 Good morning. My name is Lise Grande and I am the president and CEO of the United States Institute of Peace. USIP is a public institution established by Congress in 1984 to work with partners around the world to prevent and help resolve violent conflict abroad. The Institute is delighted to welcome everyone this morning to a conversation with his Excellency, Dr. Marie Yusef, Pakistan's National Security Advisor. As US troops withdraw from Afghanistan and violence escalates, everyone in the region and everyone involved in Afghanistan is faced with new realities. For Pakistan, most particularly, the future of their relationship with Afghanistan and with the Taliban is of the utmost importance. Beyond Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and India, all nuclear-armed countries, create one of the world's most dangerous strategic stability environments. As partnerships between the US and India, the US and Pakistan, China and India, China and Pakistan, as they evolve, this set of relationships becomes more complex and arguably the region as well. There are many positive opportunities on the horizon that both Pakistan and the United States can seize, including economic cooperation, shared democratic commitments, trade and cultural exchange. We are honored to have his Excellency, Dr. Yusef, here to discuss how Pakistan is approaching these and other issues. Dr. Yusef, we're honored to welcome you back to the Institute. We're also delighted that Ambassador Richard Olson will be moderating our conversation. Ambassador Olson is the former US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan and the former Ambassador to Pakistan. Ambassador Olson is now a Senior Advisor for the Institute's Asia Center. Pakistan has been a central focus of the Institute's Asia program for the past 10 years and we have been present and active in Pakistan since 2013. We invite our virtual audience to submit your questions via the chat function on our website, and to engage with us on Twitter using the hashtag USIP Pakistan. Ambassador Olson, over to you. Thank you very much, Liz, and let me offer to you, Dr. Yusef, my warm welcome back to USIP. It's a real pleasure to have you back here at the Institute. I'm going to jump right into a few questions, if I may, but I do want to remind the audience that if you have questions, please submit them through our website, and we will have a Q&A session with Dr. Yusef at the end of the session. So, Dr. Yusef Moid, you're here on a trip to visit with senior US government officials. I wonder if you can give us a sense of the objectives of your visit and whether they were achieved and what you see as the future of the US-Pakistan relationship and whether cooperation is on the cards. Thank you. Thank you, Rick. Please call me Moid throughout. I'm uncomfortable otherwise. Let me first thank Liz, Andrew, USIP. This is homecoming in the true sense. I haven't been back since I left for Pakistan and took up this position. I was glad to see all colleagues and friends in a place that remains and will remain very near and dear to me. So, Rick, this trip is essentially a continuation of the Pakistan-US engagement that we've been having. In May, the US National Security Advisor and myself, we met in Geneva. It was the first high-level physical contact with the new administration where we discussed how a broad-based holistic relationship should move forward. Certain very specific decisions were taken, one that we will cover the entire gamut of the relationship. It will not be issue-based. We do not want the relationship on both sides to be from any third lens, Afghanistan, China, India, whatever, and also that we should have set goals and timelines on how we move forward. The important point to note is that we are in total agreement that we want to focus on substance, first of all, achieve things, and optics can then be attached to that. That's why people have not been hearing too much about it. I've had these questions even in this town. Why don't we know? Well, because we're very focused on substance, but there's progress on things like climate change. The US was very gracious in providing Pakistan support on COVID and the vaccines. Energy, of course, Afghanistan is the urgent in the immediate, and I know you won't let me go without spending some time on it, so we'll come to that. The meeting I had with my counterpart was a follow-up, essentially, to see where we are, take stock, where we need to change how things are going and where things are okay. I have to say it was a very fruitful trip. We were well received. I was personally very well received, but I think we were well received. I also had a senior colleague from the security side with me because we had to have conversations on the security relationship as well. Positive, constructive, realistic, and that's exactly how we should be moving forward. So I'm actually going back today very happy with the progress. I have to say there's a very concerted effort that I see by the US administration to move this forward and the commitment to the relationship. That's what we came here to affirm, apart from discussing the urgent issues of Afghanistan and the rest. I think it's been a good candidate, not when diplomats say candidate means bad, really candidate, good, focused conversations on how we move forward. That's exactly what we want. Well, that sounds like a very broad agenda, and I think we'll want to try to cover some of those points during the discussion, but I do want to, not surprisingly, as you suggested, jump into the urgent at the beginning and talk a bit about Afghanistan. You may have seen that the UN Security Council issued a statement earlier this week saying essentially that there should not be a return of the Emirate and calling for, well, issuing a violent takeover. And I think that, especially at a lot of point, largely accords with Pakistan's position. Pakistan, as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, does not favor a violent takeover in the current circumstances. But the military situation is difficult, it's fluid, and the Taliban seems to have some advantage. So does Pakistan have a view on how a military takeover can be prevented? Rick, Pakistan's first view is that peace in Afghanistan is non-negotiable for us, and this is not a sort of statement for the gallery. It's