Southwestern University recognizes the life of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister of Pakistan, assassinated on the campaign trail in Rawalpindi, Punjab on December 27, 2007. Southwestern hosted Prime Minister Bhutto on March 10, 2005 as the Roy and Margaret Shilling Lecturer. A transcript of her lecture and question/answer session with students, follows.
"A democratic Pakistan is the world's best guarantee of the triumph of moderation and modernity." Click here to see more video from Benazir Bhutto's lecture.
>> President Jake Shrum: Please join me in welcoming Southwestern University's 2005 Schilling lecturer, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto. [ APPLAUSE ]
>> Benazir Bhutto: Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen, students, I thank you for this very warm welcome. It is my privilege to join you in the United States just four months after the presidential elections.
This American election heralded a season of elections, so I join you just weeks after the election of a new Palestinian president. I join you after the election of the new Iraqi assembly.
These three events open up a window of opportunity for stability, the containment of terrorism and the nurturing of democracy in the Middle East and throughout those parts of the world where dictatorship still triumphs.
For me it is a rare opportunity for seismic change that must be embraced before the window shuts. Decades, even centuries of tyranny can be reversed if the world unites behind the common principles of democracy, human rights and pluralism. This may sound like idealism, but I believe it is a realistic assessment of an extraordinary moment in our history.
The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers has changed the shape of the world. September 11th, 2001 is always in our minds.
The catastrophe that struck America that day continues to echo across the world. Now I believe that after a long time the forces of violence seem to be in retreat.
Yes, they resort to desperate, horrific acts in Iraq, in Chechnya and Madrid, but I believe that fear and intimidation are being overwhelmed by hope and by a new spirit of democratic participation and peaceful change.
Al-Qaeda claimed that it would never let democracy take hold. It saw freedom as the ultimate enemy.
And democracy is indeed the ultimate enemy of terrorism, just as hope is the ultimate enemy of despair. Terrorists and dictators are on the wrong side of history as the millions who voted in Iraq and who voted in Palestine proved.
The Israeli's Prime Minister's decision for Israel to withdraw from Gaza offers hope of yet another historic breakthrough. It offers the hope to bring peace and to bring justice to what seemed to people of my generation an insolvable Middle East morass.
And if Israel and Palestine can live in peace and security side by side, I pray for the resolution of the equally difficult quagmire of self-determination. That dispute brought India and Pakistan to war three times and threatens a nuclear Armageddon on the subcontinent of Asia.
My optimism should not mean that there is no danger. Al-Qaeda is doing everything possible to provoke the clash of civilizations that was predicted a decade ago by professor Samuel Huntington.
The question before us and indeed the question before the world is whether the path of catastrophe can be avoided and whether the clash of civilizations is reversible.
I believe that recent developments indicate that there is cause for hope. Much of our ability to prevent the clash of civilizations lies in learning the lessons of history. Patience and perseverance are required to hold all our political systems that disempower people in this 21st century.
My country, Pakistan, is an example of a nation where the forces of tyranny, of terrorism and a militant interpretation of religion threaten a crisis.
The international community threw its weight behind Pakistan's military dictator following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers. It was the right decision to take.
There are worries, though, that the international communities' inability to facilitate Pakistan's transition to civilian and democratic rule could undermine its objectives in the long run.
It is a well-known secret that there is sympathy for Bin Laden, for the Taliban and for the fighters among Pakistan's security services and religious parties.
These were the two organizations that were used to train the majority against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the '80s. Following the withdrawal of the Soviets, the majority went on in large parts to become what we know of today as Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Military dictatorship in Pakistan has led to the rise of religious parties. They govern two of Pakistan's four federating units, and the religious parties claim public friendship with Bin Laden. They have filled the vacuum caused by the military regime's determination to sideline the moderate democratic forces and to crush democracy.
The withdrawal of the military from the political affairs is essential to prevent the continued rise of the religious parties and the possible seizure of power in Pakistan.
Islamabad's military ruler has vested the presidency with enormous powers. He argues that these powers give him the ability to keep the military out of politics, but that hasn't happened, for the president is still the chief of the Army staff while the presidency is vested with the powers of an absolute dictator.
