JEDDAH, 15 November 2002 — The United States’ pro-Israel, anti-Iraq policy is responsible for creating extremism in the Muslim world, a top Pakistani politician alleged here yesterday. “Both the United States and Israel are using threat as a pretext to attack Iraq,” Imran Khan, chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Party said in an exclusive interview with Arab News. “Iraq is no longer a threat to anyone, not to its neighbors like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The United States pursues its policy against Iraq only to capture its oil. However, this will have far-reaching consequences and create hatred against the superpower. It will also create more hatred against Israel as it is crushing Palestinians and indulging in unprecedented violation of human rights and sovereignty,” said the cricketer-turned-politician who was elected to the National Assembly recently.
Imran, who performed Umrah earlier in the day, said: “It’s evident that the Middle Eastern policy of the superpower is made in Israel. The policy is almost dictated by Israel to the United States. It will only result in more attacks against the US citizens worldwide. This is unfortunate because the US will then turn its anger against the Muslim world.”
Imran, who answered questions on wide-ranging issues including Pakistan’s relations with India and the threat of a revival of martial law in his country, described the Kashmir tangle as a problem of the Indian leadership. “No Indian leadership has taken steps to resolve the question by allowing Kashmiri people to decide their own destiny in spite of the UN resolution and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s assurance to that effect.
“I don’t see any solution to the Kashmir problem. The Indian leadership could start by giving them more autonomy and then move toward awarding full sovereign rights...,” he said.
He also feels there is no likelihood of fresh elections being called in the country. Imran also thinks the military rulers will not impose martial law because Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s regime has suffered a severe loss of credibility owing to certain unpopular deeds in the recent past.
Imran, who performed Umrah yesterday, spoke to Arab News in an exclusive interview and dwelt on a variety of subjects.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q: What do you think of the outcome of the recent elections with no party getting a clear-cut mandate from the people?
A. Unfortunately, like most elections in Pakistan since 1988, there was a lot of interference by the establishment and whenever such things happened the results were distorted. In this situation, the results were distorted more than usual. The general demand of the public was for a change. People did not want to vote for traditional main parties. The mood in the country was to vote for new faces. But, unfortunately, the establishment preferred to defeat (former prime ministers) Nawaz Sharif and Benazir (Bhutto) rather than do a cleanup and allow a natural change to take place. By cleanup, I mean, cleaning up of big crooks in Pakistani politics, which is the need of the hour. Because people have a lot of money made through corruption and used in the elections, this sort of money used in the elections keeps out the honest politicians or people who have made money through legal means. So, rather than allowing this process of change to take place, the establishment manufactured the King’s Party (PML-Q) and then went all out to make sure that they won the elections. The establishment did not expect a hung parliament as has happened.
Q: What was the surprise packet of the elections?
A: Firstly, the establishment did not cater for the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. This religious party was the one that surprised everyone. The reason why the religious party rose in the frontier in Baluchistan and Karachi was that for people they represented change. And they had a very good organization to cash in on that change. Parties like ours were destroyed in prepoll rigging. All the good electable people were pushed into the King’s Party, and no one, no candidate, wanted to fight against the King’s Party. Because no one wanted to spend so much money and then find oneself up against the government.
Q: You mean you lost your own party people to the King’s Party or they did not want to fight.
A. People didn’t want to fight against the King’s Party, in Punjab especially. No one has ever beaten the establishment. Whoever has backed the establishment has won. After 1988, the party that backed the establishment has won the election. No one wanted to fight the establishment so it was difficult to get good candidates.
Q: What about the rules of qualification?
A: The (requirement of) graduation did not make much of a difference. Reducing the age to 18 was a positive electoral change.
Q: In fact, you yourself said earlier that corrupt people should be eliminated.
A: Yes, but the accountability process was flawed. The accountability process was such that it actually helped the corrupt. Because once they were exempted from the accountability, all the anti-government corrupt politicians....in the public eyes corruption ceased to be an issue so it helped the corrupt people. It helped people like Benazir once corruption ceased to be an issue.
Q: Corruption was also the issue raised by your party, wasn’t it?
