 Good morning. My name is George Perkovich. I'm a vice president for studies here at the Carnegie Endowment, and it's my pleasure to welcome you this morning. We're honored and happy to receive and present to you, Ambassador Azaz Ahmed Chowdhury, from Pakistan. I first met him, my colleagues and I, when he was foreign secretary, which he was from late 2013 to early 2017. So he's come to Washington to escape the great burdens of being foreign secretary. I have a feeling the burdens here are quite large in and of themselves. He's had a very distinguished career in the Pakistani Foreign Service. Those of you who know him will know him as a quite formidable partner in dialogue and counterpart in debate, and that's one of the reasons that we're very pleased to have him here this morning. He is going to talk about his perspective of the international situation broadly, then the dynamics within South Asia and then within Pakistan itself, and then we will open it up to a discussion from you all. So please join me in welcoming Ambassador Chowdhury. Thank you, George, and thank you also to Carnegie for inviting me, and thank you all for coming here this morning. It is true that after foreign secretary ship, any post would probably be lighter, except perhaps Washington, where so much happens. And honestly, I have said it publicly also many times that of all the places I have served, this is the most interesting capital of the world, because it's not just the executive that you deal with, but you also deal with a whole lot other centers of influence, including think tank community. And therefore, the job here is very, very interesting, and I'm really happy that my government chose me to represent Pakistan in this country. Ladies and gentlemen, as George indicated, I'll speak about my understanding of where the world is headed, and then we'll zoom into South Asia and then to my own country's policies in that larger context. In my view, the world is in a state of flux, in a state of change, and is changing rapidly, actually has changed from the time that I started observing it rather closely. And major power rivalry is now intensifying. We think that there are serious question marks now on the unipolarity of the world led by the United States. With rising China and resurgent Russia, we can see that rivalry kicking in. I remember the time when years ago, 25, 30 years ago when I was doing my master's in Tufts University, that was the year 1989. And the Berlin Wall, we saw in the dormitories sitting there, coming down, and there was a great deal of euphoria, everyone felt that the world has now reached a stage where the Cold War would end, and we will have one happy global village around us. And you would remember that the globalization generated a lot of enthusiasm and optimism. And I spent couple of years, in fact, quite a few years in United Nations, and I know that this whole concept of mega-conferences started to build a socioeconomic normative framework on the premise that the whole world would now be based and governed by those common values. We had these conferences on children to start with in 1990, but then the Rio Conference on Environment in 1992, Humorites Conference in 1993, and so on, and because I dealt with all of them, so I remember them by name. And we all felt that, in fact, some of the scholars got so much carried that they even wrote End of History. They thought that the values of the French Revolution and the American Revolution are the ultimate nirvana, and this is End of History. Of course, it was premature call because then there were counter-arguments, and it kept happening. Fast-forwarding to this period now, all that we had imagined is honestly not exactly the way it has turned out to be. When the United States decided to pivot its policies towards Asia, most of the people in Asia and the analysts perceived it as a Cold War style containment of China policy. The Chinese reacted their own way and they launched what is called BRI, Belt and Road Initiative, or sometimes referred to as One Belt, One Road, which touches 67 countries. Both in Asia and Europe. And with this rivalry kicking in, we don't see any genuine, robust security mechanisms in place. UN Security Council is divided. Shanghai Cooperation Organization is still relatively nascent. NATO, under President Trump, is still evolving its role. In East Asia, which was the scene of so many changes recently and happenings, there's no regional security mechanism in place. So we see a world at this strategic plane which is now being affected by major power rivalry and there are people who are writing about it. Last year, when I read Richard Haas's book, A Bird in Disarray, I thought that was the scene I was not very sure about, but I think he was right spot on. It was, I think, fall of 2016. Several months down the line, I read last week another book by Graham Ellison destined for war, where he's predicted, I says, could or provided or in case they enter into suicide disease trap. And I don't have to explain suicide disease trap here, but the point he was making was that if you study history, you would discover that world has come onto these situations before. When a prevailing dominant power sees an emerging power, then the war becomes inevitable. But there have been situations when you can anticipate that situation and actually control it. So that's the point of the war. The point is not to predict a war, but to say that it could happen and therefore we need to. So I think most of the analyses that we are reading now are moving in that direction and that has what has made the world so uncertain at this strategic plane. In the security domain, I see no