Politics and Governance

Writing for The News, EWI board member Ikram Sehgal examines how Osama Bin Laden's hideout compromised the credibility of Pakistani intelligence agencies—and the current challenge for the Pakistani leadership.

Click here to read Sehgal's piece in The News

Writing for India Today, EWI board member Kanwal Sibal recommends that the U.S. shift its political and military tactics in Pakistan in the wake of Osama Bin Laden’s death.

Click here to read Sibal's piece in India Today

In 2010, EWI held talks in Kabul to build trust between Afghan and Pakistani leaders, and hosted an international conference at the European Parliament to strengthen preventive action worldwide. To learn about that work and more, we invite you to read EWI’s 2010 Annual Report:

The greatest, most expensive manhunt in history, employing human and material resources far beyond anything else in recorded times, culminated at about 3 a.m. on Sunday, May 1, 2011. With a shot to the head over the left eye, and maybe another one in the chest, Osama bin Laden’s decade-long evasion of those seeking him “dead or alive” came to an abrupt end. US president Barrack Obama, who earlier had given the definitive “kill” order and watched the whole operation by live video feed, said, “Justice has been done.” Bin Laden met his end very much like he lived – violently. Belatedly but ultimately, the US got its point across to those who harm its interests: you can run, but you cannot hide – not forever, at least.

A “hideout” less than a kilometre away from the Pakistan Military Academy (PMA), Kakul was mortifying for someone who graduated nearly 46 years ago from this revered institution. In hindsight, given the utter incongruity of it, it was extremely clever for the most wanted man in the world to take deep cover literally a stone’s throw away from where Gen Kayani had only recently addressed the graduating cadets being commissioned into the army.

The isolated fortified villa was not suspicious by itself. Many such high-walled entities exist all over the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa provinces, for security reasons but also to keep prying eyes of neighbours away from the womenfolk. Allegations of such impropriety having often led to deadly fire fights, it is not surprising that neighbours tend not to be as nosy as in other areas. Given the proximity to possible Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) support further up in the mountains, Abbottabad was well chosen.

Conversely, one may ask, if there was indeed Pakistani collusion, what moron would be so stupid as to hide Bin Laden in a major garrison town, albeit one full of foreign NGOs in the aftermath of the 2005 earthquake?

Four US helicopters took part in the surgical operation, lifting an elite US SEAL unit to rappel down ropes onto the roof of the compound. The fire fight lasted only a few minutes, the commandos stayed on the ground for nearly 45 minutes, collecting a virtual intelligence treasure trove of computer hard drives, a hundred or so storage discs and documents. Before picking up Bin Laden’s body and taking one captive, they carried out a quick screening of the dozen-plus people left alive, mainly women and children.

From Jalalabad in Afghanistan to the target location would have taken the raiders over (or near) three bases of the Pakistani air force, including the very active army helicopter base at Tarbela engaged in ongoing operations in Swat. Having myself flown extensively in the area as a helicopter pilot beyond Abbottabad along the Karakoram Highway (KKH), it was most surprising that the PAF radar units, fixed and mobile, failed to pick up all this aerial activity even slipping through radar blind spots, particularly at that time of the night. Obviously the radars were jammed. That does not bode well for our air defences – the frequencies were compromised.

From Jalalabad to Abbottabad and back, with 45 minutes’ hovering time at the target location, is quite an extended time for choppers to go without refuelling, even with a disposable fuel tank. Where was the “forward base” located where fuel bowsers refuelled the choppers? Somebody has to take full responsibility for this atrocious operational failure in not scrambling our fighter aircraft. Has anybody the conscience to fall on his sword?

Grudgingly acknowledging Pakistani collaboration helping the US close in eventually on Bin Laden’s hideout, the extent of “actionable intelligence,” if any, is unknown. Being kept out of the loop for “security reasons” in the actual operations is embarrassing for us as a nation. That we remained totally oblivious militarily of either Bin Laden or the operation, both smack of gross incompetence as was suggested by outgoing CIA Chief Leon Panetta.

