Experts say the civilian government in Pakistan has little control over the military or the ISI, and that it is helpless to act against terrorists, many of whom are said to have been patronized/created by the ISI. Do you subscribe to this view?
I have no doubt whatsoever that this act was not sanctioned by any member of the Pakistan government, nor did they know about it beforehand -- but I also have no doubt that they do not control all events that take place in Pakistan. This is the 'sovereignty' issue, as Bob (Cohen's Brookings colleague Robert) Kagan has called it -- what do you do when a government is unable to exercise control over actions that take place on its territory and which affect other States?
Clearly Pakistan is culpable as a State, but there is no question that the Zardari government wants to cooperate with India and other States -- it just does not have the power to do so.
With all this in the balance, what do you see as the future of Indo-Pak relations, and what is the future of Pakistan as a nation state?
I'm tempted to say read my book -- in this case, The Idea of Pakistan, which was entirely about the prospect of a failed Pakistan and the implications for other States. As I wrote, Pakistan has not failed comprehensively, but it has failed in every sector, and the indicators are all blinking red.
If Pakistan were an obscure country this would be unfortunate, but it is on the bleeding edge of the Islamic civil war, it has nuclear weapons, and it has allowed its territory to be used to destabilise most of its neighbours.
Pakistan has become America's biggest foreign policy problem, as I predicted, but unless India is willing to think strategically and long-term, it will continue to be India's major problem as well.
Image: The Taj Mahal hotel reopens, December 21, for the first time after the attacks. Photograph: Rajesh Karkera
Also see: 'Unless you sacrifice you cannot fight terror'
Advertisement