different. I see that the threat of transnational terrorism still continues. Bulk of Middle East and North Africa is still unstable. We also see that there's no singular power that is leading the transnational terrorism for a while, Al-Qaeda was. But now there are local franchises, Boko Haram or Al-Shabaab or Taliban or the others who are now propelling that. The Korean peninsula remains on the brink of war thanks to the provocative policies of the regime there. We also see Afghanistan testing of the United States. And the sources of insecurity have multiplied from conventional imbalances to nuclear, to cyber insecurity and you were in the office just referring to an enormously important subject of how to control the nuclear cyber attacks, possible attacks on the command and control of nuclear systems. So that is something, food insecurity and so on. When I see the world from yet another perspective, which is socioeconomic, again it reinforces my perception or thesis or understanding. Europe, which has led the world for considerable periods of time in history, remains economically stagnant, although North is doing better than South. We see that migration pressures have now projected or started projecting immigrants as a security or economic threat. Immigrants who used to be treated as a virtue as something which was a blessing because they would reinforce the manpower of any country are now being treated as or being viewed by certain segments as a security threat or an economic threat. We see climate change considerations being trumped by big business concerns. There also we see international trade, actually, for which we struggled for decades, actually, to bring down the barriers and we see the protectionist tendencies going back up. We see narrow nationalism, challenging globalization and globalism. And those of us who have read history know time and again how dangerous sometimes these narrow nationalism focus can be and is. So this is a world, whether you see it from strategic perspective or from security angle or from socioeconomic domain, I see a world in sort of disarray. The world order that was created so painstakingly by this country in the lead after World War II, I think that whole world order is under stress and we don't know yet what would replace it. And therefore I do also see a great opportunity therein to shape it the way we need to shape it. We need to bring back some of the energy that we had seen in the past to reshape it in a manner that the whole world benefits from our resources, from our living as a whole. Let me zoom into our own region, South Asia. Situation in South Asia is not much different either. India and China have an uneasy peace. India and Pakistan are not talking. Afghanistan remains not in a good shape. Actually, security situation has deteriorated by all accounts. And Iran next door had a nuclear deal negotiated after 10 years of hard work. There are question marks on that nuclear deal now. Pakistan being a neighbor of course is directly affected by what happens there. So the situation is uncertain in South Asia as well. And how has my country done under these uncertain times and unpredictable situations? I think we have not done that bad. I think there are four areas on which I would like to focus on. First is, of course, the threat of terrorism. Since 9-11, bulk of our national energy was spent on countering this menace. And this was something that we had suffered even before 9-11. And it all started for us with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. When five million refugees moved into Pakistan and along came the Kalashnikov culture and drugs and criminal mafia. And the whole concept of Afghan jihad emerged. And madrasas came up. And when the Soviets decided to withdraw several years later these militants, they stayed back. And after 9-11, when the United States focused on Afghanistan the way it did and specially bomb Torobora, many of these militants, they moved into Pakistan or the mountains, straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan. And when the then president of Pakistan decided to become a member of the international coalition and I saw his picture in your office, you meeting him. We became a legitimate target for the militants. And they started attacking our installations, our facilities, our towns, our schools, what have you. From 2004 to 2014, all hell broke loose and we suffered enormously. As many as 150 attacks per month on the average were witnessed. Any nation under such tremendous pressure would have gone broke. Until 2014 when the politicians of Pakistan they got together and they said that enough is enough. We need to do something about it. The series of political conferences were held in 2013 and 2014 and they arrived at a consensus that violence and terrorism under any protection or any cause is unacceptable. And with that the military moved into, into the North Fizeristan area and cleared up. The following three years saw nothing but a decline in terrorist incidents in Pakistan, clearing up of all the hideouts and the safe havens and the IED factories and training grounds and the tunnels and whatever else they had made in that area. Today, as we speak, we have cleared the entire tribal areas of Pakistan. So there's not a single safe haven left anywhere. If there is any sporadic movement of terrorists here and there, of course that needs to be counted and we are going to counter that with and without any cooperation from others. But I think it will be a much better job if all the regional countries are cooperating because these people are no friend of humanity, they're no friend of Pakistan. But our job is not done yet. I