Still, the Pakistani opposition leader, who had survived an assassination attempt on her return to Pakistan in October, was keenly aware that her life was at risk. Bhutto told Weymouth that she had been warned that a second attempt would be made on her life on or around Dec. 21.
She was highly critical of President Pervez Musharraff, claiming he had allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup and spread throughout Pakistan. “I feel like one night they’re going to come knocking at my door,” Bhutto said. She was determined to prevail in the country’s Jan. 8 presidential elections. “She didn’t seem afraid,” Weymouth recalls. “She was more concerned about restoring democratic rule to her country and on getting the international community to make sure the elections were free and fair.”
Here are excerpts from Weymouth’s Dec. 12 interview with Bhutto, followed by a separate conversation with Pervez Musharraf.
The Candidate Benazir Bhutto Fresh from a day of campaigning, Benazir Bhutto expressed both hope and dismay about Pakistan’s upcoming parliamentary elections. She was distressed by the Pakistan she found when she returned home—a suicide attack on her that killed over 150 people, and the growing strength of the Muslim radicals inside the country. She said she hoped to put Pakistan on the road to democracy and to contain extremism. But she also warned that President Musharraf might try to rig the elections. She spoke with NEWSWEEK’s Lally Weymouth in Islamabad on Dec. 12. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: How do see your prospects in the election? BHUTTO: We [are] all worried that the elections are going to be rigged in favor of the ruling party.
Do you think it’s possible to prevent that? Well, [election] observers are coming from the European Union [among others]. So I think if we can get observers to ensure that the ballots don’t get siphoned off, it’ll be a huge setback to the rigging plans.
The election commission [appointed by Musharraf] is another issue, isn’t it? The chief election commissioner—it’s very difficult to get him to move. Mostly he justifies what happens. For example, our candidate in Baluchistan was kidnapped and not allowed to file his nomination papers.
Who kidnapped him? We assume a secret agency. So he missed filing [for the candidacy]. He appeared again and said, “Let me file. They kidnapped me to stop me filing.” They did not allow him to file. We want this rectified.
Is [former prime minister] Nawaz Sharif playing a role in all this? Yes, he’s playing a very positive role by participating [in the elections]. When he came [back to Pakistan, from exile in Saudi Arabia], his alliance wanted him to boycott [the elections]. I said to him, the point is to try to work together. But if we boycott, there is no need for them to rig the elections, because they’ll win an overwhelming majority and they’ll get to do whatever they want in the parliament. But if we fight we’ll force them to rig, and if both of us fight they’ll have to rig really big.
When last I spoke to you in New York a few months ago, you were skeptical of whether Musharraf would go through with the deal with you. I was more than right. Because all of a sudden he suspended the constitution. We thought we had a roadmap to democracy, and we found ourselves on a train journey to dictatorship. Thank God the lawyers, the media, the civil society, political parties, everyone in Pakistan went up in arms. Everyone came down like a ton of bricks. There was international support and internal pressure. I think Mr. Negroponte’s visit to Pakistan was an important one. Mushaarraf gave a date for elections before he came. After he left, Musharraf gave a date to retire from the army chief, which to me was like a miracle. There were so many people who said he would never retire as army chief.
Will Musharraf restore the judiciary? I doubt it.
What happens if the election is rigged? It all depends on how much they can manipulate the numbers. If the judicial and police staff refuse to rig the elections for them, or if the observers can mitigate against the rigging, the ruling party is going to lose badly. They are not going be on the scene at all.
Do you think that a civilian democratic government like one you would lead will be able to get control of the military and then get control of the area now dominated by terrorists? That all depends on the parliamentary outcome and who gets what majority. The military comes under the president at the moment, so it wouldn’t be the job of the prime minister. It would be the job of the president, and that would depend on the level of cooperation the president was willing to extend in this regard. As far as the political efforts are concerned … The tribal areas are living in the medieval age. There’s no police system, there’s no court system, no appeal. They’re at the mercy of the tribal chiefs, who are the heads of the clans. But they’re basically living without any rights. We’d like them to give them a council for those who respect our constitution—with a budget to decide for themselves how to spend the money. We want to give them a stake in the area. We feel we need an alternative social structure, where people can participate in a peaceful manner in building their society.