an existential issue for us if Afghanistan goes through protracted conflict and instability and continues to do so. Afghans have suffered more than anybody in the past four decades. They deserve peace, this goes without saying. But I think the sentence is incomplete till I also emphasize that Pakistan has suffered for four decades. A war next door has spilt over, had created serious societal distortions. You know that Pakistan still hosts over 3 million Afghan refugees at a time when, you know, even many of the western countries have taken very strong nationalistic positions on this. We don't, we treat Afghan refugees like anybody else. 70% of them work and live across Pakistan. If there is protracted conflict, we fear, and some argue it's inevitable if that happens, a spillover. Spillover in terms of potentially displacement of people, which frankly we are not in a position to entertain at this time, unlike the past. Spillover in terms of if people come, there will be wrong undesirable kind of people who come. The entire Pakistani Taliban sits in Afghanistan across the border from us. They will find opportunity to, you know, target Pakistan even more so than they have been. We fought very hard for the counter-terrorism gains in Pakistan. You've seen it yourself where things were 10 years ago and where we are now. We don't want to lose them under any circumstances. But most importantly, protracted conflict in Afghanistan undermines Pakistan's transformed vision for itself, which is a paradigm focused on geo-economics, which is a paradigm that puts at its core regional connectivity and regional peace. Now you tell me, if Pakistan wants regional connectivity, we have a north-south corridor with China. How do we create a westward corridor from Central Asia? The republics are desperate to have access to Pakistani seas unless Afghanistan is peaceful. How do we talk about regional peace unless Afghanistan is peaceful? How can we tell the investors of the world who are interested in Pakistan that there is a place that's very unstable next to us, but don't worry, that doesn't affect the region? That's not possible. So for us, peace is absolutely non-negotiable. For some others who are far away, maybe it's a priority. I know for the US, it's non-negotiable. But, you know, others may not hurt in the way that Pakistan will. We can't even entertain the question of what happens when there is protected conflict. All our energies are going into and must go into, with the US and Pakistan, visibly partnering on how to get to a political settlement, how to get to what the Troika Plus or the statement that you've mentioned is talking about. A compromise is inevitable. It is not possible for either side to get what they want on the battlefield. There are many other Afghan political actors who have to have a say, but it's Afghans who must decide their future in a room so that we avoid this protected conflict. So you say peace is non-negotiable, and I think probably many people here in Washington would agree that peace is very important. But I suppose the question is how this peace can be brought about? What are the modalities that are necessary? Does Pakistan have a view on that? And especially given that it does seem at the moment that the Taliban is very bent on securing a military victory. And this raises the question. There have been assertions over the years that the Taliban have changed, but it certainly begins to look like the Taliban is the same old Taliban that it has been over the course of decades and is now pursuing what it perceives to be its military advantage. So is peace possible? And if it is, does Pakistan have a way, a modality, a plan for getting there? My instinct whenever I'm asked this question is go back to my scholarly life and quote my own books to tell you why it must be possible, even if the probability may seem low. But I'll resist that temptation and say this much, Rick. I don't think it's important at this point to discuss how much who has changed, how much who will compromise, will the Afghan government do what is needed with the Taliban, with other political actors in Afghanistan, or in the region, or I think we have to test the proposition. I mean, at this point, if we were to go on assumptions that lead us to decide there's no point in having a political conversation or, well, it's actually not going to work out. I'll tell you what's going to happen. And this is, I think, something that needs to be appreciated more for Afghans on the ground, but more so, equally so for Pakistan. 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 and the rest of the 90s are like yesterday. Unless people on the ground are convinced that under US leadership, political leadership, there is an emphasis, a reinvigorated emphasis on seeing the political process through to its logical conclusion. I'm afraid people may think that they have to fend for themselves, because that's the history. I'm not saying that's correct. I know that we are still invested. I know Pakistan and US, I know for a fact, have agreed to work together and move forward. But the messaging on the ground has to be totally clear that we will go to any extent needed in terms of trying to patch this conversation up among Afghans to take it to its logical conclusion, which is, end violence, no forceful takeover, compromise, and find a way forward. So, you know, there are tons of assumptions here. I just don't think we have time for that. Let's focus all our energies to get to this political dialogue with empowered people sitting in the room who can take decisions for all sides, respectively, and move forward. Last question, Mohid on Afghanistan. Wow, that's easy. Good. Well, maybe we'll come back. When you talk about US leadership, what would Pakistan want to see? What would be evidence of US leadership? What is needed in the current moments that perhaps is not being done? First of all, I want to be clear again. The US is engaged, is committed to being engaged, and I think it's unfair when sometimes in our region, the narrative is different. But we have to work more to make this clear that we are both on the same side and working on this. I will say sometimes the noise around, the public noise around. I've been very amused having seen me quoted during this trip of things that are not remotely implied. But that noise