A: Corruption is Pakistan’s No. 1 issue. It is also the Third World’s No. 1 issue. The Third World is Third World because of corruption. We don’t have institutions to fight corruption in the Third World. (Our) judiciary cannot eliminate corruption. It could not stop corrupt politicians from competing. Our election commission cannot stop the corrupt politicians from competing. So it was the hope of the people that General Musharraf’s government would not allow crooks to participate but unfortunately some of the biggest crooks joined the government party.
Q: Why has there been such a delay in convening the Parliament?
A: Because the government could not get the necessary numbers. There was prepoll rigging, then there was polling day rigging in selected constituencies. Then there was post-election rigging...horse trading and breaking politicians, making sure that the King’s Party gets majority.
Q: Do you think a stable government will be formed under these circumstances?
A: Stability comes when you have parties with a common manifesto and a common objective. With the marriage of convenience that is being planned now, it’s difficult to have stability. Parties get together only on the basis of common self-interest as opposed to common national objective. It’s very difficult to treat parties together because common self-interest changes...one party’s interest might clash with another party’s interest. There might be squabbling over ministerships. So it’s not an easy situation. Pakistan is not going to have stability by the looks of it.
Q: To begin with there is a problem of the prime minister. Fazlur Rahman (of MMA) wants the post. Who do you think will be the likely prime minister?
A: Well, the scenario is complicated because Fazlur Rahman wants to become the prime minister, yet MMA is a minority party. In other words people have not given his party the mandate. Chaudhry Shujaat who is the head of the parliamentary party of PML-Q does not want a Punjabi prime minister because they want to control Punjab through Chaudhry Pervez Elahi. Then there is the People’s Party (chaired by Benazir) where Benazir is bargaining purely on getting herself and her husband (Asif Ali Zardari) off corruption charges. So her bargain is not for any national interest. None of the things going on are of national interest. That’s why it is very disappointing for the public. And they are playing into the hands of the establishment which wants the politicians to be discredited.
Q: Do you think there is change in the establishment’s attitude toward Benazir and her husband? There is talk that he will probably be released from jail.
A: That’s what the bargaining is going on. It’s purely on getting off the corruption charges.
Q: What do you think has happened to General Musharraf. You supported him when he came in the first place and then has his role changed in the country’s present scenario?
A: General Musharraf’s advisers have got the general in a fix right now. The general has all the right attitudes, right instincts. He was personally clean, but unfortunately his close advisers have got him stuck by making a fundamental mistake — that of keeping Benazir and Nawaz Sharif out — rather than cleaning up the political scene and allowing clean politicians to come up. They, in fact, set up the King’s Party. As long as someone was electable, they did not mind how crooked he was. And this was the fundamental mistake, which actually discredited the current government as well as allow corrupt politicians like Benazir to be revived.
Q: Do you think the present role of the general is in the larger interest of the country?
A: Having made the first fundamental mistake of making a King’s Party with some of the biggest crooks inducted in it, the government has no other choice but to go along the way. In midway Gen. Musharraf can’t change the course. Now it’s going to go all the way to try and make them win.
Q: There was a call that the general should quit his army post if he wanted to continue as president.
A: My party is very clear that the 1973 constitution should be used. The moment the National Assembly convenes, it should be as per the 1973 constitution. Any amendments made to that constitution have to be made by the National Assembly of elected people. It’s their right. It’s the only democratic way of making amendments to the constitution. I’m afraid, the 1973 constitution is very clear about the election of the president, it’s very clear the way amendments are supposed to be made and that’s how it should be done.
Q: But much has changed since 1973. The constitution has undergone so many amendments. Is it possible to go so far back in time and history?
A: The constitutional amendments were made by the (National) Assembly — the Parliament. There is a way shown in the constitution how to make amendments. Unless they are approved by an elected Parliament, they cannot become part of law.
Q: You said, your party candidates were not willing to fight government-backed candidates. What other reasons were there for your party not doing well in the elections?
A: You see, Pakistani politics has become a money game. You have to have on an average at least five million rupees to fight an election. It can go up to 10 million rupees. So in certain rural constituencies which are very big, very few people can afford this money. Most of the people who fight elections, who have access to this amount of money, (are) people who have made money through crooked means. Therefore, for our party to find electable candidates who can afford to spend that sort of money, it became very difficult once the King’s Party was formed. Once the King’s Party was formed everyone knew who would be backed by the establishment.