A military president in Pakistan, Washington's key ally in the war against terrorism, sends the wrong message to one billion Muslims of the world regarding the reasons for the war against terror.
President Bush has rightly called this a war for the values of freedom.
Prime Minister Blair of the united kingdom said this was not a war between religions. He said this was a war against oppression and against tyranny.
The democratization of Pakistan is important to the war on terrorism, as a message of freedom and enlightenment as well as to the empowerment of the people of Pakistan.
The democratic world was moved by the inspiring words of President Bush in his second inaugural address. President Bush spoke movingly of freedom, offering hope to millions of oppressed people around the world.
President Bush said, and I quote, "There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of freedom."
People living under tyranny and dictatorship all over the world, especially in Asia, listened carefully when President Bush said that the United States, and I quote, "will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people."
Yesterday when I picked up the "U.S.A. Today," I read the words of President Bush, who said, "By now it should be clear that authoritarian rule is not the wave of the future, it is the last gasp of a discredited past."
These words stir a planet. Now is the time to act on them. Now is the time to convert rhetoric into reality, to convert polemics into policy. The elections in Palestine and Iraq are two examples. The Bush doctrine must be applied across the board, evenhandedly against tyranny evenhandedly, and not just when it is politically convenient.
Ladies and gentlemen, it is difficult to shake the haunting image of the Twin Towers and 3,000 innocent victims collapsing under the weight of hate.
We live in an age traumatized by terror. This is an age very different to the one that I grew up in as an undergraduate on the East Coast at Harvard University, at Cambridge, Massachusetts. It was at Harvard University that I learned about freedom, about tolerance, openness and equal opportunity.
And today I see a Muslim world in flux. There are people like myself who had the opportunity to go abroad for our studies, to see the world, to live in the west, to see the freedom, to see the spirit of accommodation, and there are others who did not have that opportunity, who went to schools within their countries across the Muslim world. And many of the children of the affluent middle class families who studied in the national schools are children who are -- who grew up in societies that were shadowed by dictatorship.
Often, as in the case of Pakistan, they grew up under ruthless dictatorships that used repression as a tool to crush, that would imprison, torture and shoot citizens for their political views.
I remember in the '80s people in Pakistan were shot at or whipped like animals for holding a protest demonstration calling for the restoration of constitutional rule.
Even as political freedoms were denied by these dictatorships or authoritarian rulers, economic and social success remained a distant dream.
More often than not, particularly in the non-oil-producing countries, unemployment, poverty, hunger, malnutrition, and injustice destroyed lives.
The mainstream political parties were considered a threat to the dictatorships or to the authoritarian rulers, so they were banned or they were stopped from freely functioning.
The avenue for the embittered, frustrated youth was only the mosque where they could safely gather for prayers. And when they gathered for prayers, the religious leaders would take advantage of this gathering to address them on the political situation of the day. Of course, the religious leaders would be fearful too of speaking against the dictator, so they would speak against those that supported the dictator. We lived in a bipolar world and this meant they would either speak against the west or they would speak against the Soviet Union.
Thus a cold war generation grew up in countries like Pakistan, but also in other pro-western Muslim societies. This generation grew up hearing about the denial of nationhood to Palestine, the lack of self-determination to the people. The denial of autonomy to the Chechens. They learned of past Muslim glory based on conquest and war.
They learned little or nothing about the Muslim resistance that saw giant leaps forward in medicine, astronomy, mathematics, literature and science based on educational and rational discourse.
The youth imbibed the lesson that a return to the simple, austere life of the past could once again rekindle the passion that saw Islam sweep across continents and spread its message far and wide.
The state disciplined under a single religious leader, a leader like Mulla Omar was seen as the path to victory, victory against the temptations of the soul and victory against the bigger wars.
And it is this generation that must be rescued with an alternative political model to that of the autocratic or religious state. It must not be between one religious dictatorship or military dictatorship, the choice must be between dictatorship and democracy.
The fight for freedom is a fight for values that can build a pluralistic world free of discrimination on the basis of race, religion or gender.
For when the terrorists targeted the World Trade Centers, they were targeting the symbol of pluralism.
At the World Trade Centers, there were men and women working side by side as equals. At the World Trade Centers, there were Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Jews working side by side as equals, promoting trade and international cooperation.
