 Good afternoon. Welcome to the New America Foundation. I'm Peter Bergen. I run the International Security Program here. We have a great panel to discuss the important topic of reporting in Pakistan, which is now, as many of you know, one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists to work in. We're very honored to have Cady Martin, who is a longtime board member of New America Foundation, who was instrumental in New America Foundation's decade and a half of growth. She's on the board of the Committee to Protect Journalists. She's also the author of eight books, and she has just recently returned from a delegation that went to Pakistan, met with Nawaz Sharif, the Prime Minister. On that delegation was Joel Simon in the blue suit at the end here, who is the Executive Director of CPJ, and between them is Reza Rumi, who is a well-known Pakistani journalist. He's an author of multiple books and also contributed to the Friday Times, the Express Tribune Express News. He's one of the most well-known TV personalities in Pakistan. He survived a assassination attempt on March 28th, a very serious assassination attempt, which happened about a week after Cady and Joel had left their discussions with with the Prime Minister and their tour around Pakistan, which was well covered in the Pakistani press about this important issue. And so we're going to have sort of a conversation between the three of us, the four of us, and then we'll open it up to your questions. So Cady, starting with you, tell us a little bit about the content of your conversation with Prime Minister Sharif and what he said and the takeaways that you have from that conversation. Joel, chime in as needed. Well, thanks, Peter. Hello, everybody. First, let me just say how pleased I am that that New America continues to engage in this in this really important conversation about Pakistan and about journalism in Pakistan. Pakistan, however complex and sometimes deeply upsetting and even annoying to the United States government, is a vital partner. And my husband always said that in the AFPAC equation, a phrase that he coined, really it should be PAC AF. And that Pakistan was the important, was the more important factor in that equation. And indeed it is. So we have to continue, like it or not, to be engaged. And for us at the Committee to Protect Journalists, the situation for our colleagues there is dire. And we are going to stay on top of that. And we are determined not only to give these very brave, Reza doesn't like it when I call him the bravest of the brave. He says he doesn't want to be the bravest of the brave, but indeed he is. And people like Reza who really risk their lives on an almost daily basis to cover events in Pakistan are what stand between a purely authoritarian government and an aspiring democracy. So essential not only for us as journalists to have people like Reza free to do their jobs in security, but essential for the United States government's interest too. Because there's only one thing that separates a democracy from every other form of government, and that's a free press. So this is not just a minor issue. It's at the core of American engagement in Pakistan. And although Pakistan is one of the most dangerous places for journalists to work, as Peter noted, we had an extremely productive mission and came away feeling that the trend was in the right direction. But nothing is ever simple in Pakistan, as all of you Pakistani watchers and Pakistanis know. It's one of the most complex places in the world. So to return in a long-winded answer to Peter's question about the meeting with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, it was an extremely in both tone and substance, an extremely positive meeting. And I've been doing these missions for the Committee to Protect Journalists for 20 years and have done them in some of the most unpleasant places in the world. Because where else do journalists have trouble? And I must say that this was the most positive meeting I've ever had with a head of state in that there was no defensiveness, no, what are you talking about? You've got the wrong facts. Here are my facts, which are, which diverge from your facts. None of that. No pushback from the Prime Minister on the contrary. He was well briefed on the issues that we raised and very, of a mind to accommodate our, we had a wish list and he added his own. And the conversation did not stay in the confines of his office because the following day he repeated the, officially the concessions that he had made, which I'm about to get to. And I think I had a very distinct feeling that the Prime Minister understands that Pakistan's global image has really suffered as a result of the murder of journalists, the impunity with which that is happening. And by our count, it's 47 journalists murdered, targeted specifically for doing their jobs. So we're not talking about people caught in a crossfire, but these are targeted assassinations of the sort that, thank God, Reza dodged. But he's going to tell you the very dramatic story of how he escaped the assassins' bullets. So the, shall I go on? I don't want to hog the air. No, no, no, no, no, no. We've got plenty of time. So what did you ask him for? So, and Joel, please feel free to, if I missed something. So we, here are the things that we agreed to with the Prime Minister, or that the Prime Minister agreed to. The the formation of a new body, a council, to be made up of representatives of the government and the media, and a special body that will be sort of a central switchboard for cases of abuse of journalists. And journalists who feel threatened will now have a place to go, kind of a hotline, if you will, with journalists on it. And the prime minister immediately appointed the third member of our delegation, Ahmed Rashid, who I'm sure most of you know, the distinguished Pakistani journalist and author, to be the first member of that new body and Ahmed agreed with only a little reluctance. But anyway, he's on it, and they're going to, I think they've appointed some government officials as well. So that's a body information. Additionally, he, the prime minister, also announced a special prosecutor to deal with cases of both murders and other attacks against journalists. And I forgot to say, please turn your cell phones off. Indeed, including mine. Including yours. And so one central special prosecutor and then four regional special prosecutors to deal with cases of attacks against journalists. Additionally, he agreed, after we pointed out how painful and cumbersome it is to get visas for American journalists, or Americans in general, to go to Pakistan, he immediately turned. Yes. That's interesting, because that sort of follow-up question there is, if you're an American journalist going to Pakistan, you get these Islamabad Karachi Lahore visas only. So was he open to, that's a very big issue. Yeah, it is, I mean, we mentioned that and he, without committing directly to that specific thing, talked about how important it is that journalists come to Pakistan and cover the country and cover it in a diverse way. And then we specifically, we did ask him about the issue involving Declan Walsh, The New York Times, correspondent who was expelled from Pakistan and has not been allowed in and we asked him to try and resolve that situation. And he did commit to doing that. So it was in that context that we talked about these issues. Yeah, so I think those were, oh, and in the upcoming, if they indeed take place, negotiations with the Taliban, we asked that he put the issue of journalists' rights to practice their profession unhindered and he agreed to that. So as I said, nothing is ever a straight or smooth road in Pakistan and the week after we left, Raza suffered an attack. Well, so Raza, what happened? Well, I think, well, first of all, thank you very much for having me here. What happened is, I mean, is nothing, I would say, extraordinary given what is happening in Pakistan in general and in the figures that Karthi mentioned, 47 or so. And if you look at other, there's a newly launched report by Amnesty as well, which also cites some rather ghastly cases of journalists under fire. So I mean, the irony is that I had been writing about that and speaking about that and to be a victim of all of that was the kind of most dramatic part of it. And basically I'd left my television show in the evening and I was going home and at a corner of a dark sort of street which leads to a market, there were some assassins waiting. This is in Islamabad? This is in Lahore. In Lahore? In Lahore. And on the night of March 28th. And they sprayed bullets. First of all, they targeted the driver who was taking me home. And he, I think, instantly died because they were very, I mean, they were trained assassins. And thereafter, you know, my instinctive reaction was that at the sound of first bullet was that I thought that, you know, oh, finally it has happened what I'd been dreading because I had received threats and I was told in January that my name was on the hit list of the Taliban. Who told you that? That was, you know, the Taliban posted it on the website to begin with. That's nice. Very thoughtful. The wonders of the internet. So you had a heads up. I had a heads up and then there were all these, you know, messages on social media and emails and the group which I joined in January, the Express group, which is both a television and a print medium sort of company. And they were also under attack. So they had been attacked, I think, twice before that. You say they'd been attacked, extreme. Well, I mean, in early January, their crew in Karachi was attacked and three media workers lost their lives. The bureau chief in Peshawar, somebody had planted a bomb outside his house. He found out in time, got it defused. So he survived. And then there was a random firing at the Karachi office again in late 2013. So this part of a pattern relatively recent. There was part of, yeah. It was part of a pattern. And the... Were they targeting Express or were they targeting a particular journalist or is not clear? Well, I think they were targeting the whole group because they were like, you know, attacking different offices in different places. And so because I had this sort of subconscious fear and people had been warning me that don't say this and don't do this and don't cross this line or that line. And so I immediately duct and sort of lay down on the floor of the car and there were almost seven bullets which were fired towards me from the back, from the side, from below. But because I was flat and well below the kind of aim that the shooters were taking, I survived. What sort of vehicle was it? This was a car, a Toyota Corolla car. And... How many bullets were they firing? They fired over 20 bullets. 