tv U.S.- Pakistan Relations CSPAN January 24, 2018 6:38pm-8:01pm EST
draining the swamp is three words is incredibly provocative. immediately i see playing on the notion that it was built on a swamp and my training is taking up the horrible people to place their -- live there and whether associates believed him believe him or not believe he could fill fill that are not they were prepared to take --. >> the president of the united states. [applause] s.
this is an hour and 15 minutes. xt rar from ambassador to the u.s. uture relations with this country. he said curren relations aren't under stress but the relationships need to be preserved. held by the center for strategic and mission national studies, this is an hour and 20 minutes. >> i am the chair here at csis and it's a privilege to be cohosting with my friend at csis. we are going to be having a conversation with the ambassador of the republic of pakistan. thank you very much for being here. it's a member of the foreign
services with 37 years of experience in the foreign service. he was the foreign secretary of pakistan. he is a graduate of tufts university as well as from punjab university with a very interesting and distinguished career in the foreign services basically with all the big jobs in the foreign service as ambassador of the netherlands and we are very fortunate to have someone of his caliber representing pakistan at this time. it's obviously a very challenging time for our relations between the united states and pakistan. we wanted to have the conversation with the ambassador and i think everyone is aware of all of that so i think we need to talk about the challenges in our relationship and the things that need to be addressed and then i think it opens up the
conversation on the number of things that don't get enough attention on committees and don't get enough attention at all. i'm going to turn the floor over first to the ambassador. ambassador please come on up. it's an honor to have. you. please welcome the ambassador.[a [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much for inviting me to come to thisis session and for organizing this event. it is my pleasure to share withi you the topics that you have suggested toge us. in the last one month a lot has happened. i would like to start from that. last month you all recall that the united states government the
administration has unveiled its national security strategy. which has given the united states priority and identified a level of threats to the united states. and then it goes to iran and north korea and jihadi organizations. it is presently liberated by a national defense last week where it was revealed that interstate competition and not terrorism is the primary concern for the u.s. administration.
and identified china and russia as the original powers antithetical to u.s. interests and trying toissipate the united states as a power inertia. also porsche rehm worse is that iran and north korea are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. it appears that the major rivalry is an intensifying and picking up has happened steadily and these announcements made are the u.s.'s own calculations and was part of my dynamic. i believe this was already in
the making and in the last couple of years especially in the last two years considerable literature appeared suggesting that the unipolar world led by the united states is giving way to multipolarity. the world was in disarray meaning the second world war, post-second world war world orr w n inx flu about to change and didn't kw what would come out of it. alison came up with the prediction that the united states and china mightht actualy be destined for war as the topic of his book unless they come up
with courageous and painful decisions not to enter that. we had another book on i think it was the future of american state where we also talked at great length on the new rebalance in asia. slightly earlier before that the longtime statements -- on singapore have suggested china's rise will not be just another flare and i'm using his words but the biggest player in the history and that would require a whole new balance of government.
our former chilean prime minister also had to say something similar to that where he said the spectacular progress made by china and the industrial revolution and the information revolution simultaneously combusted and compressed into not 300 years to 30 years and that would require accommodation accommodation. that means it doesn't really happen suddenly that the united states has reorganized its priorities for the fear that the time had come for them to make an adjustment and see what is happening. many people have started talking about competition if you want to use that term from a rising
china. that wasn't the only this domain that change was happening? i think that change is happening in many otherr domains to. look for example free trade for which we learned that free trade is the best for everyone. it's the sution. it is now under threat from protectionism. immigration or immigrants for centuries i would say was always considered as infusion of fresh blood into a society and were welcomed to mingle and learn from each other is now being
viewed in some circles as economic -- a global consensus on climate change also had question marks. nationalism which for 95 centuries in greater which was a major issue xenophobia, islamaphobia now raising their heads. clearly it has changed. it is in flux. as they zoom in to my own regions i don't see the situation much differently.
