history you've had either not even his government certainly not. it will come back i'm going to show that you actually were advisor to the pakistani foreign ministry you were in government i think the same time as you know do you feel the military were pushing you around at the time would you feel that you had control over the i'm a lot more sort of positive about the experience i think that there was some really really big issues on which under the leadership of former foreign minister carter we were able to redefine the way that foreign policy is structured in pakistan there's a long history to better as between afghanistan and pakistan but the redefinition of the repositioning of how islamabad and bindi relate to afghanistan that happened on the not a bunny close watch and it happened not because the military was ready to jump in the military frankly needed to be convinced. you're a political scientist at king's college london or throw a book on islam as parties in pakistan do you think the government was part of did enough to rein in the military and subsequent government to hold them to account

she's talking about the constraints she was up against what's your view i think it's been it's been quite a mixed record but certainly for those that that. was part of the problem was that there was absolutely no clarity of policy in the war on terror that the general musharraf supported was actually something that had absolutely no alternative to you know it continued with similar policies didn't question the war on terror the fundamentals of the war on terror the their reasoning the strategies the success of those tactics and not embolden the military and that the war on terror has. been most helpful for the military in pakistan and you lack clarity and you lack competence. well that may be bought i would have to be much more competent and have much more clarity but i would be i would be very unhappy with myself if i'm told that we lack clarity on the foreign policy front because i like to believe that we

did humongous on the foreign on directing the foreign policy we called it the region. pivotal pakistan because we believe we don't need to have a great relationship with london or with washington d.c. but a great relationship with delhi after thirty five years no military government or civilian government in pakistan had the guts to normalize trade with india and we were told as a policy that we will not solve the problem could be solved should we change that do not underestimate the importance of that we can either effigies a bond for heaven the bar is not high on effigy burning and pa not be. there might be correct just to deal with the so-called war on terror following last year's pretty horrific attack on the school and push over in which the pakistani taliban the t.t.p. killed one hundred thirty two children the prime minister nawaz sharif said that pakistan would no longer differentiate between good taliban those who fight for pakistan's interests abroad and bad taliban those attacking pakistan home isn't that basically an admission that that's what had been happening in the past

including during your time in office that you guys backed the taliban as well as the so-called good taliban i think primus in the past you were slumbering there for the last five years before he came into power because clearly that is the distinctive feature of the policy that we were trying to run and it is something which is recognised within the military quarters also and i have to give the military credit for being able to change that policy because that was where deep in their wins it was considered to be anyone who believed that the way it was a traitor to pakistan and they were able to change it and please say what you mean about president that idea but do give him credit for that region that and for the fact that the p.p.p. came with a complete regional focus with hillary clinton the u.s. secretary your counterpart at the time was she slumbering as well in twenty eleven when she told you to your face that she had evidence that there'd been quote communication between the haqqani network that brutal fighting group in afghanistan and elements within the pakistan government prior to the attack by the haqqani network on the us embassy and nato headquarters in kabul in september of twenty eleven how many times of foreign minister did you have to listen to allies of yours

basically accuse you to your face to your states by. of terrorism well much too many times i had to listen to that and i didn't tell them their all slumbering no i did not tell them there was something of a certain things which were which which hair and. beards of truth in them as of truth. which were partially relics of the past i believe which were super imposing on what the present was ok i will tell you one thing pakistan did not have the ability maybe to be able to take on every. network within the region all at the same time you know i think no one's asking you to go to fight all of them but you don't have to sponsor and one as well and to support as they are sponsoring in funding the most concern clearly that i would like to believe that under our watch that was not the policy direction at all so when the chairman of the joint us troops of staff admiral mike mullen told the senate in september twenty seventh that extremist organization serving as proxies of the government of pakistan are attacking afghan troops and civilians and u.s. soldiers the haqqani network is a veritable arm of the i.s.i.

