 Good morning, everybody. Good morning. I'm Nancy Lindbergh. I'm the President of the United States Institute of Peace, and I'm delighted to welcome everybody here today for a very important conversation about the U.S.-Pakistan bilateral relationship at a very critical time. And I welcome everybody here. I note that we have a number of people who are very steeped in these issues. I want to give a warm welcome to the Pakistan Ambassador Hussein, who's here with us, along with our special guest, the Foreign Minister. This has been an important program for USIP for a number of years. Our Asia Center has worked in Pakistan actively in country since 2013, and we partner with civil society organizations, innovators, scholars, policymakers, and we've supported programs in 35 cities and villages across the country where we focus on tolerance of diversity as a very diverse country, using arts, media, and culture to foster dialogue and peace education. We've had the great pleasure of working with the Planning Ministry of Pakistan to incorporate conflict analysis into their planning process, and we've worked with the police services in Pakistan to increase citizen engagement with peace. More than 800 teachers and 27,000 students have engaged in USIP-supported trainings and peace-building initiatives, and a major focus of our work has been to convene local peace builders and stakeholders both in Islamabad and very much here in Washington. We've been able to host more than 30 public events and private roundtables just in the past year to create a place where people have the opportunity to really discuss and engage in these critical issues. We've hosted a number of senior Pakistani officials, including former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 2013, again in 2014, and the former ministers of interior planning and commerce, among others. So we very much are committed to having the kind of dialogue that increases greater mutual understanding and the opportunity to identify useful ways forward. So this is an important moment, and we're very pleased to have our special guest with us today. As everyone in this room most likely knows, the Trump administration announced a new strategy towards the region in August. And at the time, President Trump reiterated US concerns over terrorists, safe havens in Pakistan and the continued conflict in Afghanistan. So today's discussion offers us an opportunity to hear directly the Pakistani government's point of view on security concerns and other issues in the region and in our relationship. We are very honored to host today Khawaja Muhammad Asif, the Foreign Minister of Pakistan, for this discussion. This is his first visit to Washington since taking office in August, but definitely not your first visit to Washington, D.C. Minister Asif, in fact, we've had the great pleasure to host him here in USIP twice before, once as a member of Prime Minister Sharif's delegation, and once as the head of the Pakistani delegation in the US-Pakistan Clean Energy Business Opportunities Conference hosted by USAID in your previous role as Minister of Water and Power. Minister Asif has also served as the Federal Minister of Defense, and he served in Parliament as a Senator and a National Assembly member since 1991 as a member of the ruling Pakistan Muslim-lead Nawaz Party. So we appreciate the opportunity to hear Minister Asif's insights and to understand the Pakistan government perspective on the relationship with the United States and the opportunities for partnership between our two countries and the future of the region. As Minister Asif has noted elsewhere, US and Pakistan are connected by security, by economic ties, and by people-to-people ties. So in that regard, we look forward to a discussion today on the whole state of US-Pakistan bilateral relations. And following opening remarks by Minister Asif, our Associate Vice President for the Asia Center Mohi Jusif will join the Minister on Stage for a moderated discussion before taking questions from everybody. And so with that, I'm delighted to turn it over to Minister Asif. Please join me in welcoming him. Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem, President of the United States in the shoot of peace, Nancy Lindbergh, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, As-Salaam-Alaikum and good morning. It is a privilege to speak to this distinguished gathering of scholars, policy analysts and media representatives. The USIP has demonstrated leadership in producing quality research, analysis on global trends that affect us all. The USIP has demonstrated leadership in producing quality research and analysis on global trends that affect us all. So let me thank you, USIP, for this invitation to share my thoughts and to engage in a conversation on some key issues of our mutual interest. Ladies and gentlemen, as humans, we together confront chronic challenges of long wars, climate change, underdevelopment, global migration, and rising intolerance in many societies. Above all, the menace of global terrorism has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, displaced millions, and robbed the affected society of their growth potential. So history places an onerous burden on shoulders, on our shoulders, to produce a better tomorrow from the disarray of our current times. I am honored to represent a country that is actually overcoming challenges of disarray and wishes to build partnership for a secure and prosperous future. In Pakistan, despondency has given way to optimism. Underdevelopment is being overcome by growth. The last four years have transformed the landscape of Pakistan. Democratic institutions continue to thrive. Terrorism is being vigorously combated. Economy is being stabilized and is poised to rapid growth. Yet converting our domestic security and economic gains into wider regional stability remains a big challenge due to continued conflict in Afghanistan. That is where Pakistan has been in sharp focus in Washington, D.C. in recent months. The burden of a 16-year-long war in Afghanistan has been passed to new Afghanistan, but Pakistan, the timeline of managing fallout of Afghanistan's instability, is 30 years and still counting. It is more than half of our life as an independent nation, so our concerns are common. We also have similar aspirations in hoping to see stability in Afghanistan. Most critically, Pakistan, a nation of 200 million people and a fast-growing economy believes that there is a tremendous potential for a broad-based and standalone bilateral relationship. You all know that public speech in August President Trump announced new contours of the U.S. policy of South Asia. While speaking on Pakistan, the President remarked that Pakistan had much to gain by working with the United States. Let me briefly say that we agree. And please allow me to respectfully add that both the United States and Pakistan have much to gain by working together. A partnership that is anchored in mutual respect, pursuit of common interest and understanding of each of these concerns has served us both in the past. I would like to use the opportunity afforded today to elaborate this further, ladies and gentlemen. Pakistan considers itself a long-standing friend of the United States. Friends need to revitalize and refresh their friendship from time to time. Our relationship is underpinned by certain shared values. And among these are respect for democracy, the rule of law, and protecting the freedom of our societies from dark ideological forces, whether these come in the garb of totalitarianism or take the form of violent extremism. Today democratic institutions have helped create a vibrant and