The controversial Clinton-era policy, which officially ends Tuesday, mandated openly gay and bisexual military service members to be discharged from the Armed Forces.

Anchor Lisa Mullins talks to Navy veteran Jeremy Johnson who was honorably discharged in 2007 after he came out as gay in a letter to his commanding officer.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: I’m Lisa Mullins and this is The World, a coproduction of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH in Boston.  President Barack Obama signed legislation late last year ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, that’s the controversial Clinton-era policy that mandated that openly gay and bisexual members of the military be discharged from the armed forces.  That law remains in effect until tomorrow, that’s when the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell becomes official. Navy veteran Jeremy Johnson has been waiting for the day.  He was honorably discharged back in 2007 after he came out as gay in a letter to his commanding officer.  Jeremy Johnson, I guess a lot of people must be asking why you wrote that letter after you were in the Navy for 10 years, a time you look back on very fondly.  You knew what the consequences would be, so why did you write the letter?

Jeremy Johnson: I tell you, it is mostly about compartmentalization.  When you’re working a job and you have to compartmentalize your personal life with your professional life it gets to be a balancing act and it can put a lot of pressure on you; and that’s what I felt when I was in that position.

Mullins: So you could’ve gone on though in the military?

Johnson: Well, sure, but the question is how much of my sanity would I have been able to salvage if I had kept doing that.  I was watching people around me of the same rank who were heterosexual, able to have relationships, get married and have family, which is kind of what the military does now.  The military supports this idea that you should have a support structure.  If you’re not allowed to pursue a relationship under policy like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, you’re never gonna have that and so you’re kind of left out in the cold.

Mullins: And now what are you doing?

Johnson: Essentially working on my education for the last three years.

Mullins: So you’re planning to go back in I guess as soon as you finish your education, right?

Johnson: Well, I will go in full time if possible once I have my degree, but for now, hopefully as soon as this week, I’ll be going back in as a Navy reservist.  You know, even if it’s only devoting one weekend a month, I want to get back to it.

Mullins: How come, Jeremy, you wanna go back?

Johnson: That’s a good question and it’s a question that I get asked frequently in the last couple of weeks.  And the answer is I never really wanted to leave.  I felt forced to write that letter because I was compromising integrity and giving up something I felt like I shouldn’t have had to give up and being treated unequally. Now that that’s gone I really don’t see any other barriers.  I mean everything else in that job I was able to handle and enjoyed what I was doing, so I’m ready to go back.

Mullins: You are one of more than 14,000 service members discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  Unlike you there are many who do not plan to reenlist.  We’re joined now by Donald Gallihugh[? 2:45] from northern California.  Donald, you were a petty officer, 2nd class when you served in the Navy.  You were discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 2001 and you say you’re not going back.  How come?

Donald Gallihugh: Well, I guess it has a lot to do with what I was tasked with in the military.  I was a hospital corpsman and I served pretty closely with the Marine Corp.  And they were really good guys as long as you did not prove to be different.  And my being gay was something that was a horrendous secret. People want to know about your life.  And you either had to say it’s none of your business or you had to lie.  Every day I would have to tell little lies just to get by and I don’t want to go back to that at all.

Mullins: You know, it sounds a little bit like what Jeremy was talking about, that he felt as though he was living a lie.  The difference is he wants to go back, but what made you decide now even though you could be welcomed back in, Donald, that it’s not for you?

Gallihugh: Yeah, policy and practice are entirely different things.  If you’re a member of the Marine Corp, it was the very last service to sign on to this policy change, and they only did so under duress.  Essentially, I was in the Navy, but essentially I would be going back to the Marine Corp.  For me to go back to an organization that was forced to accept me, it does not appeal to me in any way whatsoever.

Mullins: So, it’s that not only the principle that you don’t want to go back, but also that you feel as though the environment would be equally inhospitable?

Gallihugh: I think that it would be changed on the surface, but inhospitable is still a good word.

Mullins: And Jeremy Johnson, what do you say to that?