think we have to address the very mindset to which in the first place gives rise to these extremists and this kind of behavior. And we are still struggling to do that. And remember the narrative that these people had created was a simple narrative, but a powerful one given the circumstances prevailing in the tribal areas. Tribal areas is a place where deliberately because of the major power rivalries in the 18th and the 19th century, this area was kept without external governance. It was the Russian Empire and the British India which deliberately kept it like that. And therefore, the militants found themselves a vacuum where they could easily settle in. And the narrative that they read to the natives there was that the Soviets, and they call them infidels, they came to Afghanistan and we have pushed them out. And now the Americans are there and we are going to push them out again. And since it is a holy duty, you must support us. So this was a very short, concise narrative that they spread and there were takers there for this. But we know that it was a flawed narrative. What is so holy about shedding blood on the streets and in the schools, even in the mosques and elsewhere? But somebody had to expose that. And that is what that consensus did three years ago. And they made our job easy, although at a huge cost to us by attacking a school in Peshawar in December of 2014 where they mercilessly killed 137 children, children of those army officers and security forces officers militants in the tribal areas as a revenge. And after that, even the far right of the political fringes in Pakistan said these people are nothing but barbarians. And we have never looked back ever since. The military operation that happened in Pakistan had a full ownership, national ownership of the people of Pakistan. Show me one statement, and I'll say all right, you are right. Not even one statement. Throughout, because everybody felt that these people are a big liability. These people don't belong to us. So ever since we have been running after them and chasing them, and we will continue to do so. Many of them have moved into Afghanistan where they find an easy space now because they have so much area available. But some of them moved into the urban centers of Pakistan and therefore we need to sniff them out of that. So we launched another operation, Rabdul Fassad, which means defeating the mischief. And so we're gonna, because there is a now, the whole nation has moved on to it. So we're doing well at one level. We have done considerably well. Huge cost, 6,000 soldiers, 23,000 civilians. But we're happy that we have shown it at a time and in a region which is still grappling with terrorism. That terrorism can be defeated and can be reversed. The second area that we have worked on is the economy. With improved law and order, and there are a number of reports, including reports that are coming from the United States. For the second consecutive year, the number of terrorist incidents has gone drastically down. So with improved law and order, economic situation has picked up and investments have poured into the country. Of course, the biggest source of investment for us remains China, but so are the Europeans and the Koreans and the Turks and others and now also corporate America. In fact, for the last several months now, I see corporate America rushing into Pakistan and setting themselves ablaze. And I think they are preparing for a time from next year when we expect that the major projects of what is called CPAC or China, Pakistan, Economic Corridor would come on show. For the last three years, all this investment has gone into energy sector. And only a few days ago, we have now achieved the zero load shedding mark, which means that energy demand and supply have now met. But the number of projects that are still on shore would probably create an energy surplus, which we need because next year when we set up the economic zones, we'll probably need that energy. The other source of destination of investments has been infrastructure, particularly the roads and highways in Balochistan, which will be probably the most common and frequently used route for China, Pakistan, Economic Corridor over 1,100 kilometers of roads have been built only just last three years. Very little is known to people about this because they focus a lot on what's not good rather than what's happening. But those who need to know, like corporate America, they see all that. And they see and they make their own policies and they make their own judgments. The third area is the youth Baloch of Pakistan. We are a young country. 207 million according to the census that was held a couple of months ago. 60% of which, 58% of which is below the age of 30. That's very young. It's a big asset at a time when Europe is aging, China too, but it's also an asset only if we use them well, if they are skilled. And it would be a liability if we don't. That we have to keep in mind. The fourth area is the politics in Pakistan. The democratic processes in Pakistan is now into 11th year of its consolidation. We have not been very fortunate. Our democratic process was interrupted four times. But this time around, I think we are staying on the course. Although it is noisy, people of Pakistan are discovering that the democratic processes are by definition noisy. But we are staying the course. We think that's the best way. In the process, there's a lot of focus on the values of accountability and transparency and good governance, which I believe should be the hallmark of any democratic process. Let me turn a little to our neighbors, Afghanistan. The situation, unfortunately, in Afghanistan is not that