Pakistani Ambassador Maleeha Lohdi
The Ambassador of Pakistan, Maleeha Lodhi has the honored distinction of serving asAmbassador to the U.S. under two presidents: Benazir Bhutto and currently she is servingfor General Musharraf. She received her Ph.D in politics from the London Schoolof Economics in 1980 after having received her undergraduate degree fromthe same institution in 1976. For five years she taught politics and sociology at heralma mater, before returning to Pakistan to begin her eight-year career in journalism.She edited two of Pakistan’s English newspapers The News International, whichshe launched, and The Muslim, making her the first woman in Asia to edit a dailynewspaper.
Washington Life’s Editor in Chief, Nancy Bagley, spoke to the Ambassadorover lunch at the Four Season’s Hotel in mid-February.
NANCY BAGLEY:Ambassador Lodhi, you were a journalist in Pakistan before goinginto politics. How would you compare journalism in the United States to Pakistan?
AMBASSADOR MALEEHA LOHDI:There are some differences between journalism in a developed country andin a developing country, particularly with regard to resources, salaries, levels of education,and the kind of people that go into journalism. There are also extraordinarysimilarities. In the last two decades, we have seen freedom of the press in Pakistan,which is not something that we ever took for granted because it was not there formany decades. The press had to fight hard for freedom. Governments have some-timesmade attempts to try to repress and roll back the freedom of the press inPakistan, but they have never succeeded. Uncovering the truth and advancing thedebate over important issues that affect people is what a journalist is there to doin both Pakistan and the U.S. Thus, in Pakistan where political parties have generally tendedto be weak and parliaments tended to not perform their function ofwatchdog over the executive [branch], the press has been catapulted into playing therole. And the press has ended up having to, in large part, do what parliaments andpolitical parties would otherwise do: act as a straight check and balance. All in all,we’ve come a long way, especially since investigative journalism has come into itsown only in the last ten years.
NB:You received your Ph.D in political science and have also taughtat the London School of Economics. How would you compare the people of the United States,England, and Pakistan?
ML:Well, I think a great similarity between the people of Pakistan andAmerica is that we are very open-minded, friendly, and not at all suspicious of theforeigner. Like the melting pot notion of America, Pakistan is also a land of immigrants,carved out of united India. We had millions of people migrating at the timeof partition, where they were exercising their choice as Moslems and whether theywanted to be part of India or Pakistan. Many of them came to Pakistan. So in away, there is a new frontier mentality or mindset that is very similar to theAmerican ethic. That is the contrast perhaps with people in England, who are abit more reserved. But my own experience in London was a great one.
NB:Since WL is a social magazine I have to ask, what are thefavorite parties that you have attended in Washington?
ML:That’s a tough one, because you end up making somebody unhappy. Hmm, Ithink one dinner that I really enjoyed was the annual meeting that the AtlanticCouncil held, honoring Henry Kissinger, among other people.
NB:In 1994, you were selected by Time magazine as one of 100 globalpacesetters and leaders who Time thought would help define the 21st century (and I might add,you were the only person from Pakistan selected). What achievements are you mostproud of thus far in your career?
ML:I don’t know whether I can call them achievements but having served mycountry here in Washington at two critical periods: the mid- 1990s, as well as now is anhonor. In addition to my ambassadorial duties, I must now also be a bridge ofunderstanding between two worlds: the Islamic world and the Western world. I seethat as my greatest challenge, because I am in a unique position to dispel distortedimages. Then the challenge becomes how to get these complexities into sound bitesfor television which is increasingly a powerful medium around the world. Sixty percentof the people in Pakistan either have television or have access to it in the neighborhoodtea shops. Our televisions are able to pick up satellite with pictures, and youdon’t need much commentary for people to understand photos that depict and categorizeimages of a country and of its people. Because Pakistan han an illiteracy rateof more than 50%, the impact of the electronic media is therefore much more thanthat of the print media.