Johnson: It’s a valid concern because it’s a contract and you just can’t jump out of it; and once you commit to it you commit to it again.  So I think that our responses are gonna run the gamut between wanting to go back in, sitting on the fence and seeing how things are gonna play out, to just saying I’ve moved on and I have no desire to put myself through that again.

Mullins: I’m kind of wondering if maybe, Jeremy, since you wanna go back so badly, you really enjoyed what you were doing in the Navy, if it comes down in a way to both the principle, but also a career choice that for you this is what works.  Jeremy, you answer first and then Donald, I want to hear from you about that.

Johnson: This is often where we get into, and this is a generic answer, this is not even Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  I think a lot of us who have been in uniform have a love-hate relationship with the military.  We love what we do and we hate what we do at the same time.  But it’s a passion and you feel like you have lost something if you step out of it for too long.

Mullins: And for you, Donald Gallihugh, does that sound familiar?  I mean do you think that your relationship with the military was just so soured to begin with in terms of your career that you don’t want to be part of that organization because of the law even if it’s being repealed?

Gallihugh: I loved what I did.  I was a corpsman, essentially a medic, and I took care of a group of guys and they were really important to me, and doing what I was doing was really important to me.  It was something I could’ve easily seen myself retiring from, but there are three values that the military drums into you — and that is honor, courage, commitment, and I considered myself a failure because I could not uphold what I considered the tenet of honor.  And that was because of the policy.  It left a very bad taste in my mouth.

Mullins: Jeremy, how do you think it’s going to go?  I mean could you have a relationship, could you have that support structure that straight members of the military can have and are encouraged to have?

Johnson: To be honest, I have no idea what I’m going to face, but I know that change doesn’t happen unless people step up to the plate to set the tone and be the example.  And I have the, I have the advantage of already being out, so we’ll see how it goes.

Mullins: Okay, Jeremy and Donald, thanks to both of you.

Johnson/Gallihugh: Thank you.

Mullins: Jeremy Johnson and Donald Gallihugh both served in the Navy, both left as a result of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.  When the law expires tomorrow, Johnson plans to rejoin the military as a reservist.  Former medic Gallihugh will not reenlist.  He’s now a medical lab manager in northern California.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Lisa Mullins: Most of President Obama’s speech focused more broadly on the Middle East and North Africa, and how his administration is responding to the popular unrest there.

[Brief Audio Clip plays]

Barack Obama: So in the months ahead, America must use all our influence to encourage reform in the region. Even as we acknowledge that each country is different, we need to speak honestly about the principles that we believe in with friend and foe alike. Our message is simple: If you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States.

Mullins: That again, President Obama speaking this afternoon at the U.S. State Department. Rami Khouri is director at the Public Policy Institute at the American University in Beirut. He writes a syndicated column. He’s writing it today. In fact, what’s your headline Rami?

Rami Khouri: The headline is that Obama is making historic rhetoric that can be profoundlimportant and powerful, but that will depend on whether the rhetoric gets translated into action. But it’s a good start.

Mullins: OK. The action that at least your audience in the Arab world would be looking for would be what?

Khouri: To speak about these principles he articulated to friend and foe alike, as he said. So, to tell the Saudi’s the same thing he told the Syrians. The other important thing is his use of the word ‘self-determination’, the phrase ‘self-determination’. This is unbelievably important. Woodrow Wilson articulated that phrase in many ways around 1920, and he talked about the self-determination of people. Obama is now talking about the self-determination of individuals and the security ofnations, so this is really profound stuff it is actually going to drive American policy. Because this is what this revolt is all about. This is citizens putting into action the principle of the consent of the government. And for him to acknowledge that is really, really important, but he’s got to go beyond the rhetoric, and he didn’t do that after Cairo two years ago.

Mullins: Going beyond the rhetoric would mean what?

Khouri:  Well, it makes a difference if you speak out once a week about the bad things that governments are doing in Bahrain, or Syria, or Libya, and  just to speak that out day after day is important. The second thing is to align your practical policies, your military assistants, your U.N. Votes. And the third thing is to be consistent.  If freedom really is indivisible, as the American creedo says, well, it must be indivisible to the freedom of the Palestinians as it is to the freedom of the Syrians, and the Bahrainis, and the Libyans.

