Long after his cricket heydays, 60-year-old Imran Khan is once again inspiring young Pakistanis on an unprecedented scale. With just a few months left until the upcoming general elections, many in Pakistan are now hoping Khan leads their country into stability and prosperity, just like the former cricket captain led the national team into winning the World Cup in 1992. According to various opinion polls, including that of the US-based Pew Global, he is the “most popular politician in Pakistan today.” In an interview with Faisal J. Abbas, Editor-in-Chief of Al Arabiya English, Khan described the PTI as the “only party that could bring change” to his country. “People are sick of the old political leadership, who have all been in power in the last five years and have led Pakistan to destruction,” he added. Here's the full transcript of the interview: Question: We are in London with Imran Khan, the Chairman of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and according to many polls the most popular politician in Pakistan today. Imran what has changed in the political scene or your strategy to gain you these new grounds? Answer: Well, number one, people are sick of all political parties, the crap politicians, the old political leadership, who have all been in power in the last five years and have led Pakistan to destruction. I mean, never has the situation of people of Pakistan been as bad as it is now. Massive unemployment, massive inflation, lawlessness, no electricity, factories closing down, unemployment... so people are sick of them. They want a change, and they see my party as the only party that can bring about change in Pakistan. So we have had a massive movement toward us, our membership exceeds 7 million members. Hardly any political party has seven million memberships. So, it's because people are sick of them and they look upon us as a party for change. Question: Many of your critics claim many of things you say is much easier said than done. What are you going to do when you are in power? Answer: Let's be clear, where Pakistan stands today nothing is easy. There are no easy solutions. It's difficult but possible, it's happened before. You've had in Turkey an honest prime minister cleaning up the system. Turkey is one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We've seen Brazil. In last 10 years Brazil changed. In India, in one state, an honest chief minister in Bihar called Nitish Kumar, completely changed Bihar in six years, from 3 percent it's gone to 16 percent growth rate. so it can happen. It's not easy, but you have to have a leadership that is clean, that is selfless, that is determined. It can be done. Question: But what are you going to change physically on the ground? Answer: Number one is the governance system; the reason why countries become Third World is because of lack of governance. The reason why countries like Switzerland, with hardly any resources become prosperous is because of good governance. So number one is governance, which means justice system, a good bureaucracy, a good police system, rule of law, it means a good local government empowering the people. So, number one is governance and number two is spending money on education. Question: Today there was an offer for an elecotal alliance by General Pervez Musharaf, who you were supportive of at first but then became very critical, what is your comment? Answer: Well, it's very nice of him to say nice things about me. Remember you put me in jail. But allying with him would be political suicide because unfortunately, he made three big blunders: Number one: the current government is only there because of him, he gave them an amnesty from corruption cases, to save himself he allied himself with Asif Zardari. Number two: He killed Nawab Akbar Bugti in Balochistan and the Balochistan insurgency is because of him, and it's a mess. Number three, and the biggest blunder: He sent our troops under American pressure into Fata, into Waziristan and as a result almost 50,000 Pakistanis have died in a senseless war. There's more terrorism and extremism in Pakistan than ever in our history thanks because of him. And so you know he, how can you ally yourself with him? Question: So, I'm guessing the answer is no? Answer: No ... It's not possible... I mean, it's political suicide. Question: You say that you will end Pakistan's engagement in the war on terror, is this really a wise thing to do and what would you do instead? Answer: First thing I would do is disengage Pakistan from the US war on terror. It's destroying Pakistan, as long as Pakistan is perceived to be fighting the US war and a mercenary army of the US, a hired gun of the US, paid money to kill its people, the militants have declared jihad against Pakistan, and if it's jihad, the martyrdom syndrome, the shaheed, the Mujahid, and if they are dead they go to heavens, so we have the deadly suicide attacks. Suicide attacks have stopped Pakistan from winning the war and the NATO from winning the war in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan I'm afraid the jihad narrative will never go until the Americans leave Afghanistan but in Pakistan we disengage from the US war, and no drone attacks, because drone attacks kill the same people as the Pakistan army so it links us to the US war and secondly US aid. If we disengage, the jihad syndrome goes. No longer will the militants be able to conduct suicide attacks because people will not blow themselves up if it's no longer jihad. That's when we'll win the war and we will win the war through our own people of the tribal area who are very powerful but would not fight the Mujahid. Question: Many wonder if officials in government, ISI or army were harboring Osama Bin Laden. Do you have any info about this? Answer: Look, does it make sense that Pakistan army that has lost 6,000 soldiers, the General HQ has been attacked, commando headquarters attacked, naval headquarters attacked, so that it would be harboring terrorist? For what purpose, killing Pakistani soldiers? Forty-thousand plus Pakistanis have died in this. So is it plausible that Pakistan will be supporting the same people who are killing us? Or is it that the US is blaming its failure in Afghanistan on Pakistan to sell its public that they can't win? How can they explain that the greatest army in the history of mankind can't win in Afghanistan? It's exactly what was happening in Vietnam. They didn't want to tell their people that they were fighting a war of resistance, a