 Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Nancy Limburg. I'm the president of the United States Institute of Peace and I'm delighted to welcome everybody here this afternoon and to those who are here with us as well as those who are watching online. Welcome to USIP's global headquarters and a special welcome to our esteemed guest of honor, Pakistani Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Siddiqui. We're very honored to have you here with us today. As many of you know, the US Institute of Peace was founded by the US Congress in 1984 as an institution that is independent, nonpartisan, but national and dedicated to reducing violent international conflicts. And we do this by working with partners around the globe in the belief that peace is very possible, it's quite practical, and it is essential for our collective security. Pakistan has long been a country of particular focus for us and our Pakistani program is one of the largest here at the Institute. Even as attention in this town has shifted to other global matters, we have maintained our focus on the importance of Pakistan and continue our presence in country. We've been active in Pakistan since 2013. We partner with a network of civil society organizations, innovators, scholars, and policy makers to support local programs. We conduct research and analysis and we frequently convene local peace builders there. So we've supported programs in cities and villages across the country focusing on tolerance of diversity and using the enormous energy around arts, media, and culture to foster dialogue and peace education. And so our partners in Pakistan have engaged more than 130,000 young people in peace building activities and I've had the great fortune to visit our partners and seen the tremendous impact of the work that our team and our Pakistani partners are doing have had in promoting peace in that country. So we also work with state institutions including the police to promote police community relations and to encourage police reform to improve their capacity to address conflict non-violently. We use our trusted networks in the US government and inside Pakistan to facilitate 1.5 and track two dialogues to offer opportunities for policy specialists and those close to decision making in both countries to think through more creative solutions out of the box ideas to break policy deadlocks. And we've also supported India-Pakistan dialogues where track one procedures have stalled. So here in our global headquarters we bring people together frequently from a variety of perspectives and views and sectors to hear perspectives of perspectives of policy makers and leaders as the way to link research policy and practice between Washington and Islamabad. So today we are very honored to host His Excellency Shama Mood Qureshi, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan. This is his first visit to Washington since taking office. Certainly not your first visit either to USIP or to Washington. He is a well-known partner here having previously served as Foreign Minister from 2008 to 2011. And so it's a wonderful opportunity to have someone able to do the job a second time with the experience and the wealth of knowledge that you bring. The minister is a great friend of the Institute. This year for the International Day of Peace, September 21st, Foreign Minister Qureshi collaborated with Together for Peace, which is one of our partners as well in Pakistan and hosted young peace ambassadors at his home in appreciation of their dedication to tolerance and building peace. So thank you for that. Today the Foreign Minister joins us to discuss Pakistan's foreign policy at a particularly critical time. Following Pakistan's general elections in July of this year, PTI came to national power for the first time. PTI campaigned on change, promising to battle corruption, build institutions, and put Pakistan first. And so as the new government enters its second month in office, the US and the broader community are all eager to hear, waiting to hear what Pakistan's new foreign policy outlook will be. So Foreign Minister Qureshi joins us following probably a very exhausting but hopefully productive week at UN General Assembly meetings last week. You've already, he has already met with Secretary of State Pompeo as well as National Security Advisor John Bolton. So we thank you, Foreign Minister Qureshi, for the opportunity to hear today your insights on the new Pakistan government foreign policy and what we can expect from Pakistan's engagement on the world stage. After the Foreign Minister's opening remarks, USIP's Associate Vice President for the Asia Center, Moide Yusuf, will host a moderated discussion with the Foreign Minister before taking your questions. Excuse me. We have no cards to collect your questions so we encourage you to write them down and pass them to our USIP colleagues in the aisles. Finally, for those of you who want to participate in today's event online, you can follow us on Twitter and take part in the conversation using hashtag Qureshi USIP. Before we begin, I want to give everybody a quick heads up. You probably heard it on NPR or read it in the paper. There will be a FEMA test, an emergency alert broadcast taking place in about 15 minutes. Please turn off your phones, like totally turn them off and then we don't, we'll avoid or minimize the disruption to our program but don't be alarmed, it's just a test and it will be happening nationwide. So with that, please join me in welcoming to the stage his Excellency Minister Qureshi. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. A short comment on the title. New government, yes, we are two months old so we are certainly a new government and change your continuity. Continuity means a stalemate, so change we must for improving lives of people. Thank you Nancy, thank you for the introduction and thank you USIP for the invitation. I've been here before in a different capacity but I'm glad to be here again. You're doing a wonderful job as an institution and would love to work with you. Mitt, Secretary Pompeo, when he visited Islamabad on the 5th of September, that was the first engagement, a high-level engagement after a long pause with this administration. In my view, it was a good meeting. It was a constructive engagement. He had spoken to the Prime Minister a few days earlier when he called to congratulate him on his electoral victory. He also met the Prime Minister and the other leadership while he was in Pakistan. My meeting with Secretary Pompeo and the National Security Advisor, Mr. Bolton, yesterday I think was useful, engaging and forward-looking. We had decided when we met in Islamabad that we will reconvene, pick up the threads from where we left them in Islamabad and at the end of the UNGS session, we will have another round and we did that. I'm going back with hope. One has been hearing about disappointments, failed expectations, exasperation, but then you always have to think