then gives a different impression sometimes. But the reality is that we're working together. We are looking towards how to bring this in one place. The methodology can be different. But the signal of a strategic political leadership of the US remaining, the US has to lead this, otherwise this will not, I don't think this will go where we want it to. Of course, the US has to be in the room. And Pakistan will continue to facilitate this conversation as much as we can to get to the outcomes that Troika Plus and everybody else has put out. So I think, I mean, I'm nobody to say what the US should do. I think Pakistan and the US must be seen publicly to be pushing as hard as we can on the same side. Now, there's always this conversation about, oh, what can you do and what can I do? I think that's also the time has passed for that. What we need is to know that here is where we want to go. Here are the parameters acceptable to everybody. As we've discussed, everybody will compromise. The Afghan context will dominate. Rights have to be protected in an Afghan context. They have to agree on the constitution. No force will take over everything. As long as we can get all actors to agree to those parameters, then it's up to them to sit together and figure out what future they want for their country. Whatever methodology anybody thinks is useful for that, that should be applied. But the important point is we have days, we can't afford weeks and months. So this has to move as fast as we can because the situation as we know is very fluid and we shouldn't wait to see where that goes. The final thing on this I will say, we have been very disappointed as a country, extremely disappointed at what the kind of rhetoric and attitude that has been coming out of Kabul towards Pakistan. No other country has done more and people in Pakistan feel very disappointed or disturbed when this happens. I don't want to, I mean, you know more than me what's been coming. Everybody has to work together at this time. It is not right to take a position where the policy seems to be to use Pakistan as a scapegoat and transfer all blame on Pakistan. Everybody's made mistakes, right? But Pakistan has actually suffered for a war that was not of our making. So I would just encourage everybody to be civil about this and let's figure out how to work together. We are still telling the Afghan government we want to help, we've offered an upgraded trade and transit agreement, you know, talking about virtually everything that can get this through. No other country can support Afghanistan's economy like Pakistan just because of geography. We can extend our connectivity. We've even said we should think about co-investment between Pakistan, Afghanistan, US, China, others for Afghanistan's sake. The ROZ legislation I know is again sort of, you know, being tabled. We can set up manufacturing units in Pakistan where Afghan raw materials can be processed, giving Afghanistan a lot of foreign exchange. Keep in mind we're talking of the politics where nobody's really talked about it, about an economic plan yet. So we are very much there, but I personally am very disappointed. It shrinks our space to work positively on this issue when this kind of vitro rhetoric is heard all the time. Okay, I'm going to renege on my promise and ask one last question on Afghanistan. And what does Pakistan bring to the table? Does Pakistan have leverage over the Taliban and can it bring the Taliban to the table? Less and less. When the troops withdraw, the leverage decreases. When the Taliban make gains on the battlefield, logically the leverage decreases. Right? Everybody in the region, including the US, is involved in talking to them directly. Pakistan has never insisted and will not insist. In fact, it's very good for Pakistan if others feel they have the leverage to get to the end point. Our only goal is the end point, which is end of violence and inclusive political settlement based on necessary compromise at this point and moving forward from there. So others can do it. That's absolutely great. Whatever little we can do, we will keep pushing. But frankly, it's not much at this point because it's periodically decreased. It wasn't much to begin with. But I know others have a lot of good contacts, including the US, through the Dua process and otherwise. So everybody should use their leverage on the Taliban, also on the Afghan government, also on everybody else who has to sit in the room to make sure that we get where we want to get. Okay. I would like to shift now to geoeconomics. My understanding is, correct me if I'm wrong, that Pakistan's policy shift announced this year is to shift from a traditional geopolitical strategy to a geoeconomic strategy, which, if I understand it, is leveraging Pakistan's geographic position for economic benefit as opposed to purely security questions. But I suppose the first question will be in that regard. It doesn't, don't outfits like the Pakistan Taliban get a vote in this equation? Is there going to be a persistent security concern about the TTP that would make the implementation of geoeconomics difficult? Yes. I think, look, any security concern will make the implementation of geoeconomics suboptimal. There are three strands to Pakistan's geoeconomic strategy. And by the way, I will mention these are words and, you know, we say these in passing. This is a clear signal from the Pakistani government and state on where Pakistan wants to go. This is the conversation we used to have in this town for years and years. And here it is, you know, situated at the core is economic security. There's tons of conversation in this town over the years, civil, military, whatever. You've heard from every single person in one voice, this is where Pakistan wants to go. It's major. Regional connectivity. We've talked about Afghanistan. How do we get an optimal regional connectivity till we have a corridor of stability or stability in Afghanistan that offers us a corridor of connectivity? The east, unfortunately, is a very sad tale of an acrimonious relationship that's gone on. And I will tell you, Rick, I'll challenge you to tell me what else do you think Pakistan should do to signal that we want to live like civilized neighbors with India. We want to move forward. I have to tell you I've been personally invested and involved. The