The 9/11 atrocity against the highly symbolic “Twin Towers” and the Pentagon, the 3,000-plus US victims (including passengers in United Airlines Flight 93) left a permanent scar on the American psyche, nurturing a deep psychological yearning for revenge, ironically a very Islamic concept of “an eye for an eye.” Obama reiterated this presidential diktat to “kill or capture” the perpetrator of the 9/11 atrocity, soon after taking office. The spontaneous reaction of widespread joy on Bin Laden’s death was evident among the citizens thronging the streets across the US at midnight, congregating symbolically at “Ground Zero” in New York and outside the White House in Washington DC. Maybe not for crass political reasons (the presidential stakes were high for Obama if anything went wrong) but for psychological ones. It was important that the finger on the trigger be American. A rambling Osama bin Laden in the dock would have been a symbolic living martyr fomenting more terrorism.

The calculated risk in the human element notwithstanding, a physical operation was the pragmatic choice, rather than a missile attack. That revenge was derived ultimately by US hands satisfied its ecstatic citizens, even the most diehard Republicans weighed in to praise the Democrat president, the one they had only just been labelling as “weak and indecisive.”

A very significant vocal minority in Pakistan remains enamoured by Bin Laden despite his brutal excesses. The US said that for reasons of operational secrecy, Pakistani participation was not feasible. Certainly, no one would have trusted anyone in the civilian government about the impending operations; might as well announce it on CNN or the BBC! But the fact that the American chose also to keep the military hierarchy in the dark shows a lack of respect for our tremendous sacrifices. By far, most Pakistani citizens (5,000-plus military and over 30,000 civilian ones, making for roughly 10 times the number of American losses) have died in this war. However, highlighting Pakistani involvement would have force-multiplied terrorist retaliation in the heartland. It probably made good political sense to let Americans take credit for dealing with this “hot potato.”

One may not agree with what all the ISI does or with its motives and methods, but it still happens to be one of the prime institutions protecting the country’s core interests. We have to support firmly the soldiers dying every day in counterinsurgency operations, notwithstanding the many times more collateral civilian damage suffered by those killed in the streets and mosques. There will be extraordinary pressure within the US to exit Afghanistan now that Bin Laden is dead, a long struggle against terrorism looms ahead of us and we need the US, and they do need us. Bin Laden, alive or dead, does not matter. The fight is far from over!

Pakistan’s detractors are having a field day, converting conjuncture into fact. Scurrilous speculations are being bandied about regarding our intelligence agencies. The data collected from Abbottabad by the raiding party as well as the captives’ interrogation report assumes great importance. For Pakistan’s future as a credible entity in the comity of nations, the real truth, whatever it may be, must come out. Anybody cooperating with terrorists needs a short shrift. On the other hand, the US has all the evidence to either clear or indict “Pakistani collaboration,” official or unofficial. The blunt message to our US allies must be unequivocal: put up or shut up!

Click here to read Sehgal's piece in The News

While the Indian government is clearly trying to demonstrate its commitment to working with other countries on cybersecurity, the fast-paced digitalization of the subcontinent is producing new problems—most notably, a sharp rise in cyber attacks and cyber crime. Along with the United States, India now ranks as one of the top five contributors to spam internationally. Since spam often carries malicious code, this is a matter of major concern—and many cyber experts fear that India’s spam production will rise dramatically in the near future. 

One of the greatest challenges is how to provide tutorials and antivirus software for computer maintenance in each of India’s multiple main languages. Reddy cited the lack of consumer awareness as a major factor in the country’s increasing problems with botnets, which can threaten economic development. Botnet operators understand the vulnerabilities of the country’s rapidly developing regions and target them. As a result, India already ranks first in the world with the most botted hosts (around 16 %). Reddy appealed to other countries to share best practices in this area, and urged the development of a more efficient cyber incident response mechanism to potentially catastrophic cyber attacks.

Digitalization has been a key ingredient in India’s spectacular economic rise over the last two decades, but the public sector is still struggling to implement a comprehensive approach to cybersecurity, despite the publication of a first draft of a national cyberspace policy in April 2011. And cooperation and partnerships between the private and public sectors on cybersecurity are still in their infancies. On the international level, India is now involved in a number of international forums such as the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts, the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific, and the UN Commission on crime prevention and criminal justice.  