politically active society in Pakistan that wishes to vigorously participate in public discourse on all issues of national importance. Ladies and gentlemen, since 9-11, our cooperation against terrorism has produced mutual gains and has helped degrade Al Qaeda that attacked us both. The newer and more toxic forms of terrorism on the rise, the strategic logic for working together against terrorism remains intact. However, lately there has been a tendency to place Pakistan's counter-terrorism credentials under focus. The truth is that Pakistan is not just fighting, but also winning against terrorism. That's the difference in other parties fighting against the terrorism that Pakistan is not just fighting, but also winning against terrorism and are not complaining. We are fighting it alone and we are not complaining, we are winning. And that has manifested over the last four years. Four years ago, Pakistan had won one of the highest incidences of terrorism anywhere in the world. Pakistan responded to this tide of terrorism by building a strategic national consensus on a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. This was as much a moral obligation as it was a national security imperative. The national political consensus created the necessary space for a massive and rapid counter-insurgency campaign that mobilized nearly 200,000 troops. It dealt a decisive blow to all terrorist networks that had taken advantage of the remote geography of the treacherous border with Afghanistan. Our troops have bravely soldiered in terrain that has deceived visitors from for centuries. What is often forgotten is that Pakistan has been conducting series of major counter-terrorism operations for over a decade and has progressively secured all territory on its side of the border. Building on the success Pakistan is taking a number of steps, such as building border posts and fencing the border with Afghanistan to reduce cross-border movement between the two countries. Forceful law enforcement actions across the country and targeted military operations continue. As a result of these successful operations, Pakistan has seen the most significant decline in the number of terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. The civilian deaths due to terrorism have declined considerably since 2013. Ladies and gentlemen, Pakistan's successes in the fight against terrorism have come at a staggering human and financial cost. With over 62,000 coyotes, over $120 billion economic costs in 16 years, with large-scale deployment of security personnel for counter-terrorism, this has been Pakistan's longest and deadliest and toughest fight. From thousands of nameless Pakistanis to kids like 17-years-old Malala Yusuf Zayi, the noble laureate and 15-years-old Ittazaz Hassan, the schoolboy who died while protecting his class fellows, to the 22-year-old lieutenant Salan Alam, who was martyred last month by terrorists attacking from Afghanistan, we have a long list of heroes in every town. These sacrifices have helped create a secure environment for all Pakistanis, including minorities. In April this year, our security forces thwarted a plan to bomb a church on Easter aiming to kill hundreds of Pakistani Christians. Ladies and gentlemen, by achieving better security in Pakistan, stability has returned and economic growth has soared. Pakistan has registered rising growth rates of successive years. The economic growth rate was just 3 percent in 2013. It increased to 5.3 percent in 2016 and 2017, that's clear. The highest in a decade, the economy is forecasted to sustain high growth rates in coming years. With improved forecast by international credit rating agencies such as Moody and Standard and Poor, words leading manufacturers in energy conglomerates are viewing Pakistan as an attractive destination. Tourism is expanding, energy demand is rising and retail market has been labeled as the fastest growing in the world. One of the key pillars of our policy is to strengthen regional integration and economic connectivity. China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is the most conspicuous element of this policy. The CPAC embraces a number of infrastructure and development projects. Pakistan is also promoting other regional connectivity projects such as KASA 1000 Power Project. Clear the dividends of achieving security and peace can be shared throughout the region. And this is where both Pakistan and the United States can work together. We can together build on an improved security environment in Pakistan by expanding this arc of stability. This will strengthen regional economic connectivity, promote trade and bring prosperity to the whole region. Ladies and gentlemen, achieving peace and security in Afghanistan would be critical for realising this vision. For nearly 40 years, Pakistan has managed the blowback of political instability and violence in Afghanistan. Pakistan's recently large swaths of territory inside Afghanistan, which by independent estimates is around 40% of the country, has either fallen out of government control or is under contest. As a result, terrorists escaping Pakistan's counterterrorism operations along with Daesh have found safe havens in these areas and continue to plan an attack against Pakistan. In one attack this year, they are responsible for killing at least 88 Pakistani pilgrims at a shrine in the Sindh province. Pakistan calls for effective elimination of these safe havens in Afghanistan. Large ungoverned territories in Afghanistan and an influence of non-state groups pose a security risk to the whole region and, above all, to Afghanistan itself. Ladies and gentlemen, sadly peace has eluded Afghanistan for decades. Pakistan can understand the despondency that such a long conflict can produce, but pessimism is dangerous because it can take away hopes of peace through reconciliation and drive us to the beaten path of endless fighting. History reminds us that similar missions in Afghanistan did not end too well. That is why Pakistan feels that United States and Pakistan need to actively work towards peace. Pakistan's support to an Afhan-led and Afhan-owned peace process remains strong. It is the responsibility of all parties to conflict to take steps towards initiating a political process that can yield durable peace. Pakistan seeks a productive relationship with Afghanistan, eliminating safe havens inside Afghanistan. Border management in return for Afhan refugees are critical pieces of our common challenges. There is also an urgent need to take effective counter-narcotic measures in Afghanistan. These issues cannot be allowed to linger on in a region with unresolved, out-trending conflicts that already threaten peace in our region. The plight of Kashmiris, ladies and gentlemen, in Indian-occupied Kashmir cannot be ignored by the international community. The Kashmiris have suffered all focus and manifestations of the state's sponsored terrorism. All forms and manifestations of state's sponsored terrorism. As the time has passed, the brutality of Indian security forces has increased and the civility of Indian occupation has diminished. From blinding hundreds of innocent Kashmiris to enforced disappearances, extra-judicial killings and torsioning of illegal detainees, the occupying forces reached a new law this year and they tied Mr. Farooq Dar to achieve and shamelessly paraded this human shield throughout the streets. In the interest of peace, Pakistan can normalize its relationship with India. However, normalization requires that India stops its support to terrorism in Afghanistan and agrees to hold unconditional dialogue on all matters of mutual concern, including