was he slumbering to no he was misguided because i believe and i think history will prove to be correct that pakistan was fantastically for all there is and the wrongs of the war in afghanistan on drone strikes what is your view of u.s. drone strikes on pakistani soil against pakistani militants and pakistani civilians are you a supporter we said that grown strange that counterproductive what does down to productive mean it means that they are actually fueling extremism and assisting people to attract more people towards extremism we said that they were against pakistan's territorial and we're used to the pakistani go back on the government so why do thanks to a us state department cable do we hear the pakistani prime minister use of result your then boss saying in private i don't care if they the americans do drone strikes as long as they get the right people will protest in the national assembly and then we'll ignore it how cynical how two faced with your government protesting

in public against drone strikes but backing in but i guess what betty. i was the foreign minister the prime minister never said this in the room when i was in the room what is necessary to you about your status within the government no i was i was i was pretty much in every important meeting so from the moment he said i. was foreign minister from two thousand and eleven march two thousand and eleven to the end of five but what i'm saying is that. there's no fine and i'm not going to i probably will you can have no problem and i'm not willing to believe that he would say a thing like this i really am not which i don't know possibly could be why not ok so when president zardari said to journalists on the record in two thousand and ten in lahore there are no differences between pakistan and the u.s. over any issue including drone attacks you're saying if i think what he was referring to was the fact that the u.s. also believes that drone strikes are not a permanent solution and they do ok let me give you a statistic for one for forty seven people who were on the hit list what they called the high value targets between yemen and pakistan the u.s. according to the most conservative reports killed one hundred one thousand one

hundred forty seven people how is that. what does that say to you about propelling extremism i agree with you i'm saying to you i think drone strikes above the problem is your government in private didn't seem to think that what i'm saying is the president when you talk to reporters the president told michael hayden cia director president's authority collateral damage worries you americans it does not worry me in reference to not in the rooms not in the in the room i was on. they take all these issues but they don't tell you what i'm saying is i refused to go out in the public to say drones about well they're in the back going what i'm writing your own program thing is that it is. i mean experience thank you thank you what i'm saying is that it is not possible for me to believe that things change so much. because of my presence in the room or not so what i'm saying is that some of these things could have been misrepresented or mr ported. misrepresented mis reported what is your view on the relationship between

the pakistani government and drone strikes i think if you take away the question of mr presentation we're still left with the fact that in actual fact drones intensified during musharraf regime we have when if you were drones then during the . president bush and president obama had a very difficult different perspective on daunte and presence as president obama happened to be there president. musharraf time president bush happened to be the president who believed and maybe troops on the ground putting your president can say no thanks we don't want these do you know we have a stick we have a parliamentary resolution which was probably unprecedented in the history of pakistan which clearly stipulated that no one in pakistan nor one in pakistan is authorized to give any acquisitions to drone strikes until the parliament ratified documents from the cia and twenty thirteen showed that the i.s.i. was helping the cia pick targets for drone strikes in part this is this is this is the parliamentary resolution and let's go to. moving on from the wider issue of

drone strikes at home or touches. there is this constant accusation that pakistan is playing a double game on the one hand it's saying we're with you in the war on terror with sacrificing our soldiers we're fighting against the taliban and other groups on the other hand they're supporting those groups are turning a blind eye to doing how do you respond to that challenge the country is supposed to fulfill its own interests and pursue its own interests above and beyond any other country's interest so the issue this whole concept of a double game comes from the standard presuppose that assumption that somehow pakistan's game should be to fulfil what people that live in washington d.c. want but since game is not to trivialize the united states and take twenty billion dollars from the u.s. first of all it wasn't twenty billion dollars second of actually bucks on was forced because but by by the admission of the former president of pakistan the military dictator musharraf and by admission of u.s. authorities themselves they threatened to bomb pakistan back to the stone age the blame for drone strikes has to be it has to be on the party that conducting the drone strikes and also the part of helping the drone indeed i mean that is

a victim of drones in order to promote a crackdown is helping the u.s. or those. who do it so. i don't think there's enough proof that. you've heard what the sheriff has said and i said what's your response what on the drone strikes i mean pakistan could easily deny the airspace and recently there was a t.t.p. commander who was killed on the afghan side with intelligence provided by the pakistanis so i mean that that is that case and when it came to militants they targeted the ones that they they fought the ones that they had to the appease the ones that they could they ignore the ones that didn't touch them and they did and they discreetly supported the ones who fought across their borders this was part of a strategy to try and maximize influence in the region did it work. because some people to watch you have the t.t.p. not blowing stuff but we have to be of the certainly what was blowback it depends what situation you're looking at and i think this is actually the reason why yes

