Pervez Musharraf, former President, Pakistan HARDtalk

developments for a nuclear bomb. Those are the headlines. That's it

from me for now. Now it is time for HARDtalk.

Over the past decade, Pakistan has developed a label as the most

dangerous country in the world. For much of that decade, the country

was led by my guest today. With his country racked by extremist

violence and corruption, and deeply troubled relations with Afghanistan,

India and the US, the former president is seeking a comeback. He

is currently an exile and faces trial if he returns home. Why does

he think he is a solution to Welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you.

When you left your country, your opponents were seeking to impeach

you. The people were against you and you were essentially forced

into exile. Why do you believe Pakistan would want you back?

Actually, I resigned. I remained the President for six months after

the actions. My popularity had gone down but that does not mean my

popularity was completely over. I resigned and left and I know many

people were crying in the country. However, now the situation is

different. Pakistan is a cause bigger than myself. Because the

people are suffering, they are starting thinking that during my

period, economic and social factors were going up. So you think there

is a yearning for you back in Pakistan? It is developing. Maybe

not in the majority but certainly I can see a wind of change. If we

unpick the feelings of your countrymen and women towards you,

we need to make sense of what happened during your nine ruling

your country. You said you apologise to the nation for the

negative repercussions of decisions that were taken. What do you mean

by that? There was one decision, the National Reconciliation

Ordnance, which pardoned cases in court for some people. Was that a

mistake you made? So after nine years in power, that was your only

mistake? You have to judge a country's leader on the welfare of

the people and the development of the state. We have to indicate what

is the welfare of the people and the development of the state. I had

made contributions to both. When we look at what happened in Pakistan,

we see a country that sunk into turmoil. It became routinely

labelled in America as the most dangerous country in the world. You

were the military leader of Pakistan. This seems a failure that

you could not deliver security in your own country. That was given in

the early stages. It was not the most dangerous country in the world

for me. There was a lot of sectarian extremism and turmoil in

Pakistan. We were moving in the right direction. You obviously did

not control things. We now know the truth about some things that

happened while you were in power. I am thinking about the obvious case

of Osama Bin Laden. From 2005, when you were in power, he was living

within earshot of Pakistan's biggest camp. We know all of that

now. We know that you failed. you think everything is a failure,

what about the people that we caught from number three downwards?

Was that not a success? What do we always see the glass half empty? We

caught other leaders in Pakistan. Many individuals in Guantanamo Bay

were caught by Pakistan. The point is that many senior Americans, the

people who were in power, who have looked at what happened, to quote

the former Defence Secretary, you played both sides. You signed a

two-way partnership with the US on their War on Terror. At the same

time you did not give up your ties with Islamist movements, including

the Taliban. That is not true. I have always maintained excellent

relations with Colin Powell and President Bush. They are the people

who ordered their Secretary of State to tell you that if you did

not join the partnership in 2001 after 9/11 then Pakistan would be

bombed back to the Stone Age. Those are your words. You were

intimidated and threatened and were told that if Pakistan did not join

the alliance you would be taken back to the Stone Age. That is the

start. We joined the coalition. After that... You started it on the

basis of a threat. You are a military man. You must up have

resented that. Let me finish. After I joined the coalition, what

happened in the seven years after is the question. We were delivering

and took the country in the right direction. That is where my

relationship with President Bush and Colin Powell developed. Not in

2001. Even now we have good relations. They have a poor

judgement of people if I was double-crossing them and they still

maintain good relations with me. This is what the media is

projecting. This is absolutely wrong. It is not just the media.

Let me quote you the words of a senior figure in the CIA from 1977

to 2006. He was commissioned by Barack Obama to undertake a review

of policy in Pakistan. He said, quote, Pakistan and General

Musharraf played the Bush administration like a fiddle. They

gave us just enough to keep the administration happy but not enough

to eliminate Al-Qaeda and virtually nothing on the Taliban. This is his

idea. I do not accept that. We have to understand that they will always

be anti-Pakistan. But this man matters because he was a senior

figure in the CIA and was watching what happened during your time in

office. I do not agree with that statement at all. Is that all you

can say to all these people who look at the evidence, including a

general who has looked at after you left office, linked it to what

happened during your time in office, and says that for years Pakistan

and your intelligence agency have been playing a double game. He has

been saying that Haqqani has been an extension of Al-Qaeda. He did

not say that at all. He did not involve me in that. That is a

different subject. I do not think it was a balanced statement. If

35,000 people of Pakistan have been killed, if 3,000 soldiers have been

killed, if more than 300 operatives have been killed, and their

children have been killed, by who? Al-Qaeda and Taliban. Is there not

a disconnect? We are quoting Pakistan wrongly and on the other

side Pakistan is not doing enough. There is a problem there, no? We

need to understand what the problem is. I know why it is. This brings

us to the present. We have talked about your failures or success,

during your time in office. But you sit here as a man who wants to go

back to Pakistan and wants to play a leading role in your country

going forward. What is the message to people who believe that right

now, today, Pakistan's intelligence services are working hand in glove

with people like Haqqani and his people? This is not the case. Every

intelligence organisation has to have an interest in all

organisations, even if they are against them. I am not privy to

what the government is doing now. Coalition forces quitting in 2014

must be causing worries. They must be analysing what we are able to do

in 2014. The first victim after that is going to be in Pakistan.