the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir. Before I conclude, let me reiterate that since independence arc cooperation with the United States has served mutual interests, Pakistan appreciates American help in diverse areas of defense, education, agriculture and energy. But let's not forget that Pakistan has also helped the United States fight and degrade the organization that attacked U.S. on 9-11. With an hour-limited capacity and without seeking quid pro quo, Pakistan has facilitated logistics of Pakistan's United States' longest war. Pakistan expects a relationship based on mutual respect, the recognition of each other sacrifices. Pakistan respects the sacrifice made by over 2,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. We do so because Pakistan has lost more soldiers in fighting terrorists than the U.S. and all allied forces combined. Pakistan will continue to work with the United States and the international community for peace and stability in Afghanistan. This is a partnership that we not only desire but cherish. Beyond counterterrorism, a nation of 200 million people and a growing economy represents many more avenues to build partnerships. So let me emphasize that in pursuit of security, stability and prosperity, we both have much to gain by working together. Thank you very much. Thank you. Minister Asif, good morning from my side as well. I'm Mohit Yusuf, working in the Asia program here at the institute. Just to get housekeeping out of the way, the minister specifically told me before he got here that he is interested in having a conversation. So I promise to come to you but allow me to have a little bit of a conversation with him before and then we'll take questions from the audience. Thank you. Candid as ever. How's the trip? Going well. Yeah? And is today the last day or you're headed out? No, I have another event after this one. I'm meeting the local media. And then I'll go to New York and tomorrow I'm flying back. So what message do you take back? I won't be extravagant but yesterday meeting with Secretary of State went very well. Today's meeting with General McMaster in the morning. I would be a bit cautious about, but it was good, wasn't bad. And I think we need to pursue this course of mutually or contact and discussions and exchange of views. I think we need to pursue this more vigorously. You know, Minister, I've known you as a Candid individual. So in the spirit of Candid, let me ask you, I'm somebody who... I'm no more Minister of Defense. I'm Minister of Foreign Affairs now. I'm a diplomat now. But I hope you still have some of the old habits with you, at least for today. I'm trying to restrain myself, you know, you're trying to provoke me. Let me try a little harder. No, but let me ask you, I'm somebody who sort of works on this relationship, looks at it from both sides. And fundamentally I find every time there are people inside the governments on both sides who want this relationship to work, really want this to work. But the narratives on both sides tend to be very different than what I hear from inside the wire perhaps. Do you see a future for this relationship in which we can get to a point where the public conversation and the private conversation will be somewhat positive? I think that the public and the private conversations should be the same. I'm a politician, I'm a political worker. There may be a bit of difference between the private conversation and public conversation. One has to be careful while talking to media or talking on media and talking to public. But I personally feel what I have felt in the last one month more acutely. But I'm feeling this, I have this feeling for a long time that U.S., especially in President Trump's speech last month, U.S. is focusing solely on the safe haven allegation or blaming Pakistan for what they have not achieved in Afghanistan. And there are many more dimensions to what is going on in Afghanistan. A corrupt government in Kabul, you have pumped in billions of dollars, they've gone nowhere. Narcotic trade has gone up by 3,700 percent. Now we don't share responsibility for these crimes. The crime of corruption in Kabul, Afghan Army selling arms to Taliban, loss of more than 40 percent of the territory, hold of Daesh in three provinces, okay, even if we admit for a second that their allegation is correct, that we have sanctuaries on our soil, just for a second if we admit, who are the people who are responsible for Narcotic trade, corruption in Kabul, selling arms to Taliban, losing territory and bringing Daesh to Afghanistan. You have found the culprit for sanctuaries given to Hakanis, okay. Let's see this conflict in its entirety, in its totality. Don't just find, pick up Pakistan and treat us like a whipping boy. No, that's not acceptable, that's not acceptable. We want to cooperate, we want to really cooperate with the U.S., we want to find a solution to Afghan problem, because we are the direct beneficiaries of peace in Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, we are the biggest beneficiaries of peace. How can we deny peace to Afghanistan when we are the beneficiaries of that peace? Afghans will come much later as beneficiaries. Pakistan is the first beneficiary of the peace. So we pursue this in earnest, the peace in Afghanistan. Let me, it was yesterday or the day before yesterday, Senator McCain was drawing a paddle between Vietnam and Afghanistan, a war in Afghanistan. Let me remind him through this forum. He has a poor sense of history. When the Americans took over the Vietnam War, they had actually lost the war from day one. Because in Indochina, the Frenchies were too clever for Americans. They handed over a lost war, a losing war to the Americans, and the Americans were too happy to fight for another one and a half decade, a war which had no end, and then they had to bomb Laos and Cambodia for, you know, having sanctuaries. There were many, many other causes. So let's not play to the galleries, you know. Let's not play to the, to your constituents, you know. Let's face the verdict of the history. The verdict of the history was that you pursued a folly in Vietnam and you lost it. And the verdict of history will be that if the way the Phan problem is being pursued, you will lose the Phan war also, you already lost the war. You're just trying to salvage your situation over there. If you pursue the military solution, you will force the Taliban and Daesh to get together. And that will be the biggest curse for us to face, for the region to face. We don't want to see that situation happening in our region. So that is why we want to cooperate with the Americans with full vigor, honesty and commitment. I use this forum as I'm grateful to USIP for providing me this forum. But this is how we look at it. We don't play to the galleries and the definitions changed in the change in US. What happened in, it's a huge tragedy. What happened in Vegas three days back, it's a huge tragedy. We shared the grief with the American people, but called it terrorism. It's all its forms and all its forms and all its manifestations. Why do you call it shooting? Call it terrorism. Why are you afraid of calling spade a spade? So these contradictions will not help. These contradictions will be counterproductive. Face this problem on your own land, on your own soil. Face it head on. Don't be pressurized by the lobbies. So this is how honest we are, we are fighting a war and we are even winning a war. We are the only winners against the terrorists, against the terrorism in the whole world. Pakistanis are the only victors in the winners against the war of terror. The whole world is losing. Minister, could