optimistic in my view. I think the security situation has deteriorated and it has emerged as a singular most challenge for Pakistan as well. I'll talk more about it when I talk about Pakistan-U.S. relations. With India, of course, we need to have a peaceful coexistence. Unfortunately, both India and Pakistan have not been able to realize the benefits that can accrue from a peaceful coexistence and good neighborliness. I'll go into details if there are questions on that. I think it's a learned audience. Most people know what I am talking about. With China, of course, we have a very solid, strong relationship and stays that way. But we have said time and again that our relationship with China is not at the expense of our relationship with the United States. It's not a zero sum game for us. And why we say that is because we go back 70 years of relationship with the United States. It is a country that stood with us in very difficult times. And we stood with the United States in their own global objectives, be it 50s and 60s or 80s or 2000s. The two countries worked very closely with each other. They have benefited whenever they worked together and they have not when they didn't. And therefore, there is every reason for people like me to keep hammering the point that we need a balanced relationship between our relations with China and our relations with the United States. I think the United States still remains the singular most important country for us. The United States is destination of our large exports. It is home to a million plus Pakistani diaspora. The United States is still a partner in many of the interactions between the two countries from education and health to IT and commerce and trade to counter terrorism to defense and to agriculture. And it's a large spectrum across which the two countries cooperate. Even without the two governments getting involved. I have seen and I have actually experimented for myself to see that if I take Pakistan government away and if I take United States government away, I still see a robust cooperation going on people to people in different areas. Agriculture, for example, it stemmed from when UC Davis in California and Pakistan's Agriculture Institute, they decided to cooperate and we had a green revolution. And United States was viewed at that time, I remember, as a highly benevolent country and state and friend of Pakistan. I remember the handshake of the flags of the two countries pasted and posted on all the railway wagons. And that's the kind of association that we've had. And even now, some of your leading universities are engaged in precision agriculture in Pakistan. So it's a relationship that we value and we want to maintain and we want to strengthen. But we also know that there are some challenges in this relationship and one challenge that has emerged higher than all others is Afghanistan. And it is ironical because we both see Afghanistan situation with objectives which are similar, although the approaches are different. Pakistan wants to see stability in Afghanistan because we have suffered the most. When Soviets left, we suffered and when you guys leave, we will suffer. And therefore we want Afghanistan to stabilize because we have seen time and again that instability flows across the porous borders towards Pakistan. United States wants to stabilize Afghanistan too. That's my understanding. United States has spent billions, 680 billions plus and 21 billion per year recurring. And of course it has also paid through American lives. So it's a huge investment that United States has made and would not like to leave Afghanistan in a state that was prevailing before 9-11. That was the whole objective for you to go in to make sure that Afghanistan does not have ungoverned spaces that would be used by the militants of the world to stage the kind of attacks that they did on 9-11. But where is it now? According to the latest report from SIGAR, which is the Senior Inspector General on Afghanistan, reconstruction. 43% of the territory is now not under government control, which means that nearly half of that big country is available to the militants of the world. And look what, the Daesh is coming, streaming into the country. Earlier we had reports that they were in the three Eastern provinces bordering Pakistan, but now we hear that they have moved on to the North as well. The province is bordering of Tajikistan. So if Pakistan wants to see Afghanistan stabilized and United States wants to see Afghanistan stabilized, that means it's only the approach of method and approach of how you want to accomplish it. Otherwise the objective is the same. And that's what we are now trying to have those conversations. Secretary Tillerson was in Pakistan yesterday, Secretary Mattis was in Pakistan, and those conversations are beginning to happen. We believe that a cooperation of the sort that we showed when we took up the challenge of decimating al-Qaeda is needed. We captured with active cooperation more than 600 al-Qaeda operatives. Today if you don't hear the threat of al-Qaeda, it's because we were working together. And who can deny the synergy that comes out of cooperation? And therefore we are still pleading with the US that we are not on different sides of the aisle, that we need to work together to shrink the space of these militants, and we will. I'm very confident because the conversations that we are now having are beginning to move in that direction. But of course it would require a much bigger comprehensive approach, not just counter-terrorism approach. Afghanistan is much more than just counter-terrorism. You need a politically stable outfit there. You need reconciliation. You need to deal with drugs. Drug is a big issue actually for Pakistan, which becomes a transit state. According to your own statistics here, 43% increase in one year, and thousands of times of increase since 9-11. And that is now fueling the war economy there. We got to deal with it because we suffer, and so others neighbors do as well. So therefore I think we need to approach Afghanistan. Border management for us is a big issue. We want to close the border. We don't want bad guys to cross over from Afghanistan to Pakistan, or from Pakistan to Afghanistan, do bad things and return. We don't want that for that. And we have counted that in the last 128 incidents of terrorism in Pakistan. 