 I think we'll go ahead and get going. Thank you for coming. My name is Andrew Wilder. I'm the vice president of the Asia Centre here at USIP. Thank all of you for coming. Thanks to those of you who are joining online. A word of apologies. You'll not be surprised to hear that over the last week we've had a surge of interest in this event. So many of you maybe ended up in the overflow space, so apologies for that. To those of you who are new, USIP was founded in 1984 by Congress as an independent national institute dedicated to the proposition that peace is possible, it's practical and it's essential for US and global security. USIP has been working in Pakistan for many years. We have a focus on trying to increase tolerance for diversity in Pakistan, working with a broad range of civil society actors, innovators, scholars, policy makers. But what we do back here in Washington, we feel is also important in trying to keep the American public informed and policy makers informed about what's happening in Pakistan, as well as in all the other countries in which USIP is working overseas. It's a pleasure today to invite Ambassador Assad Majid Khan to USIP. He is no stranger to Washington. He served here before. This event is proving to be very timely and again much more so than we envisioned when we originally scheduled it. This past week has witnessed what some are describing as the most serious military confrontation between two nuclear states in recent history. So we are pleased to have the Ambassador here with us today to discuss this crisis, but not just this crisis, many of the other issues that are priorities for Pakistan and also for the US-Pakistan relationship. As we're a peace institute, we like to hear perspectives from all parties. We're also, therefore, reached out to the Indian Embassy in the hopes that we'll have an opportunity for the Indian Ambassador to speak at USIP at some point in the not too distant future. Ambassador Khan has a long and distinguished career in the foreign service of Pakistan, spanning nearly three decades. His most recent assignment was as Pakistan's Ambassador to Japan, where he served from 2017 to 2019. Again, no stranger to DC as he was here at the DCM at the Embassy from 2012 to 2015. Ambassador Khan earned his doctorate in international, economic and business law from Kyushu University in Japan. In a minute, I'll invite the Ambassador to come here and take the stage and make introductory remarks. After that, my colleague, Moid Yusuf, who's the Associate Vice President here at USIP, will join the Ambassador on the stage for a moderated discussion and question and answer. But I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't use this opportunity to put in a plug for Moid's book, Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments, US Crisis Management in South Asia, published by Stanford about a year ago and certainly very relevant to what's happening to the last couple of weeks in South Asia. So I encourage all of you to rush out and buy this online immediately if you really want to understand what's been happening and how to respond to crises like these in South Asia. So with that, I'll invite you, Ambassador, up to the stage and thank you again for coming to USIP. Thank you, Andrew. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for having me over at the United States Institute of Peace to speak about Pakistan's policy responses to recent developments in our region and my priorities as Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States for building a strong and sustainable partnership between our two countries. Over the years, the Institute has established itself as the first sport of call for all newly arriving ambassadors from Pakistan. We are thankful to the Institute's leadership for their close and continued engagement with Pakistan. We value it greatly. I'm sure all of you have been closely following the recent developments in our region. However, before sharing my thoughts and perspectives on the recent developments, I'd like to start by talking about my priorities for the bilateral relationship and how it could be transformed into a long-term partnership based on mutuality of benefit. Distinguished guests, Pakistan-U.S. relationship, as most of you are well aware, is as old as Pakistan itself. Over the last seven decades, we have pursued common goals inspired by shared ideas and common objectives. We have achieved remarkable successes whenever we have worked together. I have a long personal association with this relationship. In my diplomatic career, spending over 30 years, I have seen good times and challenging times. However, despite occasional differences and turbulence, the importance of the relationship and the need to stay engaged has never been lost on either side. For Pakistan, our relationship with the United States remains a consequential and significant one. We are the fifth largest country in the world in terms of population, a vibrant democracy, a nuclear power with a strategic location at the cusp of southwest and central Asia and proximity to the Persian Gulf. We also have an active and well-placed Pakistani-American community that enriches all facets of American society. The United States is also Pakistan's leading trading partner and a significant source of foreign direct investment and remittances. Unsurprisingly, given Pakistan's status as a major English-speaking nation, American colleges and universities remain a destination of choice for young Pakistanis looking to fulfill their dreams. All this makes Pakistan a significant player in its own right and a natural partner of the United States for building a strong, sustainable and long-term relationship encompassing security, economy, business and people-to-people contacts. We therefore do not see our relationship with the United States through the prism of another country and would not want to be seen through the prism of another country. In this backdrop, I arrive in Washington determined to work towards building a relationship that is broad-based and comprehensive, as well as long-term and predictable. Such a relationship, we are convinced, will not only serve the interests of our two countries but would also act as a linchpin for the future stability and prosperity of the region. Distinguished guests, my arrival in Washington, I must say, is also auspiciously timed. As I come here after Pakistan has gone through a historic democratic transition with a new government in place under the dynamic leadership of Prime Minister Imran Khan, a leadership that is committed to Asher Pakistan into a new era. The government wants to build a new Pakistan that can be translated as new Pakistan in order to pursue a people friendly, development-driven and peace-centric agenda. The whole thrust of the new government is to create an enabling environment that would allow the people of Pakistan to pursue their dreams and aspirations for personal growth, social mobility, and economic development and prosperity. To this end, the government has already put in place a comprehensive plan designed to provide better access to health, housing, and education to the people of Pakistan. Similarly, important steps are promoting austerity, fiscal discipline, and domestic resource mobilization, improving ease of doing business, enhancing competitiveness and productivity are being taken to deal with our foreign exchange and trade-related challenges. We believe that with our much-improved security environment, better control over our energy crisis and development of a massive connectivity and transport infrastructure, Pakistan is open for business. U.S. businesses and investors have historically had a