you do try regional but boxen remains massively isolated internationally and regionally you know interesting one doesn't tire from hearing how much blood the world has given in terms of trying to reform. three thousand five hundred or even less than that the total number of soldiers who have lost their lives in that time in pakistan six thousand soldiers and policemen have lost their lives in the same period i bet they were fighting people that they created themselves i bet at the same time they were funding them they were giving them arms and ammunition and money and the same kind of fighting the whole the whole you're conceding you're conceding that the people who died fighting in the pakistani armed forces were fighting people that they helped create you conceding no i'm not at all conceding that i'm saying how remarkably sadistic do you think we are to be able to even give us an argument like this it's a stock only evidence which you refusing to see maybe pakistan's draw is to protect its own people before the united states and you know. that it would have you know what i think is an area i mean the statistics are off the supposedly approximately

four thousand people who died only seven hundred twenty six have been named all of those only about one hundred sixty nine are legit militants they are disproportionately affecting civilians as foreign minister you never you never took this up the only issue that you get to karzai was. where you got a lot nearly not only me as foreign minister for you to say that's not really not i'm not i'm going to get here because i believe. in ensuring that there was no double feasting on pakistan's wrong policy because i take myself seriously and i take the trust and the responsibility of the people of pakistan that is put in me talking of as an elected member very seriously let's take a sort of double face in the accusations that are made against your government you were the defacto foreign minister during the u.s. raid. bin laden's compound in about about in may twenty eleven in which he was killed when you got the news that bin laden was killed were you surprised shocked even that he had been found in pakistan. or was your reaction more like they found

him in the place we kind of knew he was but we don't want anyone to know. which one was it what was your reaction to. it was completely i think shocked would be understanding it also i mean we went in we don't know what happened and we were we went still we don't know how to react. your own former cabinet colleagues defense minister. said in october the president zardari and the head of the pakistani army than general kiani both knew that bin laden was in pakistan did you know you know in the room no he was not in the room he was not in the room the defense minister was in the defense minister the fact is the defense minister was not in the room and i wasn't and that's a fact and i can assure you the defense minister doesn't know the first thing about what the former defense minister doesn't know the first thing that was done in the country and was he pointed out something. like bettors it was used on the defense minister of government. it's up to the government to appoint the defense minister by appointing someone and this is the defense minister who said he found out about

the raid because his daughter called him from the us almost that's how we're going to let me do this you got the letter you want to point this person as and then that they were in control of the mine and the army in the room is just resilient and i just responded at least briefly and i completely agree with you on this one defense minister in pakistan is the most ineffective minister who knows nothing about the defense or the foreign policy of pakistan that is the fact that he's not you know not guest of the show. get up get everybody in trouble. because if thank. you with the below them point so you are saying nobody in the government had a clue about bin laden being back there even though he was in a military town in a purpose compound down the road from a military academy and the military had no clue he was seriously so the people in the room in this room i can tell you present the diary primacy used to dress like myself as the minister of state for foreign affairs secretary for in the first

military chief i said chief six people in the room right either all of them had to be fantastic actors must get jobs in hollywood or at least bollywood because they all made a great pretense of being still and shock like i explained to you and not knowing how to react if they knew how to react would we give a silly statement like we did because we don't know how to react you give us a statement out which we had to almost retract the next day. so when u.s. defense secretary leon panetta told congress at the time in may twenty eleven that pakistan was either involved or incompetent in terms of bin laden's whereabouts i'm guessing you're going to go with incompetence guilty for being incompetent ok so when cyril almeda the pakistani journalist said in the piece at the time if we didn't know bin laden was in about about we are a failed state if we didn't know we are a rogue state if the united states of america could not find. that make it a rogue state or a failed state i think we rushed too quickly to call pakistan and the likes of pakistan the failed state to be focused on this stuff or because the video was living down the road from the pentagon i think we would judge the united states you know you may you might as well the fact of the matter is that there was