india and china the two countries in that region are what i would call an uneasy peace. india and pakistan simply don't talk to each other. afghanistan the situation continues to deteriorate. and iran the nuclear deal negotiated for a long time handle that is a victory off diplomacy is also under question marks. the world which is changing and we don't know where it will head but certainly more turbulent in the region. south asia again the turbulence
and the broader region continues to grapple with the threat of terrorism. how has m country pakistan done? when i measure it in that context i belvehat pakistan has not done that. we were in the eye of the storm and for a decade and aor half ad we know that there was hardly a day when we would get up and not be aware of the explosion that it happened. how did we come to face such a diabolic situation where they turned their guns towards pakistan? long story and i don't want to go into that but the fact is that the nation of pakistan in the last couple of years forged
a consensus that avoids the military action to take these people out. today they all became very proudly say that the sight of terrorism has been diverse. the militants and terrorism we are chasing them and we will continue to do that. but it's our job over? the mindset which gives rise to these is still there and we need to deal with that d we will al with that. so that is the situation for pakistan unless two or three
years. we think we have achieved a commendable success against the formidable enemies of pakistan. law and order has improved which has had an effect on the economic situation from all across most of china but also from europe and elsewhere and america. we think we are on the right track. our destination is still very far. there's a lot of work that needs to be done. we will remain tentative until afghanistan nextdoor stabilizes and that's where i would like to
bring in the relations of my country with the ambassadors. this relationship is very important to us. as always we believe it must be reserved. currently it is under -- i must admit. but i believe this is because in the united states sometimes the country is looked at from one lens or the other. sometimes we are viewed through afghanistan that since the united states is not making progress in pakistan could
actually be up against failure perhaps because of pakistan and therefore should review pakistan and that lens. sometimes it's viewed through the lens of china but china which is now a rival for the united states having pakistan close to china is not going to be friendly with the united states. sometimes it is viewed through the lens that india now is a strategic partner for the unites states and is expected by the united states to play larger role in the region and so pakistan is not on good terms with india and pakistan will not maintain relations. sometimes it's also viewed surely from counterterrorism or security lens. i believe this is a very narrow
approach to a country the size of pakistan and the potential of pakistan. broadening the lens is so apt in relevant because pakistan should be viewed for what it is and not through the four lenses that i talked about. and that would happen if the relationship is viewed two levels to see how pakistan and the u.s. -- one is the government to government in the other is people-to-people. i think while the government to government relationship has also waited between ups and downs the relationship has been steady and
there are a number of areas in which the people of pakistan and the people of the united states remain connected and have remained connected regardless of the relationship between the two governments. it hel enormously if the relationship is part of it no doubt about it. i was telling you in the other room that even today the united states remains the destination for pakistani children. the united states is home to a large body of pakistani physicians. many of who are ingested in the next generation to come to this country and serve here. the united states has been a steady partner and few people know about it. we are agrarian country starting
and it is a security given relationship. at this time what's causing distress between pakistan and united states is afghanistan. we in the states have invested billions and also in blood. but unfortunately, the situation is deteriorating. some would say it is close to around 9/11. and they say that this is been driven by militants who would plan something like that. is it any these are all
questions for the q&a session because i was given the timetable of 10 to 15 minutes to speak. why is the relationship between pakistan and us, why has it been a roller coaster? i think we need to really explore what is it. and how is it we can broaden it. what new areas can we bring and how can we broaden this. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> thank you. okay. i will turn the floor over to my colleague and my new friend. you have the first question.