NB:What are the stations that people pick up fromsatellites?
ML:BBC and CNN are two big ones. BBC radio is also widely listened to,because it comes in our language [Urdu, which consists of Arabic and Persian].
NB:Why do you think you were chosen as General Musharraf’sambassador to the U.S., after having served as the ambassador underBenazir Bhutto? Can you comment on the differences between their styles of governing orpolitical views?
ML:That is a question that only General Musharraf can answer. But, Isuppose he did so because I had had some experience in Washington, and he was obviously lookingfor somebody who could hit the ground running. I always thought thatsome of my experience here may have been exaggerated. I think that you can serve herein Washington 30 years and still not know the town. So that must have been one factorthat weighed on the President’s mind. I don’t think it would be right for me to getinto comparing and contrasting two people with two different styles.
NB:Can you comment on the changing role of women inPakistan?
ML:Women have had a long history of being involved in public roles. This isrooted in colonial times and the first few years of Pakistan’s existence. Because educationin the Moslem middle class was embraced, women’s education was also apart of that. Therefore, we had a large pool of women from the middle class who wereeducated and also went into public roles. At the same time, a large part of Pakistanremains rural and underdeveloped. A lack of resources has limited women’s access toeducation in rural areas. We’ve not been able to spend the kind of money that wehope to in the future. I think that you know during our freedom movement thatthe founder of Pakistan’s sister played a major role. That is a powerful symbol, andthen she actually ran for President in the 1960s but lost because that election wasnot fair. Pakistan was also the first Moslem country to have an elected female head ofgovernment. These were very important milestones. But having said that, we stillhave a long way to go, because large numbers of women in Pakistan don’t haveaccess to education. Traditional tribal and social attitudes, not religion, tend to influencepeople’s attitudes towards women. But one of the things that I try to explainis that this is really rooted in the social context or socioeconomic context, not theIslamic context. Islam is in no way a brake on women’s progress. Islam in fact emphasizesequal rights.
NB:Many writers have commented on the Madrassehs (or Islamic schools)that have been teaching an extreme form of anti-Americanism, particularly in Pakistan,Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan. Do you consider these valid concerns, and can you commenton the rise of this form of anti-American education in Pakistan and thepossibilities of reform?
ML:We have to be clear that nobody is being taught hatred against anybody.What has happened is that some of these Madrassehs have been particularly narrow-mindedand have become hotbeds of extremism. But not all the Madrassehs arelike that. Madrassehs in Pakistan emerged in response to a social need that sprangfrom the fact that the state had abdicated its responsibility to educate all people,because it did not have enough resources to do so. The religious schools filled thatvacuum. Some Madrassehs became hotbeds of extremism because they narrowed educationto just religious instruction, something our prophet Mohammed would not haveprescribed. The emphasis should [instead] be on all-around development. In ourattempts to reform the Madrassehs we have tried to introduce a curriculum that isbroad-based, so children coming out of these schools are well-rounded individuals. Youhave religious instruction and then you also have computers, math, and what have you. Weare trying to introduce that, so the Madrassehs can be brought into the mainstream of oureducational system, and eventually the two ought to be able to merge somewhere down theline.
Ambassador Lodhi with
Pakistani President Pervez MusharrafNB:But you don’t think that this is a major concern?
ML:ML: Well, it is a concern. The thing to remember is that there has beena rejection of the West and the Western way of living and thinking in some of theseMadrassehs. However, that must not be misconstrued into thinking that all peopleare corrupt in the Madrassehs and that they hate everybody.
NB:Washington is a small town and many of our readers either knowDanny Pearl well or know him socially or professionally. What can you tell all of thoseconcerned about him, that we do not already know?
