Where are you from . The moment i described the time instilled described as a bizarre moment. It was a surprise when he called me over. You are in the oval office of what he says who are you come over here its not an option. Draining the swamp is three words is incredibly provocative. Immediately i see playing on the notion that it was built on a swamp and my training is taking up the horrible people to place their live there and whether associates believed him believe him or not believe he could fill fill that are not they were prepared to take. The president of the United States. [applause] s. This is an hour and 15 minutes. Xt rar from ambassador to the u. S. Uture relations with this country. He said curren relations arent under stress but the relationships need to be preserved. Held by the center for strategic and Mission National studies, this is an hour and 20 minutes. I am the chair here at csis and its a privilege to be cohosting with my friend at csis. We are going to be having a conversation with the ambassador of the republic of pakistan. Thank you very much for being here. Its a member of the Foreign Services with 37 years of experience in the Foreign Service. He was the foreign secretary of pakistan. He is a graduate of Tufts University as well as from Punjab University with a very interesting and distinguished career in the Foreign Services basically with all the big jobs in the Foreign Service as ambassador of the netherlands and we are very fortunate to have someone of his caliber representing pakistan at this time. Its obviously a very challenging time for our relations between the United States and pakistan. We wanted to have the conversation with the ambassador and i think everyone is aware of all of that so i think we need to talk about the challenges in our relationship and the things that need to be addressed and then i think it opens up the conversation on the number of things that dont get enough attention on committees and dont get enough attention at all. Im going to turn the floor over first to the ambassador. Ambassador please come on up. Its an honor to have. You. Please welcome the ambassador. [a [applause] thank you. Thank you very much for inviting me to come to thisis session and for organizing this event. It is my pleasure to share withi you the topics that you have suggested toge us. In the last one month a lot has happened. I would like to start from that. Last month you all recall that the United States government the administration has unveiled its National Security strategy. Which has given the United States priority and identified a level of threats to the United States. And then it goes to iran and north korea and jihadi organizations. It is presently liberated by a National Defense last week where it was revealed that interstate competition and not terrorism is the primary concern for the u. S. Administration. And identified china and russia as the original powers antithetical to u. S. Interests and trying toissipate the United States as a power inertia. Also porsche rehm worse is that iran and north korea are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. It appears that the major rivalry is an intensifying and picking up has happened steadily and these announcements made are the u. S. s own calculations and was part of my dynamic. I believe this was already in the making and in the last couple of years especially in the last two years considerable literature appeared suggesting that the unipolar world led by the United States is giving way to multipolarity. The world was in disarray meaning the second world war, postsecond world war world orr w n inx flu about to change and didnt kw what would come out of it. Alison came up with the prediction that the United States and china mightht actualy be destined for war as the topic of his book unless they come up with courageous and painful decisions not to enter that. We had another book on i think it was the future of american state where we also talked at great length on the new rebalance in asia. Slightly earlier before that the longtime statements on singapore have suggested chinas rise will not be just another flare and im using his words but the biggest player in the history and that would require a whole new balance of government. Our former chilean Prime Minister also had to Say Something similar to that where he said the spectacular progress made by china and the Industrial Revolution and the information revolution simultaneously combusted and compressed into not 300 years to 30 years and that would require accommodation accommodation. That means it doesnt really happen suddenly that the United States has reorganized its priorities for the fear that the time had come for them to make an adjustment and see what is happening. Many people have started talking about competition if you want to use that term from a rising china. That wasnt the only this domain that change was happening . I think that change is happening in many otherr domains to. Look for example free trade for which we learned that free trade is the best for everyone. Its the sution. It is now under threat from protectionism. Immigration or immigrants for centuries i would say was always considered as infusion of fresh blood into a society and were welcomed to mingle and learn from each other is now being viewed in some circles as economic a global consensus on Climate Change also had question marks. Nationalism which for 95 centuries in greater which was a major issue xenophobia, islamaphobia now raising their heads. Clearly it has changed. It is in flux. As they zoom in to my own regions i dont see the situation much differently. India and china the two countries in that region are what i would call an uneasy peace. India and pakistan simply dont talk to each