and i think probably that is quite understood, well understood. so have i misunderstood your description of your -- >> i wouldn't be so rude to say you misunderstood my description i will just try to give the description again in different words -- >> so there is no one accountable in the government? >> i just said -- the question asked of me is who makes the decision? and to that i explained pakistan is a country that has emerged from a dictatorship, doesn't like the notion. that set of course we have a president who is the constitutional head of state and primm industries that of government, so people who want to make a phone call can reach them and i can happily and arrange the conversation and will do but i was answering the political question which is there is this assumption that just like under general musharraf everybody in washington used to say yes

ichtegem mittal musharraf and got this or that promise with the promise was subsequently fulfilled or not we on the other hand see a democracy has to have institutions, institutional decision making in that decision making is proceeding forward, so that is what i said. i didn't say that there is no one in charge. >> thank you. ambassador, you spoke about wanting to restore some sort of dialogue with india. but the fact is pakistan has not taken successful action against those who are believed to have been involved in the mumbai attacks. my understanding is there have been no convictions at anybody and the government efforts against the organization have been half-hearted at best. how do you respond to that and if i may ask a question about

afghanistan use that relations are better now between afghanistan and pakistan. how do you envision political solution of the afghanistan going forward and how much involvement does their need to be from neighbors like pakistan and also iran? >> let me answer the second question first. the answer is simple. it has to be determined by afghans, not by anybody else. and it's up to the afghans to decide who is involved in that process. the afghan leaders of the start a reconciliation process and call upon us to provide assistance we are there to assist and facilitate them. after all we have been home to 105 cities at one time and [inaudible] are afghan refugees so we have a role to play but we will not demand a role that does not acceptable to the afghan the testily the reconciliation process will have to support from pakistan. for the pragmatic reasons it

would be useful for all of afghanistan's neighbors to be part of the reconciliation effort but for that the afghan leadership will have to come up with a reconciliation blueprint and then we will be very happy to work with it and facilitate it. as far as the first question is concerned mumbai was a tragedy that pakistan felt strongly about. we were hurt by what happened in mumbai as our brother and friends in india. we felt strongly that this was an attack on humanity the people were killed there were victims of terrorism and just as we do not like anybody being slaughtered in the streets of law or we do not like the idea of anybody being slaughtered in that manner in mumbai. our heart goes out to our neighbors and the citizens who went through they went through on the 26th of november.

but people who were involved in that to the extent some of them have been in pakistan have been arrested. they are under trial to convict them would require to have the evidence that is available. with mumbai police and anybody else in the world, it doesn't mean we want to punish these people. but it's not something that can be easily done so we think the difference of opinion we have between india and pakistan is that india first confects mumbai and that will facilitate a dialogue. we feel if we had better dialogue the conviction would be facilitated because that we there would be more exchange of intelligence information, more exchange of legal and other

material and document and personnel and the b.c.. it's a disagreement between us but it's not a disagreement of intentions. we invested the indians and us both want, india and pakistan both want terrorism to be eliminated from the region, and we look forward to the day when we will both have enough trust and faith in each other that we will understand that we are both victims and neither one of us has any interest in keeping the terrorist machine going. >> a quick follow-up. >> are you saying that because you don't have this intelligence from india that you cannot categorically say there were not elements of the pakistani government involved in the mumbai attacks? >> i don't think that is a question i can answer at this point all i will say is i do not always -- you probably discerned that from my presentation. i do not consider newspaper reports as sufficient basis for

conviction of anybody anywhere in the world. so i've read a lot of newspaper reports. in the end convictions come through evidence that has presented before judges, conviction is something for which a legal process has to be followed so while we read a lot of reports and to keep multiplying the fact remains our court has not convicted them and we look forward to convicting them when and if we can. [inaudible] you spoke about the fact that the relationship with the u.s. has moved beyond transaction as it was in the past, but there was the president who visited india, he didn't visit pakistan this time around and while he was there he also endorsed the candidacy for the permanent seat on the u.n. security council and also very strong we spoke about the fact that pakistan cannot