Mullins: If this was indeed a historical opportunity, as the President said, is the perception in the Arab world that the U.S is making the most of this opportunity that Arab Spring provides, and that’s it’s not doing it just to suit its own purposes?

Khouri: I think there were some important new positions here that wereredefined maybe, reconfigured. So, I think that the opportunity is there. The Arabs have to step up now and respondin equal magnitude. I think we should give the Americans the kind of positive, hopeful rhetoric that we just got from Obama today.  This is not an American responsibility. This is an Arab Spring; it’s not an American Spring.

Mullins: Well, I look forward to seeing your call. Rami Khouri, Director of the Public Policy Institute at the American University in Beirut speaking to us from New York. Thanks a lot Rami!

Khouri: My pleasure. Thank you!

Mullins: You can take part in an online conversation about President Obama’s speech today. Join in at theworld.org. You can also follow The World’s Matthew Bell on Twitter as he Tweets reaction in the Middle East. Matthew is @matthewjbell.  A journalist for Al Jazeera got an upclose and personal insight into the Syrian crackdown. Dorothy Parvaz arrived in the capital of Damascus on April 29th to cover the anti-government protests in Syria, but she was detained in a prison. And Parvaz says that for the next three days, she heard the same sound over and over again.

Dorothy Parvaz: All I hear is men being beaten to within an inch of their lives, crying out. I was handcuffed repeatedly, blindfolded, taken to a courtyard, left to hear these men being beaten. They all sounded very young. They sounded to be in their late teens, early 20’s. So, it was an overall terrifying experience.

Mullins: Dorothy Parvaz says that she doesn’t know what kind of answers the prison guards were expecting, but all they got was, Swear to God, No. no, or Please stop.

Parvaz: At a certain point you want tocover your ears. You don’t want to hear it anymore because it becomes that mu–, I mean it seems endless. Mid-morning to late into night, at random times, you would hear just beating, and screams, and cries. And you want to cover your ears, butsomeone should hear these people. Someone should understand what they’re going through. And if we all cover our earsit seemed to me that Syria just wants everyone to cover their ears.

Mullins: Parvaz was deported to Iran. Her fiancé says that she was put in solitary confinement and questioned. But he says she was treated respectfully. Dorothy Parvaz is now in Qatar. She says she’s feeling fine.

[Music]

[End of Audio Segment]

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Tariq Ramadan’s official website

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: While Egypt will figure prominently in President Obama’s speech tomorrow, there will also be other broader themes.  That’s what Tariq Ramadan is going to be listening for.  Ramadan is a professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford.  He says the Mideast uprisings and the death of Osama Bin laden offer Washington a new opportunity to redefine relations with the Arab world.

Tariq Ramadan: We are opening a new page and we are opening a new way for the future relationship between the United States of American and the Muslims around the world, saying now it’s all about democracy, it’s all about respecting, and it’s all about consistency; because at the end of the day we were so hopeful with the taking over of President Barack Obama when he was saying we are going to end Guantanamo, we are going to end the war in Afghanistan, we are going to solve the problems in Iraq, and still look at was is happening. So we are not solving the problem.  These were words, and I think that now we are one year before the election.  Islam is going to be a critical issue for the coming year.  We all know this, domestically speaking, but also the international level.  What is very important now is that we are not going to talk and no longer talking about the war on terror, let us talk about how do we have this relationship fixed in a way which is transparency, democracy, and true respect towards the Muslims around the world, and true respect towards the Arabs. Because the perception is still, still this one — that the blood of an Arab and the blood of an Iranian is less valuable than the blood of an American.  It’s not going to work like that.  It’s really a matter of consistency and respect.

Werman: Don’t you think though that the coincidence of the peaceful uprisings in the Mideast and the death of the world’s #1 terrorist kind of shows people that you know, there’s something about the way forward if you want democracy.

