. is trying to bring Iran to a reasonable compromise on the nuclear issue and to stabilize the situation in Iraq. What advantage would we gain from trouble in Pakistan?
Q [nasirjamal]: How is Benazir Bhutto's assassination going to change the American policy towards Musharraf?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: This tragic assassination has deepened America's support for a return to democracy in Pakistan. It has reminded us how, when democracy is absent, forces of extremism and violence grow. Americans have been moved by the very real grief of Pakistanis from all parties and all segments of society and we share their pain at this loss. Former Prime Minister Bhutto had many friends in the United States. As far as I understand it, since the assassination the U.S. government has been urging the Pakistani government to move rapidly to end the emergency and hold elections.
Q [Ismat]: Though it is a general policy of all the governments to understand the internal political dynamics of other nation-states in this globalized world. But the American attention gives an interventionist view, e.g. the recent White House statements on the party positions and impacts in Pakistan. How does it help the foreign policy goals of America?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Actually, I think many governments try to influence policies in other countries. Pakistan, as one example, helped the Taliban come to power in Afghanistan. The European Union countries often try to influence the policies of their neighbors and have a very active program promoting human rights. Many countries have sought to persuade the Myanmar government to honor the results of the elections there and to restore human rights. Saudi Arabia has often tried to get other countries to change their policies -- it is doing so in Syria today. So it is not just the western countries and not just the U.S. who do this.
Myself, I don't think this is really part of a divide and rule strategy. Countries try to project their values and advance their interests, the U.S. included.
Q [Khprep]: Does U.S. populace in general and U.S. media in particular realise that how the sensitivities of Pakistani Nation are affected upon knowing sceptical comments from them on Pakistan's capability to guard her nuclear programme and sincerity in war against terror? Does it augments the commitment of Pakistan's efforts towards the war against terrorism or otherwise?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Unfortunately, I think that especially during an election campaign many people in the U.S. make comments about Pakistan without realizing how these statements affect Pakistanis. When I visited Pakistan last August, people were still concerned about statements that some presidential candidates had made. I am sure that those candidates never stopped to think about how their remarks would be interpreted and reported overseas.
But in democracies, people say all kinds of things. Many politicians in Pakistan (and in other countries) say some pretty tough things about the U.S. during elections -- but when the elections are over those same politicians usually pursue very thoughtful policies. Let's hope we can all keep our heads and remember the difference between rhetoric and reality!
Q [Naimat Ullah Khan - LC Karachi]: Dear Mr. Russell Mead, would you like to share experiences of your recent visit to Pakistan, how did you find Pakistan and its people?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: Just let me say very quickly that I had a fantastic time in Pakistan! It was a great opportunity to visit and I was overwhelmed by the hospitality that I received. And I found that people paid me the great compliment of being very open and honest about what they did not agree with or did not like in American foreign policy, and were also very willing to engage in serious and thoughtful discussions. I hope to return and continue some of the conversations that began then.
Q [Naimat Ullah Khan - LC Karachi]: How much importance THE RELIGION has in U.S. Foreign Policies?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: American foreign policy does not try to promote one religion over another. Both during and after the Cold War, the U.S. has consistently supported religious freedom for people of all faiths. The U.S. was willing to use force in Bosnia to defend Muslims under attack from Christians. The U.S. has tried to get China to give more religious freedom to both Muslims and Christians. The U.S. has consistently opposed violent attacks on Muslims -- for example in Gujarat. I would say that in general, U.S. foreign policy supports religion and religious freedom, while leaving the choice of religion to the conscience of each person as Almighty God gives him or her the light.
Q [Naimat Ullah Khan - LC Karachi]: What future role for Pakistan do you vision? Or to a broader extent, what role of Pakistan does Council on Foreign Relations sees?
A [Walter Russell Mead]: I can't speak for the Council, but most of the people I know here and elsewhere who are involved in these matters believe that Pakistan has a vital role to play, not only in its region but in the broader world. The U.S. wants Pakistan to emerge as a stable and prosperous country that can be an example of successful development and of democracy and Islam existing together in peace. We believe that Pakistan has the opportunity to achieve the kind of rapid economic growth taking place in China and other Asian countries, and that this growth can lead to a better life for the people of Pakistan -- and make Pakistan a rich market also for the United States!
Q [Chat Participant]: Could you please give us your own views, as opposed to the party line (worthy though it may be) on the increasingly urgent issue of Pakistan's disintegration? Bilawal Bhutto Zardari may be just 19 and very inexperienced but he says he fears his country will disintegrate. Surely south Waziristan and the swat valley are troubling indicators of what might lie in store?
Q [Walter Russell Mead]: I am concerned about Pakistan and its future -- but I think it's important to remember that Pakistan has passed through very difficult times in the past and it has always held together and found a way forward. One reason for optimism about Pakistan is the improvement in its economic performance in recent years. Emotions are running very high in Pakistan now, and certainly a young man speaking so soon after his mother's death is going to say some powerful things.
But during all the time I was in Pakistan, everyone I met was thinking about how to make Pakistan better -- more democratic, more prosperous, more just. People were angry at the government, angry at the corruption, angry about many different problems, but people were responding by trying to change things for the better.
Since my visit, Pakistan has had some extremely hard blows. But from what I can gather in my reading from abroad, the commitment of Pakistanis to their country and to democracy has not changed. And I also think that the U.S. government is even more committed to supporting a democratic future for Pakistan now than it was last summer -- the Bhutto assassination has made people more conscious of the need to support Pakistani democracy and civil society.
As long as there is a war in Afghanistan and instability in the tribal areas, there are going to be problems in U.S.-Pakistani relations, and the U.S. will need to have a strong relationship with the Pakistani military. But I think the U.S. understands more and more clearly that the U.S. should not choose between the military and Pakistani civil society. I, for one, hope that in the future both the U.S. government and U.S. civil society will develop closer and closer links with Pakistani civil society. I will do what I can to support that.
Unfortunately, I see that my time for this web chat is over, so I will have to sign off now. In this format it isn't possible to have the kind of extensive discussion that many of the questions demand, and I was only able to respond to some of the many questions I received. So I apologize for not being able to do better. I hope very much to return to Pakistan sooner rather than later and get into a richer and more detailed discussion.
Moderator: We wish to thank Walter Russell Mead for joining us today. The webchat is now closed.
A full transcript of today's webchat will be available on our USINFO Webchat Station homepage usually within one business day.
(Guests are chosen for their expertise. The views expressed by guests are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of State.)
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