>> thank you. and thank you for your comments. it is not to welcome you to csis. you actually beat me by two and half weeks since i started here. so welcome. and anyway we are on the same turf. let me begin, you are a graduate of fletcher school at tufts university. for those people that do not know they have the jumbo there so before you move on to a range of questions, i will raise the elephant in the room and then we will deal with a whole range of issues regional trade, peace negotiations and others. let me first turn to the issue of pakistan supporting militants. i think your response here would be helpful in part because it's been a subject for quite some time. i think there's no question
that as one looks at the last decade and 1/2, pakistan has made countless sacrifices. there is no question about that. in blood and treasure. you noted the exriences afghanistan. and the struggle against militants. i was in pakistan for example as i told you earlier, during parts of a campaign and i saw that up and close. and very cognizant of the thousands of pakistan soldiers, police, civilians, and those that have died over the past several years. and the civilians that have had to do with bombings. certainly around the town, both democratic and republican governments and senior officials from us agencies continue to point the finger at pakistan for providing support
to some groups. certainly grnot all. they raise issues of afghan taliban. and they have the command and control structures on the pakistan side of the stborder. if i quote - president trump from one of his recent tweets, they give safe haven to the terrorists that we had in no more.tan with little help. the us president said recently. i think also it is probably worth noting that us officials will also argue that pakistan officials will regularly deny the support in public and in private. but few may actually believe this sign. i want to give you a chance to respond to these concerns and issues with at least support to some militant groups. you know to be fair, all states including united states provide support to some state and nonstate actors. i'm well aware of that from my
personal, my own personal background in the us military. can we have an honest discussion about this. and how you respond to this broader discussion and pakistan support on the afghan side in particular. >> thank you. let's try to take the rules of how pakistan came into contact and encounter with the militants. after 1979 there was no such thing as militants 9,in pakista. we were living about our own life. but then 1979, forces came into afghanistan. the united states and pakistan had come up with the concept of
-- that is where this was born and created to provide an army of militants who would fight. once the soviets left, these people stayed back in afghanistan. and after 9/11, once again, united states came to focus on that area and other places that were bombed heavily. and many of them, opened the borders. and pakistan had to make a choice whether it wants to be part pakistan made this choice and thereby the militants is that the pakistan was now to be attacked for their activity. and that is the time about 2002
or 2003 that oumilitants began turn their guns towards pakistan. and hardly a day would pass when they would not attack one facility or installation for another. and the security establishments.either on the military or the intelligence facilities.from 2004 to 2014, all hell broke loose. we used to have 150 incidents per month on the average. until the nation said that enough is enough. and all of the politicians got together, held a series of political conferences between -- and forged a national consensus that we would not
allow any terminated pakistan nor would we allow anyone to use pakistan -- [inaudible] the military would not have moved in without this consensus. because otherwise they would have faced some resistance from underground. i want to also say that the militants who came to tribal areas had a very simple narrative. which somehow at that time, found a lot of ejection in the local population. -- we willetid othem and today is being occupied by americans. and we will get rid of that. that was simple narrative and that, this is a duty called
jihad and supportive. you have to have an equally strong and effective countermeasure to expose the flawed nature of that narrative. because i say flawed because if you are killing innocent people on the streets and in the schools, that man's that it is not holy duty. it is outright militants and terrorism. and they have since provide an opportunity for us to -- a school killing 137 schoolchildren. those pakistanis soldiers and officers who were fighting them. they sent a message to them that you are our enemy.
and therefore, they moved in, not only because they had to do it as a national duty but it became a passionate duty to rid ourselves from these evil people. and that is why this voice from far right of the political spectrum came. and almost swept through the area. and we swcleaned up all of the hideouts and sanctuaries. today, if you do not hear any such or do not see any such thing it is because we eliminated that. so when somebody tells us that there are safe havens existing there, we say to them, please show us where. we have been -- we would also
like to eliminate someone hiding. and if somebody says that the military intelligence is actually playing a game and supporting his militants, and i will ask them, go and meet those officers and soldiers who have -- and their loved ones attacked by militants and they tell me that they would allow their own servicemen to support their people who killed chilen. no, r. it is not so. we paid a huge price. 6000 soldiers and officers and 23,000 people. we are so happy because we were able to defeat them. they are on the line. and those who need to know, they know that the both of them have gone. and we will push those hiding
anywhere also. there afghan. the taliban, they belong there. a message to them is, that you should join the political -- we will squeeze all of these people by denying them accommodation and help and whatever else. and they are very much going there. but since we keep hitting this from some of the security authorities, it led the people of pakistan to believe that perhaps, we are being scapegoated for afghanistan. look at the last four years. we have improved the situation and afghanistan according to your own reports, every six months the territory that is to
be there is in the hands of the militants. today is more than -- huge territory. why would the taliban live in pakistan where we are breathing down their necks? and not live in afghanistan where they have the ability to plan whatever they need to plan. they are not short of funds. because the economy in afghanistan is booming. $100 million. it has n.increased according to their own reports. only one year and since 9/11, it has grown 400 times. and there are other players that have come in. who are ready to work with them. so, when we compare the two situations, pakistan and afghanistan, people in pakistan say that why are we being