significant presence in Pakistan. Despite all the challenges that we confronted over the last decade in terms of security, they have not only maintained their equities in Pakistan, but enlarged them. Only recently, ExxonMobil has come back to Pakistan in a big way, and Kagil has entered Pakistani market as well. We want to see more U.S. companies coming to Pakistan. With its huge middle-class and potential to emerge as a manufacturing hub for the entire region, Pakistan offers a captive market for U.S. retailers and rich investment opportunities for the U.S. manufacturers. I'm here to seek and explore those opportunities, recognizing fully that now is the time to come to Pakistan sooner, the better. As the prime minister recently told business investors in the Middle East, Pakistan is on the upswing. You do not want to miss the board. Ladies and gentlemen, a prosperous, pluralistic and tolerant Pakistan as it is at the heart of the present government's vision for Pakistan, and it is this people and development centricity that is driving the government's peaceful neighborhood agenda. The prime minister is convinced that Pakistan will not be able to pursue its development goals and aspirations until and unless we have a peaceful neighborhood. The new government therefore wasted no time in reaching out to all of our neighbors, particularly India and Afghanistan, to seek dialogue, cooperation and engagement. Indeed, the prime minister held out a hand of friendship to India in his very first speech after the July 2018 elections, declaring that if India were to take one step, Pakistan will take two. Since then, Pakistan has opened the Kharzharpur Corridor for sick pilgrims from India. Pakistan has also made other peace of urges, which unfortunately demand unreciprocated. In this past decade, the Pakistan-U.S. relationship has come to be seen through the Afghan Prism, notwithstanding the fact that we have been partners before, and we hope to be friends long after the Afghan crisis is out of our way. Of course, we can understand U.S. concerns in Afghanistan. After all, Pakistan has paid a high price for the conflict in Afghanistan. Over 70,000 Pakistanis, including around 7,000 of our troops have lost their lives in fighting terrorism since 2001. Pakistan therefore wants to see the U.S. succeed in bringing peace to Afghanistan. Pakistan wants to see an Afghanistan that is at peace with itself and peace with its neighbors. Happily, there is today a fundamental convergence between Pakistan and the United States on the need for achieving political settlement in Afghanistan. Prime Minister Khan has been advocating peace through dialogue in Afghanistan long before it became fashionable. Pakistan therefore supports President Trump's bold vision for peace in Afghanistan, and our cooperation has been critical to the reported progress being made by Ambassador Khalilzad in Doha. While Pakistan will continue to extend its support for the Doha process, peace in Afghanistan is ultimately a shared responsibility. It is therefore important to take all the stakeholders on board and to guard against any spoilers who may not be invested in the success of the U.S.-led peace process. Pakistan also agrees that an intra-Afghan dialogue that brings together the Taliban and the national unity government is essential for evolving a roadmap for sustainable peace in Afghanistan. It is ultimately up to the Afghan people and their representatives to determine their political future. Pakistan does not, however, want to be left holding the bag in the region. We hope the international community and particularly the U.S. will remain economically engaged in Afghanistan. Pakistan has also been host to the Afghan refugees for almost 40 years. We hope that the peace settlement would result in the repatriation of Afghan refugees. Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, the past few weeks have witnessed a serious escalation between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of the Ulbama attack when a young Kashmiri carried out a suicide attack against an Indian military convoy in occupied Kashmir on 14th February. India appointed the finger at Pakistan within minutes. The Indian government and media went in to overdrive, whipping up war hysteria against Pakistan. India paid no attention to the available evidence, all of which pointed to the indigenous origin of the attack. While rejecting the Indian allegations, Prime Minister Imran Khan offered India an investigation and dialogue and promised to take action against anyone involved in the attack if India could provide credible and actionable intelligence. The Prime Minister also asked India to introspect about what was driving young Kashmiris to lose their fear of death and give up their lives fighting the Indian occupation. He also warned India that Pakistan will be forced to respond if India commits aggression against Pakistan. Unfortunately, India neither took up the Prime Minister's offer or dialogue nor paid heed to his warning. On February 26, India signed violation of the UN Charter, international law and interstate norms resorted to blatant aggression by attacking Pakistan. Clearly, India chose to act as judge, jury and executioner. It followed up on this aggression by making ridiculous claims of having hit a so-called terrorist camp inside Pakistan and killing over 300 militants. These claims, as you know, have been thoroughly bunged by neutral observers as well as by elements within India. Day after India's aggression against Pakistan, on 27th February, Pakistan struck six sites inside occupied Kashmir, purposefully avoiding civilian casualties or collateral damage. However, when two Indian aircraft violated our space, they were shot down. Our sole objective was to demonstrate that we had the right, will and capability to act in our self-defense. We also made it clear that we do not wish to further escalate and are ready to give dialogue a chance to resolve issues like irresponsible and mature democratic nation. Pakistan also called upon the international community to take note of India's irresponsible actions of 26 and 27th February that had seriously imperiled peace and stability in South Asia and to urge India to de-escalate. Prime Minister Khan once again stressed the importance of dialogue and engagement, pointing out that all wars start from miscalculation and once they start, they are not in anyone's control. To reinforce Pakistan's commitment to peace and dialogue and as a goodwill gesture aimed at de-escalating the rising tensions with India, Pakistan announced the release of the captured Indian pilot who has already safely returned to India. The Indian pilot was handed over by Pakistani officials at the Vaga border. Merely hours later, Pakistani officials were back at the Vaga border this time to receive the dead body of a Pakistani who had been beaten to death in an Indian prison. The symbolism would scarcely be starker. Ladies and gentlemen, Prime Minister Imran Khan has been consistent from day one in seeking peace and dialogue with India. He has shown courage, vision and restraint as befits his statesmen leading in nuclear power. We do hope that the worst is behind us and that some sense and sanity would prevail in India, allowing the present government to see the escalation with Pakistan beyond their narrow political domestic considerations and the serious threats it posed to peace and security in the region and beyond. However, it is a matter of concern that the frenzy that the Indian government whipped up around the attack has resulted in poor Kashmiris being attacked and hounded across India, even as Kashmiri leaders are being rounded up and imprisoned by Indian