of hope and change. And I'm going back with a positive view of hope and change. Bilateral relationship, U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship has been, as most of you know, cyclical. We've had our highs and we've had our lows. The last two years in particular, I would say, were difficult. And let's acknowledge they were difficult. And one is here to reconnect and one is here to rebuild. What, in my view, is an important relationship to achieve our collective objective, which is peace, reconciliation and stability. History tells us whenever we've engaged and whenever we've cooperated, it's been to our mutual advantage and both sides have benefited, whether it was the Cold War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or estimating al-Qaeda. So, there is a positive side and we should always look at the positives as well. Highlighting, pointing out the negatives is very easy. Building positivity at times is difficult. Is that the alert? It'd be unfair. I've seen, read a lot of criticism and I think it's unfair not to recognize the contributions Pakistan has made to the successes that you've had in Afghanistan and you've had successes despite the challenges. Just to highlight a few, the G-LOGs and the ALOGs and the continued support that we're giving has not only saved billions of dollars, it has contributed to your success in Afghanistan. Just to put in perspective, over 500,000 containers went through Pakistan and the cargo was treated as diplomatic cargo. Dealing with al-Qaeda, our contribution should not be overlooked. 950 of them were killed and over 1100 handed over. Similarly, to blame Pakistan for all the difficulties in Afghanistan, in my view, again, would be unfair. We cannot and should not be held responsible for the failures in Afghanistan, whether it's poor governance, corruption or disunity within the Afghan government. They have contributed to the challenges. We in Pakistan recognize that peace, stability and security, to achieve peace, stability, security, good, neighborly relations with Afghanistan are critical. What do we want to see in Afghanistan? They're a sovereign country. They will take their decisions and we have to respect their decisions. But what do we want to see? We would want to see a democratic, progressive, peaceful and inclusive government in Afghanistan. They will decide who comes them. We have no favorites in Afghanistan. People talk of safe havens in Pakistan and lot has been written about it. But we are concerned about eliminating safe havens that exist today in Afghanistan under your watch. So that is a concern for us. Reduction and violence is our collective objective and growth in production of narcotics, perhaps I was reading somewhere, it went up by 87% last year, is a concern. Being a lower riparian, we share waters. Protection of water rights is also one of our concerns. Border management is important. Border controls and a collaborative approach is, we think, is going to be important. Afghanistan refugees and there are 2.7 million still in Pakistan. Their return in a time-bound manner, we think, will contribute to peace and security in Pakistan. Today, we have a new arrangement in Pakistan and this new arrangement between Afghanistan and Pakistan and this new arrangement called APAPS was launched on the 22nd of July this year. This is putting in place a mechanism, a structured institutionalized mechanism for a continuous dialogue to address all the issues that exist between us. I, yesterday and today, I had the opportunity of meeting senators, members of the House, so my embassy kept me busy in the Congress. I would want to, honestly, I would want to invite members of Congress to come and visit Pakistan and I would like you to go to the areas that were called the tribal belt and see for yourself the difference that we have made in the last few years. You decide where you want to go and we'll take you there and then you see for yourself the existence of safe havens, whether they exist and to what extent they exist. It's important for you to see, go and see and form an opinion. I think, and our government thinks, people in Pakistan think that we have made considerable progress and this did not happen overnight. Mindsets do not change overnight. They evolve. Time is important. A shift takes place. It's a transition. Let's not forget many of the people that have been challenging you and us. At one time, we're considered friends in Mujahideen. We're trained and supported and armed. Despite challenges that we have and a continuous provocation on the eastern side, on our eastern border within India, we have deployed 200,000 troops on the western side. Our operations have been recognized and acknowledged as successful. As the title says, there's a new government in Pakistan and this new government has an agenda and the agenda is for change, social, economic change and development. A people-centric agenda. That can only be put into practice if we have peace and stability, if we have on both sides of the border and we want peace and stability so that we can concentrate on health and education and jobs and drinking water. That is the priority of this new government. And for that, we have a common challenge and a common objective of achieving or moving in that direction. And fortunately, there is a new approach that I see in the making and that is a new convergence that is taking place that there is no military solution. And we have to look for a negotiated political solution. The NUG government in Afghanistan seems ready for that. The President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of Pakistan has been advocating that for years. It was called different names because of this advocacy. But today, gradually, everybody is inclining that way, that perhaps this is the most sensible way forward. And the President Administration is also inclined in that direction. So this new convergence, this is in the making, is a great opportunity. And I think this opportunity should not be missed. How did this happen? Because of a shift in public opinion. Why we were successful in managing things on our side of the border? Simply because public opinion shifted when terrorism hit us on the face and when our school children were affected, our investments were compromised, our daily lives were affected. That's where the change came. And that is where a new political debate started. And it evolved into a national action plan. All political parties, different shades of political opinion are now and today agreed that this is the way forward. We cannot surrender to terrorism. We will have to take them on. And we will have to clear our areas. And we have successfully done that. Well, it's work in progress. We will have to continue to build on what we've achieved. But to a large extent, things have changed. I think this shift should be recognized. Perhaps it is not being recognized enough. And disengagement, when this shift has taken place and is taking place, is