Ramadan: Yes, you are right.  I think that this could be a very good opportunity if, and only if, it’s not only a symbol, we are not talking about the symbol.  It’s the death of a symbol.  Now we go from the symbol to the reality that now we are serious about you know, democracy process, supporting the people, being clear with all the dictators around the world, and even to push for more transparency; in the petrol markets for example, yes, it could be a better future. But we have to be consistent.  The problem that we have is all the talk that’s coming from President Barack Obama are very well said, the problem is that they are badly understood by the Arabs around the world, the Muslims, they like him.  And this is something that’s very important.  He has credibility and a very important credential as a person, as himself.  But the point is that the American administration doesn’t seem to follow you know, the words, by having implementation of policies that are helping the people to see that something is changing. So you are completely right, it’s a great opportunity.  Let us hope that something is going out of it, which is on the ground, visible signs that the American policy is much more dealing with realities and transparencies, and working against corruption, and helping holding the democracy processes in the Muslim majority countries.

Werman: Still it’s hard to imagine a country like Yemen becoming democratic overnight.  I mean doesn’t Washington have a legitimate fear of more failed states, more Somalis in the region?

Ramadan: Yes, that’s true, and I think that once again we are sometimes very too much in a hurry, that we want things to happen as it’s happening in Tunisia.  And Tunisia is the exception, it cannot be the rule of history.  We need time and we need to be aware and cautious. So I am for example, cautiously optimistic in everything which is happening in the Middle East, but we need time.  And this is where we need to have something which is not only, and this is what we also have to say to the Arabs and the Muslims around the world, it’s all good to listen to the President Barack Obama, but at the end of the day the ball is on our court. This is what we have to understand, that the civil societies in Yemen and the citizens and the people should very be committed, and they should carry on the process where they come together, and all the political parties and the intellectuals should come together to us not only what they don’t want, but what they want for the future.

Werman: Tariq Ramadan, you’re the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928, where do you think Egypt and more specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, is headed?

Ramadan: You know, the Muslim Brotherhood from within, there are lots of tensions between the youngest generation and the oldest generation about what will be the future.  As long as they are respecting the rule of law and the constitution, they should be able to speak out and not to be jailed or tortured.

Werman: I’d be curious to know whether you think the aim of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt right now is to create a political order based on the Sunni version of an Islamic state?

Ramadan: There are discussions about the reference to Sharia, for example, in the constitution even among the Muslim Brotherhood.  And the second thing which is important is some within the Muslim Brotherhood are talking about [speaking Arabic], which is the single[? 5:10] state, which is no longer something which is called Islamic state.  And some among the youngest generation of Muslim Brotherhood are calling for the Muslim brothers to look at what is happening in Turkey, and which way it has evolved over the last decade.I think that all this is disputed from within, is open, is full of tensions, and once again, as long as it’s nonviolent and respecting the rule of law, let it be as it should be.

Werman: Tariq Ramadan is professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford.  His latest book is The Quest for Meaning: Developing a Philosophy of Pluralism.  Professor, thank you very much.

Ramadan: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

Marco Werman: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, the co-production of the BBC World Service PRI and WGBH, Boston. President Obama plans to deliver a major speech on the Middle East tomorrow. The speech will partly be a response to the extraordinary events of the past few months in the region. Popular uprisings in various Arab countries have toppled some long-time rulers and led others to crack-down hard on the protesters.  The last time Obama made a major address on the Middle East, he delivered it from Cairo. And Egypt will figure prominently in tomorrow’s speech according to US officials. Its successful revolution has inspired protesters from Libya to Bahrain to Syria, but there are problems in the New Egypt too. There have been deadly clashes between Muslims and Christians. And earlier this week there were clashes between Egyptian Security Forces and protesters outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. The clash has highlighted tensions within Egypt about relations with Israel. Journalist, blogger and activist Gigi Ibrahim was at those protests and was in Tahrir Square today. She says the turmoil at home is more on the minds of Egyptians than anything President Obama might say tomorrow.