a lot of intelligence agencies which are around so if they didn't know and we didn't know we were all in the same one all in one last question before we have to take a break perception we do accept the people see pakistan in a pretty bad way when it comes to subjects of political violence extremism terrorism i think many pakistanis accept that many pakistanis see pakistan at a pretty bad place but i don't happen often one nine hundred seventy nine pakistan was at a very good place when you put in the extremism into the thought process into the minds and bodies of pakistanis in them to be one and then said ok done with it extremism thought take out where was the exit strategy what the hell man i mean what they're really going to take a break where in part two we're going to be talking to him about the intractable conflict in kashmir we're going to hear more from our panel of experts and we're going to hear from our audience here that's after the break. a new year and many new developments in this chinese villages fledgling democracy

the village committee has retrieved people's land but approval is fleeting frustration grips the villagers and as the saga began over a year before result is in the air. spilled over by. china's democracy experiment on al-jazeera. we understand the differences and the similarities of cultures across the world. so no matter where you call home al-jazeera will bring in the news and current affairs that matter to you. al-jazeera. and nine hundred seventy eight. disappeared after boarding a plane to libya. for over thirty years his disappearance remained traugott

in mystery. but after colonel gadhafi his downfall in two thousand and eleven new evidence came to light. al-jazeera world investigates the case of the vanished in. and out to syria. you're watching alters their own hole rob and these are all top news stories u.s. senator john mccain has died at the age of eighty one in a statement on friday his family said he'd stopped efforts to treat his brain cancer the two thousand and eight republican party presidential nominee announced he had the disease last year mccain was a distinguished military veteran he spent more than five a half years as a prisoner of war in vietnam after being shot down over the country during

a bombing mission decades later he was a key figure in the restoration of diplomatic relations between the u.s. and vietnam reacting to the news u.s. president donald trump tweeted my deepest sympathies in respect to the family of senator john mccain our hearts and prayers are with you former president barack obama who defeated became for the presidency has also released a statement and it reads in part john mccain and i were members of different generations came from completely different backgrounds and competed at the highest level of politics but we shared for all our different differences of adeleke to something higher the ideals which generations of americans and immigrants alike afford marched and sacrificed few of us have been tested the way god wants was all required to show the kind of courage that he did. moving on to other news the pope francis has admitted feeling shame about the catholic church as failure to prevent sexual abuse by members of the clergy in ireland he referred to abuse as repugnant

he is trying to reinvigorate catholicism in a country which has seen scandals involving the church over many decades. because we cannot surely i cannot fail to acknowledge the great scandal caused in ireland by the abuse of young people by members of the church charge of the responsibility for that metatron education the failure of ecclesiastical authorities to adequately address these repugnant crimes has rightly given rise to outrage i myself share the sentiments. for afghanistan's top ministers a resign from president of government they include the ministers of defense interior the president's national security adviser and the head of the national directorate of security the resignations follow choose these rocket attacks on the presidential palace and taliban attacks on villages near the city of ghastly those are the headlines i'm back with the al-jazeera the news hour in thirty minutes be continued now with head to head.

i have i.

i welcome back to head to head on al jazeera we've been talking about pakistan with the country's former foreign minister hinna rabani khar who's here with me in the oxford union we've been talking about drone strikes the role of the military the raid on bin laden let's talk about kashmir the former president of pakistan general musharraf once said that kashmir runs in our blood and we will never budge an inch on it recently general right heel sharif the head of the pakistani army is called kashmir pakistan's juggler vein how this obsession with kashmir and this kind of hyperbolic rhetoric done more harm than good to pakistan over the past seven decades especially in recent years. maybe i don't think you can underestimate or take away the importance of because you are portrayed as a figment of pakistan's imagination and crazy pakistanis going crazy over kashmir ok we have resolution forty seven of the security council of the us. to prove on