America is a land of modernity, diversity and democracy.
And modernity, diversity and democracy are the fanatics' worst fears.
They confuse the message to prevent the Muslim people from learning that diversity ensures the cultural and religious identity remains intact. And whatever their alleged goals, there is no justification or defense in Islam for their barbaric conduct.
Their actions of September 11th contradict the teachings of the Muslim prophet who said to Muslims that even during war do not treat or commit treachery, nor should you mutilate or kill children, women or old men.
Ladies and gentlemen, it grieves me further that included in the list of the innocent victims of the tragedy in Breslan, Russia and on September 11th is the image of Islam across the world. Islam is not what these people preach.
I grew up learning that Islam is committed to tolerance and equality and is committed to the principles of democracy.
And when I say this to my friends who are not Muslims, they turn around and tell me that if Islam is committed to the principles of tolerance and equality and to the principles of democracy, then why are so few Muslim countries a democracy?
And I say to them that just as the people of the communist world were hostages to authoritarian rule, so people in the Muslim societies are today hostages to dictatorships and authoritarian rulers.
Islam is committed to education and the very first word of the holy book of the Muslim says read. Very few Muslim countries today are spending much on education, although we have a Muslim past replete with the finest universities and research centers, but that is now part of the past.
Islam is committed to the equality of women in society. The prophet of Islam married a working woman, he married a successful business woman. And as a Muslim woman, I grew up believing that modernity and religion are compatible. And so it distresses me when I see Muslim women discriminated against in every aspect of their lives, including the right to choose their marital partner.
And in this the 21st century, we are witnessing the reemergence of a tribal custom that permits the male members of a family to kill a female member if she chooses to marry a man without their permission. And this most dishonorable murder is called an honor killing.
Islam came to liberate women. Islam came to say do not bury the girl child. Islam gave dignity to the girl child. And long before the rest of the world caught up, Islam gave to women the right to inheritance, the right to property, the right to divorce and the right to alimony.
But today when we look across the Muslim world, we see very few Muslim women can get child custody. They often have to fight uphill battle for divorce. And there are countries and societies in which women cannot even open a bank account without the permission of their husband or get a passport without the permission of their government.
Muslim countries today are in search of leaders that can revive the values of Islam by reintroducing the politics of consensus and compromise that lie at the heart of democratic values.
Unfortunately, many Muslim countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines that have a large Muslim community and have authoritarian rule.
There are those who argue in the 21st century that authoritarianism is good. They argued that a benign dictatorship would facilitate economic reform, lead to the emergence of a middle class, and that that middle class could then help the society evolve towards a democracy.
But there were others who argued that authoritarianism was wrong and it could only lead to the moral decay of a society.
And some see terrorism as a consequence of a generation that saw power come through the use of force. By suspending the majesty of law, by taking over by force, by ruling with true oppression, the rulers gave birth to the culture of obtaining power through violence and through the use of force.
To undermine terrorism and violence, it is necessary to demonstrate that power flows and can flow from peaceful means, through free elections and through a sovereign parliament.
The Muslim people need models of political development that enhance the dignity of the individual and that demonstrate that influence and power comes through legal, peaceful, political means.
So we must fight a war on terrorism and simultaneously fight an equally critical war on the political manipulation of religion and against the regressive forces of totalitarianism. The terrorists who attacked America want to establish religious states or theocracy states. In the end they will be defeated. And just as not only arms and weapons defeated Communism, the terrorists will be destroyed by basic and universal human nature.
In the words of the Czech president in his essay entitled "The End of the Modern Era," I quote, "Communism was not defeated by military force, Communism was defeated by the human spirit, by conscience, by resistance to the manipulation of man."
Ladies and gentlemen, Osama and his men used commercial airliners and bombs against cities and symbols, to inflame the clash of civilizations through which they hoped to thrive. They want the people of America, indeed, they want the people all over this world to actually believe that this is a war between Islam and the west.
We must learn the lesson of the past, especially the lesson learned fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80s. Then America, Pakistan and all of us who were allies inadvertently created the very Frankenstein that now calls itself Al-Qaeda. We did this by neglecting to strengthen political moderates, by neglecting to put money into education and infrastructure. Short-term strategies often create far more intractable, long-term problems.
