JEDDAH, 3 November 2003 — Imran Khan, the charismatic former Pakistan cricket captain and now a leading politician, is currently in Saudi Arabia. In an exclusive interview with Arab News, Imran, the chief of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) party, spoke at length on current international and domestic affairs.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q. Do you think the war in Iraq was necessary?
A. The war in Iraq was fought for completely the wrong reasons. It was a war by the powerful right-wing Israeli lobby in nexus with neo-conservatives. It was not to liberate Iraq or bring democracy to Iraq — the idea was to neutralize any future threat to Israel and, secondly, to capture the second biggest oil reserves on this planet.
Q. What do you think is happening in Iraq now?
A. Two things were not planned for. One, the United States had hoped Iraqis would greet the coalition forces as liberators, and that hasn’t happened. Secondly, there was no planning as to what would happen if they weren’t treated as liberators. Now they are stuck in a quagmire. It is no longer Saddam supporters or a Sunni triangle. It is resistance against an occupation force. Just like it is in Afghanistan.
Q. Do you think American forces will be forced to pull out of Iraq?
A. Well, a lot depends on the US presidential election next year. If the Republicans lose the election then we’ll see a whole review of the policy. But even if the Republicans win the election, even if George W. Bush wins the election, they have got to rethink the whole policy. There is ample evidence that if a population starts resistance, decides it is willing to fight the invader at all costs, then history has shown it is difficult to occupy that land. Look at Palestine. One of the most brutal armies in the world is pitched against a civilian population and still Israelis are not safe. In Sri Lanka, each time the Sri Lankan Army pushes the Tamil Tigers in a corner, they start suicide attacks. They are not Muslims. You see the same in Chechnya. Huge atrocities are being perpetrated against the Chechens and yet the resistance goes on. So this is a never-ending war against terrorism.
Q. What is your opinion about the removal of Saddam Hussein?
A. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. He should have been removed. You know why the world is so skeptical of the US intentions behind the so-called liberation of Iraqis. The same Saddam Hussein was backed by the United States when he was gassing the Iranians.
Q. What is your opinion of George W. Bush as a leader, as a politician?
A. George Bush is a mediocre person. He does not fully comprehend history, or the Middle East. He certainly has no idea about Afghanistan and he is very much in the hands of an aggressive right-wing fundamentalist Israeli lobby. He has been led into these adventures thinking that they would bring him glory. To deal with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, two things should have happened. One, those behind the attacks should be pursued, everyone agrees. But, second, there should have been a proper assessment of why that happened. It did not happen because people were envious of the United States’ democracy and prosperity. It did not happen because the world does not have democracies, or has a low human development index. It happened because of the double standard of America’s Middle East policy, the way it has favored Israel every time.
Q. What do you think of Israel’s insistence on building the wall that divides the West Bank despite international condemnation?
A. It is a total violation of the UN Security Council resolutions. It is illegal, against all international norms. But Israel gets away with that because it knows that the politicians in the US are too petrified of the very strong Israeli lobby and they will not oppose it. So once they have got total protection from the United States they will just do what they want. They don’t care what the world thinks. And of course they have this easy thing to hide behind. Each time they are criticized, they blame it on anti-Semitism.
What Israel expects from the Palestinian Authority is that it should become a policeman for Israel to control the militants. But how is the Palestinian Authority going to control the militants when Israel keeps provoking them by assassinating their leaders, by building settlements, by carrying out incursions in the occupied territories? How does it expect the Palestinian Authority to control the militants when Israel’s actions keep increasing militancy and resistance in the Palestinian areas? How is that going to happen? I cannot see any Palestinian Authority ever being able to control militancy when the majority of the population looks upon them as heroes.
Q. Do you think the road map for peace in the Middle East has any chance of success?
A. Unfortunately, I can’t see it succeeding because the only country that can make it succeed is the United States. The US government, as I have said earlier, is too scared of doing anything to upset Ariel Sharon’s Likud party, which has very strong roots in the Republican government.
Q. Outgoing Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad has said that the Jews control the world by proxy. Your comment?
A. To use the word Jews is not the right thing. I have known a lot of Jews who are strongly opposed to what the Israelis are doing — the atrocities committed against the Palestinians. Noam Chomsky is Jewish, and he is a strong opponent of this policy. And there are other moderate Jews. Even in the United States there are a lot of liberal Jews who are opposing this. However, when Mahathir says that the Israeli government controls the US foreign policy in the Middle East, there is no doubt about that. There were the three UN resolutions that were vetoed by the US when the whole world community was for them. Also the attack on Syria. What can be more blatant than that? It was a total violation of international law and what does the US do? The Congress imposes sanctions on Syria, not on Israel. What is the world supposed to think when such things happen?
Q. What do you think about the global fight against terror?
A. This war against terror is creating more terrorists. War against terrorism is a never-ending war. I don’t see the war ending in Afghanistan. The Pashtuns are resisting it. They are not terrorists anymore. The Pashtuns who were fighting against the United States are now fighting against an occupation. Just like in Iraq where the war is now getting converted into a resistance movement against the United States. And Pakistan, by aligning itself with the United States, is facing a lot of potential problems.
The Pakistan Army has entered the tribal areas of the country violating the agreement with them. The tribal areas, which were independent, joined Pakistan on condition that the Pakistan Army would not enter their territory. So to fight America’s war on terrorism — it’s not Pakistani war against terrorism — the army has gone there in the face of tremendous resentment.