Gigi Ibrahim: Honestly I think it’s irregardless of what President Obama would say is irrelevant to the Egyptian future and building democracy from the bottom up, I think we are so hung up on what’s happening right now in Egypt. There is about a 160 Eastern protesters have got arrested and now detained by the Egyptian Army and facing military trial tomorrow morning. So, I am more concerned about them and the fact that I was there getting shot at with tear-gas with live ammo, some people next to me dropped from live ammunition through their heads, I mean, this is shot by the Egyptian Army. So it’s definitely — the situation in Egypt is making me worry about this transitional period and the Army actions towards civilians. And you know we’re building political parties, we have parliamentary elections coming up so the revolution has just started for us and now we’re more concerned especially myself like, I’m more concerned about that than what President Obama will say.

Werman: Are you saying that US doesn’t even have a role in Mid East policy right now?

Ibrahim: The US role have — has not positively effecting the area but negatively in the sense of it has backed up bits and pieces and now the people are rising to take ownership of their Statehood and of the future and building democracies from the bottom-up.

Werman: You know we hear all these reports about rising crime in Egypt and escalating tensions between Muslims and cops. Aren’t the fears of escalating chaos in Egypt legitimate?

Ibrahim: The chaos has been there since the regime. And the sectarian issue didn’t just originate post the revolution. This is a sensitive issue that’s now counter revolution is playing on. Some say who were involved could have been initiated by Islamic fanatics that are now represented even of the Muslim brother hood, these are radical groups that are fanatic and the thugs have played on in it too. And these people, who have been arrested have — are seizing you know civilian normal courts, while activists protesting peacefully. And whether it be in the Tahrir Square or the Israeli Embassy or a different square [xx] are sent in for military courts. So really there is the people the — who started this revolution, who believe in this revolution are focusing on fighting that and exposing the army’s action against the civilians and the people of the revolution, because they contradicts everything they’ve been saying about how they are, the, you know, the guarantee of the revolution and who are going to oversee and protect it and so on, when in fact they are doing the extreme opposite.

Werman: Egyptian journalist, blogger and social activist Gigi Ibrahim, thanks very much for your time.

Ibrahim: Thank you.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Live updates from the BBC

Add your voice: What does the death of Osama Bin Laden mean to you?

• Live updates from the BBC
• Bin Laden raid was first revealed on Twitter
• In pictures: World reaction
• In pictures: Bin Laden’s life
• Interactive timeline
• PBS Frontline interviews on Osama Bin Laden

Reactions on the death of Osama Bin Laden posted at BBC Arabic
Florance – France
I do not think that killing bin Laden would change a lot on the ground. Many resemble Bin Laden as the despotic regimes, which exercise oppression and murder against their people in broad daylight and the world is silent on their committed crimes. An example of these regimes is the Syrian. What is the difference between the state terrorism committed by Assad’s regime against the people in Deraa and Bin Laden’s terrorism?

Mohammed Hussein – Egypt
The seriousness of organizations, such as al-Qaeda, it adopts thoughts and ideologies, but not seemed to have a central command for planning and funding. This means that Osama Bin Laden was a spiritual leader and not an organizational one, at least during the past 10 years. I hope that the news of his death will not be an incentive for organizations associated with the ideas of al-Qaeda to carry out retaliatory operations where innocent people are killed.

Amro Waheed – Egypt
His death came at the right time; the Arab peoples no longer need to al-Qaeda and they refuse the United States intervention. If the United States wanted to win the ware over Al-Qaeda, it shall first go out and immediately from Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and let the people choose their own destinies.

Alaa Al-Dardour – Jordan
The death of Osama Bin Laden does not mean the death of al-Qaeda, during our follow-up of recent years, we find that Osama Bin Laden is suffering from an incurable disease since seven years, and the first man is Ayman al-Zawahiri. Al-Qaeda’s ideology is not only a specific person, but rather a school of thought which is adopted by a number of people.

Samia – Tunisia
What would Washington do with other al-Qaeda organizations: they are based in many locations as Somalia, North Africa, Arabian Peninsula, Iraq and Afghanistan? Which achievements Obama is talking about?

