Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Saturday

Pakistanis Protest President Musharraf's Support of the U.S.

Aired September 22, 2001 - 14:32   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Let's get you a quick update on developments that we are following this hour.

Starting with President Bush who held a teleconference meeting with his national security team today. The president is at Camp David. Earlier Mr. Bush used his weekly radio address to assure Americans the U.S. economy is -- using the president's word here -- fundamentally strong.

The president is expected to act quickly on a bill passed by Congress late last night to help the airline industry. The measure provides for $15 billion in cash and loans for the airline industry.

And as several hundred pro-Taliban protesters rallied for a second day in Pakistan administration officials tell CNN the U.S. is in talks with Pakistan's government to use an air facility near the Afghan border. That facility was used by U.S. B-52 bombers during the Cold War.

Let's go on up to Washington, DC and Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, Daryn, as you say, thousands of Pakistanis have been protesting. Our Nic Robertson joins us now from Pakistan near the border. Nic, just how many Pakistanis are participating? What percentage of the population are we talking about who are unhappy with the government's stated desire to cooperate?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the demonstrations today have certainly been a very, very small percentage of the population. The demonstrations yesterday had a slightly larger turn out but even by the standards of Pakistan they were still very, very small. We're only talking here of tens of thousands of people. And today perhaps the numbers more up in the large hundreds.

But overall President Musharraf has been relieved to see that the level of demonstrations have not been large.

The real danger for him perhaps is -- would come if there were missile attacks. That would certainly galvanize the more radical elements of a population. But in cities, for example, like Islamabad with its very large middle class population -- that's the capitol of Pakistan -- there's a fairly large degree of support for President Musharraf. The support for the Afghans -- for the Taliban position and for the sort of more extreme religious clerics here who whip up the anti- President Musharraf feeling in Pakistan tends to be closer to the border with Afghanistan in the tribal regions close to where we are here in Quetta, Baluchistan (ph), and the northwest frontier province, which is an area of Pakistan, though the government of Pakistan doesn't fully control it. It has a sort of separate area of authority compared to the rest of Pakistan.

Perhaps the numbers could be best judged by the populous support for those Muslim parties (UNINTELLIGIBLE) Islami, who were one of the parties that helped found the Taliban in the early 1990s and they would claim perhaps more than 1,000,000 supporters.

I was at a rally early this year -- a few months ago -- for some of these Islamic parties -- the more radical Islamic parties and it was a rally attended by over 1,000,000 people. It was a huge three or four day conference out in the open. And certainly what we've seen on the streets here so far is nothing in comparison to that. So certainly very few of those supporters have so far been galvanized by what they see happening in their country.

WOODRUFF: Nic, you were saying that President Musharraf is no doubt worried about missile attacks. Just to clarify, are you saying if there were U.S. or allied missile attacks into Afghanistan that that would then upset more people in Pakistan or what?

ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed. I apologize for not being clear. That is the case. If there were missile attacks from the United States or by the United States into Afghanistan the radical Islamic clerics and their followers here would certainly be a lot angrier than they are now and that would pose a greater problem for President Musharraf. And that is -- that would be the -- his fear, analysts say at this time.

It also has to be said that President Musharraf has been fighting a long running battle with Islamic parties since he came to power in 1999 in a bloodless coo. That is because he's introduced democratic reforms. Those reforms have started off at grassroots level in local areas.

He has introduced -- which hasn't happened here before -- empowerment for women at local level that they can -- that they can hold public office at local level. And that is something that these traditional Islamic parties were opposed to. They, like the Taliban, do not see such a great enfranchisement for women in their communities.

And so President Musharraf has really been running a long running battle with these parties for quite some time. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Nic, just quickly, is there any type of battle -- attack -- that the U.S. and it's allies could make on Afghanistan that would be more acceptable to the people in Pakistan? Or is it any -- is it any sort of military action that would upset them? ROBERTSON: I think most analysts here would say that the important thing for the United States would be to insure that their position was fully understood and that the reasoning for what they were doing -- what they were doing was fully understood. And analysts say that would certainly keep more people behind President Musharraf than if there were an attack. But people here really didn't understand. If they really didn't understand exactly what the aim of it was and perhaps if they had wider collateral damage -- more civilians perhaps being injured.

