Foreign Office was not Privy to what was Happening among the President Musharaf, US officials and the GHQ

Jahangir’s World Times (JWT): What were the main foreign policy challenges when you took over as foreign secretary?

Riaz Hussain Khokhar (RHK): Well, I took the charge as foreign secretary in August 2002 and remained on this prestigious post till 2005. It was quite an intensive experience. I was appointed by General Musharraf who assigned me mainly three tasks:

Restoration of Indo-Pak composite dialogue; Pak-US relations and Pakistan’s role in the war against terror; and Enhancement of Pakistan’s economic relations with the rest of the world because trade is more important than economic aid. So, this was my mandate. At that time, I suggested General Musharraf that we should broaden the base of our foreign relations and instead of looking only toward the West and Middle East; we should adopt a ‘Look East Policy’ which means looking towards Southeast Asia i.e. the ASEAN region. In fact, ASEAN countries have set a new model of regional cooperation. They were making a rapid growth and all major countries were focusing on them. So, the suggestion I put forward was that we should also follow the suit. Moreover, good relations with neighbouring countries like Iran, Afghanistan along with the Muslim world and EU too carry importance.

JWT: What is the exact role of a ‘foreign secretary’ in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy?

RHK: Well, foreign secretary’s job is very important, substantive and delicate. For instance, if there arises any problem in foreign relations, he has to give an honest and objective advice keeping in mind the vital interests of Pakistan. Furthermore, in case a problem or crisis occurs, the role of a foreign secretary is to develop the institutional view. For this, we collect information from our ambassadors, concerned ministries, intelligence agencies, GHQ and from all important stakeholders. In fact, we study the problem thoroughly from the section officer level up to the foreign secretary and all are engaged in the process of studying; then we present our recommendations to the government. One thing must be clear to everyone, ‘Foreign Secretary’ does not make the foreign policy, he only develops options for the leadership to consider no matter it is military or political; our job is to inform the leadership. We say this is the problem, these are the pros and cons and these are our suggestions. Then, it is up to the competent authority to decide. Once an option is chosen, then our job to get it implemented starts.

JWT: Do you think that you were bypassed at the time of Saarc summit 2004 held in Islamabad, when joint declaration was issued in which the  ‘President Musharraf reassured the Indian premier that he will not permit any territory under Pakistan’s control to be used to support terrorism in any manner in India?

RHK: It is partially correct because I was not formally consulted. Actually, this document was being negotiated from the backchannel under Mr Tariq Aziz. So, this document was the result of consultations which were going on between PM Vajpayee and President Musharraf. However, I was informed nearly 24 hours before the issuance of joint statement. I received a fax from the presidency in which I was asked to go through it. So, when I examined it, I was surprised at first and then we (foreign office) sent them (Presidency) a counter draft which I thought was in the best interest of Pakistan. But I was feeling that the president wasn’t happy with our draft and I was being seen as an impediment. Hence, I would not say that I was bypassed but I was not certainly consulted.

JWT: What would you say about out of the box proposals of Kashmir dispute coined by the President Musharraf?

RHK: Well, in fact, my principal objection to General Musharraf was that we have a principled position on Kashmir which rests entirely on the UN resolutions. If you remember, India took the Kashmir issue to the United Nations. Moreover, if you study the UN resolutions on Kashmir, it would be clear that these were not imposed either on India or on Pakistan but were accepted voluntarily. Therefore, these have a different sanctity. First, President Musharraf was taking a position which actually undermined the UN resolutions. Secondly, the out of the box proposals for solving the Kashmir dispute given by him were actually meeting the requirements of Indians. General Musharraf once even said that UN resolutions on Kashmir are very old, in fact, he was badly mistaken because if we say that these are useless then we are not in any position to become a party in this dispute. Thus, my argument was that UN resolutions on Kashmir are fundamental. These resolutions make us a party and also Kashmiris in the dispute vis-à-vis India. So, if we turn away from the UN resolutions then the Indians will not accept us a party to be taken seriously. Hence, President Musharraf was handing over Kashmir to India on a silver platter that is why he was very popular in India. Had Indians ever been happy with any Army Chief of Pakistan except Musharraf? I do give him credit of ceasefire agreement which is even maintained today on the line of control (LoC) but his out of the box solutions of Kashmir dispute were only a recognition of the existing realities. You can say that these were the acceptance of LoC as international border whereas it is not.

