The Question: After Benazir Bhutto's assassination on Thursday, what's next for Pakistan?

Benazir Bhutto's assassination is not only a terrible loss to the political process and the nation of Pakistan - it also shows how fragile the country is to the acts of militants. Her tragic death must be viewed in the context of Pakistan's political and security situation: this is clearly a sign of worse things to come.

First and foremost, it is highly unlikely that the elections will be held as scheduled on January 8, 2008. That might the rallying point for both Benazir's Peoples Party (under the leadership of Amin Fahim) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League to seek sweeping changes and a return to the rule of law. This is a huge blow to the U.S., as it backed her and General Musharraf and now will be hard-pressed to handle the political process in Pakistan.

Clearly Benazir Bhutto's killing shows the telltale signs of an al-Qaeda style attack. It sends two messages: one to the Pakistani politicians that they should soften their tone against terrorism, and another to the Americans that their political support will be hacked down from the top. This is a huge embarrassment for General Musharraf, because all his claims of victory against terrorism have come to naught. If nothing else, now that he is out of uniform one cannot rule out the Army seeking to remove him, either through constitutional means or otherwise.

There are already reports of violence in the interior of Sindh, where Benazir was very popular, and it would seem that the situation may get out of hand: people will take to the streets, blaming Musharraf for the failure to ensure security in the country. On balance, I would predict that with elections postponed it is highly possible that conspiracy theories will emerge that will weaken President Musharraf and amplify calls for his removal. In the light of civil strife, it would seem that a major change is more likely than ever.

I knew Benazir personally, and the few times we met and discussed politics, although we may have disagreed on issues, I never had a doubt that she was one of the most astute political figures in the country. Her opponent Nawaz Sharif now carries the responsibility of bringing reason into the country and may even suggest a joint government for national reconstruction.

The Current Discussion: The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Rather than sending more troops, is it time to negotiate a truce there?

Back when the Americans began the invasion of Afghanistan, if someone would have said that one day they would have to negotiate with the Taliban, he or she would have been called mad and such an event would be considered an impossibility. While formal discussions for a truce may not be on the cards just yet, there are a number of local Taliban commanders who have negotiated settlements with the government of Hamad Karzai. The reality of Afghanistan is not about the Taliban; it’s about how this war-ravaged country has sought internal order, and steeped in the history of resisting occupation. After the defeat of the Soviet Union, it became apparent that the warring Mujahideen factions, without exception, had agendas supported by countries in the region and were perhaps the single most-decisive factor that encouraged the growth of the Taliban who were fiercely independent of others, even though Pakistan may be encouraged their formation.

Continue »

The killing of any human being is not something one should gloat over, justify or otherwise praise, and in this vein the attacks in Mumbai are horrific to say the least. It would also seem, based on evidence so far, that some militant groups based in Pakistan carried out this attack, and Pakistan has offered to prosecute these people and some arrests have been made.

While India may suggest that Pakistan is not doing enough, the fact that there has been a state of turmoil within Pakistan for over a decade suggests that reining in these militant groups is not exactly as easy as it sounds. The charge that elements within Pakistan's Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have had inks to militant groups could well be true -- but is not necessarily proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

I do not think war-mongering or taking a page out of U.S. policy of retaliatory strikes is the answer in this situation.

First of all, Pakistan has its own problems with its home grown terrorist threat, losing a Benazir Bhutto to one such attack, the culprits behind which still remain at large.

Secondly, Pakistan's society is fragmented, and divided, especially in the northwest, where more of the population lives in fear of the next terrorist strike than of the next U.S. missile strike. In this atmosphere of strife, it is easy both for militant groups to operate with relative immunity and for militants wanted by foreign governments to hide.

Thirdly, while this tragic attack against the people of Mumbai was perhaps largely carried out by Pakistani men, one cannot simply say India's entire history with terrorist attacks rests on Pakistan's doorstep, as we would be forgetting that earlier bombing attacks on the Mumbai stock exchange and elsewhere were carried out by India's own home grown brand of terrorists. In 2007, a terrible bombing of a train linking India and Pakistan, in which 63 people were killed mostly Pakistanis, was linked to an Indian group in Indore.

Sensible people on both sides of the border have to accept that terrorism is not a state sponsored act insofar as these two countries are concerned. While Pakistan has not been able to control the groups operating within its own territory for the reasons cited, it would be naive to assume cross border raids will achieve much more than to raise tensions between two countries who can ill afford a war at this stage.

The answer is to increase cooperation between the two countries, and to deal with the problems more proactively, and to create a framework of trust between each nation's secret service organizations. In reality, Pakistan gains little from sponsoring terrorist attacks against others when when its own militants are harassing the country from the inside. We must understand and appreciate that militant attacks of this sort are a problem for both India and Pakistan and that dealing with them by more saber rattling will achieve nothing but tension.

Pakistan must also work harder to clamp down on these groups, which have caused so much damage within and outside the country. It cannot just go on hoping the problem will go away with time. It is important that sanity prevail at moments like. We must find peace at these moments, not more deaths.

The Current Discussion: How can we reduce our vulnerability to risks posed by global interconnectedness - from swine flu to financial contagion to terrorist threats? What risks do you see on the horizon?

We are often reminded that we live in a fragile world. At any moment, any of the nuclear armed countries could simply destroy all that is known to exist for humankind and take us back into the Dark Ages. That remains the greatest threat to human progress and determines how nations, societies and people make decisions. The pressure on countries seeking nuclear weapons has increased, but the willingness of existing nuclear states to seek disarmament has decreased.

The moral argument that some states are mature to possess nuclear weapons and others are not is nothing but social snobbery and conceit. We should actively seek total disarmament from nuclear weapons for ALL states. As Utopian as that may sound, the presence of nuclear weapons has actually increased limited wars and conflicts since 1945. Armed conflict has engulfed societies in a more fundamentally damaging war of attrition between nations, societies and religions. This battle for the minds of the next generation is being fought not on the streets and in the trenches, but on the Internet through the quiet subtle manipulation of the minds of young people. This has brought more intolerance to the world, whether right-wing fanatics in the U.S. or Israel or Kalashnikov-toting fanatics in Afghanistan, Pakistan or many countries in Africa.

Continue »