ML:No, I don’t have anything new to add. But I think the fact that our policeand intelligence have been working closely on the ground with the FBI and we feelthat we’ve made progress and have some leads into who may have done this. Iremain hopeful that we can crack this, and of course we are hopeful that he is aliveand that he will be brought home, safe. There is nothing new that I can tell youother than the fact that I have spoken to Danny’s wife several times on the phone.Some of my friends work for the Wall Street Journal in Pakistan, so I’ve been intouch with them, and they are in touch with the authorities. We are doing all thatwe can at this point in time, and right now I am hopeful.[After the tragic death of Danny Pearl Washington Life followed up with theambassador and asked if she wanted to add anything to her previous comment. Whatfollows is her response.]
ML:Danny was a shining example of the very best in humanity — a lovinghusband, a dutiful son, a gentle and caring colleague. He was also a guiding light forall his friends, ever searching for the truth with courage and honesty. His sacrificeand his dedication will never be forgotten. All those who believe in humanity and justicewill never rest until the kidnappers and murderers of Daniel Pearl are broughtbefore the law.
NB:Some have commented, including Sebastian Junger at the Council onForeign Relations this week, that they found it odd that Danny Pearl’s kidnappers phrased theirdemands in starkly nationalistic terms without any religious references. What do youmake of that?
ML:We think that whoever has done this was seeking to hide and disguise theiridentity and purposely meant to put the authorities off track. That has not succeededbecause one, there is no such organization that called itself whatever it calleditself. This was the first time that we ever heard of it. Two, the language was so contrivedit just seemed not to have been coming from those who committed thisterrible act. The two just don’t gel.
NB:Do you think it’s safe for Americans and American journalists totravel in Pakistan right now?
ML:Even when the war in Afghanistan was at its very peak, they merelyexercised the usual kind of prudence and caution that one would urge somebody to do wherethere are groups like this elsewhere in the world. There are so many journalists [inPakistan] right now, many have been based there for decades and never really had aproblem. So, one just needs to be very careful that they don’t walk into a trap.
NB:What are the roots of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan? Whatdo you think are the societal factors that contribute to this anti-Americansentiment?
ML:Well this is a complex question, with complex causes. I would say one ofthe factors is that there is a perception in the streets of Pakistan that U.S. and Westernattitudes and policies towards the Islamic world have not been responsive to issuesthat concern Moslem hearts and minds. For example, there is a perception thatU.N. Security Council resolutions involving Moslem issues will never get implemented,but that other resolutions get implemented before you are out of theroom. People therefore question whether there are double standards in the West.Another factor is ignorance. There are large numbers of people who are unemployed,live in conditions of social desperation, and lack economic opportunity.These are the conditions that provide ready recruits to organizations that haveextremist agendas. Anger and rage are something that you can easily whip up insocial conditions of poverty and deprivation. The third factor is that perceptionbecomes reality, and we must deal with that. People in Pakistan do not hate theWest, but they certainly ask questions and are critical that the West is in Pakistanwhen they need us, but [feel] when we need them [the West], they are not there.So there is a sense of betrayal and almost humiliation, which begins to take root creatinga challenge for governments and leaders to explain how states follow theirinterests. In order for the West and the Islamic world to understand each other,we need greater interaction at all levels. Sentiments are the hardest to understand,and policies have to respond to sentiments. We need to do more than we have, and ithas to be done at a people-to-people level.
NB:What similarities do you see in the Palestinian / Israeli conflictand the Pakistani / Indian / Kashmiri conflict?
ML:I think there is an analogy, only up to a point. Kashmir is quite unique interms of its historical origin and in terms of what has happened there in the last tento twelve years. It is an international dispute. There are U.N. Security Councilresolutions calling for the Indian Government to give Kashmiris the rightto choose their destiny by exercise of a “plebiscite” or a referendum. Because thetwo neighbors are nuclear, the stakes in the subcontinent are very high. We know, andwe’ve said that there can be no military solution in Kashmir. This is not a piece ofreal estate that two countries have to decide upon. This is about people and self-determination.They have to decide their own destiny. All we ask is that democraticrights that are of such importance to the world be upheld and applied in Kashmir.And the world’s largest democracy [India] really ought to apply some democracy inKashmir as well.