provide safe havens to terrorists against india, etc.. is there a sense of deja vu the plural the u.s. is forging a futuristic tragedy partnership with india pakistan once again is being replicated to a strategy convenience? >> i think pakistan no longer sees u.s. relations with india and pakistan. we are quite happy pakistan has a good relationship with the united states and we are equally pleased indeed that is developing a close and important strategic partnership with the united states. as far as president obama's visit to india is concerned, we appreciate that visit as offering an opportunity for bringing greater stability in the region and friendship and

the united states and india is not something we look upon with any sense of worry. all we would like this for our relationship to be stable as well. what president obama said in india about the u.n. permanent security council permanent membership is something that we do not agree with. but then even reform is something that is a complex process and we feel that complex process has yet to play itself out. the united states also committed itself to a permanent seat for japan several years ago. japan is now nowhere near getting that seat so this is not something we think is going to reflect in any way on the u.s.-pakistan relations, and i don't think even reform is something i'm going to read about in tomorrow's paper as having materialized and commenting on the after tomorrow's paper is a little too

far right now. as far as pakistan being relegated it hasn't benefited the united states. in the past a don't think it's great added benefit the united states around so there's a considerable understanding in this time around and in the united states that it is in america's interest to have a close relationship with pakistan and pakistan's interest to have a close relationship with all of our neighbors and i would emphasize again pakistan would like to have a close relationship with india just as we want to have a close relationship with arab neighbors. >> we have a question at the back. the young man. then the lady of the front. thank you. could you please identify yourself? >> my name is allison johnson and i write for northrop grumman corporation and but like your

reaction to comments from general musharraf last week in relations three areas that very worried me. first, you were strong in your convictions that afghanistan should be decided in terms of its future in terms of the afghans, whereas the general basically reemphasized during his talk that it is a decision on pashtuns and there should be a greater role of the voice in afghanistan and that that was the missing piece. second, in terms of the relationship with india, the general felt the missing dialogue was around cashmere and until there wouldn't be further progress in the dialogue and relationship with india. so if you could comment on that stance, and finally in terms of the relationship with the united states as was already mentioned

this whole challenger now where to for the dialogue with the united states for its relationship with pakistan as it relates to the overall regional questions the role of iran and afghanistan, what is your reaction to his concerns about the role of ambassador holbrooke and how effective these different players have been in trying to strengthen the dialogue in the region with the secretary of state intervening with the president and in the suburban brook intervening his conviction there's too many players attempting to have a dialogue in the region. i really would appreciate your feedback. >> as the ambassadors to not make comments on the former presidents of their own country especially remarks made so i'm

going to treat all your questions independent of what the source of your knowledge in this particular instance may have been and i will define it as your first question about afghanistan. how should the future be decided, and i think the pasterns, and there are some who are pakistani, but the pashtuns our elfgin citizens and as i said earlier a decision within afghanistan has to be made by the future of afghanistan and that includes afghan pashtuns. people express concern about not having sufficient police in afghanistan that is an internal political problem him and stables afghanistan will require every community and try and afghanistan having a say in afghanistan's future. but i repeat the future still

must be determined by the afghan people. we do not tend to dictate its and would advise others to not dictate to them either. second, cashmere remains an outstanding problem between pakistan and india and it would be useful for everyone are all concerned if the issue of kashmir as result. the current situation in kashmir is one that merits attention. once again there are complaints of human rights violations and it's not in the interest of regional stability and we are in a different party of that when kashmir becomes unstable. they've been able to discuss outstanding issues including general kashmir so we do not say that we would exclusively see

it. all subjects should be discussed and that is what they conceived. so it's something we need to talk about. third question was about the regional context. pakistan does have concern and has had concerns about the security and the have been defined in a certain context. we have had for walls. the wall of afghanistan is the fifth that has relevance. it has had tremendous impact on our society, tremendous impact on our psyche and of institutions and the civilian military relationship. everything has been affected by that so it is understandable if any political personality from pakistan serving or retired feels the regional issues need to be attended to for pakistan

to feel secure and i think the united states is fully engaged in trying to do that. maybe some people found it easier in the past as a sort of talk between two people. that didn't solve anything either by the way. pakistan i would like to plan now has made for military sort of commanders who took over power. there have been before in pakistan. those three of them had of least 90, ten years each of running the country and if it is that easy one man talks to another person in washington as of the problems of the world we would have no problem by now. it would have been between [inaudible] and eisenhower and later on lyndon johnson and then nixon and ronald reagan and things