12 shells were found by the bullets but they were because they had sprayed bullets so randomly as well. I mean, these were submachine guns. So, you know, they had basically, they were trying to ensure that the target was achieved. But sadly they failed happily for me. For me too. For me too. I'd say we're all happy. So I mean, you know, one has to empathize with all, you know. Only a journalist would say that. Really, I think that goes too far. That goes a bit too far. I admit I was just being... What was your family's reaction? Well, obviously the family was completely traumatized because you see, I had a safe career with the government of Pakistan. That's how I started. I was in the administrative service and then I went on to the Asian Development Bank as a governance and policy expert. I left all of that to do journalism in 2008. I mean, one of the colleagues there, he knows me for my pre-journalism days. And so I did that largely because with the return of democracy in 2008, I thought there was increased space for public engagement and sort of correction of the narratives which exist in Pakistan, particularly in the vernacular press and the television where you had all these conspiracy theories and the laundering of various extremist ideologies. And I thought, well, now is a democracy and things are looking up. So it's time to jump into the phrase. So I was writing before that. And that's one of the good things about journalism in Pakistan, right? Yeah. I mean, that's a sort of Musharraf legacy. That's one of the few good things that he did. Yes, he did. The deregulation of media and this whole opening up of the industry and you have nearly 90 TV channels in Pakistan. You have over 125 FM radio stations and 600-plus newspapers. It's a thriving, booming industry. This is the paradox. This is the paradox. So on the one hand, you have this huge quest for freedom of expression, free expression, reporting, et cetera. And on the other, you have all these elements both within the state and particularly the non-state actors. And importantly, you were reporting both in English and Urdu? Yes. Because the television engagement for the last three years, you see, that's what got me to trouble because I was writing in the English press, reporting and op-eds, et cetera. Which no one cares about. Nobody really cares. I mean, you guys read it, actually. Right, right. But I think that's... That's religiously. It's what's said in the Urdu press, that is the problem. So I moved on to television because I thought that the audience was huge. And it did make an impact. And that's where perhaps you needed alternative voices and more emphasis on facts rather than fiction and opinion and whatever. Why go there? Why go there, exactly. Well, now I really think, why did I do that? But I think it was a very fascinating experience to engage. I even had a show with one of the sort of clerics which I had started in February. And he was a hardliner, Diobandi Cleric, and you know... What's his name? Hafiz Ashrafi. And I mean, who's sort of veering towards moderation these days on the media. But the idea was to have an engagement with him and have a discourse, you know, because you can set things... You can reset the narrative through a dialogue, a discourse. But, you know, I think some of the issues that I raised particularly in defense of the Shiite population of Pakistan in defense of the Pakistani Christians and other non-Muslim communities perhaps landed into trouble because the hardliners, the extremist fringe considers them as infertiles or apostates. And those who advocate the cause of apostates are, you know, apostates themselves. And that is a death sentence. And you know, the punishment for that according to some schools of thought is death and they don't really wait for a court to do that. They have enough ammunition. So I think this is the problem that the booming free... Booming press as an industry faces is that the, you know, the state actors are identifiable. You know, Pakistan has a history of media struggling against an authoritarian state under various dictatorships and, you know, launching and sort of finding their space and quest for more freedoms. But in the last decade or so, the non-state actors have not just multiplied, but we've also seen a parallel weakening of state writ in grappling and tackling that challenge because there's so many, because there's a regional conflict, there's a domestic conflict and there's zones of Pakistan which, you know, are ungoverned spaces that you have more and more mushrooming and sanctuaries of these non-state actors. And therefore, sometimes they're in league with the state groups, sometimes they're autonomous or semi-autonomous. And so it is very difficult to even identify, you know, who attacks whom. So right after I, you know, I was at home for 10 days locked up because the police told me that they would come back. They have missed the target and so you can't leave the house. So I was under virtual house arrest, not being able to go with lots of police outside and I wasn't really sure how far the police were compromised or not because, you know, you don't know, there's a lot of infiltration of extremism in these organizations, in these institutions as well. So I had no choice but to leave Pakistan and because I have some family here, so this was an easier port of, you know, refuge or a recourse. So, but right after I arrived, I think in a few days, the police arrested a gang of six people who belonged to Lashkare Jhangvi. Who are they? And Lashkare Jhangvi is a hard line, anti-Shia extremist organization with the clear aim to purify Pakistan of the Shiite infidels. So your comments about Shiites are may have been... Well, that and the comments, and a lot of advocacy for the Ahmadiyy community which was excommunicated. Who are they? The Ahmadis are a sect in Muslims in Pakistan who were declared as non-Muslims by the Pakistani parliament in 1974. And they think they are Muslims, but the Pakistani state thinks that they are non-Muslims. So all of us have to sign a declaration that I denounce the Ahmadiyya sect and what they believe in. So each time I have to apply for my passport or ID card, I have to sign that declaration. All of us have to do that. I did not know that. That is interesting. So the Ahmadis, their beliefs about Islam seem to be analogous to Mormon beliefs about Christianity. Oh, well, I mean... Well, it's quite close, quite as an analogy, yes. But I think the issue is that, you know, my line always was that, you know, I don't want to get into the theological aspect of it because there have been suffering lots of discrimination in Pakistan, lots of, you know, killings have gotten, you know, out of their way and the students are discriminated in colleges, schools, et cetera. So I used to say these things even on the state television. And the situation is worse now for minorities in Pakistan. I think it's the worst that it's probably ever been for Christians, for Shia... For the last few years, indeed, because... Why is that? Why? I think it has largely to do with the rise of the Pakistani Taliban and the affiliates in the mainland Pakistan, like Lashkar-e-Changvi or others. I mean, here's where it gets complicated because these Lashkar parties or SIPA have some electoral significance for Nawaz Sharif himself, right? Yeah, well, thank you for raising that. I think this is the, again, a paradox and again, a problem because Nawaz Sharif does want to, you know, clean up Pakistan and has some good intentions or at least he had before the elections when people voted for him in good numbers. But on the other hand, he's also tied down with his popular support base in the Punjab, some of which is linked to these extremist organizations. But really, you know, I don't think it is that huge. I think it is more of a fear factor because this particular group has, you know, they did face prosecution earlier. It is very difficult to prosecute them as well by the way, because they eliminate witnesses and they scare the judges. So there have been multiple cases. If you Google it, you will find like dozens of such cases. But the problem is that the politicians in Pakistan are also afraid. They are under fear. And they have good reason to be afraid if they can kill someone. Tassir? Yeah. Benazir Bhutto. Right. Of all the, of all the, Shahbaz Bhatti who was this Christian leader, a federal minister for minorities and a real sort of, you know, the Pakistani Christians look towards him for their redressal of the grievances, et cetera. And so, there is a climate of fear that the politicians facing. So therefore, their public narrative is that to appease the Taliban, particularly the Pakistani Taliban, because you already have to appease the Afghan Taliban. Do you think there will be an operation north of Zerestan? I really, I think partial operation has already started, but I