ideology that is being espoused in New Delhi right now that I'm not saying the world is saying and writing about unfortunately is leaving no space for us to move forward on that. I will also take this opportunity to just say that when we talk about Afghanistan and instability and TTP and other groups, we must also not ignore state actors deliberately perpetrating terrorism and instability inside Pakistan. I'll leave it at that. So connectivity. Second piece, development partnerships. You want to get investors. You want to get corporate America, corporate China, everybody. How do you do that if there is instability or security concerns? And then regional peace underpins all of this and peace within Pakistan. So you're absolutely right. And that takes me back to where I started. Peace in Afghanistan is absolutely non-negotiable. If we have a spillover effect in Pakistan, it hurts our vision. And the vision is everything where, you know, in terms of where a country wants to go. So yes, and that is why we are working very hard on making sure that, you know, no spillover happens from Pakistan. Already there's been an uptake of terrorist violence in some of the border areas, all linked, frankly, to a third country. And that's a problem. And I implore people who study this to see why India is behaving the way it's behaving. But again, I'll leave it at that. You are absolutely right. We cannot afford instability. And that's why we are obsessed, frankly, no less with helping everybody find a settlement in Afghanistan. In shifting the conversation with the United States and others to being about economics rather than about geo-strategy, one of the questions that naturally arises is how does Pakistan, what steps does Pakistan take to encourage investment, to encourage exports, economic reforms? And bearing in mind, you're the national security advisor, not the national economic advisor. But can you give us a sense of what the reform program is that Pakistan has in mind to encourage investment and encourage a conversation about geo-economy? Trust me, my boss asks me more questions about economic security than anything else, because that's really where the focus is. And traditional security as it's linked to economic security, your earlier question. Look, I'm not here to tell you that Pakistan has been a heaven for investors or anything like that. All developing countries have challenges, bureaucratic challenges, red tape. Pakistan has had its fair share. What I can tell you is that this is at the top of the mind of the Pakistani leadership on how we create a more friendly business environment. Now, I think Pakistan is the second or third highest gainer in terms of rankings on ease of doing business. In I think 2020 report hasn't come out by 2019, we will improve further in 2020. This is the rankings, the global rankings. We have drastically cut down on the comparison we do for ourselves with the region. We are now definitely more liberal in terms of how the investors and the trade sort of concessions look. We are one of the very few countries that have recorded net positive growth during COVID. You know how badly the region has been affected. And now the international rating agencies are clearly saying despite COVID that Pakistan is moving in the right direction. Record forex and remittances and whatever. So we do feel confident that we are in a space where more investment and more Pakistan will be lucrative for this, fifth largest market in the world. And you know this better than me, that those American companies and multinationals who work in Pakistan make astronomically higher profits than their global profits. You know, you name it Coca-Cola and I was giving an example yesterday somewhere. One of the former heads of Coca-Cola in the region was at a dinner with me who said 22% profit, which is out of the park. And so yes, challenges. We are working on those very, very, very diligently. But the profits return on equity in Pakistan, I think is higher than ever before and much higher than the comparable destinations for corporate America. The issue, Rick, when it comes to the US is twofold. One is the narrative on Pakistan. And there I'd frankly implore you and request you as USIP and others in town. I'm not asking you to have a positive conversation on Pakistan. I'm not asking you to ignore whatever challenges you think there are. I'm not asking you to agree on everything I say on Afghanistan. But I do think that such an important country, that the USA is such a critical country with a 70-year history of a partnership, does have a conversation in this town about 220 million people, about the fact that it's going to digitization space, about a consumer market, about a re-export potential. Where are those seminars? Where are those conversations? Let's start having a Pakistan studies program and a conversation that that program would have rather than just talk about Pakistan in the terrorism space or whatever that may be. And second is a technical issue. We are working with our US counterparts and inshallah we'll sort of get where we need to, is a sort of lingering travel advisory, which increases insurance premiums and dissuades US companies from going. But as I said, we're working on that. Thanks for that. You've alluded a couple of times to your relationship with India. And I wanted to ask you a bit more about that. Obviously the relationship from Pakistan's perspective is very difficult, but there did seem to be some moments of hope earlier this year. There was a ceasefire along the line of control, which is quite significant. And there are persistent rumors of perhaps a back-channel negotiation between Islamabad and Delhi. Is there any prospect for movement on the India-Pakistan relationship? There's every prospect of movement and Pakistan does in all earnest want to live like a civilized neighbor. If I'm talking geo-economics, how can you have your eastern border closed in terms of connectivity? South Asia is the least integrated region in the world. You know that. There is every prospect of moving forward. If India is serious, is willing to create the enabling environment, and that requires it to reverse what it's done in Kashmir because for Pakistan, the issue of the disputed territory cannot be wished away or relegated to secondary burdens. These are human beings who we're talking