Any leader has to think about the options. Is the US or Britain

giving assurances to Pakistan about the situation? Are they going to be

helpful to us after 2014 or are we to fend for ourselves? These are

questions which the Army and the government must be considering and

do not judge them. I would not begrudge them anything. I want to

establish that why is it that the best intelligence says to us that

the decision-making body of the Taliban meets in Pakistan. It was

true before and it is true today. I wonder why you believe that is?

That is nonsense. Nonsense? Yes. Air surveillance was all the CIA.

This is a mirage. This is what people say and what you think.

There is a refugee camp of about 100,000 people outside the capital.

It is possible that people across the border come and stay there

because this is a strategic place. But if you think there is a

conference table of the Taliban around, this is nonsense. I do not

think the leader... This is what you said about Osama Bin Laden, I

suppose? I did not know. He happened to be there. Bad luck.

you saying to me that you believe the relationship between Pakistan

and the US has fundamentally broken down? You really believe it has

broken down entirely? The leader has no reason to be in Pakistan. He

has never been in Pakistan. He has always been in Kandahar province.

He is a leader of the Taliban. There is a resurgence of the

Taliban. He has support in the countryside in the east. Why would

he be there? He is a leader of the Taliban. Why would he be in

Pakistan and not in his own The outcome is going to be a

Taliban lead Afghanistan. They two possibilities. There were about 10

different factions fighting amongst themselves. Ora in 19196, where

they were Taliban in -- and the Northern Alliance. -- 1996. We will

go back to those two situations. Each one of them will impact the

current situation in Pakistan. we have not mentioned is Pakistan's

preoccupation with India. You refused India and anti- Pakistan

Afghanistan. If you go historically, there is evidence that India is

interfering in Afghanistan. There is a tremendous amount of evidence.

What is the consulate metaphor. They have some prior interest. They

on the boarder of Pakistan. No-one has come to Pakistan. They have

been indoctrinated and they are being sent back. We can't

physically stop anti- aircraft missiles. Who is giving these

people the weapons? You feel that Pakistan is duty bound to continue

to meddle because of an Indian presence? You have a recipe for a

permanent conflict. Certainly with India, and Afghanistan becomes the

crucible for it. Is it time for you to overcome your paranoia about

India? If you believed that the security threats posed by Pakistan

today are so grave, and clearly you do, and that Pakistan's domestic

situation is powerless. If you went back to Pakistan, would you want to

see the military takeover again? not at all. I believe that

political change, through political means, and ensuring that the

government comes through the political process through elections.

A government which understands the problems. That is my idea. Not

military conscription. You said that there was despondency in

Pakistan, and that people should go to the military. You said that the

saviour was the army. Sounds like a man that is keen to see the army

back in politics. No, immediately after that I said that the army

should not take over. You picture a country in disarray. You say that

you have solutions. I had been the President of Pakistan for nine

years and I know the solutions. In my time, all socio-economic

indicators of Pakistan were positive. Each one of them, for the

people and for the country. And the social economic indicator I will

answer. Here is one indicator, Transparency International, looks

at worldwide corruption and perception across the world.

Pakistan, during your leadership, sank according to Transparency

International. Corruption had reduced, and there was no

corruption at all. He said that national wealth was looted. There

is not a single corruption charge against me or my government when I

was there. Whoever has written this judgement of my time is talking

nonsense and I take serious exception to it. I did not say that

you were taking personal allegations of corruption, just

that Transparency International reported that national wealth was

looted by national hands. You took many measures which did question

your commitment. You locked up the chief justice. Are you talking of

corruption, or something else? spoke about the chief minister.

When you report and reference somebody, make sure you understand

whose report you are giving. We are just trying to ascertain what you

would try to bring to a future Pakistan. It is not about rhetoric

or a record, you locked up the chief justice. The lawyers of

Pakistan believe that you have declared war on the chief

prosecutor. Will you bring that to Pakistan? You don't regard

challenging the notion of independency as anti-democratic?

clearly means money involvement. Is that the issue you are talking

about? It is absolutely different. At the time that I moved in March

against the Chief Justice, that was a reference sent to me again

alleging allegations against him. I sent the matters to the Supreme

Council, which I did because it was a constitutional act. Pakistani

politics are in a state of ferment. The only new politician on the

scene who is attracting support, with rallies and large-crowd

appearances is Imran Khan. His message is that the older politics

in Pakistan were ruled by a mafia. Politics in Pakistan in the past,

if you were in them, you were a criminal. He was aiming that at

you? No, I have never been a politician. You were the President

of Pakistan? Yes. We're talking about territorial issues, but not

the key issues. What does governing the country mean? The people and

the faith. You take poverty, employment, health,

telecommunications, industry, economy, talk to me about those

issues. That is where we succeeded. That is what I did. If you talk

about Imran Khan, he does not know governance. How can he report on

those things? If you go home you face arrest because there are

charges against you for not protecting the former Prime

Minister Benazir Bhutto from assasination. It is the chief

minister who is responsible for that, it is not the responsibility

for the President to have executive authority for security issues.

is the prime minister. All those years that you were guiding the

relationship with the United States and the war against Islamist

militants, you had no authority? For the first three years, yes the

Supreme Court of Pakistan gave me three years. I was the prime

minister, the army chief, the chairmen etc. At that time, if the