Khawaja Khalid Farooq - Head of Counter Terrorism Authority, Pakistan (2011-2013) HARDtalk

Bolivia is -- Bolivia has confirmed that they have received an asylum

requests and protesters in the streets call for the US embassy to

shut down. Now on BBC News: HARDtalk. Britain's Prime Minister

David Cameron once accused Pakistan of facing both ways in the fight

against terrorism. More recently he said the countries must 'stand

together'. Gavin Esler speaks to Khawaja Khalid Farooq who was very

recently head of Pakistan's National Counter Terrorism Authority. Does

David Cameron's change of tone represent a new understanding that

Pakistan is bearing a heavy burden of fighting and suffering great

losses? Or is it part of a western panic that Pakistan may be in such

trouble that public criticism is no serious is the security situation,

the terrorist situation in your country? I think over a period of

time it has not been improving. It is bad. Unfortunately, there are

many forces and sides. There are localised forces and terrorist

activities. For example, if you analyse the situation in Karachi, it

would be different than in other places. They do have linkages

amongst themselves, but these groups are quite independent. They do get

together and are in contact with each other. I think Pakistani is

bleeding. It is facing a lot of hardship. The problems are there.

noticed that opinion polls suggest 98% of Pakistani is said terrorism

is a big problem. It must affect this, although there are different

reasons and different parts of your copper kidded country, it must

affect the way people think about their lives -- complicated country.

Yes, definitely. When this started in Pakistan decided to be part of

it, things were not that bad. We go by the fact and figures, things were

entirely different. When our activities started, when we started

flushing up criminals, all these militants started spreading

throughout Pakistan. Throughout tribal areas. Yes. Things went from

bad to worse. Was it a mistake to get involved in the global war on

terror than? There was a lot of pressure from America, it was

difficult for Pakistan to stay away, but there were different policy

options that could have been discussed. I don't think we can have

more discussion but the point of this is that initially when

insurgencies were conducted, the initial phases of a couple of years

had a different opinion about this. We had some positive ideas about

them, as freedom fighters fighting against occupations. But lately,

things have changed. People started feeling, they saw the true picture.

When they saw the Taliban occupying, acting as a default rule

are in an area, they wanted to enforce their religious

sectarianism. Stopping women and girls going to schools. That was a

turning point. Some estimates say that 13,000 civilians have been

killed since the War on terror started. Some say 50,000.It's

terrible. We have seen even in the last month or two one of the top

prosecutors of the Benazir Bhutto case murdered. The son of a former

prime minister was kidnapped. Mosques have been burnt. An attempt

was made on the life of an Israeli High Court judge. It appears to be

sectarian sponsored. But things are getting worse. Even if they are not

getting worse, there are not so comfortable for the common man. It

is affecting investment, in economy, unemployment is going up. You wrote

in a newspaper in Pakistan recently that the complete elimination of

terrorism may not be possible. Why did you say that? Because it is a

long process. Even in developed countries, do you believe that you

have been successful in eliminating terrorism? Not here, not in America.

So how can it happen in Pakistan. One should try for that. But it is

difficult to achieve. You also wrote an article that the important thing

was to reduce the supply of terrorists. It puzzles us here in

Britain, but certainly in Pakistan, what is it that leaves young

Pakistani men to become soldiers enchanted with the society and the

country that they are prepared to kill others and themselves? -- so

disenchanted. There are multifarious factors. Social and economic ones

are important. Globalisation is going on. For a small amount of

money, $500, people can be induced to go for a suicide bombing. Their

families have been murdered, indoctrination is happening. There

are many factors. I tell you, the positive thing about Pakistani is

that the general public is not like this. 98% of people have heard that

criticised these activities. They are peaceloving people. As things

are, unfortunately, we have not been able to handle the situation

properly and there have been a lack of proper counterterrorism and

counter extremism strategies. talk about that. The organisation

you let players -- plays a role. But people in Pakistan do hate terrorism

but they have no ability to do much about it. When you look at the

transparency International studies suggesting that Pakistan was 134 out

of 185 countries for proper option, and -- corruption, and one of the

most corrupt organisations with the police. So how can the public trust

the government on this. Corruption is prevalent in almost all the

departments and this is one major scourge we are facing. I think

ultimately it will depend on a ruling government to draft laws,

giving an example to the others, and is placed stringent efforts against

the corrupt people. The other positive thing I would say is that

if you things have emerged in the Pakistan scenario. One is the

independent media, the electronic media. They are very powerful factor

is attacking those negative factors in Pakistan, and bringing a talk

show at 8pm on everyday on the TV channel, with likeable programmes.