forces. This is happening on top of the unspeakable atrocities that the Kashmiri people have suffered particularly since 2016 that are now duly documented in the UNO, CHR and APGG reports. The international community cannot afford to continue getting it wrong. It must recognize that the real cause of regional stability in South Asia is the undissolved dispute of Kashmir. It is time to address the oldest dispute on the UN Security Council's agenda. Ladies and gentlemen, before I conclude, let me reiterate the importance Pakistan attaches to its relationship with the United States and our desire to build a long-term and broad-based partnership between the two countries. I thank you very much for your patience. Thank you, master. As always, very comprehensive and eloquent. So what we'll do is have a bit of a chat and then open it up for questions from all of you and could I request my colleagues to see if we could get questions from the overflow room as well. We have a large crowd in a couple of other rooms. As Andrew mentioned, this was an oversold event. And so I want to make sure they can be part of this. I must say let me first begin by the only softball I'm going to give you today. Okay. How is it to be back in Washington? No, I'm very happy and delighted to be back. And although on paper I presented my credentials on 11th January, but I had to go back to Japan to basically do my farewell calls in Tokyo. So and I arrived here in early February and then I was in Germany when the pulwama thing happened. And we've been at it. So I still have to go out to CDC to be able to realize what it is like to still jet lag. But let me begin quite honestly by asking you, you've had some of your official calls, I know. Is this a really different DC than what you left in 2015? Definitely a new administration with the relationship also. I think, yes, DC at least this is what I hear from everybody. And I would say that I have still or I have yet to find it out for myself because I have only done a few calls so far that DC is different from what it was before. But so far I've been, I was certainly very warmly received by the president for my credentials. And I've also been very warmly received by senior state department officials. So the challenges in the relationship, it never was an easy relationship and there never was or there never is a dull moment in this relationship from that perspective and point of view. I frankly still don't see much of a difference. But as they say, Judy is still out. So I may have, I may be in a position to. So let me sort of stay on the US Pakistan for a bit and ask you, you've mentioned in your opening remarks the importance of Pakistan and the US Pakistan relationships history. But quite honestly, though the way the world is moving, there is an obvious new geostrategic outlook. And the US and China seem to be now the obvious competitors going forward in terms of great powers. Pakistan for many in this town has already made a decision, a choice, which is to be in the Chinese camp. There's a China Pakistan economic corridor, there's billions of dollars flowing from that. And many would argue that courting Pakistan at this point for Washington makes no sense because ultimately it's the US and India strategic partnership. That's much more important. How would you respond to that? You know, I think when you say this, you are perhaps looking at the world in terms of the classic hard alliances that the world had during the Cold War where, you know, you existed in silos and where you were either with one block or against that block. I think the world has changed tremendously. And today China is United States largest trading partner. Today, China is a major trading partner with India also. Despite there being strategic competition, these relationships are not seen or perceived as either or relationships. And for Pakistan, I think it is wrong to see our relationship. And that's the point that I made in my presentation also that we don't want to be, you know, we are a very important and significant country in our own right. And our friendship with China is not something that started yesterday. It's been a relationship that has always been there even when, you know, China and United States were in completely opposing camps and they did not have the kind of trade and investment linkages and connections that they have today. And in fact, Pakistan played a role in a way, you know, in bringing China and United States. So it's and then in the context of CPAC also, I think that does not mean that the Chinese investments are to the exclusion of everyone else. I think if you look at our investment regime and that's the point that I'll be making extensively here in Washington, DC, that those package investment packages are available on a most favored nation status basis. And that China came to Pakistan, frankly, when no one was ready to come to Pakistan. Today, the situation has changed fundamentally and remarkably in terms of the security turnaround that we have achieved in Pakistan in terms of what we have done in overcoming the energy crisis in terms of CPAC creating that basic infrastructure that should allow us and enable us to move to the next level where the process of industrializations kick starts where, you know, we have a 210 million population with 45 percent middle class with 40 percent increase in their consumption power, you know, so all this opens up avenues for manufacturing and using Pakistan as a connectivity hub in the wider region. So I really don't think that the resurrecting the ghosts of Cold War is the right thing to do and to conceive the relationships and real alignment strictly in the manner in which they were seen or perceived 40 years or 30 years ago. I think this is a new world. This is where countries are basically looking for opportunities with friends and with their strategic competitors alike and Pakistan doesn't want to be any different. Fair enough. One more on this and then we'll switch to a harder topic. Oops. I thought this was the harder one. You make the point about the sort of economic space, the market, the size. That's taken. The problem for Pakistan, of course, there is that you sit next to two giants, two of the largest economies in the world. And that fact is also not going to change. Apart from economics, isn't part of the problem in this relationship that all the issues that the two sides have discussed for the past three or four years at least have not been positive? There's Afghanistan where there was tension. There's nuclear where there's been an issue. There is terrorism which I will come to. Where is the positive convergence that should create champions of the Pakistan relationship in this town? It was quite frankly you are still going to do calls but I'll be honest with you. One of the big changes from when you were here previously, I think those champions are gone because there's a lot of frustration with the relationship. I think you are not following Senator Lindsey Graham and what he has said about the relationship. And again, obviously, and I think you are right, the challenge in this relationship, I would say for the past a whole decade has been the centrality of the Afgan issue as a part of the conversation and that has in a way influenced everyone here in DC. And therefore, I think the convergence and I think I would like to say that President Trump has shown a lot of courage and vision in seeking peace or trying to achieve peace in Afghanistan. And on this particular score, I think he is on the same page with our prime minister and we are determined to work with him. And that I think would at least remove that elephant in the room that consumed all energy in