Atlantic Council South Asia Center director Shuja Nawaz appeared on The Voice of Russia radio to speak on the power struggle between the Pakistani government and military forces amidst the current volatile atmosphere.

Listen to the segment on Voice of Russia

The Atlantic Council’s Iran Task Force held a public briefing on January 17 on the rising conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Tensions are mounting as the United States and Europe tighten economic sanctions against Iran, and Iran responds with a ten-day naval exercise in the Persian Gulf, and threatens to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, the United States and Israel are preparing for their own joint military exercise, “Austere Challenge 12.” Are the chances for a military confrontation between Israel and Iran and between the United States and Iran increasing? Would Israel consult the United States before attacking the Iranian nuclear program? What would be the consequences for the region and world economy?

The Iran Task Force, co-chaired by Atlantic Council Chairman Senator Chuck Hagel and Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat, seeks to perform a comprehensive analysis of Iran’s internal political landscape, its role in the region and globally, and any basis for an improved relationship with the West. Please click here for more information about the Iran Task Force.

A discussion with

Michael Eisenstadt
Director, Military and Security Studies Program
Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Bruce Riedel
Senior Fellow
Brookings Institution

Introduction by

Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council

Moderated by

Barbara Slavin
Senior Fellow, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council

New Atlanticist Analysis

• US Worries Mount over Blowback of Israeli Attack on Iran – Barbara Slavin

Media Mentions

• Are U.S., Iran Headed Toward War? – Michael D. Mosettig, PBS NewsHour
• Experts discuss hazards of military confrontation with Iran – Ardavon Naimi, National Iranian American Council
• The Iranian oil embargo: does this mean war? – Julian Borger, The Guardian
• Obama’s pressure on Iran raises fear of a military clash – Kristina Wong, The Washington Times
• What would happen if Iran had the bomb? – Scott Peterson, Christian Science Monitor

The Iran Task Force is generously sponsored by the Ploughshares Fund.

On January 13, the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center held a video-teleconference with Imran Khan, founder of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf Party.

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s World Cup-winning cricket captain has been the leader and voice of the Tehreek-e-Insaaf Party for the past fifteen years. He has been a vocal critic of Pakistan’s perceived corrupt political system and is being seen by many as a transformational and clean politician who can reform the current system.

Pakistan’s current political scene is in a state of flux, as the ruling Pakistan People’s Party heads a weak and sometimes fractious coalition. The recent speculation of the army staging a silent coup while President Asif Ali Zardari recovered from a stroke has only deepened speculation and emboldened opposition parties to challenge the current government. Mr. Khan and the Tehreek-e-Insaaf Party have managed to gain momentum and stage rallies in key cities that have attracted over hundreds of thousands of supporters.

With early general elections being forecasted for later this year, will Mr. Khan have enough time to mount a successful challenge to the status quo in Pakistani politics? How does he view the Pakistani Taliban and their Afghan Counterparts? The video conference featured how Khan plans to handle the internal militancy, Pakistan’s relations with its neighbors and the United States, and the military’s influence in Pakistan’s polity.

Featuring

Imran Khan
Founder
Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Movement for Justice) Party

Moderated by

Shuja Nawaz
Director, South Asia Center
Atlantic Council 

MEDIA MENTIONS

• Like the country, army supports PTI: Imran – Huma Imtiaz, The Express Tribune
• Imran Khan says he’s not anti-West – AFP/Dawn
• Imran Khan calls for new ties with India, says he’s not anti-west either – Chidanand Rajghatta, The Times of India
• Whither Pakistan: Imran Khan at the Atlantic Council – The Bangladesh Chronicle

Appearing on NPR’s All Things Considered, Atlantic Council South Asia Center director Shuja Nawaz commented on Pakistan’s civil-military relationship and US-Pakistan relations.

The segment focused on events in 2011 that were primarily responsible for the erosion of relations between US and Pakistan.

Listen to the segment and read the transcript

Atlantic Council South Asia Center Director Shuja Nawaz recently assisted in crafting and adopting a list of nuclear confidence-building measures at a meeting in Copenhagen with a group of retired senior officials, military officers, and academics from India and Pakistan.

Led by University of Ottawa Professor Peter Jones, the Ottawa Dialogue has put forth “Practical Steps Towards Nuclear Confidence-building in South Asia,” just as governments in the region begin to discuss nuclear issues related to both military and civilian use.

