- Most of our problems stem from Kashmir
- No dialogue without Kashmir
- Kashmiris principled party to the dispute
- Resolution of conflicts must for economic and socio-development of the region
She has also served as the Director General of the Institute of Strategic Studies. Ms Mazari was formerly an Associate Professor and then Chairperson of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at the Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.
Having a deep understanding and knowledge on world issues Dr. Mazari presented papers on the issues relating to peace and conflict resolutions at various international conferences. She presented a paper titled “International Perception of the Kashmir Issue” in Global Discourse on Kashmir, published by ICHR Kashmir Centre EU Brussels Belgium, 2007.
She has also authored a book, The Kargil Conflict 1999: Separating Fact from Fiction.
In an exclusive interview to GK Bureau Cheif Nisar Ahmed Thokar, the prolific writer spoke on various regional as well as international issues and their implications on Pakistan's internal security and geo-political situation of the region.
After 9/11 episode there has been paradigm shift in the US policy that triggered uproar in the world and Muslim world in particular. As an analyst how do you evaluate the post 9/11 scenario and what have been its impacts on Pakistan and geo-political situation of the region?
I think this paradigm shift in the US policy, you are talking about, had already been operationalized much before the 9/11 incident. With the end of Soviet Union we found America as the sole superpower, they were looking for a new enemy and in many ways the hostility between America and the Muslim world had started right before the twin tower attack in New York. The 9/11 actually brought things ahead and following this incident certainly the Americans got justification in their minds to destabilize the entire Muslim world with a view to re-structure it as per their own design. That is what they were initially talking about greater Middle East project and so on. However, they could not do it because people in the area were not prepared to accept that. The greater Middle East was to put all the Muslim countries in one bracket right from Arab world up to Pakistan. Although it was not feasible….but they have certainly destabilized the core areas of the Muslim world. If you look at the West Asia what they call as Middle East, they have destabilized Iraq. By doing this they created power vacuum and that is why Iran has been able to exploit this power vacuum. Then they tried to destabilize Iran and even they tried to undermine Saudi Arabia. Now there is reason to believe that UAE is being undermined and we saw what happened to Hamas issue and Israelis coming straight to Dubai on British passports. Earlier, there has been an attempt to destabilize Dubai as a lot of Iran’s financial trade and business was going through Dubai. To sustain financial crunch in Dubai the Americans tried to encourage Abu-Dhabi to come up.
And indeed they destabilized Pakistan with the sort of war they conducted in Afghanistan. Yes they have been able to carry out agenda for Muslim world at one level------but they did not succeed in restructuring the Muslim world the way they wanted to…..
Q: What about war against terror? Did it really serve the purpose for which the war was waged?
Not really, previously there was Al-Qaeda hardly any where in the world except in Afghanistan. Post 9/11—you see Al-Qaeda boomeranged and spread all over the world. It became a brand name, instead of defeating; they allowed it to spread other parts of the world. I think war on terror had opposite effects what the Americans may have wanted. As a matter of the fact it encouraged extremists, and you see greater extremist forces in Muslim countries especially in those countries where rulers and the ruling elite were favorably disposed to the west.
Q: The US has been carrying out drone attacks on Pakistani soil. Isn’t it an assault on the territorial integrity of Pakistan?
It is total assault on Pakistan’s sovereignty; it is in total disregard to the international covenants and international law. But Americans keep saying that Pakistani government has given them the permission while on the other hand Pakistan says they have not. But the reality is that drones are flying from Bandari Airbase some 7 miles south of Kaharan in Balouchistan. So how come they can fly without Musharraf’s and incumbent government’s consent?
Q: There is a perception that the US, in league with its allies, is playing a double game to create anarchy in Pakistan to justify its intervention to take over the nuclear arsenals. What is your take on this do you believe in such theories?
I think it is very credible because they have been trying to seek information about our nuclear arsenal and they would like to take control of it and now the thing is that they want to show the international community that Pakistan is unsafe and there should be UNSC control over the nuclear arsenals that effectively means the American control.
Q: Comparatively Pakistan has immensely contributed in the US led war against terror campaign even then the West is not satisfied with its performance. Why?
They will never be satisfied. They want us to do exactly their bidding but we have to look at our own compulsions and ground realities. So at some stage we make our own policies which Americans may or may not want to.
Q: Do you see any change in the US policy as the military-to-military relations between the US and Pakistan seems to be gradually improving?
That is because the Pakistani military has made it clear to Americans that they will decide by themselves as how and where they want to fight and how they are going to deal with the problems. The Pakistani military has also strongly condemned the Kerry-Lugar Act and so the Americans who only understand strong language have finally understood that Pakistani military means some thing and that is why they have become more conciliatory towards the military but on the other hand we see that they are still very harsh with the political leadership that is very unfortunate.
Q: Since, Pakistan has effectively overcome the challenges that have been posing serious threat to its stability. How do you visualize this improving internal situation in the country, do you think Pakistan is now in a better position to tackle the regional issues more effectively?
Pakistan has always had options to tackle the regional issue well as it has a lot of bargaining chips vis-à-vis the Americans but it is political and psychological will of the leadership to make good bargains and good agreements with the US.
Q: Coming to Indo-Pak relations, after 2008 Mumbai attacks India had now shown its readiness to resume bilateral talks? How do you see Indian proposal repeated by Indian ministers in varying tones? Do you see any role of international community in this whole process?
Certainly there is a lot of pressure on India to initiate dialogue with Pakistan but nevertheless India is not willing to resume composite dialogue process as it is the only format that both the countries have agreed to. Indians are blowing hot and cold----one day they say they will only discuss terrorism and at the same time they say that they are ready to discuss other issues as well.