I ask a little bit, I'm glad you haven't lost your candle. But they don't make the little life of my colleagues difficult. They can decide for themselves. My colleagues from embassy and foreign office, you're making their life difficult. No, but I wanted to come to cooperation. Because I mean, you know, the past is what it is, neither side can change this. But you mentioned cooperation in your speech, you mentioned Pakistanis committed to working. What I didn't hear from you is a roadmap. So the reason I ask this question is, on the sanctuaries, if we take that, and I accept that, you know, there is a larger conflict point taken. On the sanctuaries, Pakistan's position is there are no sanctuaries. The US is convinced beyond doubt in its mind that not only are there sanctuaries, but there is support. I'm not saying right or wrong. How does this gap get bridged if neither side is willing to come to the middle? And in Pakistan's case, I think there's another question that is raised in this town that I think is a legitimate one. If there are no sanctuaries, and if Pakistan doesn't have leverage over the Taliban to bring them to the table, then what is the relevance? It's a good question. Now, let me explain it a little bit. You know, when we are talking to Americans and very responsible people, when we mention refugees, they don't answer to us. They don't respond to it. That please spend a few billion dollars. We'll also chip in and take back the Afghan refugees to Afghanistan. Settle them over there. That will be a money worth spent. Take them back. And let's have border management. Let's have a fence. I quote David Frost that good fences make good neighbors. So, you know, border fencing, border management, 648 kilometers of border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is not guarded. There are no Afghan posts on the other side. Few Pakistani posts on our side, but no Afghan posts, border posts. Border management, repatriation of Afghan refugees. And if there's still some elements or some remnants of terrorist organizations or Akhanees that are left on our soil, then hold us responsible for that. 3.5 million refugees are living in Pakistan. Please try to understand. This is being heartless. I'm repeating this over and over again. I grew up in a country. I really, you know, long for that country, which was the Pakistan of my childhood or when I was growing up. It was a very tolerant society. It was a beautiful country where people could live together in harmony. And today we have a country where we have every kind of friction, every kind of friction. Intolerance is on the rise. Religious intolerance, ethnic intolerance, political intolerance. Not good has happened over the last eight, nine years, but still we are facing problems. And these are the baggage we carry from the 80s. Last night I was asked about madrasas. I was forced to be—you were witnessing that—that these madrasas were in Pakistan. This madrasa thing was introduced in Pakistan because we wanted to support the jihad of Afghanistan in the 80s. These madrasas were the recruiting ground or they were the training grounds of nurseries for American jihad against Soviet Union. And we were unfortunately part of that, you know. I feel so sad. People who took those decisions, they'll burn in hell, you know, because we are suffering. We are actually living in hell because of that decision. It was a bad decision and Pakistan is paying price for that. Americans won laurels for that decision. They went back just thumping that we have defeated the Soviet Union and we have settled the score of it now. What happened to Pakistan? Nobody cared. That's the sad part of it. And then people tell us that that's a trust deficit. Yes, there is a trust deficit. Pakistan feels very, very, very strongly that there is a trust deficit. Why we supported? We are not supporting. Let me make it very clear we are not supporting any form of terrorism. Any organization, in any manifestation, we are not supporting. But there was a time that we leveraged our position because we were not sure of the Americans. What will they do after winning the war in Afghanistan? We leveraged our position. We did not go all out against the terrorists. But since 2014, we have wiped them out. We have wiped them out and it is the most brilliant battle fought by our forces against terrorism. The Afghans, the rest of the forces in Afghanistan, they should learn from us, from our experiences. We are ready to lend a helping hand. But please, we don't want any material help from the United States of America. Let me make it very clear. No material help. All we want is acknowledgement, respect, and we should be treated with dignity. We are a sovereign nation of 210 people, million people. We must be treated with respect. Our achievements are better than any country in the world, as for fight against terrorism is concerned. We have an adversary on our western border, on the eastern border, using our eastern border also, through proxies. We have 200,000 soldiers committed against terrorism. 200,000 largest commitment by any country against the terrorists. Let the Americans match this effort. Let the rest of the world match this effort. Minister, if I may. You're happy? Why, look happy? Okay. I knew what I was getting into. You talked about intolerance. I think that's something very close to us at USIP, our entire sort of work in Pakistan. The moniker is the tolerance for diversity and working to sort of get that because as you say, it's not the Pakistan that you grew up in. That's very clear. But I do want to push you slightly on this point and give you a sense from the Washington side and ask you why people should change their view on Pakistan. I'm going to give you two data points if you allow me. One, there is a conversation of the Lashkar-e-Taybaz, Jamaat-ud-Dawaz of the world, who are present in Pakistan in one way or another. You very courageously and boldly in New York recently talked about the terrorist problem as liabilities and getting Pakistan's house in order. But what we saw after that was your own political colleagues going after you, accusing you of selling out. And the state essentially remaining quiet rather than defending its own foreign minister. That's one data point. The second data point I want to give you is that again, ahead of a prescribed organization, publicly comes out and victoriously announces that he is suing the sitting foreign minister who's sitting right next to me for defamation. And the state of Pakistan is quiet. The question people ask, people like me are asked this question over and over. Why should people change their view on Pakistan if the state is not standing up against some of these people who are known to be involved in things that are clearly affecting the regional dynamic? I stand by what I said in the issue. And I salute you for that. I stand by—I fully—I have not made any amendments out of it. That's how I feel and that is my conviction. I'll pursue that also. I do not want to go into the history of these organizations because it's futile from where they came and how they were born and how they were brought up. That's a long story. I do not want to enter into any recrimination or blame game. But let me tell you that what I said that day that we need time to get rid of the liabilities. We cannot adjust these liabilities or pay off these liabilities overnight because they are there for a long time. And we need time to ask them to wrap up their business. I'll give you an example. There's a gun lobby in U.S. Can you take it on? No, you cannot. You will need other few decades and perhaps God forbid, God forbid, more tragedies