This is happening everywhere. The second thing is that the

effectiveness of the independent judiciary on street level. They are

very strict. There are positive changes. But you would accept that

the military intelligence basically does not get on with civilian

intelligence people? There is a lack of co-ordination. Definitely. The

problem is everywhere. That is why the Department of Homeland Security

was established in America. That is why you have two organisations in

Britain. It is correct to say that a lack of co-ordination amongst

civilian and army intelligence is a problem. It has to co-ordinate with

other things. It has to be able to get it done without facing problems

for military intelligence. It is not just co-ordination though, is it? We

have seen, for instance, WikiLeaks expose some of the inner sinkings of

the American ambassador, who said that the Pakistani army and the ISI

are covertly sponsoring terrorist groups including the Afghan

Taliban. What was exposed there is that the Americans believe that

within the Pakistani state there are people who support the terrorists

that you're supposed to be fighting. Individual level support or

opposition can be there, but I think this is an misnomer. It has been

propagated against. Are simple questionnaires, why have they got so

many people killed if that is the case? Army personnel. It is true

that many members of the armed forces in Pakistan feel that way.

are fighting a very harrowing battle. It is simple to say these

things sitting over here but it is difficult when you are in the middle

of the war. One thing. Between Afghanistan and was a stone

borderers, there are almost 233 passes through which these people

can travel. I understand that difficulty, but what I am trying to

get out, is when you have the American saying what they are

saying, and the head of the Afghan National Army who we talked to and

she said that the fight with the Taliban would be over in weeks if

the Pakistan government wanted it to be. Others have said the government

does not have the wheel to go up after people who are blowing a

mosques. Various sources are saying that while great sacrifices are

being made, senior figures in the administration are helping the

terrorists. What benefit is Pakistan going to get out of this? They want

to destroy Pakistan. No sane person would damage or destroy their own

country. We our one of the most victimised countries in the war

against terror. We are the worst sufferer and the whole game. Our

economy, our social fragments. you are doing your utmost in a spy?

At the individual level, I don't know. There could be individual

sympathies, but I don't think so. you think the American and Indians

use or wrong? Another thing I would say, . What stops him from attacking

those people who are attacking Pakistan? We are realising that we

are the principal actors in the war against terror. David Cameron did

say three years ago that Pakistan was looking both ways. He was

another voice. Now he is saying that we had to stand with you. But he

seems to feel that Pakistan does look both ways. You have a different

policy approach. What people feel over that, they say that we had done

enough, that is what the people say. The people of Pakistan? That is what

they say. $5 billion of damage economically, then on. Which other

country has suffered so much? Bin Laden was killed by the

Americans in Pakistan. If the military had protected them, I do

not think they would have been able to chase him out. It was not in our

knowledge. There are failures in wars in many ways, but intelligence

was provided to the Americans which was later worked upon. But your

allies do not trust you. Is that how it is seen in Pakistan? You were in

the swat that you were suffering horrendously, and the Americans do

not trust you. -- in this war. is the sad part. That is the failed

project in the provinces. But one thing, the thinking of Pakistani

people, one is that Osama Bin Laden was killed. There were no

demonstrations from the Pakistani people. Most of them were glad he

was killed. Yes. Number two, recent elections. I have been talking to

many people, the same people are not as extremist. How does the

irritation, the anger about drone attacks, how does it plane into

this? -- how does it play. Target wise, they may be very successful in

achieving their targets, but as far as public opinion, then at our two

issues. One is sovereignty. people are offended that the

Americans are attacking people in your country, even if they do not

like the people who are being killed. Yes. Number two, innocent

casualties. The ratio of target to other civilians is one to 12. That

is the ratio of targets, one target the innocent. But the important

point is, you hardly get any details. Excepting some very

important people who may be killed by drones. What about the innocent,

and nobody knows. The former Pakistan High Commissioner in

Britain, he has just written a book in which he says, with his knowledge

of Waziristan and other areas, that the drone attacks have been causing

particular damage to tribal societies, and they are making it

even more difficult for the Central government and they destabilise the

making making things worse to win the war

against terrorism. Is that how you see it? If drones are to be utilised

for the purpose, let the government of Pakistan take the responsibility.

Would they do that? Would they agree to the drone attacks? If it is

handed over jointly. It could be done if it is required. It would be

difficult for the politicians. the point is this, if they do not

want to, that is a different situation. How do you view the

future of your country? You have talked at bit about economic

underdevelopment and not enough jobs, growth in India is outpacing

that of Pakistan and has been for many years, literacy is a problem,

and the terrorism that we have talked about. How do you view the

future, in five -10 years of your country? The only major problem that

we are facing is terrorism. If we manage to control it to a reasonable

extent, there is no stopping Pakistan to develop. Things were

going on quite well. You can see the past history. Things were improving.

People are resilient. They have the wheel to develop. Although the new

Prime Minister has been talking about a meeting of all the

stakeholders. I feel that he must be thinking about it. As soon as

possible, they should be a meeting of all stakeholders on this issue,

and there should be consensus, and when the consensus is arrived at, we

should go for a full flag into -- implementation of whatever is

decided. And when you have an outsider like David Cameron, who

says that they must stand together with the people of Pakistan, what

does that mean? What could they do for you? What I would understand,

they would be supporting Pakistan in this hour will of need, and that

Britain is ready doing a good job in Pakistan. A couple of things which I

know. They are investing in the education department. In a

province, they are helping capacity building of police. They are doing

something on forensics as well. If you increase and enhance the

capacity of the police... Right. That is what you hope. But varies

another prospect, that the central government will lose control

completely, and it could become a failed state with nuclear weapons,

180 million people in this pivotal area, it could be a disaster for

everybody. . Absolutely no chance. People are with the government. The

only thing they expect is to have a better governance. They will oust

the government if they are not happy. The number of people, the

percentage of young boys, the number of people who came out in the

elections, that manifested how people feel about Pakistan. It is