perhaps not the way forward. That's the last thing you want. Continuation, cooperation and engagement is what perhaps is required. Cutting off training, not giving equipment, precision equipment that could have been used against terrorism. I don't know to what extent that will help. But in my view, it will not help. Collectively, we can achieve our shared objective. Blame game will not be productive. And I have been saying that. You can say that. Blaming and shaming is very easy. Where will it get us? Look at the statements of the last one year. Have they helped? No, they have not. So we have to adopt a different approach. Yes, there is a trust deficit and that needs to be bridged. And it must be bridged. We have a shared objective. The strategy to achieve that shared objective is more or less we're on the same page. So we have to trust each other. There is no other way. There is no other way. Individually, we might not be able to achieve what we want to, but collectively in my opinion, we can. I focused on this bilateral relationship only and by design because I have come to the conclusion that my bilateral relations with the United States are dependent on the situation or the improvement of the situation in Afghanistan. So my road to Washington is via Kabul. And that is why the first destination I chose after having been sworn as Foreign Minister was Kabul. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Minister for that very eloquent, as always, and comprehensive sort of overview of where things are. May I request before I begin, I think every time you turn your phone back on, we will have an alert. So rather than have 250 alerts, if we can please leave them off for a while, we'll get through the conversation. The foreign minister has also insisted that he take questions directly. So we won't have cards. We'll have people who will get you, but let's begin with a conversation, if we will. I did not insist. I have no choice. Over. Matter of perspective. So let me, Minister, begin by asking you sort of put out both the positive and perhaps the challenge here. And you started off by saying that you've got to look at the positive side. Let me perhaps begin by asking you, you must have come here with a goal in mind. Are you going back with that goal achieved? And if so, what exactly is that? I can't say that in a couple of settings, you've achieved your goal. But what I can say is that if I go back with this impression that I've been able to halt the slide, to me, that would be an achievement, first halt the slide and then gradually build the trust. It'll take time. It won't happen overnight because expectations have been different. Perhaps we've expected things from the US and they've not been met and you've expected things from Pakistan and they've not been met. So a realistic, honest, pragmatic approach is required and I'll be candid and I'll be honest. And this is what I said to the Secretary yesterday that I believe that honesty and only honesty is the way forward. There is no other way and we should, we should promise what we can deliver. And if we cannot, then we should sit and see why do we have, what is the reservation? What is holding us back? Let's try and understand that and see how we can help each other overcome that hurdle. Sure, sure. Perhaps let me also ask then, in the meetings you've had, you've been on the Hill, you've met the Secretary, the National Security Advisor, is there something new that you have heard and something from you that they may have heard which may suggest change in the future given the title? You know, I was, I was pleasantly surprised, you know, before coming in into this job, you know, the statements and the situation, you know, I was here in 2016, you know, I could see the buzz, I could hear the buzz and things are not rosy at all. So I was expecting a very hawkish approach, a very sort of, you know, a dressing down approach that pleasantly did not take place. I felt that Secretary Pompeo was ready to listen, which I thought was very positive. I was, I met a number of senators and, you know, the brief that the mission provided, this senator is very hawkish on this, this issue being ready to be mowed. But, but... We have another test for you here coming up, but... Oh, well, that I'm... Perhaps, yes. I spoke too early, too soon. But I thought they were, they were beginning to listen and engagement I think is very important. Let's not forget in the last four and a half, perhaps years, Pakistan never had a foreign minister, you know, and who are you engaging with? So I am slightly more hopeful. Okay. That's, that's, that's honest. I think you talk about what happened behind closed doors and your interaction in the last couple of days. I have a quote which I just picked up before I came here, which reflects the other challenge in this relationship, which is public opinion. Both sides, there's a very negative perception of the other, almost demonization of the other, if you will. Pakistan is clearly not, not the favorite country in this town. And then in Pakistan, of course, there are views. So I just wanted to read to you what I picked up from the Pakistani press this morning and perhaps ask for your reflection on this. While the media expected a joint statement, both sides released separate statements explaining how far this attempt to reset, you talked about the reset, of course, when the secretary visited Islamabad, had gone. The conscious, the cautious silence on both sides, however, indicated that the talks were not as successful as expected. I don't know who wrote this piece. This is from Don. Don. I would love, I'm not surprised to begin with. Secondly, okay, I'm sorry. I would love, I would love the editor of the Don to assist me when I come again. And I'll be sort of wiser if he's there and love to have his input because, you know, nobody is all knowing. It's very easy to pick holes. Why do they not realize what were the statements that were coming out a year ago or a few months ago? And look at the statement that came out yesterday, or today, this morning. You can read it out. Your English is far better than mine. And tell me where is the problem? The problem is there, but there is a realization that we need to resolve it. There is a positive side to it. You want to pick holes? By all means do that. But they'll not determine or sort of put me on the back foot. I could have brought the readout. It would have not been half as exciting to put it out here. So I did that intentionally. But let me then shift to the opportunity. You've also talked about the opportunity. And I personally completely agree with you that this is perhaps the first time that the U.S. and Pakistan positions on Afghanistan may generally converge around the issue of the political settlement, around the issue of a peace process. I guess the follow-up question then is what is Pakistan specifically willing to do to help that process move forward? Because in this town, one very strong opinion