the request of the indian government went to the security council the security council asked for a certain number of things to be done which included the holding of the will which would determine yes it was in one nine hundred forty eight to be precise and then there was another resolution one thousand nine hundred eighty and then there was another one and this is been the constant theme would you agree that the military's role in kashmir policy especially in terms of backing various insurgent groups has been a very violent insurgency kill tens of thousands since the late one nine hundred eighty s. do you think that has been a way for the military to control foreign and defense policy in pakistan subverted even have a bloated budget beyond what really should have pretty much a lot of economic work and academic work even by indians proves that the insurgency in some ways was instigated by the government of india more than by pakistan that they made it happen to deal with my specific point about the packers i mean it's over the last twenty five years. obviously we'll have

a different view on any issue which has to do with territory then a politician right because they would try and find in nonmilitary we need to deal with the situation and that's why within the constitution the military has a certain role and the parliament has a certain role and executive has a certain but even more militarily the certain provocative things you can do when you went to india yourself in twenty eleven as foreign minister you kicked off your visit not by meeting your indian counterpart or bt with the elected indian government but first by meeting with kashmiri separatist what's the harm in that you don't think pakistani foreign ministers meeting separatist groups before they meet there is provocative at all absolutely not you didn't they are part of your shock when you are that they're part of the dialogue why is hafiz mohammad saeed founder of a group in pakistan and internationally leader of the now rebranded jamaat ud dawa he has a ten million dollars bounty on his head is on the un on the us terrorist watch list and yet lives a pretty normal free middle class life in the city of lahore he holds public meetings he goes on t.v.

how does that work. well i started a lady is concerned believe me we had zero love loss for them and after state i don't think. i believe is irrelevant this man is wandering around saying some outrageous things doing press conferences got police protection why i think he's been tried i don't think the guy is a free man right now and clearly the courts let him go did the judiciary in pakistan history and our system is very similar to that of india so please when you you have a few empty of anti terror laws allow you to round up hundreds of people all the time just as there are several hundred people detained without charge in pakistan many people who say you detain lots of people you don't like i'm just going to detain them they'll draw their own conclusions from that i'm just going to say that the state is not somebody i'm willing to protect in any way on this show or. you did not look i did absolutely try my absolute level best to make sure that he was not somebody that the state of pakistan associated with any which way you are i think you know the wrong minister in two thousand and eight when the mumbai attacks happened i was in pakistan has been accused of sponsoring those attacks you were in

you were foremost in twenty eleven when american citizen david headley pleaded guilty to helping militant groups and carrying out those attacks which killed one hundred sixty people he testified that quote operated under the umbrella of the i.s.i. and coordinated with each other the i.s.i. provided assistance to law school financial military moral when you heard him say that did you kick start an investigation into the side to see if those claims were true i think we were briefed as to the credibility of those claims and he was considered to be a double triple type of an agent sort of a personal reason to investigate his client who had very little credibility reefed does not invalidate the briefing is where you told you this morning is what we asked for and they just said we didn't do it and you said as i said we i think we directed a change of policy which is throwing at you. over the things that are i'm asking did you hold a nine to account of them saying we tried to push as much as possible i still believe today i believe at that time that it was in pakistan's best interest to get a resolution to the trial it was in our best interest. to my. you of the fact that

the some truth to express trials are still ongoing and then get them and us have a very similar judicial process because unfortunately we cannot push the judicial process is when judiciary independent my point was that when you want to bend the laws to arrest and detain people you do not own and we go to the parliament on this one say that maybe i would hold you accountable for that we go to the parliament hold me accountable but on the other side. i don't want to blow this matter well let me let me let me explain please let me explain the difference between pakistan of the one nine hundred seventy s. or it is when military regimes was there was that the military did not need to get laws passed through parliament to get they have this power now they have to go to the parliament that is under the protection of pakistan and under the action in aid of civil power regulation the military has the power to round up people they suspect in counter-terror operate and they have to go to parliament to get credit and they didn't round up half as moment so it is my point they didn't run that is something that's really what i was making about the legal process and one last question before i go to our panel president zardari said in two thousand and thirty