What happened to your talks with Musharraf? How was your personal chemistry? We got on well by talking. He’s very easy to talk to—I was quite surprised, compared to my first [Army] chief of staff. He acknowledges what you are saying—he doesn’t ignore what you say. Talking to him was easy, our negotiations were continuing, but the crux had not happened. The crux was fair elections.
He was supposed to lift the ban and allow you to become prime minister for a third time. Didn’t he assure the Americans he would do that? That the Americans can answer.
Weren’t you assured by the Americans? He told me during our negotiations in the UAE [United Arab Emirates] that he would lift it. Then he went back on [his promise] in August. After that, we had a confidential agreement on this, which I was allowed to share with my party. Then I returned [to Pakistan] and blamed some of the people in the government for [the bomb blast that almost killed her], and he didn’t like it. I said I had a right to ask for an independent investigation, which I have not gotten.
When you came back did you fear assassination? They [warned] me, but I thought they were trying to frighten me off. The militants had tried to kill me in the past, but I couldn’t believe they would try it in front of all the cameras. Even now, think how bad it was. There were two bomb blasts 45 seconds apart. One of [the bombers] we suspect was using a human baby. He was right in front of my truck, holding a baby up and trying to pass a baby to me. We [didn’t] take it, so he goes to one police mobile [unit], which refuses to take the baby [too]. Then the truck suddenly explodes … everyone in that van died.
Why has Musharraf allowed the terrorists to grow so strong in this country? He’s got to answer this, because as far as I’m concerned some of the people around him have sympathy for the militants … You have to remember all of this traces itself back to [former military ruler] Zia ul-Haq. He put together a structure in Pakistan to aid, abet, support, sustain and nourish the mujahedin. Part of that structure he put in place was the ruling party. They are the core support for the militants. Those people hosted them, became friends with them—can they break all those bonds that are three decades old? [The militants] have reorganized. They could not do that unless there is some support from the government or intelligence [agencies].
So there is an entire system of support for the extremists? Yes. I am shocked to see how embedded it is. I knew it was bad from afar. People are scared to talk. They say I am polarizing when I say militancy is a problem. A town calls for reinforcements but they are not sent in time. So the town falls. The terrorists invade and start cutting people’s heads off and it terrorizes the population into submission. After the town falls and it is terrorized, they send the army in to clear out the militants. But the army can’t be kept there, and so they withdraw and the citizens have lost the will to resist.
Why can’t the government send reinforcements? Why are they letting the towns fall? The army is being targeted and losing men and is getting demoralized because the public is not with them. They say you are fighting America’s war. But we are not fighting for American territory but for Pakistani territory. There is vicious propaganda in the press asking how can a Muslim kill a Muslim? We are turning it around, saying how can a Pakistani kill a fellow Pakistani?
The President Pervez Musharraf Two days before he planned to lift the state of emergency he had imposed in early November, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was still angry. In an interview with NEWSWEEK’s Lally Weymouth on Thursday, he blamed the Western media for many of his problems—from the rise in attacks by Islamic extremists to opposition from judges and lawyers, who have taken to the streets to protest his suspension of the constitution and firing of the country’s chief justice. Elections scheduled for early January will be free and fair, he insisted. But Musharraf refuses to admit he made a mistake in ordering the crackdown. Excerpts: NEWSWEEK: Is there a difference now that you have shed your uniform and relinquished your post of army chief of staff? MUSHARRAF: On a personal note, I loved my uniform. From the national point of view, I don’t think there is a difference. I think the overall situation will be better and stronger. The army is being managed by a chief of staff dedicated to the job, and I will be president of Pakistan, and if the two are totally in harmony, the situation is better.
