have a supreme court, the president, and they'll balance each other. our common history brings us together. i think you have not -- the second world war has brought us together, fighting side by side. there's a lot that we have in common. i think the way that i think in some ways, the american society is more open than the british society, and is much less class driven. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726.

for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q-and- a.org. "q&a" programs are also available as podcasts. >> the redesigned booknotes web site now features over 900 notable nonfiction authors interviewed about their books. there, you can use the searchable database and find andks to the authors' blogs web pages. it is a helpful research tomorrow -- tool. >> the house of commons is in recess, so "prime minister's questions" will not be shown. it will be shown again on

wednesday, january 12, 7:00 a.m., on c-span2. coming up, a discussion about politics in south asia. after that, a look at the new rules passed by the fcc on net neutrality. and later, programs on the quality of care for alzheimer's patients. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call-in program. during the week, watched the u.s. house in our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress, and every night, congressional hearings and policy forum kafka -- forums. on sundays, "newsmakers," "the communicators," and "prime

minister's questions." c-span, washington your way. a public service created by american cable companies. >> next, a discussion about politics and economics in south asia. also, a look at the conflict between pakistan and india over the kashmir region. you will hear from regional scholars and the head of pakistan's largest securities firm. this is one hour 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. i'm shuja nawaz, director. on behalf of the council i would like to welcome all of you to our final event for 2010. a very eventful year, particularly for the region that we cover, greater south asia,

which includes geographic south asia, the gulf, a ron, afghanistan, and central asia. i am delighted that joining me here today are two experts on the region, a visiting scholar at the carnegie endowment in washington. he is advertised at carnegie as an expert on afghanistan, but i would expand that to include pakistan because he is one of the few people that has actually traveled and knows well the border region between the two countries. his research is focused on security and political development in afghanistan and particularly the role of international security assistance as well as looking at what would constitute a viable government in kabul and also drying scenarios. a very appropriate person to

have with us. previously he was a professor of political science in paris and at the institute of political studies. he has also served as the scientific coordinator at the french institute of an italian studies in turkey. he has various other academic attributes and backgrounds, which i won't get into at this point, but we are delighted that he agreed to participate. we are also happy to welcome back to the south asia center mr. ikram sehgal who is a businessman and a columnist and former military officer from pakistan. he is now currently the chairman of a group called pathfinder g. he writes a regular column for one of the leading pakistan newspapers. we are delighted that he has

joined us today to help shed light on what is happening. for those of you that were expecting a third member of our panel, as were we, i'm kristine was unable to come because of illness. we will miss her. i will see if i can do my best to stand in for her, but i'm sure that's not going to be adequate. i just want to us, again, began with a few remarks to set that being. then i will request each of the panelists speak for about ten minutes each. and we will open to questions from the audience. when you do ask a question, please wait for the microphone to reach you. then please a identify yourself for the audience and for the recording that we are dealing simultaneously. looking back on 2010, it has been a tumultuous year, particularly for our region, but

a year of somewhat mixed results. very quickly as i scanned the region as the india outpacing its neighbors economically and politically. pakistan ends the year in dire economic straits and a political system that is still very much present by not just the opposition, but members of the coalition of the pakistan people's party that appear to be leveraging their position inside the coalition to get their ounce of flesh from the government. as a result joining the efforts to move forward. in afghanistan there appear to be signs of hope, both locally and in terms of what the coalition is trying to do. the big test will obviously come in the year ahead. enron is getting ready yet again. there is some hope that there will be some progress.