five thousand pakistanis have been killed in militant attacks many of them a lot of people would say by fighters coming home from kashmir in blow back people who were trained radicalized in kashmir they came home brought that expertise the ideology that violence with them is at a point you would know i would share it on the other border and i think you are selectively choosing to do that on the eastern border because the reality was that it was on the western border it was the arms and ammunition and the money which had come from all over the world which are going to train people to go in only from afghanistan blow but me ok let me as i do said that it was our policy to ensure there was nobody no instigation on that and because we were trying to pursue the part of negotiations let's put that point to our panel. time magazine's pakistan correspondent for six years blowback from kashmir do you believe there's been blowback from kashmir about oh there's certainly been groups and militants who have fought in kashmir and then subsequently fought inside pakistan and those documents and the people from j. from j yeah from from these other groups. you can find them they've been on

pakistan's kill list of you know bugs as most wanted list so that you know at that point and in terms of the point about general you want to resolve it by lottery through trade where we how would you divvy up responsibility well it's an intractable problem because box on ones too. raise the kashmir issue because it embarrasses india pakistan can assert some moral authority over india in that way but the problem is a pox and so isolated it's the only country that is actually saying this they can't get anyone else on board by contras the indians know that this is an inconvenience a source of embarrassment but they also know that economically strong enough to ignore pakistan and to make sure the other people ignore pakistan which are if. you were invited to the pakistani foreign ministry says that pakistan has been trying to use caution to embarrass india and india managed to shrug it off i'm guessing you disagree with them this is a problem kashmir is india not pakistan. if even if we accept the indian claims

over kashmir particularly if we accept the indian claims of aggression we then it's an entirely indian problem to solve yes pakistan made some very very poor choices in supporting various militant groups at a certain point in time especially during the ninety's but other than that blemish the record the pakistan hasn't actually there's actually something that as a pakistani i'm proud of i'm proud of the fact that i belong to a country that stands up for people's rights particularly when it comes across need because that's the one place where nobody else is willing to stand up not the british not the americans not the saudis not the iranians not the burmese or the other parties but only the pakistanis let me put the point to dr homer if there's a political scientist at king's college london or throw a book on is the most politics in pakistan do you believe that pakistan's role in kashmir has been a wholly positive one on the support of oppressed peoples at the popular level there is immense support for that and of course it is an issue that in which the indian government has played a very reprehensible role as well my concern is being and particularly with regard

to this or that it that with actually without since they did not question the war on terror narrative since the let the military play out its responses to the war on terror since they actually lead to a militarization of all policy in that in that way they have. i'm doing it on a platter to india because now every time we have a conversation about me india says oh but your country is a terrorist country and you know you need to actually fix terrorism was a poor response that very briefly do you believe the pakistani military has no interest in a solution just because along with it's going on it gets resources it gets status it gets to control policy do you think the pakistani army is actually in a slightly complicated situation with that because on the one hand they have more to generations of soldiers with the whole question of course meat and independence because. and at the same time we see that the people of course are not necessarily now looking to join with pakistan any more let me let me put that specific problem

is not exactly massive fans of your country a poll in two thousand and ten found that only fifty percent of pakistan administered kashmir pakistan or mr kashmir want to be part of pakistan only two percent of the people in indian administered kashmir i would i would be very happy if the people get the choice to choose between india pakistan or in the independence of independence i would be very happy if they choose an independent state all to go with. just they are always that policy that is absolutely the policy that is the right question is india pakistan independent exactly just before you do is clarify for me explain to me is the current position of the pakistani government to have a referendum in kashmir with three questions on the on the ballot paper what i'm saying is pakistan is committed to the people getting the right to truth. that that is. the are completely committed to the united nations security council doesn't have his emotional stress so i'm wondering if. i'm that's not part of the resolution what i'm saying is that as far as as far as the kashmiri people is

concerned your view is absolutely my view and i was here when you were in office as was my view when ok let's go to our audience for being very waiting very patiently here in the oxford union let's go to the lady in just a third row in the from here yes your party champions of democracy but feel student substance implemented even within the. on party one but two follows the next you yourself are from a political family how do you expect there to be meaningful change in the country if the people in charge of that change got there because of who they're related to rather than what they've done for the country. i don't think you can single pakistan in that hillary clinton will be following president bill clinton there are many many examples all over the body first i ran into and she served as a senator and secretary of state what did bilawal bhutto do before you i'm going to leave you the university student the time.