about. And I have to tell you, if this were happening anywhere else in the world where interests of other countries aligned better, you would have heard every single day of what is happening in the occupied territories. We are not hearing that. And that is unfair to the humans called Kashmiris. Forget about the territorial part of this, right? So I think more needs to happen. They are just on humanitarian grounds. The situation is horrible, has been horrible. But we, as the Pakistani prime minister has said, you take one step, we'll take two steps. That's why we agreed to have contact. We did have contact. And I have to tell you, let me just say this. If India is sincere, Pakistan is ready. We don't see the signs. I'd like to shift this a little bit to talk about the relationship as it involves China. Of course, China and India have had border clashes, ongoing, sometimes quite heated. How do you see the new dynamics in the region affecting the possibility for escalation? As Pakistan strengthens and deepens its relationship with China, India strengthens and deepens its relationship with the United States. Do you see a greater possibility of a polarization and strategic terms in the region? That's not Pakistan's goal. That's not Pakistan's interest. Pakistan is actually opposed to that. Again, if I talk geo-economics, we are the geography that can be the melting pot for positive global economic interests in the region. We are the country that created the opening for the US in 1970. We are still the country that has very good ties with the US and China and the EU and others. The Muslim world, of course, included in this. I don't think there's any other country that can speak in such a friendly manner to all other Muslim countries in the world. What we have been saying again and again is, why even talk about camp politics and which camp? Pakistan is looking for good development partnerships with the entire world. Nobody has asked us in China to not work with the US. We are a sovereign country. We want to work with everybody. There should be no signals that that could give people a second thought on whether the US is really interested in working with Pakistan in such a positive manner. Again, as I said, very good conversations. I think it's as far from the truth. There is commitment on both sides. But the public narratives sometimes do impinge on this. To be clear, a relationship with China will go from strength to strength. We are strategically aligned in terms of the geography. CPEC is purely an economic initiative, but it has brought billions of dollars into Pakistan for energy, for infrastructure. It's a no-brainer that we will continue to build that relationship. We want our relationship with the US to continue going to new heights as well. That's the way we are approaching this. That's where we want to go with this. Now, I will say one thing. A lot of times the conversation is about Pakistan and China, India and the US. What is the dollar figure of trade between India and China today? I don't know. $80 to $100 billion. Where is Pakistan and China? One-fourth. Somewhere there. So, is this a logical conversation? We hear that the US, Indo-Pacific, and all of that. Great sovereign decision. You do that. As long as it's not targeted at Pakistan, the important thing to keep in mind, Rick, is that no action by anybody should embolden a country to create further instability in the region. That, I think, is the important point to note. Why do some concerns come up if I were to be honest? Again, a sovereign US decision, how to operate with India, we are not in a zero-sum game. Absolutely not. Military sales, technology, building up India, perhaps as a counterweight to China, whatever it may be. Blocking technology to Pakistan, blocking platforms to Pakistan, even non-US technology to Pakistan. Whatever the reason may be. But then the minds in Pakistan ask this question of people like me, who are sometimes seen to be too soft on the question of the US. Is this for real? You are telling us it's such an important relationship. This is what we are reading and seeing. So, again, I repeat, we've had very good conversations. I have no doubt about the commitment on both sides. We are moving forward. But these things do come up, so I should mention it, that there should be nothing that anybody can pick up in Pakistan and say, is the US really asking us to go into further towards China? Is it not interested? That's not the reality, but the optics. Today is a day when one cannot forget. It coincidentally happens to be the 5th of August, two years from India's unilateral and blatantly illegal actions in Kashmir. Now, what are we saying for regional stability and moving forward? What we are saying is, there is international law. Just follow that. There's international humanitarian law. There's human rights paradigms. There's the UNSC resolutions. Just follow that. Pakistan and India have bilateral agreements, the Shimla Accord, through which we have to solve all problems bilaterally. Just follow that. And we will get to a solution according to the rules and norms of international law. What we are picking up is everything 180 degrees diametrically opposed and largely silenced from the world. That's what bothers us. And today happens to be the day, so I must mention, it's been two years. And all we are saying for now, have the humanitarian conversation first at least. Let's get lives back to normal, solve the problem as per UNSC and other resolutions. One of the concerns, of course, about India and Pakistan is that there have been periodic crises along a lot of control. And the ceasefire, as I mentioned, is most welcome in that regard. But in the crises in the recent past, Pulwama, Balakot, there was seemed an escalatory cycle that was in danger of getting out of control. In the past, the United States has tried to play a helpful role in that regard. I've done that myself in a previous life. Is that role changing? Is there an expectation that China will play more of a role in de-escalating crises? Is China interested in de-escalating crises? Does it have the credibility on both sides and is the US being replaced in that regard? You know that my last book was on India-Pakistan crisis and looking at third-party intervention. I have to say, thankfully, I haven't thought about my book at all since