Crafting Peace in a Dangerous Place

“Pakistan has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world,” according to the United States Institute of Peace, a congressionally created think tank that teaches and supports peacemaking efforts around the world. The institute’s conclusion is supported by a report this morning that at least three people were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Peshawar. The Taliban claimed responsibility for that attack, but the danger in Pakistan has several sources, including a fragile government, Islamic militants, nuclear capability, and tensions with India, another nuclear power, with whom Pakistan has fought four wars and disputes the Kashmir region. Yet Pakistan’s help  in the arrest of Afghan Taliban leaders spiked hopes of greater U.S.-Pakistani cooperation.

Into this maelstrom steps Moeed Yusuf (GRS’04,’11), who in May will become USIP’s South Asia advisor, managing its Pakistan program. That program publishes books and papers on Pakistan, polls Pakistanis’ opinions, and last year ran a conflict management conference for members of parliament.

Born and raised in Pakistan, Yusuf offers an optimistic counter to the conventional wisdom. Yes, Pakistan has a feeble government and is crucial to U.S. interests, he says, but fears of its toppling into fundamentalist hands are media-fed hysteria, and the United States can meet its interests if it learns from past mistakes.

Yusuf earned a master’s degree and is studying for a Ph.D. in political science at the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. He has been a fellow at BU’s Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future and at Harvard’s Kennedy School, a special guest at the Brookings Institution, cofounder of a consulting firm in Pakistan, and a consultant to numerous development organizations.

He spoke with BU Today by phone from Islamabad, where for the next several months he will be doing fieldwork for his doctorate: interviewing government and military officials and others about “democratic transitions in Pakistan.”

BU Today: What are the sources of tension between the United States and Pakistan?
Yusuf: Nobody in Pakistan believes that the United States will remain committed over the long run. There’s history: in the 1980s, we were supporting the Afghans, the very people we now call terrorists. We left the moment the Soviet Union had withdrawn from Afghanistan. Pakistan had to support three million to five million Afghan refugees. Then, of course, President Obama has said that after 18 months, we’re going to start withdrawing from the Afghanistan war.

The relationship is now at a critical juncture. Pakistan continues to argue that the United States should play a role in normalization of the Pakistan-India relationship, which we’ve shied away from, with the result that we are unable to get full support from Pakistan. The other aspect President Obama is focusing on is nonmilitary aid, economic development assistance. We should persist in that.

Isn’t one reason for lack of commitment a concern that the government in Pakistan may not be able to survive?
It’s a weak government. But whether the government survives or not, how does that change whether we should be supporting Pakistan? The problem is, we’ve continued to support individuals — military or civilian — rather than the country itself.

If the government falls, is it likely to be replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist government?
The vote for Islamic parties has never been above 2 to 3 percent. Collectively, right-wing parties get 10, 11 percent. There’s absolutely no way a fundamentalist government can come through an election. This is a perception we’ve created thanks to misreporting in the media and perhaps some vested interests in Washington.

Despite your work for peace at USIP, isn’t it true that some violent forces, in Pakistan and elsewhere, can only be stopped by force?
We’re not idealists in the sense that we realize that at some point, force is going to be used. But how do you train people to solve conflicts without getting to the point where you need to use force? How do you moderate a radical polity? Just because force is being used doesn’t mean that you don’t have room for peaceful negotiations.

Do you have nightmares about Pakistan?
I don’t have nightmares, period. Pakistan is very unstable. It is one of the most critical states for America, given its role in Afghanistan. But this idea that tomorrow we’ll wake up and Pakistan won’t be there, or that it will be led by a militant group that’s going to take the nukes and run away — this is hype. That’s forcing us to make policies based on this premise that all hell is going to break loose. I don’t think the situation is as bad as that. Don’t take the media too seriously, and you’ll be fine.

Rich Barlow can be reached at barlowr@bu.edu.