is that Pakistan did not move when it was asked to do other things on the Taliban. And now there's an opportunity to bring them to the table. And perhaps there may be reluctance again. I don't know whether this is well-founded or not. We had to get our house in order. We had to get our house in order first in order to be positively engaged with you. There were different views in Pakistan. You visit the area. You know the place well. And you read and you write. There was lack of consensus within the country how to move forward. That has gradually shifted. And that shift helped the military to successfully carry out what they carried out in the tribal belt. That shift helped our movement in one direction in fixing things on our side of the border. One. Two. Number of developments have taken place which should not be overlooked. One. These areas where people thought the state of Pakistan had lost complete writ, writ has been re-established. People thought, and I see Richard Olson sitting here, that they were sort of peeping down the Margala Hills. They are not. That's the difference. And they've been pushed out. Areas have been cleared. And this has happened because of a shift in public opinion. The fact that the government and the political consensus sort of evolved to an extent that we were able to have a constitutional amendment to merge those areas that have never been merged in the last 70 years into the KP province and mainstream them. This is a development. The fact that the laws of the land would be applicable to those areas. They never did. That is a development. The fact that there were elections and people participated and people came out to vote in the tribal belt. That is a development. The fact that today we are looking at a new local government system and we want to introduce local governments in KPK doing away with the old Malik system. That is a development. And these developments are no minor developments. They should be acknowledged. Fair. Let me repeat a question that I'm sure was put to you in your conversations, which often is debated in the think tank circuit here. And let me be very sort of pointed in this. Is Pakistan willing and able to bring the Taliban to the table? Pakistan is willing and Pakistan will use all its influence to do that. We feel that Afghanistan's stability and peace is linked to us. We cannot be peaceful if Afghanistan is not peaceful. This is the realization. This is the recognition. I cannot be comfortable if situation in Afghanistan is not good. It has a direct bearing on me. So if I want my children to be secure, their children have to be secure. We have to have that collective approach. There is no other way. So that is the new shift that needs to be recognized. Yes, we are. But then having said that, let me qualify. And the qualification is it's a shared responsibility. There are other players in the region and they could have their priorities and their priorities might be different to us. Ours is peace stability reconciliation. Afghanistan feels that. Pakistan feels that. The U.S. feels that. But there are others. A, B, contrary to public opinion or to the largely held view here, our influence over the Taliban is diminished. We cannot. We will do our best and we'll do it in good faith trust us. We're doing it because it is in our own enlightened self interest to do so, not to please you, to protect ourselves, to protect our country. We want to do it for ourselves. Not because that is what you want. It will never happen that if you want this, it will happen. No, people have to believe that it is in my interest to do that. It is in my interest to engage. Taliban will have to feel that it is in their interest to come to the negotiating table and you have to incentivize. Then only can you rip them in. Why should they come otherwise? You mentioned others talking about the region. So let me sort of make a shift to that and ask you something about China. Of course, there's a China Pakistan economic corridor, you know, is in the news every day for all different reasons. There's a lot of discussion about that here. One of the feelings in this town, if I were to reflect that, is that there seems to be a bit of a substitution effect in the mind of Pakistan and the Pakistani policy makers. China is going to be the partner and thus the US importance is decreasing and we don't have to sort of deal with that as much. No, I don't think US importance has decreased. It will not decrease. US was, is and will remain an important global player. You know, you are a technological, economical and military power. We recognize that and there's a history of our relationship. Let's not forget that. China. I understand that right now there are challenges between the US-Chinese relationship, but vis-a-vis Afghanistan and that region, I am of the view and Pakistan is of the view that China can play a constructive role and China must be engaged. China has initiated a trilateral meeting, you know, they've had one in Beijing and next month in December we might have the second round of that in Kabul. So, engaging China and China has an interest in stability in Afghanistan. They have economic interests there and they have this economic corridor they are building. So, they have those interests. So, tap on those interests and have sort of when they move as a partner in the direction we want to move and I think we can. The other neighbor, the elephant in the room perhaps, the India-Pakistan relationship. We've heard a lot in the last couple of weeks. I won't let you go without a comment on that, at least. Where are we going to go from it? We saw what happened. Pakistan put out essentially an offer. There was controversy around it. It was pulled back. We understand from the press that perhaps there was success in avoiding the two foreign ministers, avoiding each other at the UN. Where does this go? Because at the end of the day, we are talking of two nuclear powers, most populous countries in the world, constantly at loggerheads. It's unfortunate. That's the way it is. Now, what does this government want? We want normalization. We want coexistence. We've got to recognize reality. Pakistan is a reality. So, is India. We have issues. How do we resolve them? This is what we, when we came in and the first statement, the first speech made by the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Murad Khan, was every step that you take towards peace, we will take two. And he meant it. It wasn't just for, you know, it sounded good. It wasn't to please anyone. It's to blunt the person to please people. He could be very straight and he can, you know, it can be very blunt. But he said that because he feels that way. The very first pressure that I had at the foreign office was, listen, this, this, this stalled, we've stalled the dialogue process. It's not good for you. It's not good for us. It's not good for the region. Now, here, when we, when we ask the US to play a role, a facilitating role, why do you