I'm afraid we inadvertently created our own Frankensteins.
And I'm not unfamiliar with these people. I know them well. I know how they operate. I know how they think. For as Prime Minister of Pakistan, I had to stand up to them. I battled with many of these same terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden himself.
I took them on and my government paid the price. During the Afghan Soviet war, Pakistan had become the breeding ground for their religious manipulation and political exploitation.
Hiding under the name of religion, they preached a lesson that would enslave, not liberate, they would teach little children to hate, that would keep people hopeless and desperate, bitter and paranoid.
My government closed the so-called university, my government disarmed the schools that did not teach children science, math or literature, but tried to turn them into fanatics.
And we tried to restore law and order to our cities under incessant assault from the terrorists. My government extradited terrorists, like Ramsey Yusef, who had exported death and destruction to New York in the 1990's.
And we had the terrorists on the run. During my two tenures in office, there was no major international terrorist attack.
Both the attacks on the Twin Towers, the attacks on the two U.S. embassies in Africa, the attacks on the Cole ship as well as the attacks in India, the Bombay blasts and the Indian parliament attack, took place when my party and I were in opposition.
The terrorists saw us as the enemy. They struck at my government. They bombed the Egyptian embassy, they burnt down our parliament, hijacked a school bus full of children and financed and organized schemes to overthrow my government.
I took them on with my eyes open. I knew they would strike back, just as you know to expect these terrorists to try and strike at you. But one must never, never give in. One must never let fear stand in the way of justice.
Ladies and gentlemen, these murderers' greatest fear is the spread of information, social equality and democracy. These three principles suffocate terrorism. And that's why my government heralded in the information age by lifting the ban on fax machines, by introducing digital pagers, fiber-optic communications, cellular telephones, satellites, Internet, e-mail and even CNN and Fox into Pakistan. [ LAUGHTER ]
Under my government, Pakistan became integrated into the global economy that the fanatics so feared. We became one of the 10 emerging markets of the world, attracting billions of dollars in foreign investment.
We eradicated polio, a crippling disease in our children. We reduced infant mortality and we built thousands of primary schools to educate our children.
We established special women's police stations to protect and defend the women of Pakistan. We introduced a women's bank run by women for women, which only gave credit to women, but we did allow men to keep their money in it too if they wanted. [ LAUGHTER ]
The World Bank called our energy program a model to the entire developing world. It was a remarkable transformation of a society. It was a transformation that attacked ignorance and illiteracy and injustice. It was a transformation that was bringing Pakistan into the modern world as an example to one billion Muslims across the Muslim world of what a moderate, enlightened Islam could do for its people.
And so to the fanatics and the extremists, we became the enemy, the threat, the obstacle.
So Islam at the crossroads of a modern Pakistan was one fork in the road, fanaticism the other. It was with the eclipse of my government that the Taliban seized the whole of Afghanistan and it was only after my government was overthrown in 1996 that Osama Bin Laden made his first public appearance in Afghanistan.
Two years after my overthrow in 1998, from the soil of Afghanistan Osama Bin Laden declared war on America. I was the leader of the opposition in the Pakistani parliament at the time. I called upon Islam administration to immediately break ties with the Taliban regime that was harboring Osama Bin Laden. Unfortunately, the opposition's calls fell on deaf ears. The recruiting and training of them took place in Afghanistan, culminating finally in the catastrophe of 9-11.
Moderation and progress is not what the military headliners and religious extremists could tolerate. A truly democratic government in Pakistan, the second largest Muslim country was their threat.
Under a conspiracy, my brother was murdered and my government was overthrown. I'm afraid, ladies and gentlemen, that the consequences of that overthrow of democracy in Pakistan continue to ripple across the world.
In the closing days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan I visited Washington and I cautioned that the U.S. policy to defeat the Soviets had embroiled in the most extreme elements at the expense of the moderates.
The overall policy of standing against the Soviets was right, but our early decision to arm and train the most extreme fanatics sowed the seeds for the 21st century terrorism around us.
In our government's zeal to defeat the Soviets, we did not plan or work for a post-war Afghanistan built on the democratic principles of coalition, consensus and compromise. The fundamental mistake contributing to a long-term calamity is that we were not consistently committed to the values of freedom, democracy and self-determination that ultimately undermine the forces of terrorism and we must not repeat that mistake again.