popular war. So they blamed Cambodia and insurgents from Cambodia. They destabilized Cambodia and as a result million people died. Same is happening with Pakistan. How can a few hundred fighters from Pakistan go across. And that's the reason why US is not winning? Question: You are an outspoken critic of the use of drones which has caused you an issue during your last trip to the US. Anything you wish to say about that? Answer: Drones are a violation of all humanitarian laws. No human law allows suspects to be eliminated. And if their wives are there, their children are there, their neighbors are there, anyone can be eliminated. I mean how can a civilized country conduct drone attacks? Someone sitting thousands of mile away sitting on a computer screen and eliminating people on information which might or might not be correct and violating a country's sovereignty, bombing its ally, killing an ally's people? And then is it working, it's completely counterproductive. It causes more hatred against the Americans, it causes swelling of the ranks of the militants. Question: In an interview I conducted with you in 2008, you were very optimistic of the prospect of Obama winning the election. You said: “If anyone understands the region its Joe Biden.” Do you still think this is the case? Answer: I think Joe Biden and Barack Obama had the right instincts. I don't think they wanted to escalate the war in Afghanistan. But sadly I think they got convinced by their military men, their generals who convinced them, and generals do what generals always do, they want more men, more arms, more killing, and sadly, they failed. The surge, which was engineered by General Petraeus failed in Afghanistan, so what did they achieve? They've achieved more anti-Americanism, more hatred. They're losing the war, because they're losing the hearts and minds of the people. To win a war, you have to win the hearts and the minds of the people. Question: Don't you fear your criticism of the US foreign policy will cause you some issues when you come to power and might be an obstacle when you want to get loans and facilities? Answer: Firstly, obviously my loyalty has to be to with the people of Pakistan. What is in their interest? Their interest is not to be stuck in this war which has claimed over 40,000 people and we're not winning the war. In five years, Pakistan economy has lost over $50 billion, the total US aid is $20 billion. So I mean it's totally – I mean this is a very expensive friendship. In fact, it's not friendship. Pakistan is a client state of the US. It's run by US stooge. I think it's time that US had friends not (lackeys). We will be friend of the US but we're not gonna be slaves of the US. We don't want any US aid. we don't want any drones. We will tell the US that we will help them and fight terrorism or (broker) peace in Afghanistan. A sovereign credible Pakistan government can be useful to US in an exit strategy from Afghanistan. But a government that is perceived to be a stooge of the US has no credibility to do anything. Question: What is your take on what is going on in Syria? Answer: It's a mess, at one point you know, I'm a democrat I believe in democracy I do not believe in these dictatorships, but problem is, it's the selective promotion of democracy that is difficult. Everyone wants democracy in Syria, no one wants their own government killing their own people. But the problem is there's a different jihad stake when it comes to pro-US dictators and when it comes to anyone who's perceived not to be pro-US like Libya or Syria. So I think that's what creates — if there were no double standards, it would be very easy to deal with these issues. Question: Let me be honest, many of your critics say you avoid criticizing President Bashar Al-Assad in public, is this true? Answer: No, I think that that I.. cannot understand any head of state killing his own people. I can't understand that, for me the moment you use force against on your people that means you've lost, that means you've lost your right to rule. How can a civilize, any civilize country use its army against its own people? I've opposed all military operations by Pakistan government against its own people, whether in Balochistan whether in Fata, I've opposed them. I again repeat, the problem with Syria is not a clear cut case because the mollified intentions, because Syria was perceived to be pro Iran and hence there's talk of intervention. I'm a democrat, I will always back democracy. Question: What are your views on the issue with India? Answer: You see Kashmir has to be dealt with, but it should be dealt with politically.It's not gonna be solved by military means or militancy. India and Pakistan have to decide that yes it's an issue, yes we will deal with it, and I have three ex-foreign ministers in my party. All of them say, that we actually, India and Pakistan came very close to resolving their issues. So I believe that's the way forward, we should deal with Kashmir. We should have good relationship with India, relationship based on trust, we trust each other, we open trade with each other. You know. the dividends of peace are enormous for Pakistan and India. And really it's time now we look at ourselves in a completely different light. I think Pakistan and India should move in that way. We should look – we should have a new thinking now about our relationship, a new way of looking at each other, get rid of this distrust, have people-to-people relationship, have trade with each other, but recognize that Kashmir is an issue and Kashmir issue needs to be solved, and it has 700,000 troops in Kashmir. It's not an answer to the issue. I mean 700,000 people guarding Kashmir means massive human right violations; it's not an answer, the answer lies in politically solving the issue.
Question: On a lighter note, you are still in the minds of many people the greatest cricket player that Pakistan has ever known. Do you have a plan to bring back the level of the game to where it once was? Answer: Pakistan has the greatest amount of talent in any country, sporting talent. All it needs is organization, and I have a very good plan to organize Pakistan cricket and I reckon that Pakistan will become unbeatable. I have exactly the road map of fixing the structure, because I've played everywhere all over the world, and I know exactly what to do. We will fix the cricket structure, the sporting structure in Pakistan, we will tap the talent in the country. And I think Pakistan will be unbeatable.