ask? Why do we ask? Simply, we are not engaging bilaterally. And that bilateral disengagement is, is constantly weighing heavy on us. You know, it's a distraction. We want to focus. We want to move on the western side. We're not being able because, you know, you have to watch our back on the eastern side. Now, that is not a healthy situation to be in. Now, can you facilitate? The answer is, no, we want it bilaterally. But there is no bilateral movement. And if that lack of facilitation leads to escalation, and some of the statements that have come out late, of late have not been very helpful, you know, the so-called surgical strikes and stuff like that. Does it make sense? It does not. But that's politics. There are elections around the corner. We were not shy of engaging. I was not shy of meeting Shoshma Ji in New York. They agreed. They backed off. If the Indians have a better option, share it with us. If disengagement, if not talking to each other, will resolve and stabilize the region, fine. Then, you know, if that's their analysis, fine. Let me push a little harder on this because then there is that argument that dialogue and terrorism or alleged terrorism don't go together. So, you know, the question of Prime Minister Modi coming to Pakistan in the previous government, Steno, to meet the Pakistani Prime Minister and then the Pathanan Court attack, and then, you know, some other obviously, and then something else happens. So this, I think in Washington, I would argue shares this view completely, that there's one thing to say there's no dialogue and I'm completely with you on that. But are there certain prerequisites that Pakistan also needs to meet to actually be, you know, really hopeful of that dialogue moving anywhere? Because if after every effort, something's going to break it, we're going to be two steps back. We were not in government. We were still in the opposition. And I accompanied Prime Minister Ambran Khan to Delhi. There was a conclave that we were invited to and he was speaking there. And we were invited by Prime Minister and the Modi. We met and met him. And I'd like to quote what Prime Minister Khan said to him. He said, Prime Minister, they will always be spoilers. They will always be elements that will scuttle the process of peace. But when they do that, let's re-engage to fight them. They will push us back. But we have to see what is in our interest, what is in the regional interest, what's in Pakistan's interest. Now, having said that, they have to realize, and I think they were being simplistic if they feel that everything that's wrong on the Indian side of Kashmir is all of Pakistan's making. That is an unrealistic approach. There is a lot that has happened. You know, they should also revisit their policies and see why and how they've alienated people. Why political elements that were forming coalition governments with them have distanced themselves? Why is there a governor's rule in the Indian Occupied Kashmir? Why? She came to be the largest democracy in the world. Why? Why is that happening? Why is the UN Commissioner on Human Rights presenting this new report came out in June? It's not Pakistan saying that. The others are talking about it. Neutral bodies are talking about it. So recognize that and let's move on. Let me ask a couple more questions and then I know the audience is waiting patiently to ask you questions directly. And perhaps in the vein of preparing you for what will come, a hard question. We again go back to this thing about spoilers. And if the Indian Foreign Minister was here, I would ask the exact same question of her. The growing intolerance for diversity within the region, within societies. I mean, USIP, one of our monikers of our work in Pakistan is to promote tolerance for diversity. When the world looks at, and there's a lot of concern in this town that I heard before the elections, when the world looks at groups like the Millie Muslim League, you know, and then groups who are being mainstreamed, who've had ties, who formally, you know, say they have ties and sort of talk about it, two terrorist groups that have been declared terrorists by the world, by Pakistan, Tariq al-Abaik, Millie Muslim League. Mainstreaming them, what is the rationale and what is the optics that you think the world should take from that? Well, intolerance has grown everywhere. It's not just Pakistan. Look at the Indian intolerance, you know, look at how many minorities within India feeling. And look at the lack of tolerance all over. Today the world is more polarized than ever before. Today people are less patient than they were. Look at the flashpoints that have, you know, that have sort of developed of late. So tolerance generally has gone down. Tolerance in the region is not very high. But a statesman has to look beyond. He has to look beyond the immediate challenge. He has to have a vision for tomorrow. And I think the region needs that leadership. This is the last two. One, you've got a lot of Pakistani diaspora in the audience. Your government has made it a point to talk about diaspora and the linkages and the value of diaspora around the world. Is there a plan behind that? Is there some thinking on how constructively to engage diaspora, as many other countries have done, to improve relations? Because quite frankly, one of the things we look at is that the track one is where it is, think tanks do their work, but there is this track three space as well, that in a lot of times can develop constructive business linkages, economic linkages. Pakistan, of course, is amidst an economic crisis, the question of economic sovereignty. You know, we've heard statements about the IMF. I'm sure that came up in your conversations. But where do you see this track three, if you will, come together between the US and Pakistan? I think we have a very, we're proud of our diaspora. Pakistanis abroad have been very successful. To give you an example, Sadik Khan, the mayor of London. I mean, that also speaks volumes, you know, for the tolerance in that society. And you know, I respect Londoners for having done that. But Sajid Javed, before coming to Washington, the home secretary of Britain, you know, a young man whose parents had moved from a small town called Sahiwal on our way from Lahore to Multan. Now, 11 members of parliament, mayors. And I met a Pakistani, American Pakistani who contested for the house, perhaps in the last elections. And I forget the name, and pulled close to a million votes. Now, they are people who made a mark. And they are the people educated Pakistani in American Pakistani, Canadian Pakistani, British Pakistani, who have been to universities here, who've competed, who, when given a level playing field, have excelled and got recognition on merit. And they've interest in this country. They love this country. They're serving this country. And they are proving to be useful citizens of this country. Yet, because of their relations and friends back home, they care. And they want to