the relationship and did not let us focus on issues other than that. But Moit, let me also say that there is a conversation in the public domain. But then there are also realities on the ground. I mean Procter and Gamble made six times profits. Then their global average in Pakistan. Pepsi, Coke and Coke doubled and tripled their investments. And this all happened during the last 10 years. So the businesses have their own sense and appreciation of a country and its potential. But then that conversation doesn't get reported in the New York Times. That conversation doesn't get reported in the Washington Post. So therefore, it is not part of perhaps USIP's focus also. But the thing is that nuclear, yes, I mean, that has been part of our bilateral conversations for as long as this issue has been in the relationship. No, I mean, I think that's a fair point. And one of the critics I have in the conversations here is that, yes, it is not as broad as it should be because there are the things that are happening in Pakistan. But since Afghanistan, you mentioned Afghanistan as sort of the issue that's holding things back. There seems to be positive news out of Afghanistan. And for the past two months, three months, it's, you know, some of the narratives have changed on US Pakistan in terms of what's happening in Afghanistan. What is Pakistan's vision for Afghanistan beyond saying that it should be peaceful and, you know, independent and everything else? Does Pakistan, if somebody were to come to you today or the Pakistani state and say, what is your ideal scenario out of this entire peace process? What would that be? I think, you know, I mean, the facts will speak for themselves. There is no country after Afghanistan that has suffered as much as Pakistan on account of the conflict in Afghanistan. So we have huge and direct stakes in seeing peace return to Afghanistan. We would like Afghanistan to be a stable place with no ungoverned spaces that are used by elements against Pakistan or anyone else. Pakistan has also been home to almost 2.7 million refugees and much more for the past 40 years. So we would want them to honorably return to their country and to be able to pursue their, you know, aspirations for economic growth, personal security and all of that. So for us, and really, if you look at, and I recall time back in 91 and, you know, early 90s when there was this possibility of peace returning and Pakistan and the wider region looking at the connectivity potential and how we could reach out to Central Asia and the wider region as soon as we are able to achieve peace. So we have an economic stake. We have a security stake. We have a stake as a neighbor who has shared the burden of those refugees for that many years. So in that way, you know, we would like to have peace return to Pakistan and enable us basically, you know, to also pursue our economic and development goal. Could I press on something that has been the talk of this town for a while? And I understand it's a difficult issue, but the future of the Taliban seems to be becoming somewhat clearer in this peace process and perhaps they're being bought. There's also the thorn in this relationship that's kept coming back, which is the Haqqani network. Where does this conversation end up, whether there is a peace deal in Afghanistan or not? Because as far as I can tell, that issue still remains. I think, well, the peace process, I suppose, has overtaken all other conversations and since U.S. is in direct conversation with the Taliban leadership and Ambassador Khalilzad has a fully empowered delegation. And I'm sure all these issues must be on the table. For the two sides to discuss directly. Okay. Switching gears to India, since that I'm sure is on everybody's mind here and spending a little bit of time on that. And I promise to leave enough time for everybody to ask questions. Maybe that's the hardest part actually. Last week, you talk about escalation, you talk about the dangers, absolutely. Everybody was sort of looking at this horrified. First, explain to us where you see India Pakistan going from here. You've explained the dialogue that the Prime Minister of Pakistan offered. Clearly, that hasn't worked. But you still have a situation where tensions are high. The line of control is hot in Kashmir. Indian Kashmir is not doing well at all. And terrorism remains a very sort of realistic possibility. Is there any scope for India and Pakistan to do better in terms of at least preventing or managing the next crisis? Or are we gonna see a repeat which is gonna be worse because tempers are high and emotions are high? Yes, I think the situation is serious. Yes, we have returned from the brink at least for now. But you are right in pointing out that as soon as the Indian pilot was handed over to the Indian side, we have seen a marked escalation on the line of control. We have lost two of our soldiers and there are civilian casualties also. So that's the difficult part and that is something that is keeping us on our toes. And the whole point really is and this is something that actually predates Pulverma. You know, Prime Minister in one of his first speeches and this is driven by his view and commitment that the only way forward is through dialogue and engagement. By force, you cannot resolve anything. And unfortunately, that conversation track is not there and that leaves a vacuum where some kind of miscalculation. So there consistently, you know, even at the cost of being seen as a country or as a leader craving for peace, you know, he has been time and again asking for dialogue and the whole point really is to avoid any kind of miscalculation that could seriously endanger peace and security. I must take your point, but let's be honest. I think, you know, Andrew mentioned my book. I spent seven years looking at this. I can tell you that there is a movement in terms of the global opinion on these crises. 10 years ago, 15 years ago, the only conversation was de-escalation. There's a nuclear environment, nobody wants nuclear war. But I think you're seeing a discernible shift in this capital and others, where people are now having a conversation about the crisis trigger more than de-escalation. So even in this crisis, in Uri, 2016, there was the last major crisis. Actually, there were public statements that said that India has the right to defend itself. This time again, it was labeled as counter-terrorism. Are we not in a situation where we're hostage to terrorist groups who are doing this, creating nuclear crises, and what the world internalizes is that Pakistan hasn't done anything about it? You know, there is always a true story underneath the bluster, underneath the layers of disinformation that is created. And I think the test of any leadership is to basically be able to have those communication channels that would actually allow you to go deeper into that and address the issue that you want to address. Because if you basically take a position that you are going to do this, this, this, this, if this, this, this happened, you are essentially leaving the entire situation hostage to one, two, or a couple of individuals who maybe rogue elements acting on their own, trying to basically create a war-like situation. And that's where they, and again, you know, I mean, within minutes of this incident, India spoke about incontrovertible evidence. No, I take that point. And that evidence should have been presented. I take that point. But how do you explain Jashay Mohamed's claim of responsibility of this attack? You know, there is, I read yesterday that Pakistan, sort of, there was a meeting and it was reported in the press that Pakistan is going to take action and make sure that all