NB:What do you think of the way the American media has covered thePalestinian / Israeli conflict and the Pakistani / Indian /Kashmiri conflict?
ML:I think some of the press has covered the Indian and Kashmir dispute with agreat sense of understanding of the history and the context. However, sometimesthrough no fault of anybody’s, the unintended consequence of non-contextual reportingwhen it is the story of the day, leads to very faulty conclusions. So,I would simply say that whether it’s the Middle East or India-Pakistan being reported, analyzedor editorialized, it’s important not to lose sight of the historical, modern, legal,social, or political context. But it’s been harder for the electronic media, because itmust be in sound bites, with the exception of documentaries. The nature of the mediumis such that it’s fast moving, and it’s visual. So, how do you capture history with aphoto? Visual images on television have such a huge impact, and much power onthe hearts and minds of people everywhere. And with that power, the electronicmedia has enormous responsibility to put things in an historical context so peopleunderstand the whole story and are not misled.
NB:Can you envision a way to support “freedom fighters” withoutsupporting terrorist actions?
ML:The one has nothing to do with the other. The use of violence to achievepolitical ends, and the killing of innocent civilians is something that can only defeat a freedomstruggle, not promote it. But that doesn’t mean a freedom struggle shouldn’tuse political means or the right to self-defense when under attack from state-sponsoredviolence. So, I think we have to draw very clear distinctions. Even today, we don’thave an internationally accepted definition of terrorism, and it’s time we had one. Butit must be an internationally accepted definition, not a unilaterally defined one, if weare to be effective in the long-term fight against terrorism. International legitimacyand legality were critical elements when the U.S. went into Afghanistan, because it hadU.N. cover. If there is one thing that September 11th demonstrated, it is that nocountry can individually confront this menace. In a globalized world, there is globalreach. Therefore, we have to keep the momentum to ensure that the coalitionholds together in the future. Otherwise, it will only raise questions of legitimacywith the rest of the world. But having said that, the fight against terrorism should notbe used by countries as an excuse to carry out massive repression domestically, curb civilliberties, or crack down on domestic sources of dissonance. We have to be very careful to strikethe right balance between not compromising on the fight against terrorism and [protecting]civil liberties.
NB:Should all countries that are developing nuclear weapons, and alsoproviding support to the Palestinians, be included in President Bush’s“axis of evil”?
ML:The next step in the war against terrorism should be taken with greatwisdom, foresight and reflection, and with the support of the international community.That’s it.
NB:I am certain that you have heard the comment as it was repeatedin Christopher Hitchins recent Vanity Fair piece on Pakistan, that “Pakistan is not a countrywith a military but a military with a country.” Is a military government needed to keepreligious extremism in check in Pakistan?
ML:The military is in power now not because they wanted to be, but because thebehaviors of the civilian politicians created a vacuum that the military filled. Theresponsibility of returning Pakistan to the vision of its founding fathers has fallen onPresident Musharraf. He has lived up to that challenge and has sent a strong signalto Pakistanis, as well as to people abroad, that we are loyally returning to that visionand that the rule of law will apply to everybody. Therefore people in the guise of religioncannot take on or challenge the writ of the state. Nor can they have externalagendas. Only the state can follow and pursue a foreign policy. We will not permitgroups in our country to pursue their own little mini foreign policies.
NB:Before September 11th General Musharraf established a timetablefor democratic elections to take place in Pakistan. Has the need to check Islamic extremistorganizations delayed this timetable? What is the timetable?
ML:We are on course. He made a pledge to the people of Pakistan not because hewanted to placate international opinion, but because we feel this is in Pakistan’s bestinterest. President Musharraf has already taken steps to indicate that we are well oncourse to holding national and provincial elections in line with what the SupremeCourt ordered us to do by October 2002. President Musharraf never said his governmentwas a substitute for democracy, but that we are committed to the democraticpath, that we will not allow a democracy only in name and not in substance.We want to restore a democracy that has checks and balances, and ensures that themilitary does not have to intervene again.