125 have been motivated by people who have come from Afghanistan. That is the kind of statistics that people don't know, because we have not allowed any safe havens to leave. Many of them moved across the border in Afghanistan and they are there. And that's the conversation we are having with the U.S. authorities, that while you are looking for safe havens in Pakistan, they are actually there. And we've shared with you the coordinates. But I'm very confident that the direction that we are now moving in will probably lead, and yesterday's visit to the best of my information and knowledge was very constructive and positive. I think I would like to pause here because I promise to you that I'll speak about 20, 25 minutes. I could go on, but I think we'll probably benefit much more if we have Q and A session. So gentlemen and ladies, let me just once again sum up that in my view, the world is in a state of flux, in a state of disarray. And that is a challenge, but it also opens up enormous opportunities for all of us to put our act together and recreate this synergy that we did right after World War II, which gave us seven decades of peaceful world. So thank you so much for your attention. God bless you, God bless America, God bless Pakistan. Good. Do you, Ambassador, do you want to stand up there to have the discussion or would you like to sit here? I can sit here, whatever you tell me. It's as you prefer. Okay, so I'd like to sit with you. Okay, can everybody see in the back if you see? If I sit down? Is that okay? All right, okay, there is thumbs up. So we're going to open up for discussion. You know the drill. Somebody wants to, somebody needs to open it up. So I think you're on. I'm on? Okay. And introduce yourself and where you're from and I will interrupt long speeches. Let's start with the lady here and then we'll go to the author behind you. Hello, thank you so much for doing this. I'm Emily Tampkin. I'm a staff writer at Forum Policy. And my question is, I mean, you sort of touched on some of the themes, but my question is specifically about the Coalition Support Fund. It's still frozen. I was wondering after the visit, the Mattis visit, the Tillerson visit, has there been any progress? If not, sort of what's the holdup and what's your perspective on that issue? Thank you. Certainly, thank you. We did not talk about Coalition Support Fund. Coalition Support Fund is an obligation that United States has and it is for the United States to fulfill that obligation. It is a reimbursement of the expenses. It's not an aid package. But United States has chosen in its own wisdom to fence some of it. That's their own decision. We think that the reason for which it is being fenced is not right. We have said it time and again that Taliban and Haqqanis are no friend of Pakistan. They are Afghans and they should be moving into Afghanistan. And that's exactly what we are doing. And to the best of my knowledge, they have already bulked of them who have moved into Afghanistan. The leadership of Pakistan has taken a position that we want to base our relationship with the United States, not on the basis of aid. It should not be a donor-recipient relationship. It should be a relationship based on mutuality of respect and mutuality of benefit. And that's my take on CSF. Thanks, George. Bob Hathaway will introduce himself, but he has a new book coming out. And if it's based on his prior work, it will be a must-read for people interested in South Asia, but, Bob. I ought to quit right now. Don't blow it. Bob Hathaway at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Thanks for joining us today, Mr. Ambassador. I'm encouraged by your declaration that Pakistan continues to value its relationship with the United States, thinks it is worth maintaining, strengthening. I don't think I'll surprise you when I say that there are a lot of people in this country who have followed this relationship for a long time who are not very optimistic about the future of the relationship. You know what the United States wants of you. We know what you want of us. I want to ask you a slightly different relationship. What can Pakistan do, what should Pakistan do to strengthen this relationship that it's not yet doing and beyond because I think the default answer to my question is Pakistan needs to state its case and its perspectives more forcefully. My question would invite you to go beyond simply that answer. What can or should Pakistan do to build a long-term basis for this relationship? Thank you. You know, you're one person I had on my list for a long time to meet and it is my misfortune and I do hope that I'll have an early opportunity to sit with you. I know that you have been a South Asia watcher for a long time and in your views and opinions matter and therefore I'll be very happy to meet you. I know that there are issues in the relationship but I also know that there are a large number of people who mean very well for Pakistan in this country. And I also know that