I would like to make the point that democracies do not go to war against other democracies, just as democracies do not protect and promote international terrorism.
The international community has downed dictators in the past with bad results and I would not like to see them make that mistake once again on the nuclear subcontinent.
Now that the U.S. presidential elections are over, I would like to see President Bush lead the international community in supporting Pakistan's transition to democratic rule. Pakistan's military ruler could be encouraged to allow the democratic political parties to freely function. Fresh, party-based elections in Pakistan, open to all parties, open to all with international monitors and with independent and accurate vote count could settle the issues of legitimacy in the domestic picture.
As the noted French author Bernard Levy recently noted in the "Washington Post," and I quote, "The United States is committing billions, yes, billions of dollars of military aid to Pakistan. Wouldn't it make sense to tie this extraordinary level of assistance to genuine political reform and social liberalization?", end of quote.
Recently the world learned that scientists in charge of Islamabad's program were selling secrets to North Korea, Iran and Libya. The chief scientist came on television to confess his guilt, and that very evening he was pardoned.
Meanwhile, Osama Bin Laden's Pakistani biographer has claimed that Osama told him that he had access to two dirty bombs. Proliferation, terrorism, tyranny is a bitter mix. Pakistan is critical to the world community.
So assassination attempts demonstrate the thin thread on which Washington's alliance with Pakistan is bent.
For me the democratic forces are the tiny ripples of hope that will coalesce to end this and bring the promise of democracy to Pakistan.
For now, elements in Pakistan exploit the war on terror to protect a military dictatorship. A military dictatorship suits them. It undermines the international community's commitment to democracy in the context of Iraq and Afghanistan.
It alienates the people of Pakistan and the Muslim youth across the wider Muslim community.
The stakes, my friends, are high. The long-term implications are great. Remember, democracies don't start wars against other democracies. Democracies don't protect and promote international terrorism.
History has taught us the very hard lesson that when the world turns against democracy, it turns against itself.
A democratic Pakistan is the world's best guarantee of the triumph of moderation and modernity amongst one billion Muslims in the world who stand at the crossroads of history and must decide the road for the future.
We fight, not just against terrorism, we fight, too, against the bigotry and intolerance that will confine and constrain and victimize in the generations ahead.
I come to you in difficult times. Freedom is under assault of terrorists. Democracy is under assault. Criminal terrorists hijacked my religion, just as they hijacked your planes. But I do not despair because I have faith in the decency of men and women. I have faith in the common sense of governments and I have faith in the power of the people.
The solutions may not be quick or simple, but ultimately the forces of justice shall prevail. The words of president George W. Bush on January 20th, 2005, resonate around the world. The moral choice is between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is always right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains or that women welcome humiliation and servitude or that any human being aspires to lie at the mercy of bullets.
All I can say is we agree with you, Mr. President.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. [ APPLAUSE ]
Thank you. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
>> Schrum: Thank you, Prime Minister Bhutto, for your leadership, for your courage, and for your inspirational message, and for graciously allowing time for questions.
And Southwestern University's political science faculty have highly recommended two of our students to join you on the stage for tonight's question and answer session.
I'd like to introduce them now as they come up. Sarah Jessup is a sophomore from Indonesia by way of Carrollton, Texas. She is a member of many student organizations, including student Congress and student foundation. Sarah speaks three languages.
Kevin Livesay is a senior from College Station currently working on his honors thesis and interning for Texas State Representative Bryan McCall. Kevin even tours with a band.
Both of these students are political science majors. Would you join us on the stage? [ APPLAUSE ]
>> Jessup: First I would just like to thank you for being here and for thanking the poli-sci department for having this opportunity. My first question to you is what do you think your greatest accomplishment is as Prime Minister and what legacy do you wish to leave behind, especially with the corruption charges against you?
>> Bhutto: I believe my greatest contribution was to demonstrate that Muslim people could elect a woman as chief executive of a country. Pakistan was the first Muslim country to elect a woman prime minister, breaking the myth that Muslims considered women second class citizens, fit only to live behind the four walls of their home.