The Copenhagen meeting was sponsored by the Danish foreign ministry and the National Defense University. Under the leadership of Shuja Nawaz, the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council seeks to foster partnerships with key institutions in the region to establish itself as a forum for dialogue between decision makers in South Asia, the United States, and NATO.

Read the group’s recommendations here (pdf)

Atlantic Council South Asia Center director Shuja Nawaz appeared on the radio show Background Briefing with Ian Masters out of KPFK-FM Los Angeles

to discuss whether there will be a change in the dismal state of deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Pakistan, following the announcement by Pentagon that mistakes were made by NATO that resulted in the recent deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Click here to listen to the segment (Part 3)

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, authored a report for the United States Institute of Peace titled “

Who Controls Pakistan’s Security Forces?” This report reflects the views expressed during a conference hosted by the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Security Sector Governance Center on April 19, 2011. Speakers at the event included the author, Professor Hassan Abbas of Columbia University, and Moeed Yusuf of the U.S. Institute of Peace. The report discusses the complex political landscape in which Pakistan’s civilian and military authorities operate, often vying for power and supremacy; identifies the challenges facing Pakistan’s civilian government in the face of the military’s expanding role; and suggests a realignment of roles, increased expertise for civilian officials in security matters, and better civilian-military coordination.

Read the report at USIP

Shuja Nawaz, director of the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, was featured on the first panel at the Brookings Institution event “Looking to the Future of Pakistan,” which launched a new report evaluating several possible outcomes of Pakistan’s future role in global affairs.

The panel, entitled “Paradoxical Pakistan,” also featured Teresita C. Schaffer, nonresident senior fellow at Brookings; C. Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University; William Milam, senior scholar at Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; and Moeed Yusuf, South Asia adviser at the US Institute of Peace.

Click here to watch the panel on C-SPAN’s website

After a week of delay, as anger against the United States mounted inside Pakistan over the November 26 attack by U.S. forces that killed two officers and 22 soldiers of the Pakistani army at border posts Volcano and Boulder in Mohmand agency, the President of the United States finally entered the picture directly.

He called Pakistan on Sunday to express his sorrow at this incident that is threatening to take the teetering Pakistan-U.S. alliance off the precipice. According to the White House:

Earlier today the President placed a phone call to Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to personally express his condolences on the tragic loss of twenty-four Pakistani soldiers this past week along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The President made clear that this regrettable incident was not a deliberate attack on Pakistan and reiterated the United States’ strong commitment to a full investigation. The two Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship, which is critical to the security of both nations, and they agreed to stay in close touch.

About time, many would say, that the President got involved in saving this relationship. The signaling effect of his personal intervention is huge, especially since it follows a “business as usual” approach to the promised investigation up until now. The U.S. Central Command had said it would take three weeks to produce a report on this incendiary incident that has led to the formal closing of the ground line of communication into Afghanistan and the removal of U.S. personnel from Shamsi air base in Balochistan — a delay that allowed the wounds to fester inside Pakistan.

But why did President Obama call President Asif Ali Zardari and not Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani? Pakistan has had a parliamentary system of government since April 8, 2010, when President Zardari was reduced to a mere constitutional figurehead. Prime Minister Gilani now heads the government, and indeed has been the point-man in denouncing the United States in the days following the Mohmand attack. He should have been the one that President Obama called. By calling President Zardari, President Obama may have been led to the source of political power in the Pakistan Peoples Party to which both Zardari and Gilani belong. A pragmatic move perhaps in light of Zardari’s tight hold over the party he took over from his murdered wife Benazir Bhutto, but also one that downgrades the prime minister. This call will likely be seen in the eyes of many Pakistanis as a snub of their constitutional system.  By this logic, they might ask, would President Obama call President Pratibha Patil or Mrs. Sonia Gandhi in India rather than Prime Minister Manmohan Singh?

The United States has been trying to forge a long-term and consistent relationship with Pakistan during the Obama administration. But 2011 has been the annus horribilis between these two estranged allies. The Pakistani government has used the recent attack to stoke public anger and garner support for its tough stance against the United States, partly to counter the power and prestige of the military in the public’s eyes. The feedback loop created by government and the army’s own tough language against the United States will make it difficult for either to resile from its position. The signaling effect of President Obama’s call to the President of Pakistan and not to the Prime Minister may well magnify that divide and be felt in Pakistani politics and on the street, where every nuance of words coming out of the White House is parsed and debated.