there are a large number of people in Pakistan who know what America is and want to have closer relationships. But I also know that misunderstandings can sometimes snowball and bring stress to the relationship. In certain ways, this is also happening now and we need to really check that. We need to stop that drift, reverse the direction and move into a cooperative mode sooner than later. That's why the government chose me right after foreign sectorship to come here because we thought that this was a place that I need to be because this is a relationship we need to save, not only save but strengthen and galvanize. In fact, the bulk of the relationship is already well healed because as I indicated to you there are areas of cooperation which may not matter to analysts but they matter to the people of Pakistan a lot, a great deal. But they are not in the news. The news is mostly security centric news and therefore it should be an attempt by people like me who genuinely believe in this relationship to bring out those areas and show that the relationship is much more than just the security cooperation. Of course security cooperation is very important. Of course we want United States to succeed in Afghanistan and if United States succeeds in Afghanistan we will succeed in Afghanistan because we are the direct beneficiaries of the situation stabilizing in Afghanistan. We are the direct victim of the bad situation in Afghanistan so therefore I think we will do Mr. Hathaway all that we need to do to remove that misunderstanding with the United States to bring back the culture of cooperation that had stitched our two countries together for a long, long period of time and I see no other direction but a cooperative mode and not a confrontational mode that will deliver results for your country and for my country. This gentleman here and then we'll work our way. My name is Sufi Lagari. I'm with the Cindy Foundation. Forget about Lashkar-Eteba or Akani network. Just recently Mollvi Khadim Hossein Rizvi, Tehri Ke Labeik Ya Rasool Allah. Chief of Army Staff, Kamar Bajwa said, these are our peoples. Musharraf said, Jamaitul Dawa, Hafiz Said, Lashkar-Eteba, I love them. Forget about their people. And Ambassador, when I'm listening to you, sorry to say, I feel that you are the ambassador of Punjab. Balochistan and since thousand peoples are disappeared. Thousands and thousands, killing over there. What will your country, where is your country's going? Forget about the US-Pakistan relationship. Look at the internal situation. How are you going to take it? Thank you. Thank you for your view and for your emotion. I honestly don't know what brought you to this country and how you are planning to settle here but you certainly need to go back because what you are judging is only on the basis of what appears in the media and on the screens. Pakistan is way beyond that. And some of the statements that you made are factually incorrect. I'll not indulge in that discussion with you but I do recognize the moot point that you made which is that the challenge of that extremist mindset is still there and we need to meet that. And we are quite conscious of the need to do that and we will continue to do that because that is something not only in my interest but for my posterity, for our next generation. It's not for United States. It's not for any other country. It's for the people of Pakistan that we've got to do it. One. Second, the biggest development that has happened in this era is in Balochistan these days. Balochistan is booming in many ways and I have personally seen those presentations and the projects that are being built over there. It's easy to focus on a few disgruntled elements who are for certain political reasons protected and projected by certain powers for their own political ends. I can see that. There's no problem with that. But the bulk of the dynamic in Pakistan at this moment is very, very positive. I also see the tendency in some people to ignite sectarianism in Pakistan or ethnicity divide in Pakistan. Just like your question here. I'm the ambassador of Pakistan as a whole and I believe in my country and I love my country and every inch of my country. Thank you. Dana Marshall of Transnational Strategy Group. Ambassador, thank you for that typically very broad statement. There's a lot of different questions and comments but let me focus on one area that I think could be a, is a really interesting potential for greater US interests and where Pakistan may actually be able to play a really important role and that's in the Belt Road Initiative. You mentioned that. I think all of us have been focusing in on what China is doing with respect to Pakistan, one of the most important areas of that strategy. Huge amount of investment, you mentioned that as well and energy and other technologies and sectors where the US industry can contribute. So the question I guess for you is at a time when I think it's fair to say, and I don't think this is a political statement that this administration maybe doesn't have a concrete policy about what to do about US involvement with BRI and how to deal with that, how to approach China with it, can Pakistan play a role in trying to unite Chinese enterprises and American companies to, for mutual benefit, frankly, for all three countries and private sectors? Thank you. Thank you, Dana. Today I remembered that I must not call him Mr. Marshall because every time I do he says no. I am Dana to you. So thank you very much for your question. We, I generally believe that Pakistan was a bridge for United States to China 40 years ago and we still remain that. I believe that Pakistan would be the biggest beneficiary if