don't see a full-scale operation going on, largely because of the fear of reprisal attacks in the Punjab, because the affiliates in the Punjab province, which is nearly 10 to 11, 100 to 110 million people in Pakistan, you know, that is where the fear of reprisal attacks is the greatest. Because I've heard that the military actually wants to do this operation now, which is a civilian leadership that doesn't want to do it. I think that is true to a great extent, because there is a lot of pressure within the ranks of the military. You have nearly 5,000 military personnel who have been killed in the last one decade. You have nearly five generals who were killed by the Pakistani Taliban and their affiliates. This is even a greater tally than the three wars that Pakistan waged with India. And so therefore you have this really strange situation where the military is facing all these losses. There's a growing pressure within the ranks to do something about it, because they feel angry about this. And the politicians, sadly, have a shorter time period in front of them because they're looking at the election in the next three, four years. So they're looking for a quick fix. So if talks can deliver some sort of a basic piece. Can you think of a time when talks with the Taliban have ever delivered anything? I don't think that, I mean, I can't think of a time because nearly half a dozen deals which were done by the military itself under Musharraf and later failed. And one was done in the past, government in Swat, which also founded and then you had to go in with the military and take action. Are these talks just a preparation, sort of a way of a public relations exercise to say, hey, we exhausted every option and now we're gonna do the military option or do they really believe that they are possible, that the talks will actually yield something? You're asking a very tough question. Well, no. Sorry, for my side, John. Okay, well, let's carry, let's go to the next question, which is Hamid Mir. Of course, he was, you know, somebody I've known for 15 years. In many ways. Maybe not everybody's familiar with the Hamid Mir case. Hamid Mir, you know, basically, in a sense, the Larry King of Pakistan. But maybe a more serious. Yeah, maybe more serious as a journalist. Yeah, I mean, but, you know, I think he's, and I, you know, I first met him, just a little bit of background. I first met him when he was a, essentially a Taliban sympathizer, I think it would be safe to say. He was editing a paper called Al-Saf, which is one of the early languages, basically pro-Taliban, this is back in 97. And, you know, over time, he's evolved significantly. And I think that he's taken very brave stances on what the ISI has been doing in Balochistan or the Middle Pakistan Army in general, disappeared people into the ISI. Brave Stance against the Taliban, he survived a very similar attack in 2012, right? Where there was a bomb under his car in Islamabad. Luckily, he discovered it over here. So, you know, now he's in hospital, he's seriously wounded, or pretty seriously wounded, stable condition. So tell us. It was just a week after. Yeah, nearly, in fact, a fortnight after the attack on me and my driver and the companion I had in the car. So I think Mee was attacked and again sprayed with bullets. And unluckily, I mean, you know, he got six bullets in his body and most of which have been taken out, but I think there are two which are problematic and the doctors are still grappling, but he's stable, he's conscious. And he's conscious, okay. And he, what happened that while he was taken to the hospital and because he had been quite, you know, making these charges against the ISI on his television show as well, that because of his advocacy on the Baloch missing persons, you know, the insurgency in Balochistan has been ongoing for a decade now. And they- Wasn't it like more like five decades now? Well, I think with this intensity, it started under Musharraf after the murder of Akbar Bukti, the separatist leader, Baloch nationalist leader, rather. And it had died down prior to that. It had kind of phased out, but it was rekindled by Bukti's murder in 2006. And thereafter, it has been a very, very serious sort of challenge to the Pakistan military. So the military has had to deal with it in a rather heavy-handed fashion. And Hamid Meir was one of the few media persons who was regularly taking up the case of the missing young insurgents. And again, he's doing this in Urdu. He was doing this in Urdu and on the television. And it's a popular program. In popular, the largest TV network you have in Pakistan. Which is GEO. Which is GEO network. And sadly, what happened is that while he was in the hospital, his television channel flashed the pictures of DG ISI for nearly eight hours, accusing, and his family, his brother came on to the television saying that Hamid had said, if something happens to him, it would be the ISI responsible. Now, personally, if you ask me, this is poor journalism. But it's back up one second. So DG of ISI is who? The DG of ISI is the general, is a military general who reports to the prime minister, but is the leading sort of intelligence. And he's the equivalent of the CIA director, more or less. But it's a military organization. And his picture was continually flashed on the screen. Which we also consider poor journalism. Yeah, because we don't, there was absolutely no evidence. I mean, it's one thing for Hamid Meir's brother, Amir Meir, to go on and say, I think the ISI is responsible. It's another thing for the journalist at GEO to put up the picture of the guy who runs ISI. It was a highly provocative act. And what has happened is that it triggered a media war, an intermediate war. Because, well, I mean, I think that just backing up, Sheeter, going back to your first question, is going back, what's the political context in which this discussion is taking place? And I think these two incidents were almost like, they were both written to highlight the challenges that the media faces and the prime minister faces. The issue of journalist killing in Pakistan as an international issue is a very significant challenge confronting the government. Certainly goes back to Daniel Pearl. And that put this issue on the agenda as a global challenge. What are the risks of reporting these kinds of issues in Pakistan? And we know what a very significant issue that the Pearl killing was for the Musharraf government. Well, after the Pearl killing, and there was a significant investigation and convictions in that killing, the killings continued, but the journalists who were targeted were Pakistani journalists. And there's a lot of attention now, thank God, on these two incidents. But the reality is that these are national figures. These are national figures. And most of the journalists killed are not national figures. And they're reporting in Balochistan. And they're reporting in Balochistan, or they're reporting in Fautan. In Fautan, the tribal areas in Peshawar, or the... But they're serious about both the officials, Pakistani officials are approaching both of these incidents with more serious... But I want to put this in context. So for the leadership, this is a problem. And I think that Noah Sharif came in with a relatively clean slate because he did not have an antagonistic relationship with the media. And the media was actually quite supportive of his campaign. And I think to a certain extent, he owes that election... I don't know when to go that far, but certainly the media and the positive coverage of his campaign played a critical role in his election. And he realized that. And he wants to try and calm this environment. Well, what are the forces that want to subvert that effort? They are the forces that attack you. And they are the forces... Let's put aside the quality of the journalism and for a moment, the forces that have been drawn into this debate in terms of the attack on Hamid Mir. So these are the forces within Pakistani society that are setting the parameters of public debate. On one side, you have the Taliban. On the other side, you have the security forces and the ISI, which define any criticism as a threat to national security. Journalists who cross those lines are threatened, they're targeted, and the question is, can Noah Sharif do anything about this? Well, that raises a very good question, which is what are the self-imposed red lines that journalists as a general rule follow in Pakistan because there are... I mean, what is your problem? Yeah, I mean, obviously you crossed over them, but I mean, sketch it out for us. If I'm trying to stay alive as a Pakistani journalist, what am I not writing about or talking about? And additionally, to Peter's question, what effect have the attacks on you and Hamid Mir, to what extent have they chilled the media environment as a result of... How different is it now than even when we were there a few weeks ago in light of this because there was... We spent a lot of time with your colleagues, and there was this sense of forward movement. To what extent has that now been chilled by these attacks? Well, I mean, I think some of the questions, Peter, you were asking me on the military and etc. are the kind of red lines, you know. Just to give you an example, it's actually rather on the spot, okay? But I think in general, in general, staying alive and staying safe means that you don't get into trouble or do not report freely or on the powerful actors. And, you know, as Joel rather succinctly put, that on the one hand, you have the might of the state, the security forces, the ISI, the IB, and the other intelligence agencies. And on the other hand, you have three kinds of non-state actors. One are the violent extremists. Then you have the separatists in Balochistan, who also, by the way, kill an attack journalist. And the third