PAKISTAN

SHARMEEN OBAID, FRONTWORLD/World Reporter, March 26, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: The people of Pakistan, at least in interviews on American television, seem to feel more optimistic that peace can be reached with India. Is that what you generally found, and is this a recent development? If so, what seems to be the reasons for this recent optimism?
OBAID: I did generally find that people wanted peace with India and I do believe people are more optimistic now and the reason is President Musharraf. He is the first Pakistani President to have seriously extended a hand of friendship to India. He seems committed to bringing peace to the region and people find the refreshing.
I also think the media has played a big role in bringing the two countries together. Most Pakistanis are very fond of Indian television channels and vice versa and I think that has created an understanding between the people on both sides.

JIGAR MEHTA and SACHI CUNNINGHAM, FRONTLINE World Fellows, November 19, 2004
CZIKOWSKY: It seems encouraging that the Pakistani government appears more open to finding a peaceful solution to the Kashmir dispute. In your opinion, how real is this willingness to settle the issue?
MEHTA and CUNNINGHAM: We do think the sentiment is real as long as the Kashmiri people are involved in the process. This is something we heard constantly while in the valley.

CRAIG COHEN, Center for Strategic and International Studies Chief of Staff, July 11, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: Our military had several opportunities to attack al Qaeda in Pakistan, yet a dispute between the CIA and the Defense Department called off the attacks. It was the Administration’s decision that the attacks would have created a backlash that might have caused Musharraf’s government to be toppled. Yet, might crippling al Qaeda have helped Musharraf create less of an opposition seeking to oust him? What are your thoughts on this?
COHEN: Good question. I think a small, targeted strike in Pakistan would not topple Musharraf. We’ve probably done this, in fact, though I’m not sure what we’ve officially admitted to. The Predator drones have fired missiles—like in Bajaur in January 2007. Even in the last few weeks, I believe NATO engaged in hot pursuit across the border. What was different about the NYT story was that it was a massive assault that was planned involving hundreds of American intelligence and military officers. This would probably have resulted in the deaths of many Pakistani civilians and probably would have been read as an invasion of sorts in Pakistan. It would have been wildly unpopular. Would it have brought down Musharraf? Maybe. Would we have captured OBL, and if so, would it have been worth it? Those are tough calls. I’ll tell you what worries me, though. What happens if there is a terrorist attack her in America that tracks back to Pakistan like with the July 7 subway bombings in London. I think there will be quite an uproar here for US troops to move across the border into Pakistan—the line will go something like, ‘how can we rely on Musharraf to keep us safe, etc.’…There there is trouble-to me that’s a real nightmare scenario, US troops in Pakistan. We think Iraq has been difficult…

DOUGLAS FRANTZ, Conde Nast Portfolio Writer and CATHERINE COLLINS, author, November 12, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: What is the current state of relations between India and Pakistan? What are the odds that the two nations will be unable to resolve their differences and will go to war over them?
FRANTZ and COLLINS: Musharraf’s legacy could have been to resolve the differences between the two. But his declaration of emergency rules seems likely to undercut his credibility and damage his chances. The ultimate danger here is that if India and Pakistan go to war again, there is always the possibility of nuclear exchange.
CZIKOWSKY: What makes (Abdul Qadeer) Khan a national icon to Pakistanis? How well know is he to the Pakistani public and is there any strong sentiment against what he has been doing? FRANTZ and COLLINS: Dr. Khan has long been the public force of Pakistan’s secret nuclear program, a role that cast him as the protector against the Indians and the person showed that even a poor country like Pakistan could join the nuclear elite. There is strong support for him on the street, among both nationalists and Islamic factions. There has also been opposition from the intellectual elite, but it was ineffectual in stopping him. One of the obstacles to stopping Khan was always his popularity, which still exceeds that of Musharraf.

SYEDA ABIDA HUSSAIN, former Pakistani Ambassador to the United States, November 15, 2007
CZIKOWSKY: How do you believe your nation’s internal political struggles are affecting your nation’s relations with India? What might be the consequences of these changed relations?
HUSSAIN: India has been fortunate in the 60 years that it has been a sovereign independent state. They’ve attained democracy. We have been less fortunate in the independent sovereign state. We managed to dismember ourselves after the first 25 years, when Bangladesh seceded. In the past 35 years we have been under 11 years of military rule with one General and now nine with Musharraf. Twenty years of 35 we’ve been under military rule. This has handicapped us severely. If we get back to a parliamentary form of government it would facilitate the process of normalizing relations with our great neighbor.
CZIKOWSKY: How restricted are you? How much travel are you permitted? Since you are doing this discussion, how much are you allowed to communicate with the outside world and to those within your own country?
HUSSAIN: Since I’ve been restricted, I was in the police station for five hours where I had access to my cell phone, and I was brought to my home just after midnight last night. I have access to my cell phone but not my computer. I have access to my blackberry, because the police didn’t know what it was, and what they asked me I said it was a wireless message service and they handed it back to me. I’m restricted to only three rooms in my house, but these are my means of communication with friends worldwide.

DENNIS KUX, Woodrow Wilson Center Senior Policy Scholar, February 19, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: What is the reaction to the Indian government to these elections? Does this signal any possible change or new avenues of discussion between these two countries?
KUX: The Indian government will be pleased with the conduct and result of these elections. It will hope that the new government will continue the composite dialogue that President Musharraf began in 2004.

DAVID MONTERO, Frontline/World producer, February 27, 2008
CZIKOWSKY: How did a film crew get into a Taliban operation? What were their expectations on having others see them?
MONTERO: Good question. The film crew was local. In some cases, they already knew the Taliban quite well from that area. But overall, the Taliban, like any upstart organization, welcome media attention. Lots of camera crews filmed them in the midst of their rampage. The Taliban welcomed that. Just as they welcomed me when I met with Maulana Fazlullah last May. They want their message to get out. The Taliban have learned the benefits and strategies of our multimedia world just like everyone else.