China and United States evolve a win-win relationship. I see the signs of it. I see the three meetings that the president of China and president of the United States have had when president Xi was here and then President Trump was in Beijing and in between there was another meeting on the sidelines of a major meeting. I see good signs there and good vibes there. In Pakistan it is all the more necessary and that's exactly what we are trying to do. You see how did the CPAC evolve as an offshoot of BRI? It evolved because at that time when President Xi took over in 2013 and when the present government took over in Pakistan both had economic priorities but President Xi shifted gears from an export let growth to a mobilization of domestic consumer market and for that they wanted to develop this western part of China. And western part of China if you want to develop that it would be 5,000 kilometers from eastern part and then go around through Malacca State another 8,000 kilometers before you read the Red Sea to go to Europe. So here you are from Kashgar to Gavadri it's only 2,000 kilometers. In fact from the border with China it's even less. So you had a much but there was huge obstacle historically Himalayas and the Hindu Kush mountains and we have now penetrated that and the road is all weather road and it's big one and it has been a large further to allow the traffic of containers et cetera not only large enough and strong enough not only for western China but also for the Central Asia and for the Eurasian land mass. So there's a huge potential for the whole region especially the western part of Pakistan which also relatively to eastern part was less developed. So therefore we do see a lot of win-win for the people of western China and people of western Pakistan. But we also see that this will be beneficial for the entire region. In fact if the things permit it should blossom out east and west. In fact on our E on our west the first if you go up north from Gavadir port the first stop actually is Kandhar on our west. Of course you have to take a diversion to reach there but that's the shortest. And therefore we think that the whole region can benefit and should benefit from that. What is it that we are doing practically to see that that that is happening? That was your question. Actually I am very happy on that because bulk of the generation of energy product because we were running energy shortages which we have now met and but we were running for consistently for a very long time. There was a three way cooperation. It was a Chinese state enterprise. There was a Pakistani company and in most cases it was generally electric of the United States which provided turbines. So that is all that three way cooperation is already happening. Many of the US companies like ExxonMobil like Accelerate Energy of Houston like others have gone and made huge investments to supply LNG to Pakistan. So I can see and these people are positioning themselves because we are now as of next year we plan to do the special economic zones in all parts and there's an equitable distribution of economic zones in all provinces of Pakistan. And therefore we would want to have heavy economic, heavy investments from the American companies there because American companies have been an advantage of technology, latest technology and also knowing Pakistan that well for a long time. And therefore if US presence increases in those economic zones as well as elsewhere in the country that would be a net gain for us. That would balance out the presence of both these great nations, United States and China in Pakistan in a way that benefits my country but also benefits them. And then here and then in the back and we have 10 minutes, who else? I don't know how many we'll be able to get but we have these two lined up and then if we have time in the way back. Okay, thank you. Jerry Hyman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Thank you for your broad discussion and insights. I wonder if you could hone in for a minute on the assumption, at least in the United States and I think in Europe as well, that Pakistan has had a dual policy with regard to terrorism the so-called good terrorists and so-called bad terrorists. And you seem to imply that that is no longer the policy of the civilian government. I wonder if you could also comment on the army and the ISI and whether that is now a Pakistani view throughout the government that terrorism irrespective of its objectives is bad and needs to be countered. And then secondly, connected to that, if you could comment a bit on extremism and militancy of the kind that cost the law minister his job yesterday and the governor of putting job his life. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see that. Because those are connected I think. Well, we're happy to. So there are many myths that are created and then nurtured by the detractors of Pakistan one of which is the civil military divide. And that is why when Secretary Tillerson went there, the entire leadership sat together to speak to them with one voice. It was more than optics. It was substantive message that this myth is wrong. That civil and military work together. These are the core national interests of Pakistan and therefore these myths will not detract us or distract us. We know that terrorism is a very serious challenge. We know that there are many other forces which are at play in germinating or giving a fillip to terrorism in Pakistan. But we are quite well equipped to handle that. And we are doing it. There are no good terrorists and there are no bad terrorists. Every terrorist is a bad terrorist. And I told you about that. That this was a consensus