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

LISA MULLINS: I’m Lisa Mullins, and this is The World.

[President Barack Obama speaking] I think we can all agree this is a good day for America.

MULLINS: President Barack Obama speaking today at the White House. He was referring, of course, to the combination of the US effort to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden.

[President Barack Obama speaking] The world is safer; it is a better place because of the death of Osama Bin Laden.

MULLINS: And, president Obama was not alone in that assessment. United Nations secretary general Ban Ki-Moon today called Bin Laden’s death a watershed moment in, quote, “our global fight against terrorism”. The UN leader also made it a point to remember those who lost their lives because of Osama Bin Laden and his organization.

[UN Secretary Ban Ki-Moon speaking] This is a day to remember the victims and families of victims; from the United States and everywhere in the world.

MULLINS: We’re going to hear a lot more about Osama Bin Laden’s death and global reaction to it throughout our program today. We’ll begin in Pakistan, where the Al-Qaeda leader was finally tracked down and killed by elite US forces. Details of the raid are still emerging now. We asked the BBC’s Haroon Rashid in Islamabad for the latest on what happened just a few miles north of the Pakistani capital.

HAROON RASHID: Well, what it’s sure is that American forces gathered out this operation last night after midnight. And, witnesses told us that there were three American helicopters that came in and looked all residents in that area, went door to door, told to turn off the lights and to stay indoors. After that, the residents heard a few big blasts, they went to the roof to see what was happening and they saw this helicopter crashing in front of a huge spacious compound.

MULLINS: And, what has been the reaction, then, in the neighborhood itself now? I mean, it seemed as if, at least in the beginning, nobody was claiming to know anything about who was living in this compound, who was behind those walls with the barbed wire… is there any acknowledgement of that today?

RASHID: Yeah, I mean, we’ve spoken to some of the residents in that area, and they told us that this hose was build five to six years back, and that the people living inside had little contact with the outside world. They used to come to buy grocery from one of the shops, and a few days back, they said that they have 8 guests that have checked in, and they need extra bread for them, they need some extra dresses for them. But, last night it was really clear they were sort of scared in that region and they couldn’t come pick it up.

MULLINS: How come they couldn’t pick it up earlier? When was it that they needed extra provisions, extra clothing and food, how long ago was that?

RASHID: A week back. This is what some of the residents that we’ve spoken to, we’re told that Osama Bin Laden was not living there for a long time. And that is what the Pakistani officials have been saying as well: they couldn’t pick him up, his trail, because he might have moved in that area quite recently.

MULLINS: Well, if he moved in that area, this is a garrison community, this has been compared to, basically, West Point. It’s hard to imagine how somebody like Osama Bin Laden with such a profile, literally and figuratively could have slipped in or out without much notice. But when you spoke with the former head of the ISI Pakistan’s intelligence service, this is Hamid Gul, what did he tell you about just what his organization knew prior to the operation?

RASHID: He was quite concerned that it might give Americans a reason to directly now intervene into Pakistan, and take charge of the war against the terror that has been fought here for the last decade.

MULLINS: Is there any evidence at all that this was a joint operation as has been said here between Pakistanis and Americans?

RASHID: I mean, there are two opinions about that. One of the eye witnesses that we spoke to told us that before the start of this operation in that area, the announcements that were made, were made in the local language. So, that means there might be, to some extent, Pakistani security establishment was involved in that operation, and that Americans might have told them that they are going after one Al-Qaeda target. But, it remains to be seen whether the Americans told exactly the Pakistani establishment that they’re going after Osama Bin Laden, because there are concerns within Pakistan and outside as well, that any such information could have been leaked from ISI and it could have helped Osama escape.

MULLINS: Haroon Rashid has the BBC’s Urdu service. He spoke with us from Islamabad, Pakistan. Thank you.