I left. But as a policy person now, I think that's not the conversation I'm entertaining, as a scholar maybe. As a policymaker, the conversation I am more interested in is what are the factors, the variables and the developments that may make a crisis more likely? I want to prevent. I don't want to manage. Yes, of course, we have to have those protocols and whatever that may be. Emboldening of one of the parties to the conflict or acrimony or whatever, when it has shown that it is willing to cross over an international border of a nuclear power to satisfy whatever domestic political concerns or pressures it may have, when it got the response that it deserved and still managed to turn that around into a domestic political conversation of, we've taught Pakistan a lesson or whatever, where should you point to the country that is saying, geo-economics, connectivity, move forward, solve disputes between us? That is the one who initiated the conversation about the LOC understanding. I have to be clear about this. For months, Pakistan was saying it and when India said we're ready, we said absolutely we don't want to kill innocent people, nobody should. But innocent people were dying because of Indian shelling and everything else. There's only one capital this conversation needs to happen because if that capital is ready to behave as neighbors should and find a way forward, we won't have to manage any crisis. At this point, frankly, there is, unless you tell me, I don't know what a conversation with Pakistan looks like because we're saying everything that we're saying and we have absolutely no interest in crises in the region because that hurts our vision. Last point, I have to go back to this. You can't just expect that somebody continues to create instability in my country and we just keep looking the other way. These are the things that need to be discussed with another capital, not us and hopefully, if better sense prevails, we won't have to talk about management. Final question and then we're going to turn to the audience. I encourage our members of the audience to send in questions through our website. You spoke about the humanitarian situation in Kashmir and Pakistan has been quite prominent in calling for the rights of the Kashmiri people. But the position of Pakistan in contrast with regard to the Uighurs, fellow Muslims in China, does not seem to attract the same attention. I wonder if you can explain the difference between how Pakistan views the situation with regard to the Kashmiris and with regard to the Uighurs? I think, first of all, the comparison is misfounded. In case of Kashmir, I'm talking about my territory which is disputed, internationally recognized and I'm talking about people who I as Pakistan know do not want to be in the situation that they're in and they want to be with somebody else. I mean, you have to have a plebiscite to decide that. That's what we've been asking for. So I think there's no comparison. It's like talking about somebody in Texas and somebody somewhere else. We are nobody as a country to interfere in another country's affairs. That said, I will tell you very clearly, we have a relationship with China which is so transparent that we can have every single conversation we want and generate confidence in the responses that we give to each other. Every conversation we want happens in private as we want it. China is totally transparent with us. We have even visited the region and we do not share the western depiction of this conversation. That said, I think rather than asking this question to me frankly, everybody has access at the state level to have these conversations directly if that is of interest. For Pakistan, Kashmir is our issue and I think it's very unfair to compare it with anywhere else, frankly, not only that. But as I told you, our relationship is so confident, so transparent that we can have any and every conversation we want and get comfortable with it. Okay, thank you. Let's turn to questions from the audience. Your recent interview in the Financial Time touches on a lack of a phone call between President Biden and Prime Minister Khan. Do you feel that the mistrust between Pakistan and the Biden administration is so high that President Biden is not willing to engage with PM Khan? I'm so glad this question has come up. Sometimes I don't understand how media operates. You read your own interview and then you say, really? Look, we are talking substance rake. I'm not here to discuss form and optics. Those come with substance, right? If President Biden makes a call to the Pakistani Prime Minister, we'll welcome it. If for whatever reason there is a decision or an inability or a schedule which doesn't allow it, that's fine. We are moving on substance. I'm here talking. If there was distrust, if there was some signal, would I be here? I think a non-issue has been made into such a big issue. Interestingly, the same with use of interviewed by the same US media, look at what Bloomberg has reported, look at what AFP has reported and whatever. The point is very simple. We should focus on substance. This noise will continue. And there are reasons for this noise. I've told you this. Some in Pakistan question. I mean, is this for real? Is it going where we are saying it's going? So the more visible the progress is, the better it is. But it should be based on reality. It should be based on whatever we are doing. This, I think, somebody scored points. Good luck. It's not a conversation. We're not bothered. Whenever we want to talk, we talk. Simple as that. So it's a non-issue from your perspective. You tell me. When you talk substance, why would this conversation even come up frankly? Right? Whenever we welcome it. Whenever not, if the substance wasn't working, I would be saying something very different because the substance is working so well. I know it is not a question of any mistrust or any signal or anything like that. Let's leave this aside. This noise is not good for the relationship. We need to move forward. That's it. And we are moving forward. Okay. Speaking of media noise, we have a question on media freedom. During the past three years, Pakistan has witnessed a dangerous clampdown on freedom of expression and media. While Pakistan claims to have pivoted away from security concerns, the state has justified silence in journalists