E-mail a friendWendy Chamberlin
airdate November 7, 2007
A veteran diplomat, Wendy Chamberlin is president of the nonprofit Middle East Institute. She has more than 30 years of foreign service experience, including posts as U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Deputy High Commissioner for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Her assignments abroad also include tours in Laos, Morocco, Zaire and Malaysia. The only daughter of a Marine colonel, Chamberlin graduated from Northwestern University and Boston University.
Wendy Chamberlin
Tavis: Wendy Chamberlin is a former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan who now serves as president of the Middle East Institute. Following her near 30-year career as a U.S. diplomat, she also served as deputy high commissioner for refugees at the United Nations. She joins us tonight, though, from Washington. Ambassador Chamberlin, nice to have you on the program.
Wendy Chamberlin: Thank you very much.
Tavis: And how timely to you have on, because so much is happening today in Pakistan, not the least of which is that President Bush said earlier today at a press conference he has talked to President Musharraf. We knew in the days preceding Secretary Rice had spoken to him, but we know the president has called him and essentially said to him, "You must take off that general's uniform."
We discussed this on the program last night. The protests are growing ever-larger, led, of course, by the former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto. What's your sense of how toxic this situation is as we speak tonight?
Chamberlin: Oh, I think the messages are quite clear to President Musharraf. They're coming primarily from his people, all of his people, but other leaders around the world. I'm very glad that President Bush called him, called him directly, and gave him the right message. You can't be both president and chief of the army.
Condi Rice did a good job. She headed off a declaration for martial law last August, but he didn't listen to her this time, didn't listen to anybody. Didn't listen to a lot of his close advisers, I think, in the army. The thing is, when he took over as head of the government in 1999 in a bloodless coup, people basically accepted a military government at that time and they accepted him.
He was a good guy. He was clean, he had a platform of enlightened moderation, and he promised to return to civilian democracy. It's been eight years; he's done a good job. Pakistan is in a much better position today than it was then. Growth rates at 7 percent, the economy is stable. He opened up the airwaves to a free press. He's got a good legacy. But now it's time, and his people are telling him this. He's just not listening to his people.
Tavis: For those who - let's just break this down, since you've been the former ambassador and you understand this. In our country, President Bush or any president is president while he is also at the same time commander-in-chief. Why, then, the trouble in Pakistan with his being head of the army and president?
Chamberlin: Well, that's a way to go and maybe they should change their system, but it is a parliamentary system so they also a prime minister. And that's just not their system.
Tavis: Okay. When you said a moment ago that he's done a pretty good job, there are those who would take exception to that. There are those who think that because this administration has coddled President Musharraf so much, because they've made him their number one ally in the region, this is not just embarrassing to Mr. Bush right now but something has to be done.
You mentioned, for example, he opened up the press. He did at one time, but now he's taken CNN and other networks off the airwaves and replaced it with state-run television. So when you say he's done a good job, put that in context for me with what we see coming from him at the moment.
Chamberlin: Yeah, that's a good question. I think he's done a good job over these last two years, but he's just blown it up in one disastrous move over the weekend. When I first arrived as ambassador in 2001 - I got there in August 2001, right before, of course, everything changed. Country was in pretty bad shape.
We had sanctions imposed by congressional restrictions because of their developing a nuclear arms program, so we had no assistance, no military connections. They were in deep debt, they were about to default on several international loans, couldn't qualify for World Bank loans. The country was pretty sad.
It all changed because of President Musharraf's decision to help us in the war in Afghanistan, and it's been pretty good for them. They're doing much better over these last eight years.
Tavis: Has he really, though, helped us in the war on terror? There are many who obviously believe, and for that matter, the evidence suggests that it's not just a belief but a fact that Pakistan has not worked as hard to find Mr. bin Laden. There are those who believe that al Qaeda has been able to come back together again, being run out of Afghanistan into Pakistan.
Many of the nations' major papers, certainly the "L.A. Times," front page story the other day that the billions we've been giving to Pakistan has not been used to go after al Qaeda. So again, when you say he's been our ally, he's helped us, has he really?
Chamberlin: Well, I think part of what you say is true and part of it's simply an urban legend. I think the billions that we have spent have been misdirected to large-ticket defense systems like fighter jets. You don't fight terrorism with fighter jets. We ought to review that part of our assistance and perhaps cut it out. But a lot of it has gone to supporting the Pakistani military troops along the border.
Middle East Institute, I'm president of the Middle East Institute. We had our annual conference last week, and the former chief of the ISI, which is the army's intelligence service, came and spoke, made a very good point. In this small area, the federally administrated tribal area where we believe the al Qaeda may be - may be, we don't know - and where certainly some Taliban, maybe even local Pakistani Taliban, are operating - they have now deployed from 80,000 to 100,000 troops in a size that is 1/20th the size of all of Afghanistan.
So they have twice as many troops as NATO and the U.S. has in Afghanistan, which is 20 times larger. That's a commitment. They've caught more al Qaeda, and they've lost more troops than any other country in the world. I think he's been a good ally on counterterrorism, but he's broken his promise to us, to the United States, and to his own people to move to a civilian government, and that's the issue that is troubling us this week.
Tavis: Let me ask you a closing two-part question here. We know, of course, Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister, is back, and is, in part, behind the unrest that so many are feeling about his presidency and wearing the president's hat and the military uniform at the same time. But that said, what does it mean in the coming days, you think, what's going to happen here, and I want to close by asking what this means to America. It's easy for you and I to talk about this on a TV screen, but what does it matter? Why should we care about what's happening as we speak in Pakistan?
Chamberlin: Well we care a great deal because of where Pakistan is frankly located. It's got nuclear arsenal itself, it's got a huge power, huge adversary to its east in India, with nuclear arms. To its west it's Afghanistan, which, of course, is politically unstable but also produces 93% of the world's heroin crop, which comes partly through Pakistan.
Tremendously unstable situation, and it's a stone's throw from the Gulf, where we produce a great deal of the world's oil production. This is a country that has massive illiteracy, massive poverty, people who are very upset. Their aspirations are not being filled. It's an explosive situation. Should it explode, it would affect the whole world and us a great deal.
We need to keep Pakistan stable. Our relationship is with the Pakistani people. It's not with one man, it's not with one party, it's not with one institution. It's with the Pakistani people and their future, which we hope will be stable and peaceful.
Tavis: Let me ask you in 30 seconds whether or not, to your final point, Mr. Musharraf is going to get that, and will he get it in time?
Chamberlin: Well, I hope so. I think the message is clear, and Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte was telling the Congress today very clearly, our relationship is with the people. He's got to return to civilian democracy and hold those elections.
Tavis: She is the former U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, Wendy Chamberlin. Ambassador Chamberlin, nice to have you on the program. All the best to you.
Chamberlin: Thank you.
Tavis: My pleasure.
Back to November 7, 2007