also. The majority of Americans want a gunman, but there are people who will resist that, the politicians. You must have read the Thomas Friedman's article yesterday, the New York Times. Because these people have their tentacles, they have their roots. Over the years they developed—I'm quoting the example of gun lobby, which may not be 100% correct. But like people are helpless against—the common American is helpless against the gun lobby. So this situation somewhat is similar. I'm trying to find a parallel between the two situations. But let me show you. I'm speaking as foreign minister. I spoke that day as foreign minister. Today I'm speaking as foreign minister. Nobody stopped me from speaking my mind out. If my statements were not in sync with the government policy, the prime minister or my bosses in the government could have very easily told me, don't say it again. I'm saying it again. Ain't it again? I'm emphasizing it. I'm reiterating it. What I said that day in Asia Society, that we will be, inshallah, we will find ways and means of wrapping up this business in our country. It's a liability. It will remain a liability. But not like this overnight. We cannot—this business has been going on for a long time. And you cannot liquidate this business like any other business overnight. It takes time. So I—let me show you, Moide and the audience, that I do not speak against the policy of the government of Pakistan. I've spoken my mind before. I'm speaking my mind again that this is in consonance with the government policy. I'm the spokesperson of the government of Pakistan on the international stage. I do speak sometimes undiplomatically, but not without the mandate. No, thank you. And clearly, I wasn't trying to say it was against policy. It's just the question of intolerance is very important. It is how we deal with it. There could be some difference of opinion on how to approach them. How to—you know, I'll give you an example. I just forgot—for the American public. You know, in Vietnam, even the 10-year-old boy was armed with the automatic rifle during the war. No, it is a crime—it is a crime in Vietnam to possess a firearm. Any kind of firearm—automatic or semi-automatic or not automatic—I don't know anything about these arms because I don't own any of—you know, I don't believe in these things. I'm a pacifist, you know. Only verbal, you know—not otherwise. You had the whole military defending you for the past four years. You don't need a gun. So they have to wrap up—they have to wrap up the trial in three days. And the punishment is death punishment, the capital punishment. Nobody in Vietnam possesses any firearm. It's a very, very peaceful country, a peaceful society, a society which fought against two great powers, the French and the Americans. And they were armed to the teeth. And they are disarmed. They are absolutely disarmed. So please, we should all learn from that. Let me just ask a couple of quick questions. Then we'll open it up to happier topics, not quite, but India. You know, the conversation you mentioned, regional integration, the relationship with India, Kashmir absolutely, you know, remains a problem. Isn't it true that ultimately regional integration is held back because of the political concerns between the two countries? And until we move on that regional integration front, you talked about regional integration in terms of CPAC, in terms of Farnistan, CASA 1000, which was, of course, your project when you were the minister of energy. But what about India and Pakistan? Because that's where South Asia is locked. Is it, how do we go anywhere in terms of that relationship? It's really sad that our efforts did not bring any result. They're back in 2014 and 15 when Mr. Namash Sharif, my prime minister then, took the initiative of going to Delhi and taking up this issue of normalizing a relationship with India. But sadly, India did not respond the way we expected them to respond. We wanted to achieve a breakthrough in our relationship, complete relationship, but nothing happened. And what is going on since last July, almost 14 months in Kashmir, that is the biggest roadblock in normalizing a relationship with India. There are lobbies here and elsewhere in the world also. So if you allow me, I have some... Gift for me? Not gift for you, for the audience. I'll just go to what exactly are the Indian intentions. Yesterday, the Indian Air Chief yesterday said that we'll hit through another surgical strike, Pakistan nuclear installations. If that happens, nobody should expect restraint from us. That's the most diplomatic language I can use. You know, talking of Afghanistan, General David Patriars on 5th October 2016, talked to Royal United Service Institute. I was never convinced as journalists that ISI, which was my counterpart when I was director of CIA, or when I was in SENTCOM in Afghanistan, I was never convinced that there was an explicit support, as some have alleged, it is a very difficult situation to understand. There is no question about communication between ISI and these different groups, but some of that you would do if you are an intelligence service anyway. Now, this is very clear. David Patriars is not just any soldier, a very responsible person, a national hero, talking about what actually is the situation of ISI supporting, the Hakanis or any other terrorist network. Now, Subramaniam Sawami on 28th September 2017, just a few days back said, Pakistan has to be taught a lesson. Previously, we cut Pakistan in two pieces. This time it has to be four. There is need to prepare for it. When the preparation is complete, then Indian Army can go in. I think we should be ready by March 2018. First it was said in Hindi and then repeated in English on the request of the media. Then Chuck Hegel, the former defence secretary. India for some time has always used Afghanistan as a second front and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border. This is what I said just a few minutes back. So this is the situation. In this atmosphere or this climate, I think trying to, not that we don't wish to do that, but we do not see any immediate response from India, which one could call positive for repairing the relationship, which is perhaps at the lowest at the moment between India and Pakistan. There is a fire. Let me give you another figure. In 2001, the Indian Home Ministry says that there were 3,617 courageants from Pakistanis side, from Pakistanis side. This year till September, they registered only 31. They have 66 organisations as labelled as terrorist organisations. These are official figures, 66. Only four are linked to Pakistan. 