My election -- [ APPLAUSE ]
My election as Prime Minister was a catalyst to women everywhere, but especially to Muslim women. And I come across so many of them who said that they went up to their fathers and said, "If Benazir Bhutto can be Prime Minister of Pakistan, why can't I work? Why can't I leave my home?"
So in that sense they had an example to point to. There were many opponents that I faced. When you take over the elements of the order, and my government was a democratic government, an open government, and for all those who had trained the majority, who had learned to be fanatics, who believed that Pakistan and the Muslim world's identity linked an interpretation of religion rather than on secular notions, for them I was a threat. And to destabilize my government they hurled all kinds of charges against me, but I never ran away from the charges. I faced each and every one of them. I fought them. I never gave up.
They went to my husband and said that he would hang unless he divorced me. They came to me and they said that they would destroy me, take over everything that I owned and imprison me unless I left politics. But because people of Pakistan had trusted me, I fought on. And by the grace of God, still today they have not managed, despite all the arm twisting, the torture, the imprisonment, the coercion, they have not managed to get a single conviction against me.
And finally they gave up. They refused to proceed in the cases against me in the courts, although I have so many lawyers that I just hope one day that it can all end. [ LAUGHTER ]
If there's any lawyer here, I would like to recruit them. [ APPLAUSE ]
>> Livesay: First I'd like to say that I'm honored to get the opportunity to be on the same stage as you. I want to say thanks also to the political science department, the administration for giving us the opportunity to do something like this.
Throughout your talk you really emphasized the powerful transitional role that democracy can have. When we use a word like democracy we often have certain ideas that come to mind, the freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of association, but very rarely in any two countries does democracy take an identical form.
How do you feel democracy could be best formatted within Pakistan to achieve stability in the long-term, maybe particularly in comparison to the United States?
>> Bhutto: Well, the United States has a presidential form of government, and our military has often tried to introduce a presidential style of government; however, for some reason the presidential form of government has not taken root in Pakistan.
Unlike America where all appointments have to go to Congress and where the Congressional committees are very strong, the powers of the president in Pakistan are absolute, and this leads to the disempowerment of the people.
And whenever we have a strong president, we live in a federation, and whenever we have a strong president, somehow the other -- the federation starts to weaken, the country starts to weaken from within.
During one military rule and presidential rule, we had the separation of our eastern wing. During another military rule we had a lot of resentment and turmoil in the provinces. And now under the general currently, there is a sense of alienation among other ethnic minorities.
In fact, it's taken a very sinister turn where a liberation movement has come forward, and that's why the people of Pakistan believe that a parliamentary system is best suited to it.
We'd like to see the general move on a transition to democracy. At the moment he controls external policy and domestic policy.
In the first stage we feel that he should hand over the internal policies to a truly elected parliament, and in the second phase the external security issues can also be restored to the parliament.
South Asia has a democratic tradition. In South Asia we used to have -- even before the British times, from the times of all the rulers we used to have something known as the village system where the village elders would all get together and discuss the issues and take a collective decision.
In Islam, too, we have where you are supposed to consult everyone and then take a decision.
So as South Asians, from our South Asian identity as well as from our Muslim identity, the people of Pakistan are geared towards a democracy, and that's why even though half of our country's life has been spent under one form of military dictatorship or another, the dictatorship hasn't taken root. We haven't had a -- we haven't had that because there's something within the Pakistani people that makes them aspire to self-government.
By the way, I'm very interested that you have a band because my daughter is very interested in music and threatening to set up one of her own. [ LAUGHTER ] [ APPLAUSE ]
>> Jessup: There's also been talks of having a separate Kashmiri state. Do you feel that this issue can be resolved peacefully?
>> Bhutto: You're very right that the Kashmiri want to have an independent government. But those in India say it should be part of India and we say it should be part of us. Some of our important water sources are from Kashmir and we are linked and we have deep ties with them.
My own view is we have spent more than half a century trying to find a solution to Kashmir and all we've ended up doing is fight three wars, nearly fight a fourth war, nearly fight a fifth war in 2000 when one million men began to face each other across the border.
And now that we have both detonated nuclear devices, there is a tremendous responsibility upon us to secure our people's future by looking at how we can avoid the past. How we can avoid the past and the future.