“There is a tremendous opportunity to leapfrog many of the problems we face in cybersecurity through increased international cooperation,” said Shri R. Chandrasekhar, Secretary of the Department of Telecommunications within the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology. “There is a great risk that the openness and inclusiveness of the international economic system might soon be a thing of the past if we do not find ways to reduce uncertainty.”  
The relationship of two cyber superpowers, the United States and India, is of pivotal importance. Mary Tarnowka, Deputy Counselor for Economic Affairs and Environment, Science, and Technology from the U.S. Embassy in Delhi, listed some of the initiatives where India and the United States are currently collaborating in the field of cybersecurity. They include a joint study of the U.S. Federal Information Security Management Act by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Indian Department of Information Technology:  the U.S.-India Information and Communications Technology dialogue focused on increasing economic growth, trade, and investment in the ICT sector; and the U.S.-India Trade Policy Forum, which seeks to enhance trade in ICT services and goods while also addressing related cybersecurity issues.  

The second part of the EWI-FICCI seminar focused on the reliability of the global undersea cable critical infrastructure and finding better solutions for timely undersea cable repairs for enhancing network availability. Undersea cables carry over 95 percent of the world’s telecommunications and internet traffic, critical to commerce. The Indian National Security Council has tasked the EastWest Institute to further explore this critical issue with its Indian partners—the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), and the Data Security Council of India (DSCI).  This is part of a broader push to implement the recommendations of the 2010 IEEE-EWI Report on the Reliability of Global Undersea Communications Cable Infrastructure (ROGUCCI).  A representative of the International Cable Protection Committee (ICPC), which has taken the lead in implementing several of the recommendations, also participated in this session. 

“India is rapidly becoming one of the most critical players in the global cybersecurity arena,” concluded EastWest Institute President John Mroz. “EWI is particularly pleased to be able to facilitate highly productive sessions such as this where representatives from both the private and the public sectors can work closely with their counterparts in the United States and elsewhere to promote best practices on cybersecurity.”

Click here to learn more about the Second Worldwide Cybersecurity Summit in London

EWI Vice President and Director of Public Policy Andrew Nagorski talks on Russia Today about Polish-Russian relations, as two countries mark one year since the Smolensk presidential plane crash.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment to the 1974 Trade Act denies permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to non-market economies that restrict emigration. The amendment was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress to pressure the Soviet Union to allow Soviet Jews to emigrate. In 1994, the Clinton administration found Russia to be in full compliance with the amendment’s freedom-of-emigration requirements. And in 2002, the United States officially began describing Russia as a market economy. Presidents Clinton, Bush, and now Obama all declared their intention to work with Congress to repeal the legislation as it applies to Russia, but no action has been taken. The reason: Congress still sees Jackson-Vanik as a lever to punish Russia for its human rights record even when the executive branch is prioritizing the security aspects of the bilateral relationship.

Jackson-Vanik’s ongoing application has been a major symbolic irritant in the relationship, even though the United States has granted Russia a waiver every year since 1992. But once Russia joins the WTO, which could happen next year, Jackson-Vanik will go from being a symbol of mistrust to inflicting actual harm both to Russia and the U.S.-Russia relationship.

Jackson-Vanik is inconsistent with WTO requirements on unconditional application of most-favored nation status. If Russia enters the WTO and is still subject to Jackson-Vanik, the United States will have to invoke the non-application principle, by which a member can opt out of its obligations to a newly acceded member. The United States has invoked non-application before—and is the only WTO member to have done so. Non-application, however, is reciprocal. U.S. businesses would face market barriers in Russia that other companies would not be subject to. Congressional refusal to pass legislation to permanently graduate Russia from Jackson-Vanik would then hurt the U.S. economy.

With U.S. support and some of the hardest negotiations behind it, Russia is, according to some observers, 95 percent of the way to WTO membership, after first applying nearly 18 years ago. By comparison, China’s accession process took 15 years; the average is five to seven years. And although there are still economic and political barriers to Russian accession—Georgia has a significant role as a possible spoiler of Russian WTO ambitions—the United States is actively working to support Russia’s bid.  As Vice President Joe Biden puts it, membership would produce “stronger ties of trade and commerce that match the security cooperation we have achieved.”