contribute. That is the class of, that's the diaspora. That, I think, in my view, initiated the change in Pakistan. This change did not happen all of a sudden. This educated Pakistani American abroad, when they were sick and tired of the corruption and the poor governance and the loot and the blunder, they said, enough is enough. We want a change. We want a new leadership. We want a new party. And that's how PTI evolved as a political party. That's how a sportsman who had no interest in politics was sucked into politics, was dragged, was rude, was asked to come and play a role because the country required a new look, a new leadership, a new vision. So this diaspora is very important. And that is why we want them to have a stake in Pakistan. That is why PTI as a political party has been advocating the right to vote, to be given to overseas Pakistanis. We did that while the Electoral Reforms Committee, the Parliamentary Committee on the Reforms was debating it. We were outvoted, but we persisted, went to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has recognized that. And hopefully they will have, in the coming generations, we feel that these eight, nine million diaspora abroad will contribute significantly to change in political behavior in Pakistan. Final question for me. And this one is close to my heart and pains me. So allow me. We have a large population of civil society organizations in the US, in Britain, Germany, in Saudi Arabia, and you name it. And the last three or four years, we have seen nothing short of, quite frankly, a crackdown on the space for these organizations to operate. I'm talking for organizations who do peace building. I'm talking for organizations who do schools, hospitals, you name it. The space is squeezed. Genuine people who are trying to help Pakistan are either packing up or having a very hard time doing what they're there. I've heard all the concerns that there are. But as a member of this community, I can tell you that there are many, many good people and institutions who are doing great work in serious trouble. I think the day before your government took over, maybe right after, there was a new tranche of about 20 respected institutions whose applications for registration were rejected. And I'm sure there are people here, but quite frankly in this town, in other towns, this is the one question I got before I came here with the request to ask you, why is Pakistan going in this direction? And what are we going to do about this? Because ultimately, this is not good for foreign policy either. I hear you loud and clear. And you're not the only person who's raised this question. I've had interaction with congressmen and others who've raised such concerns. This happened before this government came into office. A new regulation was brought in. And under the new regulation, some international NGOs have been registered and they are functioning, and some are finding difficulty in working. I have taken it upon myself to go back and do their advocacy, and I will. Thank you. This is a special request quite frankly from the community because I think this is good for Pakistan. It's good for the US and for the world. So with that, let me open up. I know there are going to be many questions. I'll try and get through as many as we can. Let me recognize the gentleman here, and then I'll try and come to as many as I can. The gentleman right here with the hand up. And after that, we can go to the gentleman in the middle in, yeah, right here. Yes, please. Sir, this is Jahanzeh Wali from AOW News TV Pakistan. Sir, just wanted to know that you appointed a minority guy in Pakistan Economic Advisory Council, and even your information minister defended his appointment. But very next year, you asked him to step down. So where were those tall claims for providing equal opportunities to all the minorities in Pakistan? And how can you defend that decision? Thank you so much. He was recognized for his competence. I've never met the man, but one heard that he excelled in what he does. You know, he understands economics better than most of us and could be a useful contributor for an economic change, an economic restructuring in Pakistan. So his expertise was recognized and he was put on to the list of a board of advisors. There was a, we heard that an element wanted to use it as a means to destabilize things at a very early stage. So he was, and I respect him for that. He recognized that and said, I want you to contribute. If my presence is creating a problem, I can advise and pull out, but he pulled out. So unfortunately it happened, but that's the honest answer. Yes. Foreign minister, I found USIP a fountain of knowledge on Kabul, Afghanistan. I want to make two observations I picked up from here and get your feeling about it. Number one, the people subject to crime and insecurity, lack of employment. The Taliban, non-negotiables having NATO in the country and having warlords as part of the government. What are your observations on that? Do you want to quickly repeat the question? I don't think the foreign minister- Perhaps I haven't understood the question. Well, let's just take the Taliban's view on negotiables. Non-negotiable is NATO in the United States, part of NATO being in the country that has to be negotiated. Secondly, the warlords are part of the government now. How to get them out of the equation? That's a question I think I've learned. The Taliban say the US and international troops out. That's non-negotiable for them. And then there are warlords in the Afghan political setup now. How do you get them out? Perhaps a question more for an Afghan audience. I can't speak for the Taliban. I don't carry their brief. Firstly, nor do I speak for the Afghan government. But I think there's a new realization involving, sort of evolving. And that is that even the Taliban recognize that things have changed in Afghanistan. They can at best sort of maintain or stalemate. But those days are gone where they will just go in and just take over Kabul. So that's a new reality. Things have changed. And this change hopefully when people sit across the table, the new realization will dawn upon elements that were unwilling to engage. It was a stage when the Afghan governments were totally against any kind of an engagement. And now they've offered peace talks. They welcomed when President Ghani asked for a period of peace on Eid al-Fitr. And he got it. He was appreciative of that. And he recognized that. Let me come back to the audience. Then I'll ask you, but we have people who've come all the way to listen to you. And this was an oversold event. So I'm in the overflow room. So I want to give them a chance to ask your question. I have them here. The first question is that you've suggested that Pakistan needed time to get its house in order. It has done that. The Prime Minister's administration is inaugurating positive change in the country. Please explain then why earlier this week on Monday, your government's