again, as is usually the case with these talks one does not know if it will be two steps forward and one back or whether one step forward and to back. we will wait to see how things progress in 2011. sherlock deck, the good news is it is no longer in the news. things are stabilizing and consolidating the piece that they fought hard to achieve. the good news about bangladesh is that it is back on the path of democracy and growth. in nepal and other countries democracy does still seem to be functioning. that is one of the reasons why we are here today, to talk about things. just a few words about india. india had the headline and got the jackpot this year. all five members of the security council of the united nations

made the pilgrimage to new delhi with a view to seeking closer ties and economic relationships and also, if they could, to pace economic relationships on military sales on nuclear sales. everyone got something. i think of all the visitors to china probably get the prize because china managed to not only get to india, but also follow it up immediately with the visit to pakistan where he also signed a multi-billion dollar deals. so of the five major bidders to india china was the best in the region. i cannot talk about 2010 without mentioning the way that the year has ended, with a huge loss with the death of ambassador richard

holbrooke who has left a huge job that needs to be completed, a man that was truly irreplaceable in the diplomatic circuit. many regard him as one of the most influential diplomats of his generation. it is unclear whether the administration will actually try to fill his job or will try to make do, particularly at this critical stage. so with those opening remarks, i'm going to request gilles dorronsoro to please come and make his opening comments. then he will be followed by mr. ikram sehgal. thank you. >> well, it is a pleasure to be here, and i want to thank you for your nice introduction, even if i have to mention that i was

on the afghans died of the border. recently, of course. so, i think that when you look at 2010 what you see in afghanistan is a very good year for the taliban, naturally speaking. then we can discuss. but naturally speaking, very good year. the taliban movement made progress in the north, the east, the center in pakistan is basically safe. it is a good idea for the center. and you have a huge group in the south which is not producing clear results at the moment. so that is the first. the second thing is that 2011 is

going to be an interesting year. in 2011 we are going to see if it is working and not. here we are. that is the way to see the larger picture. you have a condition to succeed. none of the world, it easy to win. can the car is two hours from pakistan by car. the full support of the pakistan military. my understanding, what we should say is increasing support. that is at least my interpretation. so obviously there is something, a question that has never been

answered in the u.s., how the u.n. when the people are actually helping the taliban at the same time. how did you do this? you are giving your logistics' and at the same time they are supporting the taliban and at the same time you are giving a lot of money to pakistan and especially the pakistani military. all of that, and indian policy that is absolutely sure to make islamabad. and all of that going on. you cannot have, for example, in new delhi one day. the other day the general came for intervention. it is just not possible.

the cannot have both. this is the key problem. i am not even sure that it was a good idea. as a person, to do that. but as a concept it has failed. we were to organize it, and it failed. it never produced between afghanistan, pakistan, and india. not even really on the table. so here is the problem. now, what are we going to see probably next year? is it possible to have some positive change? is the situation going to deteriorate? i would say that at this point i don't see any possibility for the coalition in afghanistan to win against the taliban.

what i am seeing is that the european are leaving or at least implementing a strategy with a minimum amount of casualties. at the same time the taliban are going to be stronger. you're in the situation where you will have less troops. then the idea that you can do that does not seem to work on the ground. i don't have one example where the afghan army has been able to contain the taliban, not attack, just contain. that is why it will be a terrible year. at the get this point we have to go to the larger picture. we have the problem in afghanistan, we actually are

falling to objectives. structurally different, and different consequences. the first is to fight al qaeda. it is terrorism. then, of course, the first thing coming to your mind, and not in afghanistan. that's a problem. we are spending 150, 60 million a year. going to be much higher. at the same time we are fighting, of course, al qaeda, the taliban. if the taliban wins al qaeda will be back. most of the experts will explain that it is possible to make a deal with the taliban. the pakistanis are ready to help make that deal.

if you consider the sensibilities this war does not make sense. it just doesn't make sense. there is the second interpretation of the war. following documents from the u.s. army we know that the second objective is actually more global. from afghanistan and pakistan in no way. also in iran. worse than they are today. second objective means that the war in afghanistan, not really the problem. it is an depending upon which side you are.

and of course it is the key. if you are fighting terrorism the war does not make sense. just think about it. 120 million the year. you will see that does not make sense to fight a few thousand people. but the second objective, that is why we have a problem. pakistan is not telling -- the united states is not going to. much more present in afghanistan and then that is why. impossible task the pakistan army now to fight against the afghan taliban because it's not what they consider their national interest. we are in a situation where particularly we are following different objectives. it's not very clearly said.