blamed -- are we really responsible for the failures? is a failure only because certain caliban and f dennis live in afghanistan? is that really the sum total of the problem in afghanistan? what about issues of government and corruption and -- who go in with weaponry and green on green attacks and green on blue attacks. which are growing. according to a report. i'm not putting in before my countries sources. i think people then feel that perhaps we are the bogeyman. that has to explain why 600 million dollars in afghanistan have not solved the problem. and now towards a $1 billion --
these are the questions which are coming up. we're having this conversation and we are constantly telling them that look, you want peace and afghanistan, we wanted even more than you! because the soviets left, they just left. and then you would just leave. it's us who will be left holding this. it nis us who suffered with refugees. -- 3 million of them. [inaudible] today, those camps are being used by militants to preclude ghan rrorists to clear trouble in pakistan. therefore, what we are saying to the united states, that you want to stabilize afghanistan because it is a long war. we believe that is your objective and your real
objective. and for pakistan also, we want to see afghanistan stabilize because we will suffer from it. if it does not stabilize. please do not scapegoat us. do not place all of the burden on us s.for this. we want to work with you because we know there is work to be done. we think afghanistan needs help and stability. and we are ready to work with you. nkbut we will not take the blam wholehearted blame, the whole blame on pakistan. >> thank you. i want to cigna the artist that we will be doing, we will be taking cards and taking questions from q&a. we will write them up and have a conversation for about a half-hour. if you have questions, we will collect them and that we will read them and we will read about for five or six of them. we will collect five or six them. i'm very open to do that. i think we had that out. let me ask you, a couple of questions. i think when i said to my
friends and colleagues, i think we need to have a broader conversation with pakistan, many people say that you are crazy. why do you want to work on this issue? why do you want to work with pakistan? there's a lot of distrust in washington. everything i heard you say, ngi know that you are speaking with great passion and belief. and i believe you. but there is very little trust here in washington and i think it is reciprocated in pakistan. there is very low trust between our two governments. and that there is even so little trust that even official statements sometimes are not being believed. so what do we do about a situation when we don't trust each other and, how -- is it
fair to say, is it possible to say that what's going to happen is that the pakistani -- is it one thing for the civilian govement to say one thing and then is there is a different -- i heard you say very forcefully about i know that there what happened in 2014 in pakistan when the schoolchildren were killed. the children of the soldiers were killed. there was a watershed moment in pakistan. i know that for a a fact. but there are e many people tha say well, is one thing for them to say something that the pakistan deep state and so, what is -- we both have e deep states by the way. [laughter] has become an overly used term recently in our discourse. but perhaps, just this issue of trust and is part of the issue of trust. is it fair to say that, would you say if someone says well, it is what they for the civilian government in pakistan
to say something but there is a whole other game going on. what is your reaction to that? >> well, i've heard this. so many times. but it is not true. and we have repeatedly made a point -- that you need and you will hear the one and only narrative that was built. to prove the point, when secretary tillersovisited pakistan a couple of months ago, the entire military leadership sat together to meet him. so that this view which is often propelled in the us by vested interest to drive a wedge between pakistan and civil and military authorities is addressed. this time around when the president made a tweet on the
new year, we decided not to respond that day. at any individual level. >> i'm sure it was a very long day for you. i am just guessing. probably a long day! >> it was late afternoon and pakistan. but next day the national security committee which is comprises of leadership, top leadership civil and military. they prepared and measured and restrained response to that. i think gone are the days when people can say that all right, we can drag this wedge and sell our narrative. it is not going to happen because people are very conscious. now, that this is what they tried to do. we are saying to you, whatever.
it comes wnow rectly from the full endorsement of both civil and military leadership. and the statement that we've now issued including the response to august 21, [inaudible] also the same for the national security committee. the people of pakistan are highly proud of our armed forces. and our other security authorities for the piece that they returned to the people of pakistan. we had always said that this war was on our war because it was imposed on us. but had it been imposed and leadership decided all right, if it is important then bring it on. and we did. so i think today, you cannot find even a minor -- between
the two. we all speak with one word. what is our akmessage? we started the question with trust. the message that we have is that love, we mean well. we need peace in afghanistan. we have achieved successes against terrorists in pakistan. we can defeat the international community can defeat and learn. we think that the people of afghanistan -- we didn't united states and afghanistan can stand together just like we have and achieve common milestones. if you do not hear about al qaeda today, an organization which was responsible for 9/11, it is because pakistan and younes dates work together. day in and day out. in the first decade after 9/11. to eliminate al qaeda. there is no reason why the two
countries should not continue in the same spirit. to finish dup what was started. but if the path chosen is not working together but whatever it is. i objectives and defeat of terrorism will not be able to make that much more progress. therefore i think this is the message that is coming out of the civilian leadership and military leadership. that look, we have been partners. we achieved a lot. and we need to work together to finish up what you started. what was started in afghanistan. that is the message we have been trying to convey. not make claim one against the other.