federal minister for religious affairs appeared side by side at a public conference with the head of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organization banned by Pakistan. I'll go home and certainly ask him why he did that. But what I'm told, it was an event to highlight the situation in Kashmir. It had nothing to do with Lashkar-e-Taiba. Or there were other political elements that he happened to be one of them. I think he should have been more sensitive. But it wasn't that. He subscribes to his point of view. It's Dana Marshall, the Transnational Strategy Group. Congratulations, Minister. Pleasure to see you again. I was trying to see if I could extend your answer to one of Moïse's questions in somewhat different directions. At a time when both governments are looking to reset their relations, there are other channels where countries can cooperate, people to people, business to business. Are there some specific ideas that are being developed in Islamabad to help with exchanges on business initiatives that could help to bring the countries together at a time until the governments themselves work a little bit more cooperatively? These are areas where the government of Pakistan is very interested in helping to capacitate the population and, of course, on the economic growth side. Well, people to people contacts are important in building bridges. Unfortunately, travel advisories have to be revisited if you want improvement in people to people contacts. There are economic opportunities and we would love to invite investment into Pakistan. This morning I had a very senior delegation from Axon Mobile to meet me and they expressed an interest of investment in Pakistan. Obviously, they must have, they are a very well established organization. They must have done their homework, their spade work. So the interest that I saw this morning was very encouraging. So if they take the lead, I'm sure others can follow. There are opportunities there. There's a huge new area that can be sort of looked into and we would welcome investments into the new economic zones that we are trying to build. There's a long question that I'll summarize for you. The situation in Balochistan. Where are things, the concerns about Balochistan and sort of the restive sort of politics, security issues of minorities and human rights? Where do you see Balochistan and what is your government's vision for the province? If you look at our manifesto, when we talk about strengthening the federation, Balochistan is an important component of that federation. We feel a healing process has to be undertaken and it has, it has, the process has begun. Look at the election of 2018 and look at the turnout in Balochistan this time. Look at the amount of women participating and look at the amount of people participating. Tribes and tribal elders who had shunned politics, direct politics and parliamentary politics back, you know, the buktis and the mangals and the maris, they're back into politics. That's a healthy sign. Obviously they want improvement and improvement has taken place. You know, the law and order situation has improved considerably in Balochistan. Hopefully, hopefully, if people are more sensitive to some of the forces that are across the border using or strengthening entities to create disturbance in Balochistan, if that somehow is checked, things can improve further and, and we improve governance. Let's not, let's not, let me not acknowledge the fact that poor governance was provided and corruption, a lot of development money was pocketed. That needs to be fixed. So, I see that men are dominating the questions here and I'm going to break that trend. We have a lady right at the back, yes, with the hand up and as the mic gets to you, we have a mic here. So, why don't you ask your question and then we'll come. So, you're right there. Please stand up and introduce yourself if you don't mind. Thank you very much. My name is Umber Jamil. I'm from Indus. Minister Koreshi, we've seen some early signals that there may be a review and a re-evaluation of the terms of CPEC with the new government. Can you point to any specific or substantive changes that you expect in the project, including economic distribution across provinces, the concessional terms of the loan or opportunities for private sector investment from foreign entities? Ma'am, we are very happy on the fact that this project, which we think is a game changer, has taken off. There are ongoing projects. We want to see early completion of those projects and we are talking to the Chinese on how to focus on areas that are important to this government. And those are areas not just infrastructure. Obviously, infrastructure is required. You need roads and railings and sort of optic fibers and everything of that sort. But you want them to help us in areas like industrial development, agricultural productivity, enhancing agricultural productivity, helping us alleviate poverty in the country. So we're talking about phase two, how to improve lives and livelihoods, how labor intensive industry can be relocated into Pakistan to give jobs. So that is an ongoing discussion and hopefully next month in November, the Prime Minister will be taking his first official visit to China to discuss this further. The gentleman at the back and then we'll come to you. Thank you, Minister. I'm Krishna Devkallamur with The Atlantic. How would you describe current U.S.-Pakistan relations compared to when you were last Foreign Minister in 2008 to 2011? I get short and sweet. A new administration with a new approach, the world different, circumstances different. And frustration at a different level, obviously. The frustration, obviously, when I meet officials, they feel that 17 years is too long a period for settlement and perhaps the appetite to wait another 17 years is not there. The lady here, please. So you spoke about voting and we certainly appreciate that, having the ability to vote as overseas Pakistanis. I remember when I was studying in Pakistan as an American, I sent my absentee ballot here back to the states. Outside of that, and I know there's a lot of, I guess, motion in terms of getting people involved, the diaspora involved, you spoke about that as well. But when we ask for concrete ways to do that, it's always give money to this organization or get involved with that organization. Outside of, and then we also, you raised the point about how those organizations don't always get to operate effectively in Pakistan because of a number of reasons. So what are the concrete ways that we can contribute as diaspora? And what are the ways that your government is engaging with the younger diaspora in Washington and in America because the number of years that I've lived in Washington, I think outside of the 23rd March event, there really hasn't been any outreach to anyone under the age of 40. So what are the ways that you would like us to contribute and what are the ways that you're engaging us? Well, to begin with, we