So good candidates were just not willing to come forward because they felt their money would be wasted. Despite that we had enough candidates in the provincial and national assemblies who have come forward, fought elections, got reasonable amount of votes in a very short space of time, in very difficult circumstances. Our party candidates, from now onward, will work in their constituencies. And, the public is already moving toward change and our party is poised that whenever the next election takes place we already have a core of candidates working in the constituencies.
Q: What election lessons you think you have learned from this so that your party can do better in the future?
A: Basically, the problem our party faces is finance. You see, you are up against people who have been in power. There is a huge amount of money once they have been in power and to fight these people you have to have money. You need money for your political organization, candidates need money to fight the elections and unless you have resources you cannot compete against these crooks. Normally, in true democracies such people would not be allowed to fight elections. In those countries the election commission would not allow people who have criminal records or corruption charges to fight elections. In Pakistan the Election Commission is totally subservient to the whims of the establishment.
Q: What were the reasons for the Islamic parties to do so well in the elections?
A: Three reasons. One, powerful anti-American feeling in Pakistan since the Sept. 11 (events), secondly, genuine desire of people seeking change. They did not want to vote for parties tried and tested twice, and, thirdly, they were organized enough...they have excellent political organizations to cash in on that unlike our party which did not have that organization. You need three things to win an election — popularity, electable candidates who have money or you need a very strong political organization. If you have two of the three, you can win. But you cannot be popular and not have candidates or organization.
Q: Do you expect another election soon, the outcome of the last election being what it is?
A: The public perception is the setup will not last long. I cannot say how long this setup will go on. But I don’t foresee elections in the next two years.
Q: Is there a fear of martial law being enforced?
A: Martial law will be disastrous for Pakistan. If the current government had become popular, and if it had made sweeping reforms and improved the lot of the common man then there was a chance that the people would not have minded the military government coming back. But, unfortunately, the government has become very unpopular for setting up the King’s Party and losing credibility.
Before the King’s Party was the referendum where the government lost the moral authority and then in setting up the King’s Party and conducting the elections the way they were done. The selective accountability that took place rather than strengthening institutions like the Election Commission, the judicial system, actually ended up weakening them. Finally, under the economic reforms we might have built up $7 billion in reserve and we might have had more fiscal responsibility but the problem is that poverty has risen under the IMF program.
Utilities prices went up, the subsidies to the poor people...whatever benefit they had, and the poor man has been crushed today in Pakistan. So with rising poverty and huge unemployment, the government does not enjoy popularity anymore. So for military government to try and come back again will be disastrous for Pakistan.
Q: From hind sight, do you think siding with America in Afghanistan was a correct policy?
A: Up to a point it was correct. Pakistan was under tremendous pressure from India (as it wanted) to declare Pakistan as a terrorist state after Sept. 11. Just like Ariel Sharon used Sept. 11 to crush the Palestinians, the Indian government used Sept. 11 to try and crush the Kashmiri freedom movement as well as paint Pakistan as a terrorist state and therefore siding with America at that time was crucial for Pakistan. However, I do feel that Pakistan should have gradually had a more independent stance from the United States.
They should have been told to remove the bases from Pakistan as well as not allow the FBI to operate within Pakistan like picking up Dr. Amir Aziz. Dr. Aziz, a renowned surgeon has been picked up, abducted rather, without anything being known about his whereabouts. Imagine a situation in Pakistan with the mother of the surgeon begging the US government rather than the Pakistan government to return her son. The present government is now perceived to be an American stooge by the people.
Therefore, the anti-American feeling has also gone against the government. This has come to mean that anti-American sentiment has also become anti-government.
And secondly, extreme elements in Pakistan have benefited from this government policy of such close association with America, which has future consequences for Pakistan. The number one reason for MMA’s victory is because of Musharraf government’s close support to America and MMA has captured the popular anti-American sentiment. Also we have had a spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan, which have been disastrous for foreign investment. It has scared away all the investments from Pakistan. There is no investment coming into the country and that’s because if the government is closely identified with the Americans then the terrorists will attack the Pakistani government and in turn affect the economic situation in Pakistan.
Q: What about the monetary benefits that came through America in the form of debt relief and some kind of assistance. Was that enough compensation or reward for Pakistan?
A: In a short term, of course, debt rescheduling has been a bit of relief but in the long term if such extremism spreads in Pakistan, if extremists prosper in Pakistan, if there is more terrorism in Pakistan then there will be a net loss in the future.