kind you have are the political parties of the gangs affiliated with the political parties. And one of them, one of the young journalists of GOTV again killed a few years ago, was killed by a gang which was affiliated with the political party in Karachi, the port city of Pakistan. And, you know, thankfully, that is the only trial which has been prosecuted and the killers have been punished. Wali Khan, Babar. Yes, Babar, yes, Wali Khan. That raises an incredibly important issue, which is like, Benazir Bhutto's death has not really been properly investigated by any standard in Pakistan. And I think we know who killed her. I mean, I think it's Bayatullah Massoud overall. But so, the problem is that the impunity, I mean, you know, Salman Tazeer's assassin was the guy who was his bodyguard, so that was relatively easy. But I mean, do you have any confidence that, whether it's Hamid Mir or in your own case, that the real people responsible will be brought to justice? Peter, this is one of the greater dilemmas. You know, I mean, I'm positive that the government has arrested some people. But if I look at the track record of our justice system in general, I'm not too optimistic. And the reason is, it's not that there's no will to do that, but I think even as a state, Pakistani, you know, prosecution and trial, you know, services have declined in the last two decades. But simple forensics are really very primitive. They, crime scenes are not taped off typically. The, you know, evidence is... Yeah, like Benazir Bouteau's case. Oh, they hose it down, right? Yeah, they're half an hour after. Half an hour after, exactly. So here, I mean, I'm, I mean, if the, I think the real test of the Sharif administration, as you put it, you know, that he is keen and he comes in the clean slate, et cetera, would be to get these cases, investigate. Surely that's something that the US government could actually be quite hopeful with. I mean, we have a whole leg at FBI, sort of program inside embassies that provide technical assistance for this kind of thing. But Peter, I think it's a political, it's, you know, I mean, yes, there's, you know, if they, you know, we have evidence with the, uh, uh, uh, Pearl killer. Yeah. And with the Wali Khan Babar case, that despite these tremendous obstacles, and let's be clear in the Wali Khan Babar case, they were killing witnesses one after the next. Six witnesses killed, yet they still managed to convict people. Where there is will, there is evidence that they're able to solve these crimes. So this is, this is a question of political will. But, but if you want to go back to a sort of, another case that highlights the challenge, it's the Salim Shazad case. Now I happen to be in, I'll tell us what that case is. I will. I happen to be in Pakistan, uh, in, uh, in May 1st, 2011. Uh, I arrived next day. The, the London raid came down. We had a, a, a, a, I knew you were coming. They knew I was coming. Like some people were a little suspicious. I can assure you I had nothing to do with it. Um, uh, but the next day we had a, we had a meeting with President Zidari, a similar kind of meeting. And we talked about some of the challenges and I think personally given his role, they were even more significant, but we had a very positive conversation. And then I was there during this period in which this, this, this press that Musharraf had unshackled for the first time, challenged these sort of, uh, uh, issues that had never been discussed, the power and the, and the lack of accountability, uh, by the military and the, and the, and the, and the, and the security agencies and began challenging them. And then in a, in a very aggressive way. And the ISI responded, according to many of my colleagues I was speaking with, by, you know, inviting journalists to TE, which is one of their favorite tactics and kind of telling them, hey, uh, you know, uh, this is, uh, you know, just warning you for your own safety. We're hearing some threats about you or, or just, you know, these, these conversations are friendly, but they always have an edge. And Shalim Shazad was one of the journalists who was proven most aggressively about the relationships. Yeah. Well, can I, can I just make a point about Shalim Shazad? Yeah. Which really is a form of a question which is how accurate was his journalism? Well, I mean, I, I don't know the answer to that. But, but I think the question- Can I say something on that, on the accuracy of, um, you know, you know- But let me just, let me just make one point, because I'm just- And then I want to say something about- I mean, I don't, I don't know the answer to that, but it was accurate enough that it got him killed. In other words, we don't know what's accurate, what's not accurate, but we, there's, there's compelling evidence that that was a state operation. So, that killed him. So, so either, either it was accurate or they killed him because it was accurate or it was not accurate and they were upset that it was inaccurate, we'll never really know the answer. Okay, I just want to say right, right here, that, that, um, we, and, and we've already been critical of Hamid Mir's, um, uh, Geotv flashing, the, uh, head of the ISI's image continuously as not being good journalism. And our, uh, colleagues, uh, with, with every respect in, in Pakistan are not perfect. Only we are perfect. That's a joke. Nobody's perfect. Nobody's perfect. However, um, there is never, uh, a reason to shoot journalists. If you don't like their reporting, do a counters, uh, report, um, you know, write a letter to the editor or, or, or, or, yeah. Or go on TV and say, this guy didn't do enough investigation. You do not kill journalists as a, as a way to express your dissent with, with their reporting. So I, I just want it to be perfectly clear about that. But, but, but I think I'd like to add on the killers. Absolutely. I mean, absolutely. I think that is the issue that Salim Shahzad's journalism raised a lot of questions. It also was controversial in many respects, but the problem is that, you know, there is simply no justification for what happened. Can I, can I ask you then in more detail to explain the investigation and your conclusions and have they been accepted in any kind of official way by the Pakistani government? I think, uh, I think what, what the Pakistani government did that the initial, because Salim Shahzad had also done, he had sent out an email to the human rights watch and a media house, the chief editor of Dawn Group, saying that if something happens to him that he had been called in by the ISI and threatened, et cetera. And so that became the kind of circumstantial, you know, lead towards the kind of state operation which, which people refer to. So in response to that, you know, and it was very, very ghastly what happened because he had, his body had been buried. It was then searched, it was exhumed and identified, so it was, it was a very tragic case overall. And then the commission was set up, a very high-powered commission headed by a Supreme Court justice of, of the Pakistani court. And they deliberated for months on that. They came up with a report, but unfortunately the report was not very clear because the kind of evidence and testimonies which were required to prove that Salim Shahzad was killed by elements within the state or otherwise was not there. So, but the good part of that commission report is that it did give some guidelines on the reform of Pakistan's intelligence apparatus as a whole and vis-a-vis their engagement with media. And now after Hamid Mead's case, you know, there has been some debate that those recommendations are still unimplemented or not considered. And the prime minister raised the case with us. He did raise it. We did not raise it, but we acknowledge the progress that had been made on the Wali Khan Babar case, which is significant. That's right. And then he said that we have to move on Salim Shahzad. Yeah. So, I think- I think it's the U.S. government view that it was an ISI operation. Absolutely. And I think that's been fairly well documented. I think Mohan basically made that claim. Yeah, I think it was raised a lot by the U.S. government and perhaps, but, you know, I mean, I just want to like stare it back to what happened within Pakistan is that the Inquiry Commission did interview hundreds of people. Many witnesses came forth, many people from within the media came forward, gave their testimonies, but, you know, this could not be established. I mean, I'm not, I'm not, I'm neither defending the ISI nor trying to drag it into the- By the way, I'm glad you called this Danny Pearl because I mean, sitting on this dais and we were debating the question of what did the Pakistanis know about Assam bin Laden just 10 days ago, it was a lot of gold, who of course was pretty badly roughed up in Quetta by some kind of law enforcement types, right? Security. Did you ever, would the CPJ ever take that case up? We knew about it, but Carlotta at the time decided, you know, not to make that a stand. But Declan is okay with you raising the issue of, why can't I come, I mean, he was- Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, no, I stopped off in London on the way to Islamabad to meet with Declan and get guidance from him on what he wanted. He's been in Pakistan so long he could have a Pakistani passport, right? He's been there for eight years, right? As a matter of fact, he isn't, I don't know whether this is the times articulated and official position, but Declan is not clamoring to become, to resume being the times bureau chief in Pakistan. He wants to be able to go to Pakistan, among other things, all his worldly goods, right? Islamabad, he was given 48 hours to pack up and the time that he spent reporting on the election. So he wants the persona non grata status lifted so that he can come and go normally. And