recognize the power of youth. We are in office because of young people. It's the young people in Pakistan that put Imran Khan in office today. It's there people who were never taken seriously, you know, the entrenched old political parties, you know, they said, oh, these boys and girls, you know, they're always sort of active on their laptops and social media. What do they understand about politics? But they changed politics in the country. So we recognize the strength and the vigor of the youth and we need to engage with them in a more effective manner. On people who want to do things and feel frustrated, where to go, yes. Unfortunately, there's interaction and there's goodwill created and there is no follow-up. There is no follow-up. And people are at a loss who to contact and where to go. Now, what I have suggested, and this is not the sole responsibility of the foreign office, but I have suggested to our finance minister and to our advisor on commerce, two very capable individuals that the foreign office is willing to facilitate the role of economic diplomacy. But they have to come out with the projects. We won't. I mean, we can't. It's not our forte and we don't understand that. But we can facilitate. We can bring the diaspora, them together. So they should come. I would be very happy. I engaged when I came, I engaged with the diaspora here in Washington. You know, people travel from far distances. Almost 125, 130 people came from different parts of the country. And then I engaged with some of them in New York as well. What needs to be done is a follow-up, you know, and the concerned ministers need to engage with them. What we have now also in the pipeline are a number of task forces, you know, on specialized work. We have the Prime Minister is appointed a gentleman who would be looking after overseas investments, you know, a focal person who was lacking in the past. Because what we've seen is when we come, since the bureaucracy dealing with the issue has no direct interest. So, you know, they do the needful and they write the report and they forget about it. So we need people who are interested in the follow-up, you know, the two parties that feel they would benefit from this engagement. We need to find a way. We are looking into it and hopefully we will find one. There's a gentleman in the yellow tie here. Matt, could we get the gentleman in the yellow tie here? David. And let me ask you a question from the overflow room. The Prime Minister offered citizenship to Afghan refugees born in Pakistan. But you mentioned the safe return of the refugees. And there seems to be a contradiction according to the question. See, how did this come up? He went to visit Karachi and he met people there. And he met a lot of Biharis and Bengalis who had moved to Karachi for obvious reasons. And they were living in Karachi for the last four decades in slums, in deplorable conditions. You can't push them out. You can't send them away. They've not been given a fair treatment. They do not have the same rights as others because they don't have ID cards to get a job. And they're discriminated. So how do we help them? We have to accept this is a reality. And they are living here. Many of them were born here. And, you know, even in a country like US, if you're born here, you do get recognition in citizenship. So how do we deal with them? That's how it started. And then there were some who were born, Afghans who were born in this country and have grown up here and are living here and are engaged in different kinds of economic activity. So what we're doing is studying what law permits. What is the citizenship law? Does that permit us to do so? And if it does, and on human terms, we want to consider it. We'll have a question here. And I apologize. I know there are a lot of hands. We have a hard stop at 3.30 and I'm trying my best to diversify as much as possible. I have a plane to catch. We can stay an all evening if you want. I'm sure. David Sadney formally with the US Department of Defense. You mentioned, actually stressed the importance of negotiations. One new thing that the administration did about two weeks ago was appoint a special envoy for reconciliation for peace in Afghanistan, Ambassador Salome Halazzad. The Pakistani press at least has been scathingly critical of that appointment. What is the view of the government? Are you going to be able to work with Ambassador Halazzad on this in this very important area? Ambassador Khalil Zad is well known diplomat. He's well known in Pakistani circles as well. The appointment was made by the US government and obviously we have to respect that judgment that they've exercised. I've had the opportunity of meeting him twice on this visit and he will be visiting Pakistan soon. Now, there's a background. The reason Pakistani press has been writing what they're writing, there is a background and the background is that Mr. Khalil Zad has made statements in the past which have not been put it mildly, very friendly towards Pakistan. So he's been given a new role and I hope and I hope I would urge him to be more sensitive to the opinion in Pakistan and obviously as individuals we can say what we want to but once you have an official position then you have to be more restrained and you have to be more sensitive because then only can you be an honest broker. So let me ask the last question and then I'm going to invite our President Nancy Lindbergh to come up and present a moment to you. I'm not one for written questions but I thought this was particularly pointed and would reflect the sentiment of the town. So even you, Brutus? Yes. And I apologize in advance for playing that role but I thought this was very well worded to give you a sense of what quite frankly the conversation on Pakistan is. And as it came to me Mr. Minister Pakistan is one of the most negatively perceived countries in Washington. What do you say to the policy community that argues that Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan has directly undermined US efforts to bring peace there and that Pakistan simply does not deserve to be a US partner? Why should the US show leniency towards Pakistan? Look at me, do I look negative? You can get him, that I can tell you. Well this, but this is really the, unfortunately yes, image is negative and that's why I have been encouraging greater interaction. My own readers, the people who visited, who have served there, who visited the region, the area are more sensitive and are more in sync with ground realities. And then their commentary changes, their negativity somehow subsides to an extent. So we need more interaction and we also need to put in a greater effort to engage and improve our image. There's a lot that can be done from our side to fix it. Mr. I want to thank you for doing this, for visiting USIP again and and we hope to have you back here with that Nancy if you would please come. Thank you very much, please join me in thanking Mr. Minister. Thank you. Thank you.