There are clear benefits that would accrue to Russia from joining the WTO—including an expected 3 percent increase in GDP. There are also significant benefits that would accrue to U.S. companies that do business or want to do business in Russia, including greater predictability, transparency, and access to mechanisms for dispute resolution.  All of which would translate into greater access to the world’s tenth largest economy—and the largest economy currently outside of the WTO. The President’s Export Council estimates that U.S. exports to Russia, totaling nearly $6 billion in 2010, could double or triple once Russia joins the WTO. But if the United States has to invoke the non-application principle, this could make U.S. products more expensive and U.S. companies less competitive in the Russian market. This is not the first time that Congress has grappled with how to support WTO membership for a country that many members feel does not respect human rights and the rule of law. China was graduated from Jackson-Vanik shortly after it joined the WTO in December 2001, despite such concerns. But the legislation granting China PNTR also created the Congressional Executive Commission on China, which is tasked with monitoring human rights and the rule of law. This provides a workable model for how to decouple the economic and political issues, without downplaying the legitimate political considerations stressed by members of Congress from both parties. There is still a forum for addressing those highly sensitive issues, but the economic relationship isn’t held hostage to them.

Even if the administration decides to propose this kind of solution for Russia, however, it may not be willing to push hard for it.  While it claims it is prioritizing the economic aspect of the reset, the administration has relegated Russia to at least fourth place in its queue of priorities. It is currently pursuing congressional approval of free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, and the Republican leadership in the House has indicated it will not consider Russia’s Jackson-Vanik status before these FTAs are considered. While these three countries are larger trading partners for the U.S. than Russia, there is also a compelling strategic interest in promoting the U.S.-Russia relationship that goes beyond pure economics.

The administration should start laying the groundwork now for the repeal of Jackson-Vanik rather than waiting for Congress to consider the FTAs for South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. And the administration should offer a way forward for Jackson-Vanik graduation for Russia that separates the economic issues at hand from long-standing congressional concerns about Russia’s dubious record on human rights and the rule of law. The legislation approving China’s PNTR status provides a ready example of how to move forward. WTO accession would be good for Russia, it would be good for the United States, and it would be especially good for American business.

Miller is a senior associate at the EastWest Institute.

Many are enthralled because maybe they see a little bit, or even a lot, of themselves in the young (and older) Arabs demonstrating and rallying in the street. The grievances the Arabs have expressed are more common than most of us would like to admit: high unemployment and underemployment, the loss of hope, crushing political and cultural oppression and repression, massive corruption, the selective use of the rule of law or complete lack of the rule of law, the powerful influence of connections (in Arabic wasta and koosa), poor leadership that has done little for the common person, increasingly cavernous differences between the haves and have-nots, declining living standards for many, and bankrupt educational systems, amongst many other problems both perceived and real.

Who could say that he or she did not feel some sympathy with those brave Arabs who have been hitting the streets, putting their lives and livelihoods in danger, and crying out at the top of their lungs that they want democracy, freedom and hope? Probably only the dictators and their cronies who have robbed them of their heritage and their hopes could do that. However, even they in their hearts of hearts could feel the pain of the street. Many of the current and recently ousted leaders did not start at the top and many came from poor backgrounds in small villages. That is one of the pungent ironies of all of this. And, yes, it does stink.

Many are concerned because of the effects all of these uprisings and revolutions could have on oil, gas, and other markets. Still others are concerned about what all of this might mean for the strategic calculus of the region and world. The Middle East and North Africa are vital areas for trade and resources, but also for cultural, political, and now revolutionary forces. In many ways, this area is the center of the Muslim world. It is also a place that has uncountable and powerful connections with Central Asia, South Asia, Europe, Africa and more.

Others are concerned about the immigration that may happen. Still others are worried Al Qaeda may gain from this. Even in some of the most geographically distant areas of the world, such as China, there are concerns that this unrest might spread toward them. The leadership of countries like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and some of the Central Asian states should be losing sleep over this. The grievances we hear from the Arabs echo in the streets of Caracas, Harare and many more places. The Arab world has become the heart of revolution. These are mostly revolutions of the people, those who are Ibn al balad, (a son of the soil) and the shaab (the youth).  They are  looking to be free from the yoke of economic, cultural, and political repression that has constrained them and their countries from reaching their potential.

However, there also seems to be movement toward more government control and regulation of businesses and even outright nationalizations of some businesses in some countries where the corruption and inequality were over the top. A revolution in economic ideologies that counters the neo-liberalism and free market ideologies of the World Bank and the Washington consensus already seems to be taking hold in places like Egypt and this may spread. This is far from universal. It will be interesting to see how Libyan economic ideologies develop after 41 years of the irrational, mercurial, and "socialistic" policies of Qaddafi. There is also a lot of confusion on the ground about where the "Islamist" groups of the region will fit into the future. The seeds of future revolutions may be sowed already in the region. It is very difficult to tell where all of this is heading.