And I believe that we can only do if we agree to have differences on Kashmir and we disagree on them, we don't know what the solution is. But we agree to -- until we find a solution we would like to build confidence in other areas.
For example, through trade, through what my party was saying, safe and open borders. We're saying France and Germany overcame years of conflict and war by building a common market. And we're saying that if we can have safe and open borders in South Asia, not just India and Pakistan, but starting with India and Pakistan, and going on to the other countries, then we can create a huge common market. And if we have free travel, free trade, free tourism through that common market, we can build the confidence to tackle the more intractable issues like Kashmir. And we are the models of people who had differences and overcome them. India and China have had a dispute over the border, but they haven't had a war except the one and only war they fought over the dispute. China and America have a dispute over Taiwan, but they don't go to war over it. They're both each other's biggest trading partners. So I believe we have to learn from this and if you want to avoid nuclear destruction and if you want to eliminate poverty, we have to build a better part of our future than we did in our past, and the only way through is a South Asian common market that can help the people of South Asia, work together, know each other and collectively combat and conquer poverty. [ APPLAUSE ]
>> Livesay: Multiple times tonight you quoted President Bush on various speeches and statements he's made in regard to the spread of freedom, the requirement of freedom and the good that it brings, but at the same time you also noted how the United States is currently a very powerful strategic ally with Pakistan in a war on terror.
Considering the fact that Pakistan at this point in many ways takes the form of a military dictatorship, is a way that the United States can continue its policy of trying to spread democracy and spread the language and action of freedom, while at the same time working in an alliance with a dictatorship?
>> Bhutto: Well, the credibility, the credibility in the Muslim world will come from how Washington treats Pakistan. How Washington treats not just Pakistan, but its allies, like Egypt and other countries who are close to Washington. There's a lot of cynicism amongst the Muslim youth and there's a whole lot of stories spread that it's not about democracy, this is about conquest, it's not about democracy, this is for oil or this is for gas and this kind of speculation that goes on.
It undermines the doctrine for democracy. Millions of people, including myself, believe that President Bush is sincere about his commitment to democracy and that he's stayed the course, he's stayed the course in Iraq, he's stayed the course in Afghanistan.
There were so many who said that elections in Iraq won't be held. Elections in Iraq can't be held. But when millions of people came out and we had such a high percentage of people turning out in Iraq to vote, it was really a very moving moment and it showed the strength of democracy amongst ordinary people and how much they desire it.
So I believe that it's important for us in Pakistan to undermine terrorism by having a democratic order, but I think it's also important for Washington to show its credibility to all the Muslim people that it is committed to democracy and makes no distinction between allies and those who are not necessarily allies.
And I think that Washington is doing this to some extent. The statements by the state department spokesman, the statement by the White House spokesman on the need for democracy, the statements from the Congress and the Senate that democracy should come in Pakistan, fair elections should be held in Pakistan, they should be according to international standards, they should be observers. These are very welcome. So it's not that Washington is ignoring the need for democracy in Pakistan, but we'd like to see Washington be more proactive about facilitating the transfer and use the enormous ties with the general. Because we believe that the mistake with Pakistan was the investment in the moderates, the political moderates, was not done in time, and that's why the Taliban took over. And unless the investment in the political moderates is not done in time in Pakistan, the concern is that the religious parties will get stronger and stronger and that tomorrow they could actually threaten to a takeover of the country, creating a lot of trouble.
>> Jessup: You spoke a lot about women's rights and what you did for women's rights. How do you think Musaf's administration has hurt women's rights in Pakistan and Asia?
>> Bhutto: He's done good things where women are concerned, but some of his actions have been disappointing.
For example, one of the good things that he did was respond positively to calls by the political parties like my own party to increase women's seats in the parliament of Pakistan and to increase their representation in the local parties.
But where I've been disappointed is that the women who were judges, for example, in Pakistan, were not promoted, so today we don't have any woman judge on the supreme court of Pakistan. And as a woman I find that very strange because half our population is made up of women. And if this is going to be dispensing justice, they should -- there should at least be one woman on it, if not more.
So it's issues like representation in the key institutions of the state where women are missing. And also I feel that because it's a man's government or it's a military man's government, so it's not as sensitive as a political government would be to crimes against women.