and actually producing irrationality. one policy for india and one for pakistan. that doesn't make sense. now, what could we say about 2011? first thing is that the timing is going to be the key element, and that would be my last. the timing will be the key element. why? because if the negotiation stops with the taliban, the pakistani military. it won't be before the next u.s. president. so, the window of opportunity is basically an late spring and summer. october in the united states. so who will take this sort of

risk. if nothing happens next spring is going to be after 2012. two possibilities. so able to adopt new policy. if it's a new president he will take some time. that is why, actually, what we are seeing in afghanistan, the whole thing is that we have a logical escalation which is not clearly defined. stronger. we don't want to negotiate. just one window of possibility to do something different. again, we don't know exactly what will happen with iran, iraq, and all of that puts more constraint on the u.s. policy toward afghanistan. thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. eighty-four having me back. i just want to thank you because i waited for a long time to hear a brilliant explanation of the situation. in fact, he took most of my talking points. [laughter] however, i want to pick up, first of all, and give you something of the situation on the ground in pakistan today. pakistan today, that as first start with the counter insurgency operations. the counterinsurgency operations

which was much delayed has been brilliantly carried out in the last 18 months, first in the north and now the south. now upwards of 6-7 divisions of the pakistan army have been deployed and rotated in and out. the general those much more about it than i do because he has more access. but, for ten years the pakistan army for once has done its mission. that is to defend the country's integrity. in the process they have given a tremendous sacrifice. test to give you an idea, people were, my badge mates, 17

lieutenant-colonel lost their sons and battle. you can imagine the character figure and the officer-man ratio is 1-10 or 1-12. it has been a tremendous battle. we have lost roughly eight or nine times the same amount of casualties that the coalition has suffered at the same time. incidentally the a ron army has suffered 25%, which is not strange. they have never been engaged in battle. they did not fight. they joined the taliban. and they are going to keep in

their own camps and allow the united states army and the millions to keep fighting. so, if you look pakistan has given up a very grave sacrificed in the last 18 months. as far as counter-terrorism is concerned, what we have done in the military basis, certainly the terrorist, but as far as counter-terrorism within the heartland of pakistan we are at zero. we have done nothing. people have been caught here and there, but really we have done nothing because there is no counter-terrorism force and pakistan. our situation politically, shuja

nawaz talked about it. the coalition government. the existence is ingenuous because they are being blackmailed by minority partners , two minority partners, if not one. the julif and mgm. as far as the government is concerned certainly i agree that richard holbrooke lost because he was more pakistan centric. he certainly did a lot for pakistan and the present government. the president pakistan government will find it very difficult to survive, at least invested perceptions without richard holbrook's broad shoulders to support them. economically we are in a mess. in a sense that just before i

walked in the imf package is in doldrums. we cannot deliver the reform. ..

as he said, the counterterrorism war is in pakistan and the sooner people realize it, the better. there will have to be a concerted counterterrorism action within pakistan. this is the heartland of pakistan, and it is a tenuous situation and i think really at the end of the day, the fighting that has taken place in afghanistan is taking all the money and all the effort. the effort will have to be put inside pakistan and it will have to be primarily pakistani effort. now, why one may ask is a country which has the epicenter of terrorism, why doesn't it have a counterterrorism force? you may ask this question. this is ridiculous, because a counterterrorism force will act

against all sections of the whole gambit. why did terrorism come about? terrorism came about because of corruption. terrorism came about because of organized crime and terrorism came about because of the injustice that was there. now, al qaeda has many faces in pakistan. it is not osama bin laden only. there is lashkar-e-taiba, many number of terrorist organization exist things which now has links with organized crime. because there is no way that a person can travel or send money without the symbiotic relationship between organized crime and terrorism. and that is the heart of the problem. by pakistani politicians will never allow a counterterrorism

force because there are links there. if you go to karachi, why should the mqm oral the people's party about counterterrorism force there? because when a counter is a -- counterterrorism force operates there they will go after their strongholds. they will go after the weapons that are there. they will go after their bases, their sources of supply and logistics. obviously the counterterrorism force does not create any -- in karachi and in pakistan today. now, you know i do agree we have had a tremendous year. obviously india is a great impression and i think they must have a admired