it's not a normal situation for Pakistan to not have a New York Times bureau chief in place. I mean, even China doesn't do this, right? No, no. I mean, it's pretty, so what did Nawaz Sharif say to you? Well, he said he was extremely agreeable in saying that and turn to the minister of Islamabad information next to him and said, we have to move on this. And I trust that the times may not get the whole loaf that is reinstatement of Declan as bureau chief, but I think that they have a very good chance of, he wants to do occasional reporting from there after nine years of investing his life in there. And so Ray, it's a practical matter. Who would actually have to sign off on that if Nawaz said we want this guy back? Well, I think the declaration of persona non grata for a foreign journalist would have involved the Interior Ministry and Pakistan's intelligence agencies which report to the Interior Ministry because they give clearance for foreign journalists and in that case, largely the Interior Ministry. So, you know, I mean, I think whatever we are talking about brings in the fundamental issues that face Pakistan, the civil military imbalance, the growing in security and the issues of governance. And I think the security of journalists and media as a whole is a segment of that. And perhaps as Kati rightly said, that a free press is what makes a country distinctive in terms of its democratic credentials. So I think it is even more important for the Nawaz Sharif government and the civilian governments both in the center and the provinces to sort of assert and prove that Pakistan is moving in that direction. Joe, a question for you. Is the situation in India much better for journalists or? Or what? Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's better. I mean, that doesn't mean India has very significant challenges. There's a tremendous disparity between the national press and concentrated in the major cities. And there is a similar dynamic. Are Indian journalists being targeted for being journalists? There have been some killings. There was one killing of a prominent journalist who was covering organized crime in Mumbai. So it's not unprecedented. But it wasn't a state act. And actually there are journalists who cover the Maoist insurgency have been attacked. Journalists in tribal areas face very significant threats. I don't want to minimize the challenges that journalists face in India. They're very, very significant. And India gets a bit of a free pass. A bit of a free pass because it's got a very lively and vibrant national press. But they simply don't compare to the challenge. And how about Afghanistan? How about Afghanistan? Afghanistan is obviously, I mean, again, it's a different dynamic. But we've had just two absolutely horrendous crimes committed against journalists. Three. Journalists have been gunned down in Afghanistan, including Anjaneed and Nidhanath. And it's just a horrible incident. I don't know, it's a horrible incident. Well, there's a slight difference. I mean, I've been in camp for 20 years. I mean, they were targeted, I think, for being Westerners. And the Afghan journalist who died in the Serena Hotel was in the wrong place at the wrong time. So I'm just asking for a sort of baseline. The situation in Pakistan is much worse than Afghanistan and much worse than India. Yes. I would say that's correct. Hence our laser-like focus. Because we're going back. I mean, this is, well, we haven't scheduled the trip yet. You can get frequent fire points at the Serena Hotel in Islamabad or... But I just want to add that I think in the case of India, you know, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, there have been many, many incidents and I mean, I'm in touch with a lot of journalists there who work there and who face a lot of problems with the security agencies. In Indian-held Kashmir. In Indian-held Kashmir. And also the areas where Maoist insurgency takes place. So I mean, I'm not trying to act as a typical Pakistani reaction to India, but I think it's just going to lay... I'm not sure that it's helpful in this context to compare. Pakistan and India are comparing all the time. But, you know... Well, I think it's useful to say to Pakistan, look, I mean, if part of the argument is that this is made, this is, your international image is suffering. And look, in your immediate neighborhood, this is very unusual. But, yeah. Well, although one thing I will say is there's high levels of violence against the press throughout South Asia. Definitely Pakistan is off the charts, but we have high levels in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India journalists are more frequently than people realize. Again, let's not compare to Pakistan, but this is a regional challenge. What can be done, by the way? I mean, Kadi and I were talking about this a little bit. I mean, we had... Sabha MTA was a fellow here and she's a Pakistani journalist. And I asked her to write a piece after the attack on you for the South Asia channel, which we edit out of here for foreignpolicy.com. And I said, Sabha, she described the problem. And I said, you haven't provided any solutions. Well, there are some... Well, and I said some of the solutions I tried to suggest to her, she said, look, they won't work. So one was, I learned from the guy who edits Pajwalq, which is the Afghan wire service, that if they do a big story on corruption, they do it as a collective with other... Right, with other journalists. That is... You've just nailed it. There is an absence of solidarity among Pakistani journalists that is really weakening the entire media picture. When one is attacked, the other's attack, the one who's been attacked, if I may add a bit. I think that is absolutely... We have discussed the state and the non-state part of this matrix, but I think what the way the Pakistan's media industry has also behaved, especially because I'm going through this whole process in a month's time. For example, when I was attacked, the other rival TV channels and media groups did not report as much they ought to have. In fact, they completely blacked out the news. After Hamid Meir... Well, because it was a very simple ratings game, if they would say somebody was being assassinated on the streets of Lahore, people would switch to my channel and the profits and the revenues would go there for one week. That is insane. It's as insane as that, yes. And there's an irresponsible media owner culture. First of all, they don't provide minimal security for journalists. They don't provide minimal training for how to cover highly perilous situations. There's no training. Okay, so that's something they really could fix. Absolutely. These are a tangible thing. No life insurance. And no life insurance. For reporters who've gone to Balochistan or other difficult areas, they die. But all these things are important, but I do want to keep the focus squarely on the government. But there are things that the government needs to do. But the owners have responsibilities. Absolutely. Were you able to have discussions with any of them? Not in this trip. I've had many discussions with owners and I've... And the discussions don't go far? Well, you know, they're constructive in the sense that they acknowledge... Constructive, I love that word. Yeah, yeah, but yeah, this is a problem. But you know, but no, I don't think they can be shamed. Or they can't be shamed easily. Put it that way. And the candidate... Can I start off with an idea? But just want to end this. Yeah, one quick idea, maybe controversial one. Part of the problem is a class problem. That Pakistan's journalists are not seen as sort of... Is this an untrue statement? That there's a little bit like they're sort of like a different class and therefore we... They don't need to be protected and they're not... No, I think it's changed. That's changed, a decade ago. Okay, but that's still part of the... If it's a decade ago, it's still part of the make-up. Peter, I have to say that part of the problem here, again, is the state and ISIs influence on the press and the relationships that they've forged. That they... You know, let's give the media some responsibility for this. This is definitely... But the security forces have exploited this split. For sure. The ISI has made a move in the military to try and shut down... We have to get Nick Schmidl in here for this. I mean, since he was thrown out of Pakistan... Yeah. Nick, we're talking Pakistan reporting. Nick is a fellow here and a New Yorker writer and was thrown out of Pakistan for his reporting. But can I just return for a second to our core interest in this? And that is to break the cycle of violence against journalists. The key thing is to end the impunity. And how do you do that? You do that by actually prosecuting the murderers. And until that happens, journalists will be fair game. Until you see a guy being convicted of murder for the crime of hitting a turtle. There's a question about Hamid Mir here. As Hamid Mir leaves Islamabad where he lives, he takes a flight to Karachi and is attacked shortly after he leaves Karachi Airport. That implies somebody who has access to airline schedules. This is not something that Taliban has some sort of database about. I mean, so where does that lead you, Reza? Well, if you saw Declan Walsh's story, I mean, he has cited some of the investigation he did earlier. And he said that, you know, even a few years ago, Lashkar-e-Jangvi had infiltrated the geo network and was trying to use a reporter to murder an editor. This is, I mean, he found it. And then there was another case of infiltration by another extremist organization. So, you see, what I'm trying to say is that while state prosecution bringing the murderers to justice is very important, but I think the media of organizations also have some share of responsibility. And