other. Afghanistan the situation continues to deteriorate. And iran the nuclear deal negotiated for a long time handle that is a victory off diplomacy is also under question marks. The world which is changing and we dont know where it will head but certainly more turbulent in the region. South asia again the turbulence and the broader region continues to grapple with the threat of terrorism. How has m country pakistan done . When i measure it in that context i belvehat pakistan has not done that. We were in the eye of the storm and for a decade and aor half ad we know that there was hardly a day when we would get up and not be aware of the explosion that it happened. How did we come to face such a diabolic situation where they turned their guns towards pakistan . Long story and i dont want to go into that but the fact is that the nation of pakistan in the last couple of years forged a consensus that avoids the military action to take these people out. Today they all became very proudly say that the sight of terrorism has been diverse. The militants and terrorism we are chasing them and we will continue to do that. But its our job over . The mindset which gives rise to these is still there and we need to deal with that d we will al with that. So that is the situation for pakistan unless two or three years. We think we have achieved a commendable success against the formidable enemies of pakistan. Law and order has improved which has had an effect on the Economic Situation from all across most of china but also from europe and elsewhere and america. We think we are on the right track. Our destination is still very far. Theres a lot of work that needs to be done. We will remain tentative until afghanistan nextdoor stabilizes and thats where i would like to bring in the relations of my country with the ambassadors. This relationship is very important to us. As always we believe it must be reserved. Currently it is under i must admit. But i believe this is because in the United States sometimes the country is looked at from one lens or the other. Sometimes we are viewed through afghanistan that since the United States is not making progress in pakistan could actually be up against failure perhaps because of pakistan and therefore should review pakistan and that lens. Sometimes its viewed through the lens of china but china which is now a rival for the United States having pakistan close to china is not going to be friendly with the United States. Sometimes it is viewed through the lens that india now is a Strategic Partner for the unites states and is expected by the United States to play larger role in the region and so pakistan is not on good terms with india and pakistan will not maintain relations. Sometimes its also viewed surely from counterterrorism or security lens. I believe this is a very narrow approach to a country the size of pakistan and the potential of pakistan. Broadening the lens is so apt in relevant because pakistan should be viewed for what it is and not through the four lenses that i talked about. And that would happen if the relationship is viewed two levels to see how pakistan and the u. S. One is the government to government in the other is peopletopeople. I think while the government to government relationship has also waited between ups and downs the relationship has been steady and there are a number of areas in which the people of pakistan and the people of the United States remain connected and have remained connected regardless of the relationship between the two governments. It hel enormously if the relationship is part of it no doubt about it. I was telling you in the other room that even today the United States remains the destination for pakistani children. The United States is home to a large body of pakistani physicians. Many of who are ingested in the next generation to come to this country and serve here. The United States has been a steady partner and few people know about it. We are agrarian country starting from the 50s and 60s in producing the green revolution in pakistan. Until now some of the leading universities are still actively engaged with some areas of pakistan. I could go on. All of this tends to get on the side because the conversations stand to reduce to one lens or the other. And it is a security given relationship. At this time whats causing distress between pakistan and United States is afghanistan. We in the states have invested billions and also in blood. But unfortunately, the situation is deteriorating. Some would say it is close to around 9 11. And they say that this is been driven by militants who would plan Something Like that. Is it any these are all questions for the q a session because i was given the timetable of 10 to 15 minutes to speak. Why is the relationship between pakistan and us, why has it been a roller coaster . I think we need to really explore what is it. And how is it we can broaden it. What new areas can we bring and how can we broaden this. Thank you for your attention. [applause] thank you. Okay. I will turn the floor over to my colleague and my new friend. You have the first question. Thank you. And thank you for your comments. It is not to welcome you to csis. You actually beat me by two and half weeks since i started here. So welcome. And anyway we are on the same turf. Let me begin, you are a graduate of Fletcher School at Tufts University. For those people that do not know they have the jumbo there so before you move on to a range of questions, i will raise the elephant in the room and then we will deal with a whole range of issues regional trade, peace negotiations and others. Let me first turn to the issue of pakistan supporting militants. I think your response here would be helpful in part because its been a subject for quite some time. I think theres