Indeed, many are confused by these revolutions. How could an area that was assumed by many to be so stable collapse into anger and dissent so quickly? Well, they really were not that stable to begin with. The people saw the weaknesses of the seemingly powerful leaders, their bluff and bluster, and moved on them. Those leaders were brutal because they were weak, much like schoolyard bullies.

Having about 20 years experience in the region and having lived in Egypt for six years, I could feel the anger and frustrations steadily build in many places. Once they saw the chink in the ostensible armor, they went for it. Once they saw weaknesses in the security forces and intelligence services that had kept them down, they were no longer intimidated. Although this is not a part of the world where passive resistance had any know track record, suddenly it took hold and worked well.  The results will have profound effects globally—for the EU, Africa, Asia and the world economic and political systems in general. This is just the beginning of a new wave of change.

What might this mean for Iran? My guess is that Arab Spring could visit this country sooner rather than later. What does this mean for the Shia-Sunni tensions? These tensions are part of the rebellions in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria and could spread to others, and not just in the region. The elephant in the room is Saudi Arabia, which has the largest conventional proved oil reserves in the world, is the largest oil exporter, and has most of its large Shia population living just above its largest oil fields. And Iran has been stirring up trouble there.

What might this mean for Israel and the Palestinians?  The Palestinians are surely thinking about what this might mean for them. Also, the Palestinians are working through the UN to get many countries to recognize them. This could be one of the reasons why things have been more peaceful there than many might have expected. The Palestinians are employing new international tactics, and even internal tactics, such as passive resistance, which some thought impossible for this community. If Israel does not react in a strategic manner, and with a long term view toward its relations with its near and far Arab and Iranian neighbors, it could find itself in a very difficult bind in the near future.

What could this mean for the United States? This could either be an opening to a better future with the people of the region or a strategic disaster of epic proportions, depending on how the U.S. handles the manifold and powerful challenges this situation presents to it.

This is a time that calls for great leadership in the U.S., the EU, the Middle East and North Africa and more. Without such leadership, the results of these revolutions could be quite bad. If the Arab Spring spreads further into the larger oil producers such as Libya's neighbor Algeria, Iran and even Saudi Arabia, then all bets are off for the economic, political and even military fallout. The same could happen if various energy nodes--Ab Qaiq, the Al Basra Oil Terminal and the like--are seriously damaged or compromised. Then we have Yemen possibly disintegrating into multiple failed states, while Somalia, another failed state, serve as the other bookend to one of the most important oil and other cargo transport areas in the world.

Under certain scenarios we could be looking at $200-300 per barrel of oil and massive economic shocks to the world. I doubt that we are ready for any of this. The U.S. Government may shut down because Democrats, Republicans and the Tea Party cannot even agree to disagree. This is not comforting in a world facing such daunting challenges. The EU countries which are far more vulnerable to energy shocks from North Africa and the Middle East, seem even less prepared to handle the potential fallout. The least developed countries, many of whom heavily depend on imported oil, and particularly Sub-Saharan African countries, could be in for one of the greatest economic shocks of their recent histories if these events spin out of control. The global implications of these events and the unpreparedness of most countries to develop proper policy options to counter the economic and political shocks that could come from them are potentially profound.

None of this is predetermined and we can hope for the best. But hope is not a strategy and, although necessary, it is far from sufficient for the great leadership and strategizing that will be needed. This may be a time to go back in time and look at the rules of leadership as defined by George Washington, such as basing decisions on what is right rather than what is popular (now there is a thought), having a vision of a better future (and not just next week), doing what you say you will (instead of just saying what people want to hear), being honest, being responsible for decisions (no buck passing), doing research and development on decisions (not basing decisions on the 1% factor), building relations (not going it alone), being balanced (not extreme), being humble (not arrogant), learning from defeats (instead of just blaming others), and, observing things as they are -- not what you would like things to be.

Trying to understand  what is happening in the Arab world today, and developing sensible strategies in response to those events, is like sailing a ship in high and shifting winds, and in a very thick fog. You need very good leadership or you might just hit the rocks.

A former EWI senior fellow, Paul Sullivan teaches at the National Defense University and Georgetown University.  All opinions expressed are those of Professor Sullivan and do not represent those of The National Defense University, Georgetown University or any other entity he may be associated with.