these sort of organizations are under the state control, et cetera. Isn't the finger again and again being pointed at Pakistan because of these groups? And if they're claiming responsibility to poke Pakistan in the eye, isn't it even more necessary that this chapter close once and for all? No, I think, again, we are at it, you know, and you spoke, you asked me about how different the conversation is today than what it was when I was here last. And I have been part of this conversation now for almost 12 years continuously. And I strongly urge you and those in the audience to revisit some of the US talking points back in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2014. I have read New York Times editorial in 2009 declaring that Taliban are 70 kilometers away and they are going to soon take over Islamabad from Savat. Please come visit Pakistan. I'll take you to Savat, which is now, today, the most popular tourist destination in Pakistan once again. We heard about clearing the agencies, the tribal belt. We heard about dismantling networks. We have done all that. You know, since 2017 alone, Pakistan has carried out 20,000 intelligence-based operations in Pakistan. And the improved security situation would speak for itself. I can, there is no organized presence of any terrorist group in Pakistan. I can say that with responsibility here. One more, and then I promise to move on and open it after a couple of more questions. Isn't it true that one of your biggest challenges as ambassador or Pakistan's challenge is to correct some of the negative perceptions about Pakistan or the image problem, as some would call it? And wouldn't you agree that there is an inherent contradiction between trying to do that and the world's microscopic focus on the leadership of some of these groups, due to which Pakistan keeps getting the blame? How do you actually move away from that if that conversation continues to be where it is? No, I mean, as I said, that we are at it. And we will do what is in the best interest of Pakistan. And the point I am making is that we have done a lot already, and I describe this as linear progression in the right direction. I think we are continuously moving, and there have been, it was part of the national action plan. It may not have been implemented the way it was supposed to have been implemented, but we have taken a series of actions against these outfits, and we are determined to take it to the logical conclusion. So could I ask a yes or no question? Is Pakistan's approach to this issue indiscriminate? It is. One question on the economy, and we'll move on. We've heard a lot about Saudi Arabia, the UAE, others sort of coming in and supporting Pakistan financially in recent times, both through cash infusion, but also through investments. There's been a lot of debate about the IMF, going to the IMF, not going to the IMF. And this question I quite frankly ask you more from a Pakistani perspective than any other. All of this to me, to be very honest as an analyst, is irrelevant. The money has come in, especially the cash infusion, all of that has happened Pakistan through its current crisis. But the conversation keeps coming back to when Pakistan will make the structural reforms that take away the need for the Pakistani prime minister to go around and then come back and report to his nation that we've got a lot of money to get us out of the crisis. Ultimately, here is how I asked the question. If there were no IMF, and if there were no ex-pat Pakistanis sending $15 to $20 billion back, which is neither of those is Pakistan's doing in that sense, what is the economic plan to get Pakistan on the road to progress without falling back into the crisis over and over again? Yes, I think there are two parts to what you just said. First of all, I think going to IMF is not that big of a stigma as it is usually presented to be. I think as a member of IMF, we have a right to explore that option. And we have done that several times in the past. And if need be, we will do it once again. But I think if you look at the steps that, and yes, we need to do undertake steps and those hard reforms, that would basically, and in fact, last time this was for the first time that we availed all the aid transfers and actually told the IMF that we don't need you anymore. So we would like to get to that point. And for that already, be it tariff rationalization, be it exchange rate adjustments and making it more realistic, be it expanding the domestic tax base and a range of other measures are already in pipeline. Obviously it will take time for everyone to see the results, ease of doing business and enhancing productivity. So there is a slew of measures that the government is already looking at and is actually already taken also. So the bottom line is that we are ready to make those hard choices and take those hard decisions that you would require to stall the possibility of resorting to this again. Sure. My final question, and it ties to something close to all of our hearts at USIP and this whole field, and it ties back to the image question. And I'd put this very question to the Pakistani foreign minister when he was here. The issue of international non-government organizations. I completely take the point, it's not a Pakistan specific trend. I know India is doing this and doing worse and everybody else. My question to you is about Pakistan, though. We talk about the image, we talk about opening up to the West. And on the other hand, we also see this sort of crackdown on INGOs, perhaps the 38 INGOs on the list now very recently. I completely understand the legal issues and all of that. How do you square this with the image issue? Because being in this field, I can tell you the organizations on the list, the ones I know are not what they're being labeled as. They are respected names in this field. What is the mechanism? And let me just frame it by saying that at a recent conversation with somebody, and I thought they made a very important point, which was other countries do this as well. It's a global trend, a number of countries in the region are kicking out INGOs. But this was an INGO person telling me at least we know what we have to do to stay or be kicked out. We are not clear on the benchmarks of what is being used to make this decision. First of all, I think I would not describe... Wrong word. Crackdown was the wrong word. I knew you were going to go there. We are... Sorry, sorry. We are engaged in... In requesting them to leave? No, no. I think we are... In fact, we have cleared most of them. And perhaps they also face the same image problem that we face here. But again, I think the... And this is something that we used to always discuss in New York during my second committee days in terms of the necessity to let the country determine the development priorities. And then to request our international partners and friends to come and support and help us wherever we need that help. As I said, that a large majority of the INGOs who want to work have already been cleared, consistent with the priorities that the government has laid out. There are issues with some of the advocacy-related NGOs. We are also working on that framework, and we are in conversation with them, in dialogue with them. And I tell you, there is no a priori exclusion of anyone. And we will give reasons for exclusion, and we hear it from INGOs interested in working in Pakistan. And I have heard this before, also that they want to know the reason why. So we are engaged in that conversation. We would continue to stay engaged. And I want to say that we value, greatly value, the good contributions that some of the INGOs have made, including you, sir, which is not an