For example, we had moved a bill against honor killings. And when we moved that bill against honor killings, we said that the state should become the guardian of the woman. So if a woman is killed or if a woman is attacked, the government or the state should prosecute the killers.
The killers are often the family, the families do the killing and the families then forgive themselves. So the general enhanced the punishment. And we were very disappointed. He said what difference does it make if you make the punishment go from life to death? They'll just forgive themselves.
But if the state is the defender of the woman and the family knows that it can't get away with killing the woman because the state is going to intervene and step in and arrest them and prosecute them, then women won't be killed.
Or, for example, when a lady doctor was gang raped and the gang rape was led by an Army captain, the general gave a statement saying, oh, I think the captain is innocent.
And we felt this is just wrong. You don't say things like that. It's for the courts. If you have to make a statement, you have to side on the woman.
So it's that difference in perception because if you're an elected individual, you go to the people, you meet them, you're accountable to them. But if you're from the military, you lead a very different life, you join the military, you have your own mess, you have your own schools, you have your own colleges, your own hospitals, so you're a bit separated from the rest of the public.
>> Schrum: One more question each, okay?
>> Livesay: We actually had the opportunity to speak with you a little bit earlier, and you mentioned how the recent reports of economic growth in Pakistan may be fairly overstated in the way they're being presented to the outside world.
I was wondering if perhaps you could sort of give us some insight as to how something like that can happen and by the same token what you think it means to -- what you think needs to occur in order for true economic growth to pick up within the country?
>> Bhutto: Yes. I am very concerned about the rise of poverty in Pakistan, the fact that per capita income is falling, that 33% of our people live on less than one dollar a day, and that another 24% live on less than two dollars a day. So altogether that's a staggering 57% of the population living on less than two dollars a day. That's more than one person in two living on less than two dollars a day.
And one of the reasons why we have so much poverty is that the government is engaged more in building military bases and concentrating on the military, but not concentrating on spending, on education or water or investing in infrastructure or development that actually creates grassroots job opportunities. Then the instability of the political system frightens investors, so we don't really have any investment coming in.
It's painful to see the poverty and it's painful when people in the country -- I get heartbreaking letters from people about how pathetic their situation is, how the children are ill, how there's no food on the table, and we don't have a Social Security system, so people don't get Social Security checks. Malnutrition has increased. Everyday you open the papers and one or two people have committed economic suicide. When people can't afford to feed their children or themselves, they kill themselves.
And I just think that if people are going to kill themselves for economic reasons, tomorrow Al-Qaeda can go to them and say, Strap a bomb on and kill for us so that when you die, we'll take care of your children or we'll give money to you for carrying out this act.
So it's politically dangerous and it's also very, very inhuman to see so much poverty in the country.
Yes, our stock market is booming, our housing sector is booming, our reserves are up, but that's for external reasons because the world has rescheduled our debts because we're their closest ally so we don't have to pay the loan, we've got the money to put in the foreign exchange. The foreign ops are spending two million dollars a month. That money is coming into the stock market or the housing sector. But what about the farmers, the laborers, the workers in the field? They're living miserable, miserable lives. [ APPLAUSE ]
The last question is from a lady and such a pretty lady from Indonesia and smart too. She will go on and conquer the world and then my child will ask you a question.
>> Jessup: It has been rumored that both Senator Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice are planning to run for president in 2008. What advice would you give them if given the opportunity?
>> I tell them you will be attacked because you're women. When women run, a certain viciousness enters the field. I say toughen yourself up and face it and may you go on and make history. May the best of you go on and make history.
Do you really think the two women are going to run and no man is going to come into the stage?
>> Jessup: I would like to see it personally.
>> Bhutto: I would like to see it, too.
>> Schrum: Prime Minister Bhutto, on behalf of all of us at Southwestern University and all our friends that joined us tonight, we want to thank you for being with us, but I want to especially thank you for empowering our students by having dinner with them tonight and by taking seriously the questions of these two students who are here tonight, because as you and I know, and I'm older than you are, but it's our generation that has our time now, but it's their generation that will help decide the future of the world. And so for you as a world leader to spend time to empower our students means more to us and to them than you can ever know. Thank you so much for being with us tonight.
SU Home
1001 E University 