perhaps they could learn a bit from other contexts, you know, in the way because, you know, after Hamid meets attack, it was a time to stand together and perhaps, you know, negotiate and pressurize the state that, you know, this is not on. Instead, what we have is that all the other media houses on one side and geo-TVs on one side and geo-TVs now labeled as a traitor television network, which should be shut down because it's harming Pakistan's national interest and is an unpatriotic outlet. So, you have this complete split now in the middle. Express calling for geo to lose its license. Yes, wow. Where is the collegial solidarity? And he was in the hospital and their rival anchors were saying, well, look, why was the traitor not shot in the head? Why have the bullets gone in his leg? I'm just waiting for more to do. Well, who are these anchors? These are from the rival channels. They said that this traitor channel should be immediately stopped, you know? So, this is not the ISI saying it, Joel. I mean, you know, I want to emphasize this. Yes, the state does have a central role in our society, you know, in all post-credorial projects. But the problem has to be attacked from every angle. Yes, but the problem is what do you do with these media owners, with these journalistic bodies, which need to have some kind of a conduct? Well, let's get into the journalistic owners in a little more detail. I mean, who are they? Well, I mean, first of all, what has happened is that, you know, we allowed cross ownership in early 2000s under Musharraf. What does that mean? Well, basically, people who own big newspapers could open up TV channels. Kind of like Rupert Murdoch. And radio, like, you know, following some of the bad practices, you know? And so five or six groups turned into these mini-oligarchs. So, Geo TV emerged as the biggest barren, capturing about 60 to 70% of the market share of private TV viewing, of newspaper reading, circulation, et cetera. So that is at the top. And the rest of the 40% of the private viewership or media consumption is shared between other media owners and who all want to act as the Geo TV. Which is owned by Jang Group. Which is owned by the Jang Group. Who are they? The Jang Group, well, I mean, it's a business family from Karachi. From Karachi. But the turning point was the anti-Musharraf campaign because in 2007, when Musharraf was getting weaker in the domestic political context, Geo TV ran a successful campaign against Musharraf and, you know, which ultimately brought him down which Hamid Meir played a key role in. In which Hamid Meir was central, yes. And in fact, the army was coming to the door of Geo TV to come to close it down. Precisely. Yeah, it was shut down for seven weeks as well. Musharraf did clamp down at that time as well. But ultimately, Geo succeeded. Now this set up even a more dangerous trend in Pakistan's new media industry where the barrens, you know, five or six barrens thought, ah, we are the new king makers. We could bring down the governments or, you know, so this DGISI, you know, ANTIC was another, what has been viewed by some of the commentators as another sort of testing the waters or leveraging your media power against Pakistan's most powerful institution. So there's a, so, you know, there's a bit of a, what is happening is that while the poor journalist on the ground, the reporter or the anchor is in the crossfire of these various forces, the barrens are playing a very dangerous power game with Pakistan's state centers. What would be the way to get to the barrens, to have a... I think a code of ethics, there's a broad question. But who could initiate, who could summon such a conference? There is a regulator, which is Pakistan's electronic media regulatory authority, PEMRA. And PEMRA has this mandate to convene. And I think it's a very weak regulator, like other regulators in Pakistan, so no surprises there. So PEMRA has a role, I think the journalistic associations like the CPNE, PFUJ, have a role to pressurize. You know, they could always mobilize the union power or the collective power to pressurize the barrens that, you know, they need to stop acting like small tin-pot dictators in the Pakistani pond and get out and do something for their workers who are dying left, right, and center. And does the US have a... The US is not very popular in Pakistan. We're not gonna get into drones, but that's certainly a theme. If you spend any time in Pakistan, you engage in that conversation and we're deeply unpopular. Does the US have a role to play in this beyond... I think the US government, I would say no. Because of the reason that you cited, because it would be viewed as an external intervention, one more plot of the CIA to subjugate Pakistan. So I think... By the way, are you coming here? Is that gonna be misinterpreted by some? I hope not, because I mean, I hope not, but then, you know... I think it's an issue. I think I've been to the worst. You mean here to New America or here to Washington? Two dozen bullets, I suppose, outweigh the infamy of being in Washington. Shala, Shala put it that way. Okay, we're gonna open it up to everybody here. Can you wait for a microphone and identify yourself? And thank you very much, this gentleman here. Yep. Thank you very much. My name is Malik Sirajyakwar. I am a Pakistani journalist. An exiled journalist, Raza, welcome to the club. Are you from Blushestan? I'm from Blushestan, yes. My takeaway from the entire talk is, I think, the traditional behavior of blaming the victim, the gist of the whole conversation seems to be that, you know, that the media itself is responsible, the journalists have to regulate themselves. But I mean, 17 years back, Raza and I, like our mutual boss, Najam Sethi was kidnapped from Lahore and the blame was on the ISI. The ISI has been blamed for so long. But my question is, Raza, what do you think is going to be the aftermath of the attack on you? Will the Pakistani media be absolutely silenced? The way your newspaper, for example, Express Tribune has not won a single op-ed and about the attack on Hamid Mir, the television channels have blacked it out. So what is the aftermath? Will the Pakistani media be absolutely silenced or will it trigger a wave of activism for the media's freedom? Because similar to what Kari was saying, overly optimistic attitude towards Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. It was the Ministry of Defense under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif which moved the resolution that geo-television should be shut down. So what is the democratic government doing about it? Thank you. I mean, I really don't know what is going to happen. But I mean, for sure, I think my newspaper, which where I write a regular column, Express Tribune, had already been under attack and they had even been asking me not to write on certain subjects. They would, you know, the editors would turn it down. And surely it has been silent after Hamid Mir's attack. I think there's a huge disunity, the media is divided. And that is why I was not, you know, towards the end blaming the victim. But I said that the media owners, as businessmen, as corporate interests, do share some measure of, okay, even in the smaller percentage, responsibility for taking care of their employees. And simply that contractual obligation is missing. If you send your people to cover a bomb blast site without a bulletproof vest or something, or without the necessary equipment or a life insurance, I mean, what are you doing to people? You're exploiting them. And this is what's happening. That's the real story of Pakistani journalism as well, you know, other than the high level, high profile, ISI targeting Hamid Mir or Sehti, or whoever, you know, these are there. But at the same time, they're also these problems. So I'm, Sairaj, I was trying to kind of make it more, more nuanced, you know, than- We definitely didn't want to give the- The guns after the journalists. You know, yes, that's true, everybody knows. But, you know, there's much more rot within the industry, and that also needs a debate. But I think at the moment, sadly, there is a culture of silence. I think Kati mentioned that after the attack happened on me, whoever, half a dozen or a dozen people who used to oppose the talks with Taliban, stopped doing that. And there was a silence, you know, there were more and more sort of calls to appease the Taliban. Oh, our brothers who have gone astray must be brought back and hugged for peace. And they should be, yeah, this is, I'm trusting for Murtudu. And, you know, they are the patriots who just have, who have, you know, forgotten the real parts and they should be talked to and negotiated with. So there is this narrative, and after Hamid Mead, what has happened is that also whatever critique of the military or military's policies was there, it was pretty robust, you know, as you saw after the Osama bin Laden operation, these were unprecedented, you know. So the paradox that we talked about right at the start continues in Pakistan. Even the fact that GOTV could flash the picture of DGISI for eight hours shows a little opening in Pakistan's media. But the gentleman from Lucie the Sound raises an interesting question, which is if the Ministry of Defense basically officially says that we want GOTV to close down, is that something the word Sharif had any role in? Or was it something the Ministry of Defense did on their own? Well, I mean, you know, Peter, I would like to say, Raj, we have also tampered with our constitutional freedom so much that the Article 19 of the Pakistan Constitution, which shows free speech, has a long list of qualifiers. Okay, we say every person has free speech, unless that, you know, you cannot talk about against the glory and integrity of Islam. You cannot talk against the defense and security of Pakistan. You