62 are their own homegrown terrorist organisations. They are facing insurgency in multiple states, more than a dozen states, Manipur, Nagaland, Chattisgarh, Kashmir, Punjab. So they are just trying to deflect the world tension. And they are succeeding in that, to an extent. We are conquering it. But what they are doing, blinding people, yesterday they killed eight people, eight people who were martyred in Kashmir, in Indian Health, Kashmir. In my constituency, on working boundary, just a week back, seven civilians died. Three women and four boys. So very heavy calibre arms are being used by the Indians to hit the civilians. Minister, I take your point. I think there are problems, everybody knows this. But let me ask you this. Ultimately, this is about international relations and states and interests. The one data point that is undeniable right now, whether it's right, wrong, fair or unfair, is that the differential of power and resources between India and Pakistan is growing every single day in your opponent's favor. If you play this out as an analyst, my very basic back of the envelope calculation tells me that in 15 years' time, the power differential will be such that your opponent will not need to speak to you. And so the question is, I take your point about the problems, but is it not ultimately Pakistan's and India's, of course, but interests of the region that somehow this... I agree with you. I agree with you. I have no disagreement on that. Yes. No disagreement on that. No, we want to live in peace and harmony with our neighbors and with the rest of the world community. I just said about the United States of America that we have had a relationship which had highs and lows, but overall, I grew up in a country which was a very, very pro-American country. Pakistan was very pro-American in the 50s and 60s and 70s. Our national ally was the United States of America. There were no two beginnings about it. Despite the fact that there were huge demonstrations all over the world against the Vietnam War, then there would stop the generation and everything. It was fashionable to be on the left, to be pink or red, but Pakistan was still solidly behind the United States of America. I think the Americans have forgotten that, but we still remember it. Finally, let me just ask you, I'm almost forced to. Although that was not the topic, but there's a lot of interest. What is happening back home with politics? I think one of the questions people want to know about, forget the details, but the future of democracy in Pakistan, given what has just happened. We are used to living in interesting times. So we are living in interesting times. Let me assure you the future of democracy is very secure in Pakistan. We have achieved a lot in the last 10 years. Let's take the positive indicators. We have an independent judiciary, which is sometimes to our discomfort is too independent. We have a parliament which is very outspoken. We have a very vibrant opposition in that parliament. We have a media which is mercilessly independent, very active social media. And obviously, you will ask about the boys in Pindi also. I didn't, but obviously, I don't know where you're coming from. And I think that also, the transfer of power from one civilian government to the other civilian government in 2013 was a huge threshold, a huge roadblock which we successfully crossed. I think the reversal of that is very difficult. There will be problems because we have had four interventions over the last 70 years, and all these interventions were very kindly blessed by the United States of America, solemnized, you know, legitimized by the United States of America, starting from 1958. And so, I think we understand each other much better now, the establishment in Pindi or our defense establishment and the civilians. And we have common goals. We have no differences. We are on the same page on national policies towards Afghanistan, towards peace in our region. You asked me a question earlier that what could be the road map. Let me give you a recent, I think a good indicator, and that is General Majwa and Foreign Secretary, Mr. Kabul. It was a good meeting. After a long time, we had an interaction which can be, we can call it, that it was a comfortable interaction. It was something we can hope that we'll move forward. So that is something I stressed with the Secretary Tillerson yesterday and today with General McMaster that the bilateral contact between Afghanistan and Pakistan can be the most productive contact. It should be supported by our friends in the region also and our friends in America also. They must facilitate and sort of underwrite this sort of dialogue or contact between Afghanistan and Pakistan by the underwriters, if the underwriters are there in the region and as far as the United States of America is concerned, this will succeed in my humble opinion and I pray and earnestly hope that this will succeed. And let me assure you there is no danger to democracy in Pakistan. Democracy will develop. Democracy with the institutions will become stronger. We need time for that and we have travelled a lot on that course, that path and inshallah Pakistan one day will be a tolerant society. A society where we can all live in harmony within Pakistan and with our neighbors inshallah. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Let me open it up. I just want to say two things. One, between now and 11, if nobody would please leave for security reasons we'll end this at 11 and then everybody can leave. And second, please keep your questions short because I want to give a chance to everybody and as many people as we can. Let's begin with some media friends because I see the hands highest. The gentleman in the hat, please. Please wait for the mic because this is being reccasted and we have people also in overflow space and I'll encourage them to send up their index cards. The media keeps asking questions. Why don't you speak English? English please because there are other people. Did you talk in Washington to the media? Did you talk in Washington to the media? No. No, I spoke yesterday to Geo. Thank you. Please, question. Yes. My question is, I think Moide has touched all the points but I would like to pose a compact question and that is at home there is one domestic political crisis going on and the government is not very stable and very secure whom you are representing. And on the other side, the up-to-date right now, you have met General McMaster, you have met Richard Tillerson and still I see a wedge between the two views, Pakistani view and the American view. How do you, as a foreign minister, plan to lead Pakistan with US policy, new policy which is very conditioned and which is not favorable to Pakistan? Thank you. How do you plan to lead the nation out of this domestic crisis and the crisis brewing around you? Thank you. I do not see any huge political crisis in Pakistan. Pakistan is used to these sorts of, you know, turmoil. It's our 70 years of history is full of these crisis so we can deal with these crisis at home. You don't worry. And secondly, as for US is concerned, we have problems. We do acknowledge there are problems in our relationship and we are trying to mend those problems. We are trying to overcome those problems. We have a deficit of trust. We are trying to bridge that deficit. So this whole exercise is being undertaken with that objective in mind that we have to trust each other and we have to let each other believe that we have common objective and that is peace in Afghanistan and we can, together with our other partners in the region, we can achieve that peace. That's a possibility and that is something which can be done. So that is what we are doing over here. Ambassador Hoagland, right here. If you could just wait for the mic. Mr. Minister, thank you so much for your blunt words this morning. I think that makes a good diplomat. I have a very brief question for you about international relations. During the Cold War, India, Soviet Union, Pakistan, United States, and we're learning that it's hard to get over the Cold War. My question is, what does Pakistan see as its relations with Russia today and what would it like those relations to be? Thank you. We have good relationship with Russian Federation. This relationship has improved over the last four or five years and we see Russians as a very important player in our region, as a big player in our region, both Chinese and the Russians, and we intend to improve our relationship with Russian Federation. We do not, we want to shed the baggage we carry from the Cold War and I think in the last four or five years we have achieved a lot in that direction, in a direction of achieving