>> we want to try to trade issues. with regional trade and also, broader global trade. if one looks at some of the more significant initiatives in the region, we can take a look for example at china run initiative.which is significant, includes upwards of 68 countries. 4.4 billion people. 40 percent of the worlds gdp, network of everything from rails and roadster pipelines, ports and projects. what's important component is the china pakistan corridor.i wonder if you can lay out from your standpoint, pakistan's vision is for regional trade and how that sits particularly with the role of china. as you noted earlier, the national security strategy and the national defense strategy
now, both labeled from washington standpoint china is a competitor. so what is the vision for regional trade and how does that sit than with efforts that with a country that is now viewed by the government here is a competitor? i do think through those issues? >> china has always been afraid of pakistan ever since china became independent country. not once ever there was -- the relationship has continued but mostly at the political level. trends in translation into tangible economic has happened only recently. the genesis of the economic transformation and the shifting of priorities ever since president xi jinping came to
power is important to understand and to bear in mind. the chinese for three decades work parenting exploding growth. when the president came to power in 2013. i think there was a shift of emphasis to mobilize domestic consumers. and for equity in the investments and economic development of the people. and it came to light the western part of china was far less developed than the eastern part of china. each of the ports were exporting billions of dollars. and therefore the emphasis began to shift. towards the western part of china. about the same time we had a change of government in pakistan. from one democrat elected government to another
democratic elected government. and they came up with this idea that what if the chinese and the western part of china and we have economic priorities. the idea of china and pakistan economic corridor has been at a conceptual stage. but there are mighty big mountains which are prevented that. but the two governments took on the challenge. and started connecting across these nonsense. these two regions. china and pakistan. it was a win-win option for pakistan and a win-win option for china. for china because if you want to come to the -- through the red sea to the mediterranean, you will probably go over the land for 5000 kilometers and then rougthe state another
8000 kilometers to come here. from -- about 2000 kilometers. it will make economic sense that you utilize this link to the -- it would link china to europe and so that is what actually pushed the government to in that direction. it was also the underlying emphasis that the net gain will not be restricted only to the people pakistan and western china. but in good times, it should blossom east and west and should bring prosperity to all. in fact, already extending to afghanistan should they become peaceful because if you go up
north from -- the region to benefit afghanistan. it would make economic sense to get into that project. this of course, did not mean -- it meant a lot of avenues of connvity. ... . iluded fiberoptics and lifelines. it is still happening. most of these investments are now almost completed. we used to have what >> we used to have blackouts
looking at the security and exchange commission they are all set to benefit from what is about to come up. >> ambassador just to share what is the growth rate in 2017 over the last layer's? >> fix% is the prediction right now 2018. it was 5% now the prediction is 6%. and it was all along the core door. long -- core door so we do think what they do there
already making up their own mind. why do we have good relations with china? if all along we believe people like me have relations with china and the united states, we hadelations with china since 1947.ta and then to go back in time that we should stay engaged with the economic investment. >> my friend who is here will be collecting cards.
so over the next couple of minutes i need to collect those cards so people have them. there is an election year in pakistan. there are several things i want to mention. one, there is a perception in the united states of heavy military engagement in pakistan. but it is notable in my mind where the military has not left the barracks. that h hapas notned before. that is something to note that any american appreciates.e
so where the military could come out of the barracks to do something anti- democratic that has not happened. so correct me if i am wrong. e so to pick up on pakistani current events there were some judicial decisions made with the leadership in pakistan with the current democratic government mandate is ending in several months so if you can comment on the domestic political situation i won't say sure what is your bet and what will happen but if you could talkk about a little bit. >> you can if you want there
are bets in the u.k. betting parlor that you can talk about so what about those economic opportunities? i think it is important with the alignment of the civilian government with a national consensus there are certain things we should expect not to change. >> so the people of pakistan is democratic. and those that we call out of respect to the d entire
to be repeatedly assured that the only path forward for pakistan with the democratic election. and i came out stronger with the democrat p to continue. also being ambassador to the united states, it is yet another area so those values and democracy with freedom that is a beacon of light for everyone.