and a commitment given by the leadership of Pakistan to the people of Pakistan that we will not allow any terrorist to remain in Pakistan, nor allow any terrorist to use Pakistan's soil to commit terrorism anywhere. That's the commitment we are following through. If you want to go to history, I will take you to history of all countries. And I think that would be an academic discussion. Pakistan of today is winning. It's winning against the forces of terrorism while others are still grappling with it. And we will complete our full sovereignty against the infringes made by these terrorists. As for certain individual acts by certain persons like the guard who had taken an oath to protect the governor but ended up killing the governor, because he thought that he had that divine right. The Supreme Court has already ruled in Pakistan and he was taken to gallows as a result of that act. The blasphemy law in Pakistan is a law that calls for respect to the holy personalities across all divides. It's the misuse of that law by certain disgruntled individuals that we must work to stop, like that guard who killed that governor and was then taken to account. Bulk of the victims of blasphemy law have been Muslims, 85% as against the myth that was spread that it's blasphemy law is against Christians or somebody else. But we got to stop them. Even one life is far too precious. That's the teaching of Islam. That if you kill one human person, you are killing humanity. And if you save one person, you are saving humanity. I rest my case, sir. Thank you. This is Lalit Jha from PTI Press Trust of India. Around 10 days ago on November 25th, White House issued a statement asking Pakistan to immediately re-arrest and prosecute Lashkar Devachee for half his side. What has been Pakistan's response to that? And secondly, can you give us your perspective on India's role in Afghanistan? Thank you. Sorry, India's? India's role in Afghanistan. Role in Afghanistan. Okay, sure. That's probably gonna be the last question ever for you. Yeah, this is, all right. Thank you very much for your question on half his side. Half his side, there are two processes in Pakistan in which he's involved. One is the 1267 regime which flows out of the UN Security Council resolution number 1267, which requires that those who are enlisted and designated under that regime will not do three things. They will not carry arms, they will not raise funds, and they will not travel internationally. We have been implementing that regime because half his side was on that list, and faithfully. As far as the other stream, which is the trial that is happening for the suspects of the Mumbai terrorist attack of 2008, he was kept, he was arrested and kept behind bars, but because we have not been able to provide to them the evidence that is needed, the courts keep releasing him. And for evidence, since the incident happened in India, we have been saying to the Indian government to share that evidence with us, which can stand the legal scrutiny in Pakistan. Unfortunately, that evidence has not been sufficient. It took five years before the Indians allowed our Judicial Commission to go and interrogate four witnesses, but in the end, only two witnesses were interrogated. And then it took another one year to send another Judicial Commission to interrogate the remaining two witnesses. With that kind of little evidence, it has been very difficult for the courts in Pakistan to keep him behind bars. So what the government did was that it was using some of these other laws, like MPO, Maintenance of Public Order and others, to keep him behind bars, but the courts are free in Pakistan. They rule regardless of what the government does or does not do. They do it in the best interest of justice, and therefore they set him free. But as far as we are concerned, we will follow the law and the international obligations that we have. The question that you raised about the role of India in Afghanistan, if India has its bilateral relationships with Afghanistan, China, United States, of course it is sovereign right and we have no comment to make. Just like we have bilateral relationships with different countries of the world and do not expect anyone to object to that. But it is the use of Afghanistan soil by India to create instability in Pakistan that hurts us. And we have seen that there is evidence for us that India has been using Afghanistan to create instability in Balochistan in particular. And therefore we believe that India should not have a role that will give it that position to create a situation which is not desirable for us. We believe that India, if it is participating in the development activities of Afghanistan, of course, fine. But it does not have a military or a political role in Afghanistan. There is a sense in Pakistan that India is also using Afghanistan to create a double squeeze against Pakistan to keep 200,000 troops engaged in Pakistan, Afghanistan border. And for that, India has very little interest in stabilizing Afghanistan. Actually it has every interest to keep the pot boiling so that Pakistan remains engaged on its western front. Which Pakistan actually is. So we hope that there'll be occasions to have candid conversations along these lines as to what role India is playing or needs to play in Afghanistan. Our time has expired. I want to thank all of you for those great questions. I want to thank Ambassador Chowdhury for coming and for displaying why he is such a formidable diplomat for Pakistan and representative of Pakistan. And I look forward to other such discussions in the future. So thank you all. Please join me in thanking. Thank you, thank you all. God bless you all.