NB:Bernard Lewis at Columbia University and others have pointed outthat in countries where the U.S. has friendly relations with the government (such as SaudiArabia), its people tend to have a large anti-Americansentiment. And in reverse, countries where the U.S. has no relations with the government(such as Iran), the vast majority of the population tends to be more “pro-American”.What do you make of that?
ML:I think this is a sweeping generalization, but it has a certain analyticalvalue. I think the important issue is for the U.S. to have broad-based relations with countriesacross the board. I will say again: people-to-people contact is so important forthe long-term durability of any relationship, and for the understanding of eachother. Even friends have disagreements, but the whole point of friendship is thatyou should be able to air your differences and understand the other’s view. But Ihave enormous respect for Bernard Lewis and am planning to buy his new book.
NB:How do you respond to allegations that senior members of the Talibanand Al Qaeda have been given safe-haven by its sworn enemy of the past six years —the IranianGovernment?
ML:I won’t be able to comment on another country.
NB:But don’t you find it’s really odd thatan enemy would be providing safe-haven?
ML:No comment.
NB:It was widely reported in The NY Times, the Washington Post, and ina Vanity Fair article by Seymour Hirsh that observers in Afghanistan saw Pakistani planes flyinto Kunduz to airlift high-ranking members of the ISI [Pakistan’s intelligence service] andthe Taliban. What can you tell us about this?
ML:On that I refer you to the statement made by Secretary Rumsfeld, where hesaid that this is simply not true. I have nothing to add to what he said.
NB:Can you comment on why so many Pakistani nationals were foundfighting side by side with the Taliban as each city fell in Afghanistan?
ML:It is complicated. Look, there are ethnic and religious bonds between peopleliving on each side of the Afghan/Pakistani border, but having said that, I think theoverwhelming majority of people supported President Musharraf in his decisionto become a part of this global coalition to fight terrorism in Afghanistan.
NB:Some Pakistani sources say that is because Pakistan needs a stableneighbor in Afghanistan. (And you have stated previously in interviews that it would not bein your country’s best interest to have two hostile nations surrounding it), Pakistan decided tosupport the Taliban, just as they supported previous governments and warlords, like[Hekmatyar] Gulbudin. Yet critics say that Pakistan essentially created the Taliban andfilled its army with Pakistani Pashtuns, of which Pakistan has 10 million. How do yousquare these extremely disparate perspectives?
ML:If it were up to us to create an administration,it would have been one that is at peace with us and with the world. It maynot be well-known in the U.S., but we had an increasingly uneasy relationship withthe Taliban before their collapse. Of course, Pakistan has an interest in the stabilityof Afghanistan. Engagement did not mean approval or endearment, it simplymeans we didn’t have a choice, they are our neighbor. In fact we urged restraintupon them. We’ve told them that their attitude towards women is not the Islamicway. We obviously didn’t get very far in those efforts, but that’s not for lack of trying.We fought together with the Western world against the Soviets, and the worldwalked away from Afghanistan. We couldn’t walk away from our neighborhood.And what did this war leave us? It left us with a [deluge] of weapons, proliferationof narcotics, and a refugee population of three million. We are very glad to hear theinternational community say they were wrong in having walked away fromAfghanistan and that they would not do that again.
NB:NB: It has been reported that your government hasbeen meeting with the Government of Iran, and that there have beenhigh level meetings between your respective foreign ministries. Whatis the purpose of this, and why are you talking to one of the countriesthat President Bush has labeled as part of an “axis of evil”?
ML:Iran is our neighbor. We have had long-standing relations with Iran underdifferent regimes. We deal with countries not with regimes. It is very natural for a countryto ensure good neighborly relations.