You will appoint the heads of the Army? I will appoint the chief. The security services report to the president and the prime minister … The ISI [military intelligence service] reports to the political leaders.
Once there is a prime minister, how do you see power being shared? The prime minister runs the government. Then there is a National Security Council chaired by the president that meets to review situations. But this is only a consultative body. There is no sharing of responsibility really.
You announced [that the state of emergency] will lifted on Dec. 15. Does that mean that the regulations recently imposed on the press will be lifted? There are no restrictions on the press.
Wasn’t there a code of conduct [mandating “responsible journalism”]? We issued a code of conduct and asked them to sign it. It’s as good as you have in your own country. All the [TV] channels except one accepted it, and all except one are open. The print media were not closed at all.
In the U.S. there is no code of conduct for journalists—they are free to write what they want. If you see our press and electronic media, there is no problem criticizing the government … The problem was that they were distorting realities and creating despondencies in the people of Pakistan by showing pictures of dead bodies and interviewing terrorists—not showing the law-enforcement authorities in a good light but showing the terrorists in a better light. Thus they encouraged terrorism and discouraged the law enforcers. They were undermining the good work of the government, were entirely one-sided, and some responsibility had to be brought in.
Don’t you think you should lift the code when you end the state of emergency? No, the code of conduct is there in most countries of the world. Why should we compare the United States to Pakistan?
Will the judges [you fired] be restored to their prior positions? No, not at all. What judges? Why should they be restored? New judges are there. They will never be restored.
People in the West will have a hard time understanding that. Let them not understand. They should come to Pakistan and understand Pakistan.
Since you say you are restoring the constitution, why not also restore the courts? No, there is no restoration of courts required—the courts are already there.
But these judges were hand-picked by you. We took action. The judges had to take oaths [of loyalty], and those that took the oaths are there. Those that did not are gone. This action was validated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan … There was something seriously wrong with the chief justice of Pakistan. On March 9 there were charges against him of corruption; [he was accused of] interfering [with] the judgments of judges on other courts; he was accused of interfering in the executive by taking actions on issues from traffic control to privatization.
Do you feel you stuck your neck out for the United States after September 11 and the United States has not stood by you? No, I don’t. I stuck out my neck for Pakistan. I didn’t stick out my neck for anyone else. It happened to be in the interest of the world and the U.S. … The problem with the West and your media is your obsession with democracy, civil liberties, human rights. You think your definition of all these things is [correct]. … Who has built democratic institutions in Pakistan? I have done it in the last eight years. We empowered the people and the women of Pakistan. We allowed freedom of expression.
Then why are you now clamping down on the media? You seem far more angry now than ever before. I think you are right. [Laughs] Why don’t you understand? Am I a madman? Have I suddenly changed? Am I a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
People make mistakes. I don’t make such mistakes. I take considered views. I don’t sleep at night and suddenly dream of something and issue orders in the morning. I discuss, I debate issues, and then take decisions. … Here was the situation when I had to take action on Nov. 3 [when Musharraf declared the state of emergency]. The Western media was undermining what [we] are doing. Your media keeps criticizing the army and the ISI—not understanding what their real contribution is to fighting terrorism. If the media is doing something which is totally demoralizing the nation, [resulting in a] government which is almost nonfunctional, the economy taking a downturn, despair and despondency in the nation … terrorism rising in the settled districts, then …
Mr. President, terrorism is not rising because of the media. Terrorism is rising because the U.S. went into Afghanistan, bombed the Taliban, and they ran into your country. No, let me give you the answer. You take this Red Mosque incident [in which pro-Taliban clerics at an Islamabad mosque instigated an armed standoff with the government last July]. We took action. What did the media do about it? They showed those who took action as villains and brought those madwomen who were there on television and made heroes of them. It should have been converted into a great positive. … Instead, it was as if we had done something terrible.