to go forward. >> a two-part question so based on your answers the question about trade in china, what is your response or pakistan's response to have the broader context? how do you respond and what is the response in general to the u.s. decision? i think your broader issue of peace in the region is important. so what i'm interested in is what are your thoughts specifically on how pakistan,
and afghan government or the united states might take to ensure peace in afghanistan? it is driving corrupt trade or militancy. what role should pakistan play? is the u.s. doing enough to support the peace process? >> so the first point is about pakistan's reaction and the second are specificec steps. >> and those that are
but now it has been almost 26 years. some type of military solution. genuine political reconciliation and the people of pakistan or the government. >> second also look at management. so the people that we are pushing who we believe should come back. but in any case there are bad guys so therefore we have to
is a part of the solution. and that should be the consensus but not to achieve the political objective. for example india has been given a role. we believe to create a situation but pakistan is yet the issue. and then to be engaged or people from afghanistan can be used so we think there has to be a regional consensus not to allow anyone to advance any particular agenda.
>> okay ambassador i've questions from the audience. thisis relates that is there a timeframe that -- set up to let at -- refugees return to afghanistan? >> i am not aware of that but sending registration cards to them more than half of those due from the refugee camp so that gives them a stipend money to the country when they are rife. but that is also expiring soon. then for them to go and live
in afghanistan but that is not enough. how do you create that? so to give those land ownership rights? i don't know if that has been followed through. they allowed them to settle in afghanistan. many will come to pakistan but i think it is only fair to the people that we think of any situation. >> i will stay on this issue
that the afghans president trump talks about decisive action against taliban and other terrorist groups in order to getin the assistance back. is pakistan willing to do that? that is one question and the other is what level of influence do they hold over the afghan taliban? >> pakistan very much would want to push the taliban and the connie because they don't 1000 to bring those relations with your country and then continue on that path. t
and to be there as an observer. then we cannot with a joint statement on the 49th of july by the afghan national security establishment but then as to what t would happen with this tele- band event. one year past a fresh attempt was made and those nations came together united states pakistan and france but this time we were
negotiating who had become the ruler then becomes the leader of the taliban and then we had the sessions that we agree and then we come back and exchange notes andac then but after that to see if we have any leverage with the taliban but that is because putting us through that situation but nevertheless the united states has devised a strategy we
don't know where he finally but we do know that it is for all four countries to continue with any influence that they have to push them to political mainstream. >> given the historical animosity what is the prospect of energy cooperation? >> of course india is a leader of pakistan. but for both countries to stay engaged but at this point in time with leadership i had not ready but if we tell them but
in india. [inaudible] >> there is a question about what is pakistan's vision? what is the official business toward the future? maybe with a little broader is , it refers to china pakistan that was a game changer back then.. with a price tag of $50 billion of investment from china and china soft. so talk a little bit what a
positive scenario economic social scenario is with this question? maybe you could offer how the u.s., there are a lot of scenarios but 15 or 20 years out where the hopes for pakistan economically socially politically? how does china and the u.s. into this? >> all of that in three minutes. [laughter] >> that's why you are a diplomat. >> the investment that the chinese have brought, is in the private sector. the joint ventures including china.
but i believe the future that i see in pakistan leads to both the united states and china. those are the only two that i see for my country. so to go back in time to have such a deeply dense relationship it would not serve both countries well. but with pakistan united states and china. >> please join me to think the ambassador. [applause]
associated press will discuss the latest on the mueller investigation and missing test messages between a senior fbi agent and an fbi attorney. then a look at the trump administration plans to allow oil and gas drilling in the us coastal waters. and the natural resources defense council would join us for that. we are live in columbia south carolina for the next hop on the c-span bus 50 capital store. south carolina lieutenant governor will discuss key public policy issues in the state. be sure to watch these bands washington journal live at seven eastern thursday morning. join the discussion. >> the head of the congressional budget office talked about the us economic outlook and the federal debt at an oversight hearing. they were also asked about healthcare costs. immigration policy and government funding. he testified before the senate budget committee.