cannot talk against, I think, two other subjects. There are about five qualifiers to freedom of speech. So technically, in a very narrow sense of Pakistani jurisprudence, Ministry of Defense does have a basic case. Sadly, that's how it is because they could make an argument that Pakistan is in a state of war and adheres a TV channel trying to defame its intelligence, apparatus, its military, et cetera. But of course, you know, there are larger issues, you know, like the issue of democratic space and overall freedom of expression, you know, and there are other articles of the Constitution. So there are problems within the Pakistani, you know, the way we have shaped our Constitution as well, that you cannot directly do that, sadly. I mean, for example, there's something which was constructed by General Ziaulhak in the 1980s called the Ideology of Pakistan. Nobody knows what it is. I mean, there are various definitions. And it is a crime in the penal code to oppose the ideology of Pakistan with a certain punishment. Just a little, just on the front side. Hi, I'm Josefa Khanum. I'm from the Embassy of Pakistan. And I wanted to thank you all, thank all of you for your very interesting comments. And I'm a Foreign Service Officer and the Chief of Staff for the Ambassador, too. Right. I'm looking forward to meeting you. Okay, so I was basically just going to say that, of course, you know, there's no condemnation of killing of journalists in any case. But I just wanted to, since you guys were making comparisons, I just wanted to ask a few questions and get some perspectives. For instance, in the US, as an outside observer, sometimes you see in the media when there's gun violence. And it's never really debated in the media. For instance, the Lockheed Martin Company that's based in Fort Worth, or like how much of the US economy is based on the defense equipment. And for instance, in India, like some people say that the media is not as anti-government as it is in Pakistan. It kind of toes the government line in most cases. So I just wanted to get some views on that. Thank you. Well, thank you for your question. You know, there is so much that is wrong with our country, our United States of America. And there are obviously many things. India too has its flaws. But our mission is a very specific one. The Committee to Protect Journalists exists. It was founded by a group of American journalists who had worked overseas and were very much taken up with the problems that our colleagues were having overseas, where the only organization that is uniquely focused on press freedom issues beyond our borders. It is by no means a statement of America's lack of media shortcomings. God knows we could have a weekend seminar. We did a discussion here about that issue not too long ago with Len Downey and Rajeev Chandrasekharan right here about US press freedom challenges. So something we do talk about. We do talk about. But nor do we wish to act as preachers who land up in countries with all the answers. We don't have them. But we are concerned about our colleagues in Pakistan. And that's our reason for being. But Joel and Cady, correct me if I'm wrong. There was an American journalist killed in Arizona in the late September, right? Yeah. And it was car bomb. Now, didn't a consortium of all sorts of newspapers and TV stations basically get together and say, we are going to investigate what happened here? And they basically solved the case. They made very significant progress. And we've seen that strategy emulated sometimes with success and sometimes without success. A group of journalists from Paul Klebnikov was killed in Russia, tried to create a similar consortium. Very challenging. I've seen it happen in Colombia as well, where journalists have come together. They work in Colombia? Well, there's always challenging. But there's more solidarity there. What I have seen in Colombia is different media organizations get together, work collectively on an investigative project, run the story simultaneously on the same day without bylines. This was at the height of the violence. Can't see that happening in Pakistan. Can I just also say that I wrote a book about the murder of an American journalist during the Greek Civil War. A man named George Polk, after whom the Polk Awards are named. And the official story was that he was killed by the communists. This was the beginning of the Cold War. And my book, The Polk Conspiracy, I recommend it. One of eight books? Now available in paperback. I unraveled the official story and, in fact, led the crime to Washington and London and our right-wing allies in Athens. So that's actually how I got involved in the committee to protect journalists was, after I wrote this book, I got a call saying, would you like to work on behalf of journalists other than those killed in Greece? And so I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. We don't discriminate against countries. We discriminate against people who attack journalists. OK, we'll start with this lady here. Thank you. Hi, I'd rather it's good to see you. Can you identify yourself? Sure. My name is Sana Ali. I used to work with the Embassy of Pakistan with Ambassador Sherry Rahman, who's doing great media freedom work as well in Pakistan now. I'm a student at Johns Hopkins SICE. And I actually am very proud of the fact that, in your career, you've spoken in Urdu and you've spoken to the majority of people and made a lasting imprint in many conversations. That's something I hope to do as well in Pakistan and discuss all of these things. And you underscored the importance of a code of ethics, something that needs to exist. And I've spent a lot of time thinking about what is a better use of my energy? Should I be speaking on enmity issues and Shia issues and the sectarian violence that's done? Or should we really start on a code of ethics? Is that something that we really need to work on political parties? And I don't think you have the liberty of choosing. I think you need to do all of that at once. So my question to you is, what is it that political parties who maybe aren't in power can be doing to solidify these media rights? Is there something they can do on local levels if maybe the Nawashreef government has many federal concerns? Are there other things other parties can be doing? Thank you. Good question. You know, because Pakistan's electronic media is a nascent industry, and it still does not have a code of ethics. And in fact, if you remember that there were issues like the television channels would show too much violence, body parts of a suicide bomber, and which is not shown anywhere in the world. So then the parliament did intervene in the previous government. And they came up with a parliamentary committee, suggested a code of conduct on what sorts of things could be shown on television in terms, you know, in the context of terrorism. And now after Mr. Meese's incident, parliamentary body has been formed to look into some of these guidelines as to how the TV channels should be reporting on certain issues. But I think the political parties have a fundamental role. And they have been shirking that role. I think this is the problem in Pakistan is that the traditional initiative of governing the country was with the unelected institutions like the military and the civil bureaucracy that the political parties and the political elites did not come forward. And they have shied away from that particular initiative. And now you see some signs of that. So I agree with you. Yes, the political parties have a role. And along these parliamentary commission types, because that is where such debates must end up. OK, we're going to have this gentleman here, and David Sedney, and this gentleman. We're going to just do three. We're going to start gathering questions, because we're just gentlemen. Start with? Yeah, my name is Steve Gozula. Last year, I was in Pakistan, Chief of Party for a USAID project on hydro and irrigation development in North Waziristan. A couple of weeks ago in this very room, there was a presentation where they described Pakistan as having a Praetorian administration. It was an allusion to the Roman Empire, where the Senate could behave and function well. But if they misbehaved, the Praetorian guard could step in. From what I'm hearing today, well, all the journalists are fighting among themselves and being killed by apparently the military establishment, the Taliban. Would there be any way that journalists, as well as uniting as it has been proposed with a sort of universal code of ethics, any way that you could convince the military establishment, including the ISI, that you're a very valuable asset for Pakistan rather than a liability? OK, good question. So, David. Thank you. David Sadney, I'm currently an independent analyst and commentator. I did work for the US government for 30 years, and I think explain what your last job was. I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia. And I certainly acknowledge that we in the United States have many failings, including in the US government. That's one of the reasons I resigned from my job. I want to express my admiration to you and to all the other Pakistani journalists. I'm not going to ask you any of the hard questions, because I think it puts you in a difficult position. But I am going to ask Peter and the others a question. First, the comment, however. I feel uncomfortable discussing level playing fields. When on one side, there's only five players, and the other side, there's about 20. The five players are running around in shorts and sneakers, and the other ones have AK-47s and tanks, mortars, and stuff like that. And the more time you spend discussing the level playing field, the less you play attention to the real issue in my view. And I think this, to be frank, I thought you spent too much