But certainly analysts say if the position were explained and if there were not civilian casualties then that would tend not to cause so much outrage in Pakistan.

WOODRUFF: All right, CNN's Nic Robertson joining us from Pakistan near the border with Afghanistan. Marty?

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, Judy. Pentagon officials are expected to leave for Islamabad, Pakistan today. They are to make an assessment of the military facilities there. For more on that and what role Pakistan will play in any U.S. military response I'm joined by Ambassador Ahmad Kamal.

He is the former Pakistani Ambassador to the United Nations and continues to hold many hats and do many things for the UN. Thank you, sir, for joining us today.

AHMAD KAMAL, FORMER PAKISTANI AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: A pleasure, Marty.

SAVIDGE: How vital is Pakistan at this key moment now?

KAMAL: Oh, I think it is absolutely essential. Any look at the map will show that Afghanistan is a landlocked country and that the only feasible route into Afghanistan for any type of action goes through Pakistan whether it is by air, whether it is across the ground or whether it is through the use of intelligence and information.

I must confess, however, that on the last occasion that Cruise missiles were used against Afghanistan permission to use Pakistani air space was neither asked for nor obtained.

SAVIDGE: We know that for President Musharraf, for your people, it's a very difficult time -- that the United States has asked something. There are many people in your country that disagree with that request. Is it possible that Pakistan could be on the brink of civil war as a result of this?

KAMAL: Oh, no -- not at all. The -- there is a certain number of people who are dissatisfied and the government incidentally has taken a very courageous decision. There are competing factors at play.

There is a dissatisfaction because the alliance between the United States and Pakistan has a long history. It existed between the 1950s and the 1960s through the treaty organization (UNINTELLIGIBLE), which then frittered away because in the 1965 war between India and Pakistan the United States did not come to Pakistan's help.

We went through a process of fighting a battle -- a war -- together for 10 years against the brutal Soviet Russian occupation of Afghanistan in which one and a half million people died, seven million were uprooted from their homes, ten million land mines were planted in Afghanistan.

Once again we fought together. And having come to the end of that war and having -- we got to a position where the Soviets had to withdrawal in utter defeat. The United States unfortunately turns its face away again.

SAVIDGE: Well, what does the United States do in this time around to make sure ...

KAMAL: Well, this time ...

SAVIDGE: ... that the support from the government remains?

KAMAL: Well, this time to begin with started in the early 1990s when at the end of the first attack on the World Trade Center. Pakistan again aligned itself with the United States in bringing to justice Ramzi Yousef -- for an act, which we considered reprehensible.

This time I would imagine that one -- the average Pakistani would hope that we are on the verge of a more enduring -- a closer and a longer term relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

SAVIDGE: These military strikes can be effective in the short term but the long term is going out and striking at the roots of the problem here do you see that?

KAMAL: The roots -- quite right. But the roots of the problem may not lie in Afghanistan at all. In fact it is not coincidental that out of the 18 or 19 hijackers not a single one is an Afghan. So perhaps one is to be looking for root causes elsewhere.

They may lie in Iraq where continued sanctions have created great frustration among the population and where they have not created any damage to the regime against who the sanctions are supposed to apply.

The root causes may lie in the Middle East where support to one side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has created suffering for the other side. Over 50 years people have seen nothing but suffering.

SAVIDGE: Let me ask you this quickly in the time we have left, sir. Pakistan is one of three nations that has recognized the Taliban. The United Arab Emirates today cut off those relationships diplomatically. Will Pakistan do the same?

KAMAL: I doubt it. I think it is very important to remain engaged with the Afghans for -- Afghanistan is a country which exists. The people of Afghanistan are a people who exist with the majority -- 72 percent of them are Preshtunes (ph). You have to have relations with them. You have to recognize the realities. And irrespective of which government is in power in Afghanistan, Pakistan will recognize it.

SAVIDGE: Ambassador Kamal, we also know that at least 100 Pakistanis lost their lives with the attack on the World Trade Center building. Our condolences to you and your people. Thank you for joining us today.

KAMAL: Thank you very much.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com