Recall that President Zardari’s personal popularity has been sinking, and with it his ability to affect public opinion in Pakistan. The Pew Global Survey of June 2011 had his popularity at 11 percent. A later Gallup Pakistan poll of July 2011 had his negative rating 39 percent. Gilani came out better, with 29 percent negativity rating overall, but also in the red. In the same Gallup survey, the Pakistan army got an approval rating of 15 percent in fighting terrorism. But the people of Pakistan also gave it a negative rating of 12 percent in running the country and a 3 percent negative rating in its political activities. Yet the military seems to be calling the shots on foreign policy, especially after its recent losses at the hands of U.S. forces.

If the United States is to mend its relations with Pakistan, it must recognize the need to heed the wishes of the people of Pakistan and to connect with them more than the political leaders who appear to have lost the confidence of their citizens. Turning back the clock to the Musharraf regime, when the President of Pakistan was the be-all end-all of decision making, is not the best move. President Obama can retrieve the situation by accelerating the investigation into the November 26 attack and sharing credible evidence with Pakistan of what happened and why. And, if it turns out that it was a mistake on the part of the coalition and U.S. forces that caused the tragedy at Volcano and Boulder, an apology would be in order. Better that than having to put together a new policy for the troubled South Asian region without Pakistan.

Shuja Nawaz is director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council in Washington DC. This piece was also published on Foreign Policy.

On November 30, the Atlantic Council’s South Asia Center, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), and the International Center for Religion and Diplomacy (ICRD), hosted a discussion which highlighted major findings in a new study sponsored by the USCIRF and conducted by the ICRD.

Entitled “Connecting the Dots: Education and Religious Discrimination in Pakistan,” the study examines social studies, Islamic studies, and Urdu textbooks, and explores linkages between the portrayal of religious minorities and subsequent acts of discrimination. Knox Thames and Azhar Hussain discussed how Pakistan’s public schools and madrassas negatively portray the country’s religious minorities and reinforce biases which fuel acts of discrimination, and possibly violence, against these communities. Panelists also discussed pedagogical methods in Pakistan’s public school system and its madrassa system, and the perception of religious minorities by students and teachers, as well as offering recommendations on education reform and the incorporation of religious tolerance in the classroom.

A discussion with

Knox Thames
Director of Policy and Research
United States Commission on International Religious Freedom

Azhar Hussain
Vice President
International Center for Religion and Diplomacy

Moderated by

Shuja Nawaz
Director
South Asia Center, Atlantic Council

Knox Thames

Before coming to the Commission in 2009, Mr. Thames worked in the Office of International Religious Freedom at the US Department of State, and was the lead State Department officer on religious freedom issues in multilateral fora, such as the UN and OSCE. Mr. Thames also served as Counsel for six years at the US Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (the Helsinki Commission), where he was the point-person on religious freedom matters, on issues involving refugees and internally displaced persons, and focused on democracy and human rights in Central Asia. In 2004, Mr. Thames was appointed by the State Department to serve as one of the two U.S. experts on the OSCE Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Mr. Thames earned a J.D. with honors from the American University Washington College of Law. He also holds a Master’s in International Affairs from the American University School of International Service. An author of numerous articles on a range of human rights issues, his book International Religious Freedom Advocacy was released in August 2009 by Baylor University Press.

Azhar Hussain
Mr. Azhar Hussain is the vice president for Preventive Diplomacy and Director of the Pakistan Madrassa Project at the International Center for Religion & Diplomacy. The Madrassa Project has trained over 2700 madrassa leaders throughout Pakistan to date. Mr. Hussain previously served as senior consultant to the Mexican Ministry of Education and adjunct professor at the Tecnológico de Monterrey. He has worked in cooperation with the US Institute of Peace, and provided educational and intercultural consulting services for numerous multi-national organizations. Mr. Hussain delivered presentations to the UN Alliance of Civilizations and the US Commission on International Religious Freedom among others. Furthermore, Mr. Hussain conducted training and development initiatives around the world. He was also the winner of the 2006 Peacemakers in Action Award from the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding. Mr. Hussain holds a MA in International and Intercultural Management from the World Learning SIT Graduate Institute.