no question that as one looks at the last decade and 1 2, pakistan has made countless sacrifices. There is no question about that. In blood and treasure. You noted the exriences afghanistan. And the struggle against militants. I was in pakistan for example as i told you earlier, during parts of a campaign and i saw that up and close. And very cognizant of the thousands of pakistan soldiers, police, civilians, and those that have died over the past several years. And the civilians that have had to do with bombings. Certainly around the town, both democratic and republican governments and senior officials from us agencies continue to point the finger at pakistan for providing support to some groups. Certainly grnot all. They raise issues of Afghan Taliban. And they have the command and control structures on the pakistan side of the stborder. If i quote President Trump from one of his recent tweets, they give safe haven to the terrorists that we had in no more. Tan with little help. The us president said recently. I think also it is probably worth noting that us officials will also argue that pakistan officials will regularly deny the support in public and in private. But few may actually believe this sign. I want to give you a chance to respond to these concerns and issues with at least support to some militant groups. You know to be fair, all states including United States provide support to some state and nonstate actors. Im well aware of that from my personal, my own personal background in the us military. Can we have an honest discussion about this. And how you respond to this broader discussion and pakistan support on the afghan side in particular. Thank you. Lets try to take the rules of how pakistan came into contact and encounter with the militants. After 1979 there was no such thing as militants 9,in pakista. We were living about our own life. But then 1979, forces came into afghanistan. The United States and pakistan had come up with the concept of that is where this was born and created to provide an army of militants who would fight. Once the soviets left, these people stayed back in afghanistan. And after 9 11, once again, United States came to focus on that area and other places that were bombed heavily. And many of them, opened the borders. And pakistan had to make a choice whether it wants to be part pakistan made this choice and thereby the militants is that the pakistan was now to be attacked for their activity. And that is the time about 2002 or 2003 that oumilitants began turn their guns towards pakistan. And hardly a day would pass when they would not attack one facility or installation for another. And the security establishments. Either on the military or the intelligence facilities. From 2004 to 2014, all hell broke loose. We used to have 150 incidents per month on the average. Until the nation said that enough is enough. And all of the politicians got together, held a series of political conferences between and forged a National Consensus that we would not allow any terminated pakistan nor would we allow anyone to use pakistan [inaudible] the military would not have moved in without this consensus. Because otherwise they would have faced some resistance from underground. I want to also say that the militants who came to tribal areas had a very simple narrative. Which somehow at that time, found a lot of ejection in the local population. We willetid othem and today is being occupied by americans. And we will get rid of that. That was simple narrative and that, this is a duty called jihad and supportive. You have to have an equally strong and effective countermeasure to expose the flawed nature of that narrative. Because i say flawed because if you are killing innocent people on the streets and in the schools, that mans that it is not holy duty. It is outright militants and terrorism. And they have since provide an opportunity for us to a school killing 137 schoolchildren. Those pakistanis soldiers and officers who were fighting them. They sent a message to them that you are our enemy. And therefore, they moved in, not only because they had to do it as a National Duty but it became a passionate duty to rid ourselves from these evil people. And that is why this voice from far right of the political spectrum came. And almost swept through the area. And we swcleaned up all of the hideouts and sanctuaries. Today, if you do not hear any such or do not see any such thing it is because we eliminated that. So when somebody tells us that there are safe havens existing there, we say to them, please show us where. We have been we would also like to eliminate someone hiding. And if somebody says that the military intelligence is actually playing a game and supporting his militants, and i will ask them, go and meet those officers and soldiers who have and their loved ones attacked by militants and they tell me that they would allow their own servicemen to support their people who killed chilen. No, r. It is not so. We paid a huge price. 6000 soldiers and officers and 23,000 people. We are so happy because we were able to defeat them. They are on the line. And those who need to know, they know that the both of them have gone. And we will push those hiding anywhere also. There afghan. The taliban, they belong there. A message to them is, that you should join the political we will squeeze all of these people by denying them accommodation and help and whatever else. And they are very much going there. But since we keep hitting this from some of the security authorities, it led the people of pakistan to believe that perhaps, we are being scapegoated for afghanistan. Look at the last four years. We have improved the situation and afghanistan according to your own reports, every six months the territory that is to be there is in