INGO, but you have... No, actually we had a very good partnership, and thank you for that. But just as somebody who works in this field and cares about this, I would very much request to look into this. This is not helping Pakistan, this is not helping the field, and at least not to declare any of these very reputable organizations as security issues, because I don't think that goes down well. Let me open it up to the audience and take some questions. Jay emailed me yesterday and said, I must ask a question. So I will not forget you, Jay, but let me start from the front and come back. Yes, please. My name is Aditya Balu. I'm from Bangalore, India, and I'm currently a student at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, doing a dual concentration in international economics and conflict management. It is my opinion that a leader's role begins even before she or he... Could we stick to questions? I want to get as many as we can. Okay, before he starts, he or she starts a role of leadership. My question is if the two future leaders or prime ministers of India and Pakistan are seated in this audience today, what concrete steps would you advise them to take from now until if and when they take office to resolve the Kashmir dispute once we'd reach that office to hit the ground running? What concrete steps? I'm moving for a step one, step two, step three, if you would be willing. Thank you. You want to take more or you want to answer? Can take a few questions? Okay. Right here, Dana. Thank you. It's Dana Marshall, transnational strategy. Welcome to Washington, Mr. Ambassador. Question is to outline, you had asked a little bit of this, Moeid, the peace dividend that Pakistan might expect with respect to its near abroad, perhaps at some point with India when and if things settle down, and of course with the United States, post-Afghan deal. Let me give you a question from one of our guests in the overflow room. It reads, India alleged Pakistan used F-16s for the missile that was fired. Pakistan denies it. What end user agreements restrict Pakistan from using an F-16? Is it a limitation that it cannot use them against India? One more from the audience. Yes, please. Just wait for the microphone because we've been covered live. Thank you. So welcome, Mr. Ambassador. My name is Nisar and I work for Global Peace. You talked about the Afghan issue because I was born in Afghanistan, so I'm going to concentrate on that. For the past 18 years, Pakistan was an ally with the United States, and Afghanistan was recognized as a government, but looking at the trend, so over 3,000 American soldiers died, over 52,000 injured or disabled. Question, please. Yes. And over 100,000 killed in Afghanistan, and probably I'm wrong about the number, maybe it's a higher number. Why do you think Afghanistan as a country and United States as a country trusts Pakistan in the current trend? Talking with the Taliban, and what is the rule of your country in this process? Okay. First of all, Aditya, I think the UN Security Council resolutions, I just asked both leaders to go back and pull those resolutions that were adopted almost 70 years, and all of it is actually laid out in terms of how this issue needs to be resolved. On the peace dividend that Dana you spoke about, I think as I actually said in my presentation, because we want to start looking inwards. There is huge potential in our bilateral relationship, and through that, in terms of exploring wider economic possibilities in the region. And it is only after you are able to bring security in Pakistan, peace in Afghanistan, and peace in the wider region, even with India, that we will be able to actually explore and fully harness that peace dividend that you are alluding to. And there is, Mohit said in the beginning, that Pakistan is sandwiched between two huge economies and two huge countries. That also is our strength. We might come across as small when looked from New Delhi or Beijing, but Pakistan is the fifth most populous country in the world. So that way, the potential and possibilities are unlimited, only if we are able to deal with this perpetual conflict and tension in the region, bilaterally as well in the wider region. On F16, I don't know, India has been alleging so many other things. So I really don't, we don't get into every single one of them. And I am not aware of any request from the US side about the F16. I think the question is whether Pakistan is prevented by the... I have not seen those end user agreements. I am not in a position to comment on that. One more, actually two of the questions from our... Oh, sorry, my apologies. Yes, the Afghanistan, could you please repeat your question? I didn't really quite get it. Quick, Pakistan is an ally with the United States and the ally forces in Afghanistan. The peace process started after 9-11. And since then, I can give you the number over 3,000 American soldiers died or clothed on over 50,000 got injured or disabled and they live here. And besides that, over 100,000, maybe I'm wrong with the number, probably the number is pretty much higher. Afghan forces died in this process and over probably 100,000 or maybe more, civilian died in the country. And it all happened while Pakistan was ally with Afghanistan, with America, with the allies and trying to bring peace in the region. So now that there is peace talk, are you guys incentivized for anything or why do we have to trust you as a country that Pakistan is honest in this process? So let me crystallize the question for you because we have an identical question from the overflow room, which is perhaps more pointed. But I think, if I'm right, you mentioned the high price that Pakistan has paid for the conflict in Afghanistan. Don't you think that Pakistan should also take responsibility for continuing to host some of the groups that have created problems in Afghanistan, essentially? Iran, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan's neighbors constantly make claims about this vis-a-vis Pakistan? It's really not really a question of Pakistan taking responsibility because if we start talking about numbers, we have lost 70,000 citizens in Pakistan also in the war on terror. Who would take responsibility for those losses that we have suffered? We have also suffered more than 3,000 people and of course, they were being funded by somebody, they were being financed by somebody, they were being trained by somebody and this has been going on and this unfortunate conflict and that's why, as I said in the beginning, it's really for us, it is an absolute imperative to see peace and that's why we are making every effort that we can to facilitate peace and we are happy that today US and Pakistan are on the same page and frankly, in October or in September, nobody could have imagined that the process would come this far in a matter of few months so and we are also actually basically, we believe that there is no peace until all Afghans are on board and to that extent Pakistan is whatever it can do is doing and that perhaps is our way of making a contribution to a conflict that we want to see and sooner than later because after Afghanistan, Pakistan is the one that has suffered the most so if we start speaking about responsibilities then someone will have to take responsibility for whatever has happened in Pakistan, I mean, we are a changed country. You know, I come from a generation which grew up in the 70s. We were a much different country and we hosted the refugees, we imported the Klaschenkoff culture, we had the narcotics and drugs, all of that so somebody will have to take responsibility for that also. Let's go all the way back and then we'll work our way. We'll come to you. Thank