time worrying about the playing field and not a tough time running about the reality here. I want to go back to somebody who you had just here just a few weeks ago, Peter. You had Carlotta Gaul here, I think, on the same stage, talking about Pakistan as well. And tied that into a comment Raisa made. He said that the anchors were not run by the ISI. Well, that's actually an interesting question, because in addition to the instruments of force that you discuss, there's a lot of long history, and many Pakistani journalists I know have talked to at the Pakistani Intelligent Services use positive incentives. They pay journalists. They encourage them to write things that are positive for the government. They encourage them to fight among each other. And so my question for you, Peter, and for the people from the committee, is that besides being against the killing of journalists, which you do tremendous work on, what about helping journalists become good journalists, fair journalists, and resisting those kind of positive incentives? We will give you money. We will get your children into a really good school. And by the way, if you don't, we'll kill you. Good question. Okay, this gentleman here. Okay, we're gonna get to everybody, but make him short now, but he's running out of time. Hi, Idris Ali, Pakistan Press Foundation. Could you talk about, you talked about Nawaz Shri's meeting, and it sounded very optimistic. What, if any, mechanisms have you put in place to actually follow through on them? Because governments, previous, seem to talk the talk, but, you know. Okay, great question. Great to have you up on that. Jonathan Landry from? McClatchy. Into December 2007, none of these media owners or their channels had any qualms about rebroadcasting Benazir Bhutto's unproven claims that men around President and General Musharraf were responsible for trying to kill her in Karachi. And they didn't just do that for eight hours. They went on and on and on and on. And that's still the case today. Yet, so my question is, to what extent are the media owners, other than GEO, using Hamid Meir's, the attack on Hamid Meir as an opportunity, not just to suck up to the army, but also to try and increase their own audience share? Okay, good question. This lady here, and then this lady. I'm Tahir Anur, I'm from Pakistan. I'm a Fulbright fellow here, and work with Warbank as a focal person for the Universal Healthcare Program. Raja, I'm very happy to see you live here. Welcome to the safest land on earth. My question is, as soon after this Hamid Meir incident, we saw media fraternity divided. And at the same time, we also saw that Prime Minister is going to see Hamid Meir and Chief of Army Staff is going to see his DGSI. So what do you think? Who was, what kind of a message that both were conveying to whom? Was the political opinion also divided the way media fraternity was divided? Okay, this lady here. Hi, my name is Sahar Gul. I'm a researcher on extremism and radical Islam since 2006, and my question is from Raja Rumi about the role of Pembra. That, is there any, do you have an idea that there's history of Pembra that has been monitoring TV channels and then taking action against them? Because I have been doing research on religious TV channels since 2009 to the state. And I have very interesting findings and hate speech and I have been just contacting Pembra. I went over there, they gave me time and I was waiting for them to meet and they didn't do anything. And so I've shared very interesting things they could have taken action against. So what do you think that, what should be done in this regard? Okay, and did you finally, what question is over here? Yeah, I'm picking. Thank you. My question is from Raja. My name is Sherzaman, I'm from Pakistan. I came here, I'm in Virginia from last nine months, majoring in media and communication. As Raja talked about various challenges which journalists are currently facing in Pakistan. So what Raja, you would recommend for a fresh journalist like me who is going back in Pakistan in upcoming one or two months? Okay. All right, there's a lot of good questions. So I mean, are there any ones that you want us to respond to and then I'll prompt you with ones if we don't get. I think I could respond, talk a little bit about the follow-up and I can also talk a little bit about the challenge of doing with corruption and pressure in the media and how we manage that. Yeah, press standards. Okay. Go for it. Take it away. Okay, first on the follow-up, I mean, one of the things that we did is we memorialized all the commitments that the prime minister made to us. And I think we've left that. Oh, there's some copies outside if you want to take that. And we distributed those commitments to all the key actors, including diplomatic community, officials, civil society, diplomatic community. And we've asked them to follow up and hold the government to account on these commitments, the specific commitments that were made. We obviously will be doing the same. And but it's not something that we can do single-handedly. The question is how broadly will the commitments that were made very publicly, which were memorialized and concretized be adopted more broadly by the media community and the interests that are defending the media? That's what we're going to see. That's the strategy. I answered that. After this session, I'm going to the State Department to meet with Ambassador Dobbins, who is in charge of Afghanistan and Pakistan for this administration. And I do believe that to reach that magic tipping point, you do have to attack from every angle. And therefore, I think it's very important for us to have the support of the State Department and the White House in their dealings with Pakistan as unpopular as the United States is in Pakistan. I think we do still have a certain amount of leverage. So we're certainly enlisting the support of the State Department. And then tomorrow I'm meeting with your boss, Ambassador Jelani, to talk about follow-ups to our trip. And plus, we made it very clear that we would be returning. So that has them scared. We'll always come back. Yes, and on the corruption issue. Well, the corruption issue, I really agree with your analysis. I think it's important that you brought it up. I'm afraid I'm not going to give you a very satisfying answer because the issue is tremendously complex. Basically, my answer is that the media in every society that I see reflects the dysfunctionalities of that society, including our own. And Pakistan is no exception. But let me give you another example where corruption of the media is an overwhelming problem in the context of this issue. Mexico, okay? There, the dynamic is very different. You have drug traffickers basically making the same offer. Either you write about us in a positive way and we pay you, or you don't write about us and we kill you. And in Pakistan, you describe the dynamic very well, but it's different. So what I would say is it's an immensely complex issue. It's one that we have to address in different ways in different societies. But the fundamental thing you need to do in this context is make sure that the government meets its responsibilities. And that responsibility means that when there is violence committed against the press, regardless of the circumstances, when a journalist is killed, there needs to be a systematic, comprehensive investigation and those responsible need to be brought to justice. And that's the single most important message that we need to deliver over and over and over again. And we can't allow any contextual variables to detract from that clear, defined responsibility of the government. And I just wanna add that the best cure for corruptible journalists is to pay journalists a living wage. And so insofar as we have any voice at all, any influence at all with media owners, we need to drive home the point that journalists need to be paid what the market bears. Raise a final thoughts on this. Yeah, I'll just address that. I think what you mentioned about the politics following the attack on Hamid Meir is absolutely spot on because it has become a kind of a civil military tension point. And the fact that the prime minister and his ministers backing the GOTV network rather clearly and solidly for many days was viewed as a sign that somewhere within the civilian government was siding with the stance of GOTV being hard on the ISI. And some conspiracy theorists again on the rival TV channels went to the extent of saying that it was a plot by the prime minister and his party. And it's a conspiracy, mind you. So to actually do all of this to get to remove the DGISI from the scene. So I mean, I don't buy that, but the issue here is that, yes, that split has also come into play and that has also muddled the waters. And you are absolutely right about the corporate interests. I think they are really supreme. Beneath all this talk about patriotism and et cetera and defense, it is about the fact that the other media houses of Pakistan are sensing that the big beast may actually be expelled from the room and they'll have all the advertising shares. So they are pushing and gunning for it, ban it, it's unpaid shortcuts, it's an agent of the Indians and the West and blah, blah, blah. So you have this whole narrative on television and at the core of it, for the media industry is the profit and corporate interest, you know. I think, you know, the more you know about Pakistan, the less you know about it. I think it is, but we have the best possible panel to discuss this and in a way, this is really, this subject, as Cady said, it's about the future of Pakistan in a lot of ways because it's, so I want to thank Cady and Reza and Joel for their insights and times. This is one of the most lively panels we've had. Thank you all for your excellent questions. Thank you.