better relationship with Russian Federation. And we need and I think we have proposed also this thing on many forums that in any peace solution in Afghanistan it should be backed by the regional countries also, regional powers also, which includes Russian Federation. Lady here. Right behind you. The lady here. No, right here. The lady in front of you. Yes. Ladies first. Right here, yeah. I'm Madhya Afzil. I'm an academic. I just thank you for your comments. They were great. I have a question about Madrasas. You brought them up in talking about intolerance and you pointed to the 1980s as the time when Madrasas became radicalized. And in the national action plan that your government put out, you talked about taking action against Madrasas, rightfully so. And arguably there was some action taken in 2015 but beyond that we really haven't heard much about action taken against Madrasas and I was wondering if you could talk a little bit more about where that is. And just sort of one Madrasa that comes to mind is the Darul Lum Hakanya in Akora Khattak which has been getting increased. This name Hakanya is, you know. Right. Let's have the answer. Let me tell you, Madrasas, whether we agree or not, whether we accept it or not, it's the biggest NGO in Pakistan. They feed children. They provide them with accommodation. They provide them with education. Whether you agree with that education or not, that's not the point. Over 20,000, some say close to 30,000 Madrasas in Pakistan. Out of this huge number, huge number, very few Madrasas are infected. Maybe in low three figures, three, four hundred or something like that. So managing that number is possible for the state. It's not something which is impossible and we are managing that. The people who manage these Madrasas, this is a huge organization. There's an umbrella organization of all Madrasas, of all sects and all schools of our religion. They are very cooperative. They have registered all the Madrasas. We have traveled on this road quite a lot over the last three years. But still, this is something which is ongoing. And we have to differentiate, we have to weed out those Madrasas, which are not conforming to the state policy. Or as you said, Darul Alum Haqqania, the founder of that Madrasa was a very revered person. Maulana Samilak's father, he was a great man. He was a great man. It's unfortunate that some of the students who led Naila Bans were educated over there. Lot many other educational institutions all over the world which had students that those institutions would not be proud of. So you cannot really blame Darul Alum Haqqania for some of the Taliban leaders. And those Taliban leaders are actually in negotiations with Kabul these days. They are in direct and regular contact with Kabul. They're actually discussing constitutional reforms with each other, which is very constructive. So Madrasa's regulated system of Madrasa's, I think, is something we can manage and which is acceptable to the state in Pakistan. No. This was an oversubscribed event, no surprise. So we have people in our overflow space who couldn't make it to the room. So I want to give them a chance. From them and then I'll come back to this side of the room. There are three questions that I really can sum up in one. One of them asks about the issue of sending refugees back. And the questioner is asking that it seems that Pakistan tends to equate Afghan refugees with terrorism. Is it actually not unfair that such a large population is sort of painted with the same brush? Tied to that is the question that isn't fundamentally the Pakistan-Ufranistan problem, a durand line problem, a border problem, which has then, you know, the other elements have added up. And finally, what happens to the Pashtuns, the divided villages on both sides of the border if Pakistan talks about fencing? So I think this is sort of the same basket of questions, if you will. Let me, the most, I think, the heaviest of the questions is the first one. What was it? Refugees. I am not painting the refugees with the same brush, but the refugees, the presence of refugees provides people from across the border who are labeled as terrorists, Akhanis or otherwise, they can find space in these refugee camps or refugees living elsewhere. And then they say, Senator McCain says that they have a street address in Kuwait. So getting rid of these allegations is much more important to Pakistan. But because these allegations are baseless. Let me remind the world through this forum that 200,000 or 300,000 refugees going to Europe, the whole Europe is up in arms. We had at the peak 7 million Afghan refugees on our soil. Still have 3.5 million refugees on our soil. We have treated them well. They are our brothers and sisters. They are part of the large Pakistani family, but it is time that they go back to their homeland and it is the responsibility of the people who fought that war, which made them refugees. It is the responsibility of the United States of America to take them back home, to their villages, to their cities and to their places of permanent abode. This is not fair. They just washed their hands off and came back here and forgot about that war and the outcomes of that war. This is not fair. I think the humanitarian angle makes it somewhat complicated. We are not the salvage army of the world. Let's take the gentleman right here. Hi, it's Sidki, a Turkish journalist. I have a follow-up question to the last two questions. My question touches both of them in some senses. My question is about the Turkish teacher who was abducted last week from his Lahore house together with his wife and two young daughters by armed but plain cloth security officers. The teacher was in Pakistan for the last 10 years and serving Pakistani kids in a math and science school that was featured back in 2008 in the New York Times headline as an antidote for radicalization. They also were, touching the second question, under the UN protection against deportation to Turkey where most probably they will face arrest at the airport and most probably will be tortured. My question is that, did they after their arrest, a Pakistani court, a high court, issued a ruling against their deportation to, so they're still under arrest somewhere but no one knows anywhere. So where are they, what will happen to them? Let me tell you that these schools, the management of these schools were changed last year and people who were managing these schools, they were fired or sacked from their jobs. They were given a certain time frame to go back to their countries or wherever they want to go. That's not our business. The UNHCR had given them permission or umbrella or refused till 30th of September that date expired. There were some injunctions from the courts for not deporting them, those injunctions also expired. So they are living, most of them are still living, they're still more than 200 Turks teachers, they are still there but most of them are due for repatriation because they're overstaying in Pakistan. They don't have any jobs, their job visas are finished. So their stay is illegal and we are doing whatever is being done in the rest of the world also in the United States of America, in Turkey, in Europe or elsewhere. When the visa expires, you are deported to your home country. What happens to them in their home country that is, I think in my opinion that that's a political question to be answered by, not by me, that's a political answer. I'm giving you the details to what has actually happened over the last one year. One more question from the cards and then we'll take a couple here and finish. There are two questions again, I think I can lump them up or