On the topic of the U.S.-China High-Level Political Party Leaders Dialogue, Mroz and Kok briefed Minister Yang on the second round of talks, which took place in Washington, D.C, in December 2010. This dialogue was the first ever visit to the United States by a delegation of Communist Party of China (CPC) officials, and they exchanged candid views with a distinguished U.S. delegation led by former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright (D) and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard S. Williamson (R).

Minister Yang conveyed his appreciation for EWI’s meaningful contributions to improving U.S.-China relations and noted that many areas would benefit from cooperation between the United States and China.

While in Beijing, Mroz and Kok also met with the U.S. Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, and a number of other Chinese government officials, including those at the International Department of the Central Committee of the CPC (IDCPC), the National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army (NDU-PLA), and the State Council Information Office (SCIO).

Click here to see this link online

It’s no coincidence that Sherry Rehman’s mango-colored, Raj-era house in Karachi’s Old Clifton sits close to Fatima Jinnah’s. Like the sister of Pakistan’s founding father, Sherry—whose Westernized diminutive is derived from Shehrbano, a classical Persian name that means “princess”—has devoted her life to her country. As a journalist, author, and (for a decade now) politician, the elegant 50-year-old has seen and suffered violence without yielding to the temptation of an easier life.

It has been a bleak year so far for Pakistan, even by its own harrowing standards. Salmaan Taseer, governor of the Punjab, was assassinated by his own fanatical security guard in January, and minorities minister Shahbaz Bhatti, the only Christian in Pakistan’s government, was gunned down earlier this month by the Punjabi Taliban. Like them, Rehman has urged a review of the country’s blasphemy laws to prevent their misuse. Like them, Rehman had stood up for protecting minorities as well as vulnerable Muslims in Pakistan. Last November, after Taseer took up the cause of Aasia Noreen, a Christian mother of five sentenced to death for blasphemy, Rehman put forth a bill in Parliament to amend the controversial laws.

The jihadists were outraged by Rehman’s move. She was anathematized at high-octane Islamist rallies and burned in effigy. A cleric at a major mosque in an Army-run neighborhood in her hometown of Karachi issued a fatwa, declaring her wajib-ul-qatl, or fit to be killed. The Tanzeem-e-Islami, an organization devoted to an “Islamic renaissance through the revolutionary process,” pamphleteered against her for “provoking the religious honor of the Muslims of Pakistan.” A lawsuit in Lahore seeks her dismissal from Parliament. The charges against her are outlandish, but passions in Pakistan are running dangerously, even insanely, high.

“That call to emotion, ‘if you’re not with us, then you’re not really a good Muslim,’ instills fear in many hearts,” said Reh­man in an interview with Newsweek at her house, where she lives with her daughter, husband, and mother. “It has rattled the religious right that many of us have read chapter and verse of the Quran, as well as the sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and we make our arguments in Parliament and on television on the basis of that.” She is well versed about Islam, but does not wear her faith on her sleeve, as many women in public life here are expected to as proof of their piety and domesticity. Ultimately, she says, there will have to be a new middle ground.

“There has to be a much more tolerant Pakistan because everyday issues are sweeping up people’s lives, and those every­day issues are structured in inequalities that are getting more and more aggravated and deep. And when that happens, your passions inflame much easier.” The religious right has used Pakistan’s social fragmentation to inflame passions on issues that are framed in religious or theological terms in order to control the political agenda. “It’s not as if Pakistan does not have major structural and economic problems, and we really need to focus on those in the days ahead,” she says.

Rehman, who has largely been keeping to her Karachi home because of the security threat, met with Bhatti at the National Assembly a week before his assassination. “He was understandably very upset and frustrated. He said he was going to go to Lahore and address issues of religious intolerance at public meetings, but the Raymond Davis issue had added to the flames in the street,” she says, referring to the CIA contractor on trial for killing two Pakistani men. “He knew that blasphemy and anti-Americanism have become one deliberate and unfortunate conflation, and that was not good for anyone.”