you Mohit, this is Jahan Zehberli from AIY News TV Pakistan, sir, thank you very much. Sir, I just wanted to know about the US response during the Park of India tensions recently because in a meeting with the US media in Embassy of Pakistan, you said that the US did not condemn Indian airstrike and it is seen by the Pakistani government understood as an endorsement of Indian position. That is what involved in them even more. Can you just a little bit explain it, thank you so much. Yes, okay, sure, yes, please. Hi, welcome, Mr. Ambassador. My name is Ashutosh Patnagar and I'm an American citizen Indian origin. You mentioned about, please correct me, I have a question that UN Security Council question that has been raised, but it is a three-step process and please correct me if I misunderstand. The very first step of the UN Security Council question was, A, the Pakistan will remove all military out of the Azad Kashmir, B, India is going to put a limited amount of army there for peace control and C will be the referendum. So isn't the ball in Pakistan's court of asking for UN Security Council to intervene at the same time not removing a condition from military from the Azad Kashmir? Okay, right behind Jake. Thank you, Ambassador. My question to you is that your predecessor, Ambassador Hussein Haqqani, is quoted by saying, this jihad in Kashmir was rooted in ideology of Pakistani Islamists, carefully nurtured for decades by the Pakistani military. How do you respond to that? And in conjunction with that, why has Prime Minister Imran Khan not censured some of his government ministers who have made very inflammatory statements, including Minister Sheikh Rasid and Minister Ali Muhammad Khan, which have direct religious overtones targeted towards Hindus? Right here. Take one more. Okay, yeah, just this one and then, right here. I'll come to you. Ambassador Asadullah Khaled from Voice of America. Reuters just reported Pakistan has commented or somehow communicated to US government that probably there is an input on Afghanistan peace process which could have been impacted. So that's what they've reported, like any kind of input on that very process, it could have been harmed or damaged or delayed in that perspective when we are talking about Pakistan and India current escalation on the borders. Oh, okay. First of all, I think what I said in the embassy was that when a country commits an act of blatant aggression as was committed against Pakistan, then the international community must come out clearly in condemning that act and that lack of condemnation would then embolden the country who is resorting to that aggression. So that was the context in which what I said, what it was reported. In terms of US role, yes, I think US has played an important role in counseling restraint and in using its good offices to deal with the situation. On the UN Security Council resolutions, I think that is a discussion and debate that we can have in terms of sequencing and there is a lot of history and there is a lot of context that is available in terms of who did what and who didn't do what and why we are there, but the bottom line is that this issue is a dispute that is still pending resolution and it is one of the oldest disputes before the UN Security Council resolution. So once the two leaders, and I'll come back to Aditya's question, decide to basically engage to resolve, then I'm sure we will be able to fix the nuances and differences in terms of who should have done what to resolve this issue. But first of all, we need to have the commitment to sit across, seek dialogue, and then to engage to resolve the issue. In terms of my predecessors' comments, what can I say? Because Kashmir is an issue that has always been there ever since Pakistan's existence. And to frame it as a jihad only, I think is a disservice to the sacrifices that the people, the unarmed Kashmiris are making particularly over the last three years. And I think Ambassador Harkani perhaps is not following up on the repression that is unleashed in Indian-occupied Kashmir with just in last three years, two years, 780 people have been killed and there are scores who have been blinded. So I don't know how and where this can be justified, whether it is jihad or not. And I have not really heard Ambassador Harkani speak about those atrocities that I think he should also be speaking about. There's one more, I think. Oh, yes, I always forget the last one. The Afghanistan, the Pakistan's role in Afghanistan did Pakistan say would be affected if this crisis? Oh, yes. You know, oh, yeah, yeah, sorry. And that's why we maintain that Pulwama could not have come at a worse time. We are consumed by our Western border. There are 780 border posts that we man on our border with Afghanistan just to essentially deal with that allegation of elements crossing from Pakistan into. So although unfortunately on the Afghan side, the border posts are just a little over 100. We have already erected a fence which is almost 900 kilometers on this 2200 kilometers fanciful border. And so we are, when there is escalation on the Eastern border, I think it will certainly divert the attention, Pakistan's attention, and these past two, three weeks I have done nothing. And the other day, when I was actually interacting with the media, there was only one question about Afghanistan. So even the media's attention was diverted, you know, and for us, we are dealing with a real life security situation. So obviously, once the peace and security environment aggravates, it will have impact on overall peace and stability in the region, and that would obviously affect all the processes that are going on. Let's, this has been a very male dominated Q and A session. So I wanna make sure that you've got a, yeah, please. Just give us a word about Pakistan-Iran relations. Yes, right here. And then I see a couple of hands. Let me, let me balance out, we'll come back. Yeah, please. Hi, Kaylee from the Cindy American Pack. My question is just, where do the human rights violations like enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings against Cindy's, Belushi's and Paschun's rank on the list of priority? Okay. Yes, back there. Hi, Alyssa, I'm a grad student from Georgetown University. My question is particularly since the peace talks in Afghanistan seem to be excluding, at least for now, the government of Afghanistan, what role would Pakistan like to see the Taliban play in the future of Afghanistan and how would that impact Pakistan? Okay. So one just right behind you, I believe, there's a question. Yes, let's take that. Hi, my name is Jennifer Hoffensberger with Blumont. I was just curious in terms of the INGOs who registration applications were denied slash rejected might at some point in time, there be consideration whether or not those INGOs can reapply for registration? I can answer that. Having looked at that very closely, the answer is yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Sorry. I would encourage you to take the other three also. That's where I leave. Pakistan, Iran, this is a centuries old relationship and it's an important relationship for Pakistan. And we value this relationship, I think. I don't know what specific aspect you want to hear about, but yes, this is an important relationship for Pakistan as a fellow member of NYC and an immediate next door neighbor with deep historic ties. It's a very important relationship for Pakistan. On the question of enforced disappearances, I think whether it is the government's priority or not, it is the priority of our independent judiciary and they have been following up on these cases and there is, you know, and the media also things get reported and then