JWT: Do you think that there was any understanding for covert operations between General Musharraf and the United States.

RHK: It is very important matter and I would like to mention it in particular. There was certainly an understanding between the United States and Pakistan about the covert operations inside Pakistan and Afghanistan and this issue is also in the limelight now-a-days. I can tell you that the foreign office was not privy to what was happening among the president Musharraf, US officials and the GHQ. Had we (foreign office) been consulted, perhaps we would have taken a very different stance.

JWT: How do you see the foreign policy adopted by the present government and is it better than the approach adopted by Gen Musharraf?

RHK: Well, the present government is following the same approach or policy what Musharraf did, perhaps with more vigour. First of all, we have to see that why did Musharraf agree to all what the United States demanded?  Actually, we had very little choice because United States was a furious elephant at that time. Anything could have happened at that time. Secondly, Musharraf thought it was a great opportunity for him personally to legitimise himself in the eyes the United States and the rest of western world. So, in my opinion, he took into account the interests of Pakistan and his own vested interests as well. Now, as far as this government is concerned, I would say it is very pathetic as they are acting more like stooges of the United States.

JWT:  Another crisis also occurred during your tenure i.e. ‘Dr A.Q. Khan episode’ please comment.

RHK: As far as Dr A. Q. Khan is concerned, I would say that he is an outstanding son of Pakistan and his contribution to Pakistan owes him enormous respect. When the whole world is focusing on you, there is no way to avoid responsibility as an important member of international community. Actually, in this case, the evidence against Pakistan was quite overwhelming and the best option was to remove him from the programme. But there was no question of humiliating a man of that stature. I think he was treated very unfairly by President Musharraf. Let me assure one thing here, ‘It was not foreign office’s recommendation that Dr A.Q. Khan should be humiliated by compelling him to tender an apology on state TV.

JWT: We condemn drone attacks but do not react while in case of attack on our armed forces, we react strongly.  Why we have such double standards?

RHK: Any attack either it is the ‘drone attack’ or it is ground attack on our forces is the violation of our sovereignty. But in case of drone attacks, there was a tacit approval but in the case of ‘Salala Attack’ there was none. That’s why we witnessed a strong reaction. It is not the question of double standards. I think we should equally, sincerely and seriously protest against ‘drone attacks’ as well as other ground attacks. In fact, there were few drone attacks during Musharraf’s reign but he used to call it ‘Yeh Hum nay kia Hey’ (it is done by us). For instance, Dama Dolla attack shows Musharraf’s double standards. Furthermore, if you just look at the ‘WikiLeaks’ it says that drones attack within the Pakistani territory with a certain amount of tacit approval by the present government. In ‘WikiLeaks’, certain cables written by ambassador Peterson show that Prime Minister of Pakistan said that you (US) can continue the attacks and we will condemn it in the parliament. Therefore, whatever we saw in the parliament was just Crocodile tears. So, the Americans just took the advantage of that.

JWT: Don’t you think that the ‘visa issue for Americans’ consolidated the argument that our foreign policy is determined by the US or by the Presidency?

RHK: Well, it is an extremely serious issue and has been very badly handled. It is against Pakistan’s interests. Why should Pakistan allow scores and scores of American intelligence agents and contractors for operating openly in Pakistan? Here rises a counter question do you think that will the US allow China or Russia to send their agents all over the United States to do whatever they want to? In fact, they will not allow one single man and if they find an American collaborating with the foreign powers, they would make minced meat out of him. Then why has Pakistan accepted them all. Actually, they were not here only for searching Osama Bin Laden instead they were looking about everything. They are also trying to identify where Pakistan’s ‘Nuclear Assets’ are placed; indeed they are in pursuit of certain targets. Suppose, tomorrow the United States attacks Pakistan then what are their priority targets. In addition, they are also active in undermining the society of Pakistan. People of Pakistan must know that the United States is spending almost 45 million dollars helping the ‘Civil Society of Pakistan’ to stand up on its legs and the media too. I am not giving any hidden knowledge, they say this openly. Now again here question arises, ‘What kind of civil society will it be if it is going to stand up on funds provided by the US, and I am not talking about everybody. Please do not misunderstand me. Obviously, they are creating a lobby in Pakistan which would serve their interests, this is the real purpose behind their funding.