Bhatti was killed on March 2 in Islamabad outside his mother’s house. His assassins have warned that they will target other members of the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party—whose ideology preaches a tolerance that is derided by its critics as secularism, a word that carries an increasingly pejorative charge in Pakistan. Speaking in Parliament the day after Bhatti’s assassination, interior minister Rehman Malik identified the targets that the Tehrik-e-Taliban have in their sights. “I am at No. 1, Sherry is at No. 2, and Fauzia Wahab [an M.P.] is at No. 3,” he said. “Next time, you may not find me here,” he added.

Precautions would seem to make sense. In February 2007 Rehman was hospitalized after being attacked at a rally in Karachi against Gen. Pervez Musharraf, then president of Pakistan. Three months later, she was caught in an ambush when Musharraf loyalists opened fire in various parts of the city to disrupt a protest against the sacking of the country’s chief justice, an opponent of Musharraf. The clashes claimed at least 42 lives. That October she survived the attack on former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s homecoming procession in Karachi—at 136 dead, this was Pakistan’s most brutal suicide bombing. “Those kinds of experiences, the kind of fire you walk through, sharpen your resolve to at least stay centered,” says Rehman. It was Bhutto who persuaded Rehman to join her Pakistan Peoples Party. “One day she rang me in London and said, ‘Sherry, have you registered your vote?’ I said, ‘Of course. Do I look like a nonvoter to you?’ ” When they met in London, Bhutto asked her to accept a party seat in the Senate. “She was a force of nature. How could you ever say anything but yes to her?”

In 2002, Rehman became one of 60 women who had seats reserved in Parliament, the result of an affirmative-action initiative to enhance the woefully small number of female legislators. “I think it revolutionized the discourse,” she says of the reserved seats. “It’s women who always tackle the difficult, head-on challenges—always the women.” Rehman is not one to shy away from a good challenge. As a legislator, she has often had to reach across the aisle to push for laws against domestic violence and sexual harassment, and for amendments to the country’s rape laws, which stack the deck against the victims. “In the last assembly I was constantly battling women’s issues,” she says. “The main work I do is national security. That doesn’t usually draw this kind of controversy; it’s safe work.” Jinnah Institute, the think tank she founded in 2000, focuses on regional peace and security matters.

When Rehman became the country’s first woman information minister in March 2008, she introduced a bill to remove restrictions placed on the media during the last days of the Musharraf regime, and she has authored a right-to-information bill that will force greater official transparency if signed into law. She made an in-camera presentation on national security to a joint session of Parliament; this was novel in a country where women, who make up almost half the country’s population of 180 million, are almost never taken seriously on security matters. In April 2009, she made an impassioned plea, urging Parliament not to abandon the northern district of Swat to the Taliban. The appeasement of the Taliban backfired, as she had feared it would. The Army had to be sent in, and the military operation to flush the Taliban out of Swat created the world’s largest population of internally displaced persons.

Through it all, Rehman kept her party colleagues on message, and maintained her cool despite provocations from opposition M.P.s, news anchors, and smear campaigns through anonymous mass text messages. Rehman was one of President Asif Ali Zardari’s closest advisers and, for most Pakistanis, an important face of his government. After she resigned from office in March 2009 (in protest against the government’s disruption of TV channels critical of it), she was also removed as her party’s information secretary. Now, after the recent assassinations, the party has pulled together. “The PPP is still the most tolerant party for women and minorities, and at times when Pakistan faces serious crises, we stand by each other,” says Rehman. The government is providing security cover to her.

In Karachi, Rehman is now deluged with visitors concerned for her safety, many of them begging her to leave the country. “It already bothers me that I’m not at the rallies and the vigils. The least I can do is not walk away from this,” she says. “What is a life worth living? What is there left for me to protect forever? If I go away, I’ll always be anxious about what I did, what is happening at home, and what I left behind.”

But things may already be changing. Conservatives like ex-prime minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and cricketer turned politician Imran Khan share Rehman’s position that the abuse of the blasphemy laws must be prevented. Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the orthodox Sunni Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, a former coalition partner, also seems to have come around. “This is not about constitutionalism or secularism, this is about having laws that conform to the Quran,” says Rehman. “Injustice is not something we need to show tolerance for.”

The narrative of lost hope, she says, is a tired one. “We will not be able to turn back the tide of militancy with only military means. Extremism will have to be challenged now, especially when it takes a murderous turn. Pakistan must not be allowed to turn into a country where a person is killed for their beliefs,” she says. “This is not who we are, either as citizens or Muslims.”

Click here to read this piece in Newsweek