the government, whether in the provinces or at the federal level, has to act. So I really don't think that it is that big of a problem in Pakistan as sometimes, you know, media makes it look like. On the Taliban's role in future Afghan government, I think it is not for us to basically determine what role that they would play, but I can tell you that as I said before also that a comprehensive reconciliation is a reconciliation where all Afghans are able to get to a point where they can agree on a peaceful Afghanistan post reconciliation. On the Ingalls, I think you have already responded to that, so I don't need. So I think let's take one final round of questions and then we'll have to close it because I know the investor has to leave. Let's start from here and try and get as many as I can. If you can please make it short so that we can get as many as possible. Yeah. My name is Noros Baloch from Balochistan. I'm a human rights activist. Actually she took my question, so I'm going to make another question. Short. And Balochistan, it's been a long time, Lashkar-e-Jangui, Lashkar-e-Kurasan, and other religious militant organization. They have killed Azar as community, Baloch activist, and other minorities. They have safe shelter by Pakistan military agencies and army. I've been there. I was. So what is your role and this peace process with the U.S. and Afghanistan and negotiation with these organizations they are working in Balochistan? Okay. Thank you. So yeah, hand there. Yes. Connor Dunwoody with Asian Development Bank. What does the future of utility and infrastructure investment borrowing and development look like in Pakistan? Sorry, say it again. What does the future of utility and infrastructure investment borrowing and development look like? This is where you need a panel and your economic counselor. Yeah, I do. We'll take, yes, the gentleman here, and the lady there, and Muhammad, and that'll be it. Here you go. Ambassador, what, since you were recently ambassador to Japan, what is the geopolitical role of Japan going forward as to this conflict but other conflicts in Southeast Asia? Yes, the gentleman, and then the lady at the back. Yes. Hi, my name's Muhammad Ali. I write for the Express Tribune. So thinking about the UN plebiscites, much more recent opportunity, which was last year the Human Rights Commission at the UN asked for access on both sides of the border. Pakistani and Indian Kashmir. And unfortunately, although they did away from the field site, they did a report, 80% of it was obviously about what's happening in India. But why can't Pakistan seize on this opportunity? And I mean, of course, there are issues on this side with Gilgit, Baltistan, et cetera, but use this opportunity and open up and allow the UN to come in and see what's going on in this side of the border. Yes, please. Hi, I'm Al Caputnagar. I'm a retired Foreign Service Officer. I really applaud the Naya Pakistan slogan. And I would look forward to the people realizing their dreams and pursue an economic stability. Now my question is, if so many of the limited dollars get channelized to the military funding, how would that be realized? Okay, I didn't get that. And let me just put the last one that I have in my hand from the overflow room, which is, how would the dynamic between Prime Minister Simran Khan and Narendra Modi change post-Pulwama, have a few? Okay, okay. First of all, Noro's, your question. I think we have an elected government in Balochistan. We have all the institutions that you need to secure the implementation of the rights that are guaranteed to both the majority and minority communities in every province that covers Balochistan, that covers Sindh, and that covers Punjab and others. And the government of Pakistan is determined to act against any of those outfits who are targeting any one or the other group. And if you look at how things have played out over the past year, I would say the situation definitely has changed dramatically. So I don't know which particular instances and incidents you are talking about. I am not aware of those. In terms of the utility part, I really don't quite get the, perhaps my minister trade will probably be able to answer that question because I don't quite get that question. So maybe you can take it later on. In terms of Japan's involvement, I can say that for Pakistan, that is also an important relationship. And in fact, Japan has been one of the oldest investors in Pakistan. And since Japan is a country that essentially relies on open sea lanes, both for its imports as well as exports. So it seeks to have partnerships in the wider region also. So in that regard, and Japan is also a country that is invested in peace. And Japan has also historically played an important role in supporting development in Afghanistan as well. So there are different multiple reasons and multiple points of interest for Japan to remain engaged in the region. And I am happy that during my time as ambassador to Japan, we witnessed a serious and positive spike in the relationship. In terms of the UN plebiscite, I am not aware of that particular initiative, but I can tell you that Pakistan is on our side. And we are open, we don't stop anybody. In fact, the embargo unfortunately is on the Indian side. So if anyone wishes to come to our part of Kashmir, in fact, we also welcome the UN office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights also to come and visit. So the problem really, I mean, for us, we were open, we still are open, we will remain open. In terms of diverting military funding, that's the peace dividend that I think Dana Marshall was talking about. I mean, if you have a perpetual conflict situation and if you have a perpetual war-like situation, you perforce are supposed to divert your resources to defense. But frankly, going by what we have in the region, our per capita defense expenditure is much less than what our immediate neighbor, which is eight times bigger than us with a huge outlays, is spending. So we would like to see peace that would certainly enable Pakistan and everyone else to divert resources. And that's why Prime Minister had actually said that our real enemy is poverty, and that's what we should be joining hands to fight together. So, and in terms of the chemistry, I don't know if there was any chemistry to begin with, but I think as leaders of two big countries, it is not the chemistry that should determine. It is the need, because both leaders have the responsibility of millions, I would say billions of people, and Prime Minister Imran Khan has acted like a statesman and we do hope that Prime Minister Modi would also respond, because really, it's not a question of scoring points and it's not really a question of showing the other side down. It's really a question of addressing the problem. And this is where the Prime Minister, that if you want to address terrorism, let's sit down and discuss that. So I think we need to move beyond chemistry and focus on physics perhaps. Mr. I want to thank you for taking the time, for being yet another Pakistani ambassador who's given us the opportunity to host you as your first public event. We wish you the best of luck and I hope most of your conversations are about you as Pakistan and not everything else that you will be consumed by inevitably. Also want to let everybody know our next event will be March 11th, where we have a panel looking at Pakistan Gulf relations. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, UAE and others, another very interesting dynamic. So that will be March 11th and we'll have that in your inbox. I think it's already out and you'll get a reminder. Please join me in thanking Pakistan's ambassador.