three actually questions in the U.S. relationship but again back to the question where I started of narratives and specifically the questioners are asking why is Pakistan unable? If Pakistan's view is what it is and that's reality as you point out why is it that Pakistan cannot convince the world of its narrative and specifically one of the students asks what can Pakistani, is there a role for Pakistani diaspora here in the U.S.? Let me admit very frankly that we have not been able to put our narrative across very effectively. We need to work on that. We have a correct narrative. We are supported by a lot of reasoning and logic and we must do something about it. Like this gathering, I'm coming up with a narrative that may not be to the liking of everybody but still I'm coming up with a narrative. So this interaction on international forums with international media this has to be intensified. I think my advice to the diaspora is I met some of them, some very respectable people yesterday and I have been part of Pakistan diaspora for 13 years. I worked abroad. I think people, Pakistanis living abroad can do a lot for their country. Do a lot for their country. Especially people in the United States, Pakistani origin people, they are all educated. They are well placed. They are educated. They should work on defending the case of Pakistan. I'm not saying if they feel that something is to be defended and we are correct and our standard is rational, logical. So we must be supported by the diaspora. You should be active in the countries where you live and perhaps pursue politics over here. Assimilate, respect their laws, respect their traditions, respect their culture, their ethos, and assimilate in it. At the same time being American of Pakistani origin, you should have a nonpartisan support as far as Pakistani politics is concerned. Nonpartisan. This is my humble opinion because that will taint you for approaching any politics in this country or elsewhere, wherever you are living in Britain or in France or somewhere else. Sure. We just have a couple of minutes. Let's take one back there, the gentleman in the glasses, and then take one here. And we will thank the foreign minister. Right at the back. And then the second one right here. The gentleman right here. Hi. Thank you, minister, for sharing your thoughts. My name is Varghese George. I write for the Indian newspaper, The Hindu. So my question is, as follows, you spoke about Kashmir and India. Is there anything that Pakistan can do and should do to restart engagement with India? Thank you. You suggest it, and I'll do it. Short and sweet. Thank you very much, minister. I'm Shayan Jamsheda. I'm an MBA student at Georgetown. I'm sure like a lot of your comments for the peace, your political opponents back home. So my question is regarding like this rhetoric that the United States has had regarding Pakistan, that Pakistan should do more and more. And we've seen that couple of events that have happened over the last year. First of all, the sale of the F-16 jets, as well as recently, in wake of President Trump's statement, which has been hailed by Indian media as an Indian diplomatic victory in their bid to isolate Pakistan diplomatically. So my question is that yesterday, we've seen the Secretary of Defense say that like Pakistan, we're going to give Pakistan one more chance. So what is Pakistan's official reaction to that, especially when you're here? Thank you. This is Secretary Mattis. No, I know. You started from, you know, it was a bit longish. I'm an old man. You know, I tend to forget. Do more. Do more part. No, let me... We will keep on cooperating. We intend to cooperate with the United States of America. We have absolutely no hesitancy on that account. Absolutely no hesitancy. We intend to cooperate with the United States of America. Any issue which helps the world peace, any issue. We are responsible people. We are a responsible country, a responsible nation. But having said that, when someone tells us that this is the last chance, we won't accept that. Last chance or first chance or second chance, let them talk. In plain and simple words, if that is the way they are going to treat us, if that is the way they are going to talk to us, it's not acceptable. We are a peace-loving nation with our dignity, with our respect. If we are treated with respect and dignity, we'll respond to that five times more. You take a step forward towards us in a positive manner. You take a step towards us for peace in our region. We'll take five steps in response to that. But if that sort of utterance has come out of the American media or American politicians, American state office holders, then, you know, there's already a trust deficit. I think these are detrimental to our common cause, the cause of peace. That is our common cause, peace in Afghanistan. And I think the people in the United States should speak with more responsibility. With more responsibility and have dignity and respect for Pakistan. Otherwise, we are a very proud nation. We know how to live without these... We are not receiving anything. The thing I forgot, you talked about F-16. Let me tell you how much support we have received from the United States of America during this firefight against terrorism. F-16 was the main weapon against the terrorists in the last four years. Main weapon. There was no collateral damage. It was not like the U.S. Air Force. No collateral damage. Targeted... These attacks were done by our Air Force, F-16, and our own J.F. Thunder. And during this period, the Americans told the Jordanians not to deliver old F-16s to Pakistan. So they actually hampered our effort against terrorism and fight against terrorism. And then we received sermons and these, you know... No, not acceptable. A slightly more cheery note. Are we hopeful to... You're not going to be able to provoke. He's saying I'm provoking him. One year from now, the government of Pakistan, when the transition happens, do you see a possibility of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship being at a better place than it is today? Transition? The government transition in Pakistan next year, the elections. Do you see within this year a real possibility? We are... You know, in a democratic polity, in a democratic environment, everything is possible. We do not have any... I'm being repetitive. I'm repeating this over and over again last week also when I was in New York. And then I went back home and now I'm back again. So this shows our keenness and our earnest desire to mend fences with the United States of America. We want that we must pursue our common goals, and we can achieve a lot. Even if there is a common change after the elections in 2018 and in New York. You know, these are things which are... which are settled on the national level. Everybody, nobody can negate the need of peace in Afghanistan. That's a national priority for us. That's a top priority, national priority, because it brings a lot of dividends to us. Huge dividends to us. As I said earlier, Pakistan will be the biggest beneficiary of peace in Afghanistan after Afghanistan. Rest will come after us. So our pursuit or our struggle for peace in Afghanistan is absolutely sincere. Please don't... don't tarnish it with doubts and with such statements coming out of some very, very responsible officers. Minister, thank you very much. Before the event, somebody asked me what do you think the minister is going to say? And I told them, I don't know, but I can tell you he's going to be candid. So I'm glad that whether you're a diplomat or not, it is holding. Thank you very much for joining us. Please join me in thanking the minister.