based on security. How would you reconcile this and what threat do you see journalists is posing to Pakistan's security? Sorry, I'm reading it because it's easier that way. Pakistan has had an issue in terms of security of journalists in the past because of the insecurity in some regions of Pakistan. When we were going through that counter-terrorism campaign, you know, I mean, we have 80,000 direct effectees, $150 billion lost. And in that period, yes, I mean, our children were being blown up, right? Pakistanis were being martyred every single day. And so, yes, it wasn't a completely safe environment. No question about it. Since then, nobody can say that Pakistan is in the position it was and it is now. Now, I would just urge everybody to make sure we don't jump to conclusions about any lack of freedom or action on any count when you see the first tweet about something. Pakistan is a country that has struggled in the West, unfortunately, and I would say very unfairly in the narrative domain. So, it sticks. You say something and, you know, and somebody else says something negative about Pakistan, it sticks. It is almost an urge I find sometimes because the negativity makes a story. Every single incident that comes up we investigate and whatever needs to be done if there is a problem, it is resolved. What I will tell you, Rick, is that this government has invested more time in human rights writ large and freedom. Even though I know the narrative is different when it's heard in the West, we are really committed to this. I hope you won't expect somebody like me sitting where I'm sitting and condoning anything less. So, that is happening. Anything that comes up, we do actually very seriously look at it. But being in the position I mean friends were telling me just before this event that every time I read something about you in the news, I think about whether Mohit would have said this or it's been quoted out of context. Pakistani media is, you know, we have 100 TV channels, newspapers. They don't spare us. Let me just say this much, me included. And that's good. We need to have critique. We need to have conversations. That's how states improve. And I personally, of course, but the state is very much open to that. Well, there is of course a robust media environment in Pakistan, but there have been these allegations of disappearances and journalists being called in for interviews, in some cases having disappeared temporarily or unfortunately in some cases permanently. So, it does seem to the outside that despite some serious progress in some human rights areas, including the banning of torture, which was recently passed through the legislature, that there has been a deterioration of the space for civil society and freedom of expression. I wouldn't agree with that at all. I wouldn't agree that there's been deterioration in any way. I mean, I've been part of the civil society for so long, worked there, ran a U.S. organization in Pakistan. There are challenges. There's no question about it, as there are in any other country. Frankly, if you look at the civil society space in the region, the trend is going in the opposite direction. I mean, look at India, look at other countries. Pakistan is not at all signed up to that. Let me just say this much. We have zero tolerance for any incidents that bring bad name to Pakistan. And media freedom is probably top of the list because it's the media, right? You've seen in Pakistan, Rick, the media cover and talk about Pakistan officials in a way that I promise you will not be tolerated for one second in this country. Just go back and look at what the media has said about Pakistan's national security advisor, Pakistan's army chief, Pakistan's prime minister, everybody. It's not what response have we given. And I can tell you about myself. I don't know about others. Each one of them is untrue. And if you don't know that, then I don't know who knows it, right? But it is not true that we clamp down. If there are incidents, if there are any weaknesses, we are working on that because each story gives us a bad name, and we don't want that. Next question. And I'm going to still read it so that our audience knows what we're talking about. The horrendous case of Nur-Mukaddam's murder in Islamabad has raised the issue of violence against women in Pakistan. Most female victims do not enjoy the same level of attention, nor do they receive justice. The serious threat to women across Pakistan, a lack of recourse to justice is an internal security threat. How does Pakistan plan to address this as a societal and structural problem? Number one, it is not an internal security threat. It's a national security threat. That is why even in our new national security policy, which is part of what I have to look after, gender insecurity is a key pillar. No modern country can progress without empowering women. It's as simple as that. In terms of employability, in terms of space, in terms of safe space, if we want to go where we want to go, we have to do this. Sorry, you've taken away the question if you don't mind. I'm reminding myself of what I had to answer. This case that has been mentioned has really shaken up the country. Yeah. Terrible case. Terrible case. But clearly we know already it's an individual, a state of mind, which is of course not representative anywhere of any other. But really, I can't explain it. The difference, Rick, is we are under this government very openly, not only passing legislation, not only bringing in rules, but talking about any problem we have. And if there is any concern, the worst way to address it is shove it under the rug. We're having open conversations. That's why legislation is there. That's why the rules are there. They're being implemented. I would tell you honestly, more is being done in terms of women empowerment under this government than ever before. It may not make the news because that's the positive story, but it's happening. And we are very much committed to this because, as I said, without further empowering women, we now have, as you know, parliamentary quotas, we have very senior officials. The public space is now actually rife with very, very sort of capable colleagues. And we need to do more and we will continue to do more. Okay. Next question concerns Al-Qaeda and Daesh. How much of a threat are Al-Qaeda and Islamic