Q: Pakistan stresses that terrorism should not be linked with dialogue while India on the other hand wants that Pakistan should bring the perpetrators of Mumbai incident to justice and dismantle what it says as “terrorist network” in the country. What is your take on this?
We don’t know who the perpetrators are? Because the evidence so difficult and inadequate and even Qasab has now retracted from his testimony. So how do we know who the culprits are? I don’t see why Pakistan is not demanding India to bring to justice the culprits who managed and executed Samjota Express (Train) massacre, one of whom is a retired army officer.
Q: Under the given circumstances what is the scope of dialogue and do you expect any breakthrough?
Not much it is just an opportunity for a photo-up, I think it serves no purpose at all. So I don’t thing much is happening………these are diplomatic games…I think Pakistan should not accept this offer.
Q: There is an opinion that under the garb of talks India has always been buying time just to achieve strategic objectives besides consolidating its position in the region. What is your opinion?
India has always been trying to see how it improves its position in the region and certainly it buys time to achieve its strategic objectives as well. It has been talking only in military terms to Pakistan, advocating cold-start and limited war strategies. Now there is a lot of pressure on India and the world community is pressing it to stop aggressive policy against Pakistan. Because, if they push Pakistan too far on that side then it will have to bring back its troops from the western border, which does not serve the American interests.
So there is certainly pressure on India but still it is reluctant to have a meaningful dialogue with Pakistan. I think it is not in our interest to get engaged with India at this point of time.
Q: Prime Minister Gilani has recently said that India was not agreed to discuss Kashmir issue while on the other hand the government seems ready to re-engage India in composite dialogue process that has so far proved unproductive. What is your opinion in this regard?
It is illogical and totally irrational approach because if the Prime Minister Gilani knows that India is not going to talk about Kashmir issue then it is fruitless having a dialogue -------simply because most of our problems and conflicts stem from the Kashmir issue.
Water issue is related to Kashmir, Siachen is related to Kashmir and even drawing of borders in Sir-Creek is not going to take place unless this dispute is settled. Every issue actually is related to Kashmir so how can you have a successful and meaningful dialogue without talking on Kashmir it makes no sense at all.
Q: You mean Kashmir is the core issue?
Yes of course, if Kashmir tangle is resolved there will be not water dispute. If Kashmir issue is settled all the peripheral issues related to it would be automatically resolved.
Therefore, Kashmir issue, which ever way you look at it is the core issue. You can not ignore it.
Q: What about Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi recent statement?
The foreign minister had made an “idiotic statement” that they will discuss water issue and put Kashmir on the backburner. It is quite astonishing, does he not know that water issue flows out from Kashmir dispute. So this is ridiculous one.
Q: Do you think Kashmir issue can be resolved through bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan? Is there any role of Kashmiri people?
I think it can’t be resolved bilaterally because Kashmiris are the main party to the dispute. Being principled party to the dispute their views have to be taken into consideration. And Pakistan’s policy is that we support the UN resolutions and Kashmiris’ right to self-determination. But we will do what Kashmiris want us to do. We acknowledge that Kashmiris are the primary party and they need to be part of the process.
Q: Do you think India and Pakistan need to have an appropriate and well thought-out policy to bring about a solution of all outstanding issues?
I think there is a dire need of good policies as we have no policies on any of these issues that is doing us a lot of damage.
Q: The outcome of peace talks has been quite disappointing for Kashmiris in particular because no substantial progress was made on Kashmir front during last five years…what is your view point in this regard?
It is because Musharraf added to the confusion by suggesting his four point formula this and that ……He started quoting Omar Abdullah and other people and the APHC which struggled for Kashmiri people and their cause was pushed aside. This was very unfortunate you are not supposed to play games with Kashmiri nationalist leaders…….but let us hope that things will now move in right direction.
Q: So you don’t believe in out of the box solutions?
No, I don’t have any problem but when you talk about out of the box solutions----------it does not mean that you deprive Kashmiris from their inalienable right the right to self-determination. What you can do is that you can have self-determination in separate areas. You can divide Kashmir that way……but you can not deprive them from their fundamental right. No matter what out of the box solution…if it means that you accept LOC as international border, you accept autonomy under the frame work of Indian constitution….that in no way mean out of the box solutions. This is just deception and nothing else.
Q: What should be Pakistan’s strategy to tackle the water dispute as it has now become even more dangerous problem between the two nations. Political pundits believe that the issue could trigger yet another war in the region. How do you see it?
For water issue you don’t need to have a dialogue because there is Indus Water Treaty guaranteed by major powers and the World Bank. We have not been appealing them so the only feasible thing is to move towards conflict resolution. Once you do it other issues will be move towards the resolution automatically.
Q: Are you satisfied with the incumbent regime’s Kashmir policy?
They have no policy.Do you think Pakistan should revisit its wisdom on Kashmir?
I think Pakistan should reassert its clear cut policy on Kashmir. Unfortunately over a decade now we have no policy at all.
Q: The people of India and Pakistan have failed to reap the benefits of regional economic co-operation. Backwardness, poverty, hunger and unemployment are the major challenges. In your opinion what steps should be taken to address these burning issues?
If you have political conflicts, which are unaddressed and there is no possible solution that one of the parties is willing to accept then you can not move towards reducing poverty, hunger and unemployment. And certainly you can not move towards economic development of the region. Even world bank in its report has clearly said that peace is essential for economic development of pluralistic democracy but peace can only come when conflicts will disappear…..the conflicts can only die off once you resolve them.
Again you go back to starting point--------without resolving the core issue of Kashmir you can not move ahead in the subcontinent.
Q: What about Aman Ki Aasha?
You know this is a very strange definition of Aman that the Indians have evolved. On one hand they talk of peace while on the other they have started cold-start and limited war strategy against Pakistan, simultaneously threatening Pakistan.