RASHID: Thank you, Lisa.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Watch the slideshow
• Subscribe to our multimedia feed on iTunes

• Watch the slideshow
• Subscribe to our multimedia feed on iTunes

Read the transcript:
When Air Force One touches down in New Delhi this week, President Obama hopes that it won’t be the last time an American-made plane lands in India.

India is set to spend billions to modernize its air force.

The potential deal has companies from around the world lining up to make their pitch.

American manufacturers are hopeful the President’s trip will give them a leg up.

But as India’s economy continues to sizzle, the competition is fierce, says Rajiv Nayan, a security specialist at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis in New Delhi.

RAJIV NAYAN – OBAMA IS HERE BECAUSE OF THE RISING INDIAN PROFILE AND SO YES OF COURSE THE WORLD IS PAYING ATTENTION TO IT. INDIA NEEDS WEAPONS. SO THERE IS A MARKET IN INDIA.

As India’s economy has grown so has its stature in a region of the world that has proven problematic for the US.

Setting a course to win the war in Afghanistan and stabilize Pakistan are top of the Obama administration’s foreign policy agenda.

But The US knows India’s newfound economic might means Washington can’t call all the shots.

Vikram Sood, a former head of Indian intelligence, says that the changing balance of power is evident in the US’s eagerness to sell India a fighter jet.

VIKRAM SOOD – ITS FINE TO HAVE THE GRAND VISION OF BEING ALLIES AND HAVING CONVERGING INTERESTS, BUT THIS IS A REAL TEST. I THINK IT’S MORE IMPORTANT FOR THE U.S.… WE COULD BUY IT FROM SWEDEN OR FRANCE.

Or from Russia… India’s quest for new fighter planes isn’t purely an economic decision… some believe it signals India’s political outlook as well.

At the very least, it shows India’s increasing self-confidence about framing the political debate in its own backyard.

India’s relationship with its neighbors has long been a contentious one.

The location of the country’s borders with China and Pakistan are still contested.

China’s expanding economic clout is worrisome.

And Pakistan remains a military adversary.

While the US woos India as a partner, the billions of dollars of aid America sends to Pakistan means that the US still has a ground to make up, says Sood.

VIKRAM SOOD – THERE ARE TIMES THAT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT INDIAN POLICY IN AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO HELP U.S. LEAVE WITH HONOR. WE DON’T WANT THE U.S. TO LOSE IN AFGHAN, DEFINITELY NOT. BUT WE’RE NOT GOING TO GIVE UP OUR STRATEGIC INTERESTS IN THE REGION FOR THAT.

U.S. restrictions on military sales that dictate how the equipment can be used also raises questions about the reliability of the U.S. as a partner.

Some of the limitations are a holdover from the Cold War era when Russia supplied the country with its security with few strings attached.

While Russia remains a reliable partner, there are still differences to work out with the US, says Sood.

VIKRAM SOOD – WHAT IS IT THAT THE US REALLY WANTS FROM US? WERE TOO BIG TO BE SUBSERVIENT AND NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO BE INDEPENDENT. WE’RE NOT AS STRONG AS THE CHINESE ARE. STILL FINDING OUR FEET.

This week President Obama will look to use the aircraft deal as a step in shoring up both countries’ footing.

For the World, I’m Elliot Hannon in New Delhi.

• Watch the slideshow
• Subscribe to our multimedia feed on iTunes

• Watch the slideshow
• Subscribe to our multimedia feed on iTunes

Download MP3

It was striking this week–with all the talk at the United Nations of getting rid of nuclear weapons–that the rhetoric was coming from the mouths of world leaders rather than the megaphones of demonstrators. It got us wondering what ever happened to the nuclear disarmament movement? Jonathan Schell and Lawrence Wittner have some answers. Schell is a fellow at The Nation Institute and author of The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger. Wittner is Professor of History at the State University of New York, Albany, and author of Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement. That book is an abbreviated version of a much longer trilogy about the movement called The Struggle Against the Bomb.

Both describe the movement as losing steam but not dying at the end of the Cold War, and now experiencing a resurgence in part through the advocacy of  former (heavyweight, bipartisan) national security officials such as George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn and William Perry.