State Coruscant to regional stability right now? How does Pakistan see the threat evolving? To what extent have they spread beyond Afghanistan? I really don't know. I don't have the up-to-date information on where they are. You know what I know. I didn't sort of check up on this before I came, frankly. What I will tell you is this is where, if Pakistan and U.S. are not seen committed to being on the same side, this disease will raise its head again for the region and beyond. Look, Rick, let me make a slightly controversial point. History will judge us whether we all collectively, as the international community, made the same mistakes we promised we would never make the mistakes of the 1990s or have we really moved away. Pakistan's insistence is we must, must move away completely. So anything that harkens back to that is bad. You create a security vacuum. You can call it Al-Qaeda or ABC. There will be these actors that will find space. Pakistan cannot afford it. Maybe something that countries far away can afford it. We've just gone through 20 years knowing that we don't want to go there. So if anybody is thinking about this that, you know, this is now going to be only the region's problem, that's, you know, that I just don't know how somebody can say that, frankly. And so it is critical that we have a clear framework to make sure that shared threats do not arise. Pakistan's already made clear that it will only do what it can and what it says. And wherever that sweet spot of mutual threat analysis is, you know, Pakistan, US, and others should work on that. Otherwise, frankly, this problem will remain. Let me also say I heard from somebody that I had said that if it's not the US and Pakistan, Pakistan has other options. Let me be categorical. Neither Pakistan nor the US have a better option. We have to work together to make sure that the history of the 90s in Afghanistan is not repeated because what came at the end of that, nobody in the right mind wants to consider. Next question is about the financial action task force. Please discuss any concrete measures that Pakistan has taken to address the Fatif concerns. And more broadly, I would add, where do you see the Fatif process going? This would take about an hour to respond to. That's how much Pakistan is done. But I don't want to go into the details. Let me just put it this way. We got the most onerous action plan, country plan. Every country has weaknesses in financial systems. We need it to improve and we are improving. Fatif's own report tells us that we have completed 26 out of the 27 agenda items that were provided to us. And then there's another process in which I think there were 70 odd and we've got to, you know, all but maybe three or four or whatever. So progress has been intense. It's a whole of government effort not to satisfy anybody else, but because our own investment financial landscape suffers. Right? The problem has been explained better than I could by the Indian external affairs minister last month, where he said triumphantly that India has ensured that Pakistan remains in the Fatif, so-called gray list. I'm paraphrasing. These were not his words. It's a technical forum where serious, powerful countries sit and evaluate countries to make sure their financial systems are not being misused for terrorism. We have approached it as a technical forum and here is another country inditing all the Fatif members by saying we've influenced it politically. Where does this leave the conversation? We have constantly said, tell us where we are deficient and we'll work on that. And Fatif's own regulatory system or whatever the the chart or whatever you call it says that if a country has achieved all or nearly all, there is no justification for it. So if 26 out of 27 is not nearly all, I'm not sure what the definition of nearly is. The point is, Rick, for our own sake in our national interest, just like out of Afghanistan policy and the conversation is purely in Pakistan's selfish national interest, in our selfish national interest, we have done more than any country would have done in this short period of time. Now we find countries who are weaker in their protocols, financial protocols are in the so-called white list and we are still in the gray list. And the conversation now seems to be about terrorism and other things, not financing of terrorism. We find it unfair. I think technically we've completed and done it's an ongoing process. We will keep improving. But nobody has been able to tell us why on technical grounds Pakistan should still be where it is. And I think, as I said, the Indian official has made it absolutely clear why this may be the case. We don't say that. We are still saying it's a technical forum. It shouldn't be influenced. He seems to suggest that he's successfully influenced. It's very sad if that's true. I'm afraid, unfortunately Moeid, we are out of time. So once again, welcome back to USIP. It's a pleasure to talk to you on the center stage here and do come visit us again. Thank you very much. Let me end by, if you allow me, reiterate. If anybody has any concerns or second thoughts about the positivity in the Pakistan-US relationship, remove that. This trip has been good. I want to thank everybody who has received me, including USIP. We have a plan. We are moving forward. We are on the same side. That said, my last word would be, whatever's happened in Afghanistan, we're in a difficult situation, all of us. This is not the time to look around and see where to shift the blame. We could go on and on. But we do sense, not here, but elsewhere, that Pakistan is being used as a scapegoat. That's not healthy for anybody. You know this more than me. How closely Pakistan, US, and others have worked on this issue. You know how much Pakistan has lost. And it really then makes a positive conversation very difficult back home when we hear this. And then people start talking about, is the US serious? Got nothing to do with the US, but that conversation happened. So let's remain positive. Again, a very, very good trip. But the best part of that trip has been that I've come back to USIP. I'm sitting in the chair opposite to what I'm used to. Thank you very much for receiving me, Liz and Andrew. And anything we can do for you back home, you're always available. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.