NB:NB: Some observers of Afghanistan emphasizethe ethnic differences between the various groups in Afghanistan, pointing out thatthis limits the prospects for an Afghan nation. Others emphasize the cultural and linguisticcommonalities (such as the fact that the majority of Afghans historically speak“Dari,” which is the exact same language as “Farsi,” and “Tajiki,” namely, the Persianlanguage). Therefore, the prospect for a unified Afghan nation may not be so bad: whatdo you view as more important, ethnic divisions or cultural-linguisticcommonalities?
ML:ML: This is a profound question. Can we note this down and I will e-mailyou the answer?NB:Absolutely.
NB:Why do you think Americans have heard so much about the supposed “Pashtunmajority” in Afghanistan when in fact, according to CIA reports, only 38% arePashtun, hardly a majority. And, interestingly enough, only 30% of the Afghan peoplespeak Pashto as their mother tongue, because they grew up speaking Persian(regardless of whether it is natively referred to as “Farsi” [as in Iran], “Dari” [as inAfghanistan] or “Tajiki” [as in Tajikistan])?
ML:Good question but I think the Pashtuns are the majority. I’ll come backto you with this one too. I need to think this over.[Ambassador Lodhi submitted a joint response to the previous two questions,excerpts of which are printed below.]
In the absence of a census in Afghanistan, it is difficult to have a reliablebreakdown of the numerical strength of various ethnic groups. According to LouisDupree’s book on Afghanistan, the Pashtuns were 45% of the population in 1977.Some Pashtuns acknowledge that due to the last 20 years of war and exodus of refugees, theirshare of the population is now arguably less than 45%. They, however,maintain that Pashtuns are still a dominant ethnic group.
It is true that while there are ethnic divisions within Afghanistan, there are alsocultural/linguistic commonalities. Whatever the ethnic and linguistic differences,the Afghans have a strong sense of national identity and are intensely patriotic abouttheir country. Their fierce independence has been amply demonstrated in historyin their encounters with foreign intruders and aggressors.
However, Afghan society still remains largely tribal, especially in the south andthe east of the country—i.e. among the Pashtuns [near Pakistan, which is alsohome to approximately ten million ethnic Pashtuns]. Also, throughout Afghan history,the various ethnic and linguistic groups have retained a considerable measureof autonomy—recognizing the central authority in Kabul in return for respectfor their autonomy in the hinterland regions.
While Pashtuns may not have a majority, their domination over the country hasresulted from the fact that power has always been in their hands. WhenAfghanistan broke away from the Persian Empire [i.e. Iran] in 1747, its Pashtunleader, Ahmad Shah Abdali belonged to the Durrani tribe. This tribe continued torule the country till the overthrow of King Zahir Shah. The Durranies still remain thelargest and [one of the] most powerful tribes in Afghanistan. Dari or Farsi [i.e.Persian] is spoken by most educated Pashtuns because it was adopted as the languageof the Afghans and the ruling class by Ahmad Shah Abdali.
***NB:Can you comment about misinformation,if any, that you believe the American media has put out?
ML:I have great admiration for the American media. But I think it’s important,as I have said before to go behind the headlines of the day and analyze morecarefully the details of what has produced certain sets of circumstances. Sound bite-journalismis fine, but these are very critical issues and when you simplify complexrealities you [can] come to flawed judgments and even more flawed prescriptionsabout what to do.
NB:Is there anything that comes to mind regarding misinformation inthe press or anything that you think needs more clarity?
ML:I think that sometimes certain words are emotive without thought. There isno such thing as Islamic terrorism. I take great exception as a Moslem, to the very use ofthat word. Terrorism has no basis in the religion. It’s not an ideology. Terrorism is atactic that people of all faiths have used at different points in history and in differentparts of the world. I think the adoption of such terminology can produce misconceptionsamong people who have little knowledge [about Islam]. But a terrorist isa terrorist.
NB:What do you think of Benazir Bhutto’sprospects of returning to government in Pakistan?
ML:I can’t comment on that.