There are at least 1.5- to 2 million armed people in the tribal areas. And if even a fraction of them pick up arms against the Pakistan Army then we have a major problem. Therefore, it is a very tense situation for Pakistan. It is in our interest that this war against terrorism finishes quickly. The Americans should realize that there is a political solution to that. It’s not a military solution. If there was a military solution then Israelis should have succeeded against the Palestinians, the Russians against the Chechens, and the Sinhalese against the Tamils.
Q. Let’s move on to the subcontinent. What are your views on India’s 12-point proposal to improve Indo-Pakistan relations?
A. I think it is a step forward. These are small piecemeal moves, but that doesn’t matter. At least it’s a move in the right direction. Dialogue must start simply because war is not an option. It might be a long drawn-out process, but it is much better to sit across the table and sort it out than to have your forces along the border of two nuclear-armed countries.
Q. Do you think there is hope for peace or better relations between the two countries?
A. Well, I think it might be a slow process, but I think both countries will realize that it is too costly to have military standoffs. It is in neither country’s interest bearing in mind that we have the lowest human development index in the world in the subcontinent. Instead of spending money on arms, the same could be spent on our human beings.
Q. Kashmir is the main problem. If that is solved there will be nothing else.
A. Absolutely right. Kashmir is the only problem. As long as the Kashmiris are not given their right to decide their own destiny, I’m afraid this problem is going to fester. But I think that problem can be solved through dialogue rather than through arms.
Q. Do you think the people of Kashmir should be involved in this process?
A. Of course, the people of Kashmir have to be involved in it. It is all about their rights.
Q. There is a big controversy about the Pakistani president giving up his uniform, which is still not settled. What do you think of that?
A. This simply does not happen in democracies or in civilized countries. It is quite unfortunate that we in Pakistan were promised democracy, but instead we have a facade of democracy. There is no transfer of power from the military to the civilian setup. It’s just a puppet setup. One man holds all the levers of power. Nowhere can one man have the right to amend the constitution of a country.
Q. So what should political parties do? Should they agitate?
A. If the opposition accepts the amendments to the constitution then they are betraying the people of Pakistan. Because those who voted for people like me and other opposition leaders, did not vote for us to sit in a rubber stamp Parliament and uphold the puppet government. They voted for a democratic setup. I’m afraid there is no alternative to democracy. We are not going anywhere. For one year now there has been no transition of power. Power is in fact consolidating more and more in the hands of Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Q. What do you think should have happened?
A. There is no substitute to pure democracy. Pure democracy means separation of power. It means the rule of law. It means upholding the constitution. Upholding the constitution means institutions functioning in their own constitutional orbits. There is no alternative to this. There is no such thing as controlled democracy. It has never worked. So what should have happened was that the institutions, mainly the Pakistan judiciary, should have been strengthened and empowered, made accountable to an independent body like the judicial commission and then all other institutions should function in the sphere of power granted to them by the constitution. That’s how developed countries function. Unfortunately, in Pakistan all institutions are subordinated to the army. We are going nowhere.
Q. Is there no hope for democracy in Pakistan?
A. I have a firm belief that we’ll have pure democracy. I have no doubt that the process of change has already started in Pakistan. It was stopped temporarily by the sham elections and the sham democracy we have right now, but nothing can stop this process of change. I’m convinced that it’s only a matter of time. Public awareness in Pakistan has increased enormously. People are more aware today than ever before, and that’s why people rejected the last controlled, rigged elections. Especially in cities there was hardly any turnout because people do not want the establishment meddling in their affairs anymore.
Q. Do you think the army will give up so easily?
A. I think the army as an institution realizes that if it gets involved in civilian affairs its own professionalism will be affected. I do believe that the Pakistani Army is probably the only institution that has been functioning professionally. Other institutions have been systematically destroyed in Pakistan. To preserve the institution of the army, it is important that it stays away from civilian affairs.
Q. Your comments on the recent arrest of opposition leader Javed Hashmi on charges of treason.
A. The only law under which Javed Hashmi has been arrested is the law of the jungle — might is right. How can you arrest someone for having a letter? The letter was given to all of us, all parliamentarians. I was also given a copy. Inquire about the letter or reject it. But you can’t arrest a man for treason because he has a letter which all parliamentarians got.
It’s giving the government a bad name. It’s exposing the government all the time. It’s not very good. It exposes the shallowness of our democracy. Even the speaker did not know about it. It shows there is no rule of law.
Q. Is the system of party funding going to change to allow parties like yours to do well in elections?
A. In politics there is no such thing as a small party or a big party. In Pakistan, unfortunately, we do not have a strong election commission or a strong judicial system. Therefore, they allow money that has come from corruption to play a part in the elections, and you cannot expect people who have made money by legal means to fight against corrupt money. It’s a very tall order. Anywhere in the world, even in the United States, people are questioning the use of money in politics. The more money is used in an election campaign, the greater the corruption in the country — the more those politicians tend to be corrupt to retrieve that money when in power. That has been proven worldwide. The only way is to cut down the money spent in elections. That’s where the election commission comes in. And I have to say that the Indian Election Commission has been very forceful in implementing the limits on election spending.
Q. Where do you see your party — Movement for Justice — in the next couple of years?
A. I have no doubt in my mind that our party will succeed. It will succeed because the party has credibility. People in Pakistan now realize that here is a party that twice had a chance to join the establishment-backed parties and come into power, and twice the party rejected power and stood for its principles and its ideology. I think credibility is the most important thing a political party can have. Once you have credibility then that credibility gets converted into a vote bank. And I have no doubt that this party will come into power — if not in the next election, the election after that. Remember one thing, our biggest backing is the youth vote.