Can Pakistan contain the threat from the extreme Islamists? We are combatitng it, and I think we are on the winning side. The issue is in the FATA—that is, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. There are two of them in north and south Waziristan and a third one in Bajaur …
Is that the area where you think Osama bin Laden is hiding? No, these are settled districts. He could be in Bajaur—this is the tribal agency bordering Kunar province, where there were no coalition forces in the past. On the Afghan side—that’s in Afghanistan.
So you can go from one side to the other? That’s a possibility.
Does your intelligence service know where Osama is? Nobody knows.
Has President Bush been supportive? The president has been extremely supportive. I have nothing against President Bush. I think he has been most supportive; he has been a very sincere friend. I must say he understands fully the Pakistan environment. He understands why I had to act and what I’m facing. He totally and completely understands.
Recently Deputy Secretary John Negroponte came to see you. And he understands our environment and the problems I was having and the government was having and why we took this action.
You think he understands why you imposed the state of emergency? Yes, he understands the emergency. He understands what we were suffering and that an action had to be taken.
Why are there more extremists now than when you came to office? Is it because of the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan? Is it because there’s a growing anti-American feeling? There is an anti-American feeling, and certainly U.S. actions in Afghanistan have an impact on it. On a larger scale, I would say the impact of whatever is happening to the entire Muslim world, starting with Palestine, [contributes].
You mean plus the lack of any progress on the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Yes, you see all turmoil today is in the Muslim world. Iraq, Lebanon—when the Israelis came into Lebanon—and Afghanistan, of course.
You see the U.S. discussing withdrawing from Iraq. Does this mean America pulls out of this region again? Unless there is an arrangement where you don’t create chaos and destabilize this whole region, it would be a mistake.
You mean withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake? Yes, if there were a sudden withdrawal. Either make some arrangements where there is a continuity of effort to bring sanity and democratic government into Iraq and ensure the integrity of Iraq. If we [just] leave, I don’t know what will happen there.
Do you feel you could work with Benazir Bhutto? When you talk of working with her, you imply she is going to be the prime minister. Why do you imply that? I keep telling everyone we haven’t had the elections.
If she gets enough votes, do you think you could work with her? Yes, of course.
If she gets enough votes in the congress to allow her to serve a third term, would you allow the ban [on anyone serving for three terms as prime minister] to be lifted? We’ll have to decide on that once they win the vote.
But didn’t you promise the U.S. last summer that you’d lift the ban? No, I haven’t given any such promises. We did talk about it, but there were many things that we talked about which have been violated.
And you feel you could work with her? I think so. I am not such an unpleasant person.
Some say that you want the prime minister to come from your own party. We are going to have fair and transparent elections.
Is that really true? Why do you think it is untrue?
Mrs. Bhutto charges that there are going to be ghost polling stations—that the voting is going to be rigged. That is what she is used to and that is what maybe she has been doing, so let her not treat everyone like herself … I am not like her. I don’t believe in these things. Where’s her sense of democracy when 57 percent of the Parliament vote for me, and she says she is not prepared to work with me, whether in uniform or out of uniform?
Do you feel the United States leaned too hard on you to take Mrs. Bhutto back? No, no. I think it was [part of] a political reconciliation process, but it appears in the West that if a person speaks good English, it’s very good. A person who doesn’t know good English is quite unpopular in the West. And if he or she happens to be good-looking, then it’s better. When Benazir came, the West thought she was [already] prime minister.
What do you think about President Bush saying that U.S. troops would operate unilaterally here against Al Qaeda if necessary? That will not be acceptable to Pakistan. The people of Pakistan will not accept any foreign involvement here, and I do not think it is required. We have intelligence cooperation.
Why can’t U.S. intelligence see A. Q. Khan [the nuclear scientist who confessed to operating a network that supplied nuclear materials and know-how to Libya, Iran and North Korea]? No, it would be interference in our country. Would you like Pakistani intelligence to interfere in the U.S.? The problem with the West is that you want the developing world to do everything that you wish and desire. Are we that incapable? Are we that small? This is not a banana republic.