A lot of exports from Pakistan have now gone to India. Pakistan’s exports have suffered a loss. In the long term if the specter of terrorism against Westerners continues, Pakistan will lose. If someone is to do a cost-benefit analysis and find out how much we have gained and how much we have lost, my indication is we are now beginning to lose.
Q. With President Musharraf reserving the right to dismiss the elected government if it is found to be against the interests of Pakistan and with no political party gaining absolute majority in the election, do you think the present situation is beneficial to him?
A: So far, it is not accepted. Both PPP and MMA are insisting that they do not accept the legal framework order (LFO) and the LFO includes Article 52 under which he can dismiss the (elected) government. This is one of the issues and this is how it should be. Unless the Parliament accepts it, unless these amendments are accepted by two-thirds of Parliament, they cannot become law according to the constitution.
To say whether Gen. Musharraf has become stronger or weaker, I think the government’s position is very weak. It’s weak because what you can do today is get either PPP or MMA to join the King’s Party. Now both of them have demands that they do not accept the LFO. Both of them want concessions. If Benazir is cleared of all corruption charges and Zardari is let out of jail, it will further destroy the credibility of the government.
The MMA’s demand is that Gen. Musharraf can only become the president if he takes off the uniform and comes into the assembly. Both these demands are going to weaken the position of this government. Its position is not that strong as it was before the election or before the referendum.
Q: Pakistan’s relations with India have been a constant problem because of Kashmir. What should both India and Pakistan do to solve this problem?
A: Unfortunately, we are stuck because of the leadership in India and Pakistan. This is actually a problem of the Indian leadership. Which Indian leadership will allow the Kashmiri people to decide their own destiny?
So far I don’t see any Indian leadership to have the capacity to allow them the right that was given by the UN, promised to them by (then Prime Minister) Jawaharlal Nehru in 1948. Which Indian government is going to allow that to happen? Unless that happens, I don’t see any solution to the Kashmir problem. They could go in steps. They could start by giving them more autonomy and then move toward full sovereign rights. But I don’t see that happening on such an issue with the Indian establishment. Now, with the right wing Hindu parties dominating in the Indian political scene, I cannot see that happening. So I see the ongoing problem there.
Q: What do you think will happen to Iraq, especially when the US is virtually bulldozing through the UN and international community a proposal to attack?
A: It’s a strong right wing US government which pursues an aggressive policy on Iraq. This has nothing to do with Iraq being a threat for anyone. Everyone knows Iraq is not a threat. Neighboring countries, which are supposed to be frightened of Iraq like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., know that Iraq is no longer a threat. This is all about oil. The US is determined to capture Iraqi oil supplies.
The other interested party is Israel, which does not want any potential threat. Therefore, they are just using threat as a pretext to attack Iraq. This will have far-reaching consequences and create hatred against the United States. It will create more hatred against Israel, especially what it is doing against the Palestinians amounting to unprecedented violation of human rights and sovereignty.
Q: What do you think of international inaction on Israeli atrocities?
A: The US is the sole superpower now. It’s clearly evident that its Middle Eastern policy is made in Israel. It is almost dictated by Israel. And the United States will face more future attacks against its citizens abroad, which is more unfortunate because the US will turn its anger against the Muslims and the Muslim world, which has nothing to do with it but is just watching the alarming scenario. Basically the US foreign policy against Iraq and pro-Israel is actually creating extremism in the Muslim world.
Q: What expansion plans do you have for the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital & Research Center in Lahore?
A: We cannot cope with the huge influx of patients at the Shaukat Khanum. We have to turn back the patients who can be cured, whose cancer in early stages is curable. We cannot cope with the rush because one hospital is not enough. It’s an 80-bed cancer hospital, with 90 percent treatment given to outpatients. We have plans to set up a hospital in Karachi. We cannot do that until we have an enough endowment fund, which will then give us the cushion of coping with the huge deficit we incur every year for treating 75 to 80 percent patients free. It’s a huge deficit of 400 million rupees, which we have to collect every year. We have $8 million in the endowment fund now. We hope to have enough money in the endowment fund so that income from that fund could cope with the deficit and then we will build a hospital in Karachi. We have already acquired land in Karachi but we are not in a position to proceed further.