would be hunky dory. let's do it this way as we are trying to do of people understanding each other one brick at the tire. we will build stronger and very frankly i am not someone who is going to insult our american partners. there is a famous saying i would rather be looked over than overlooked. so in pakistan we feel the same way. we would rather have several people interacting and pay attention to us than one or two people of brazil and the better. i think in the asahel produced in wonderful in terms of engaging with afghanistan here is secretary of state hillary clinton is definitely going to be ascertained by historians to be an additive and successful secretary of state and very powerful voice of the united

states in dealing with the rest of the world and president obama and his own security in the white house -- ayman below the first to reach out and pakistan and to our friends and to others to find some solutions. sometimes solutions are not easy to find. let's be realistic. getting several people to agree to a solution is not always easy to read of your body is positioning differently. everybody has different concerns, different priorities of the different distinctions, day after tomorrow which brings me to my own remarks of patients. sometimes you have to look it situations a little more patiently. >> thank you. i am trying not to overlook anyone's views so please excuse me -- connect you have a question here and then your good to go back.

>> mr. ambassador, from the bingo post. if i could go back to my tax for a moment, you said the lack of evidence that this happening i didn't say anything about the post. [laughter] >> some of us work for them and lately have been flooded with a very good rewarding in pakistan to what could be good access to information and i was wondering, given your wide strategic dialogue with the americans, could some of this evidence come from here because one of the key masterminds is in jail in

america. david half lead. so if pakistan really wants to convict and wants to give to india as use it as a good neighbor this could be the move. >> i don't think it is appropriate to comment on the case, when an american court in relation to mr. headley and then trial in pakistan. as far as a speedy trial is concerned, we have someone who is now [inaudible] just to keep things in perspective, they do not always attribute bad motives of the wheels of justice in our country. that's something that you have to understand. that sometimes it does happen. things happen that way and would be phyllis militated they took

the position david made in the process and they take place in pakistan of the people being arrested and the attacks, and as far as mr. hadley is concerned, if and elegance and intelligence are hard to come by. you get a newspaper report ostensibly based on intelligence but the dog doesn't always translate into evidence so what i was talking about was about evidence that as long as we have evidence we do want to bring these people to trial. we do want to complete their trial. we've charged them, the of interest in pakistan and we would like to prosecute them and convict and that's what we want our neighbors in india to fully understand. >> if i could cite on that come

ambassador, there's been a fair amount of country even within pakistan about the anti-terrorism law ways of the country which began very difficult to bring people to trial and convict them. >> the government as you say is already working on reforming the whole sort of set of laws because in many cases that brings me to what we went through. there was a patchwork of local fishing spot on top of each other. if you remember the cofounder introduced. to untangle all of this and build that actually works on a more or less permanent basis to take time and i know you started off asking a question i did not deliberately answer which was this pakistan have time and i think we do. it's not about we have to have

it to be able to set it right because any attempt to try to do that in a haphazard manner would bring them to the same problem we have that in the past. if we learn something from the past we should understand trying to take short cuts has made our journey longer so might as well set things right and put them on a strong basis. we are in the process of changing for a simple our money laundering laws very significantly which has made us one of the better forces of laws relating. you must remember eight or ten years ago that was one of the biggest issues in this country in the media that we haven't read anything lately partly because we have been able to move against organizations taking over etc. some people are taking advantage of the situation even now and we have to find solutions to that as well. for example a few decades ago there was no internet and therefore there was no need to have cybercrime laws but you

have the new situation you start dealing with it. the same is happening in pakistan. we are building the legal regime and will take time to do that but we do intend to do that. the idea is still week laws is dictating pakistan. terrorism is a problem of pakistan. we should stop and most pakistanis recognize that we should not see it as a problem for anybody else. pakistan needs to eliminate terrorism to protect itself. more pakistanis are being killed there as a result of attacks the last couple of years, and so is there any other? we must understand that mumbai was a tragedy and 9/11 was a tragedy but many that take place in pakistan and people going of worship trying to kill them, those are all turner was the tax we feel very strongly about and

we do not make any distinction. a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack whether it takes place in mumbai, new york or law -- lahore. >> mr. a ambassador, in your eliminating remarks, and you mentioned public opinion in pakistan and in fact your comments you just made are a very good segue to my question. if he could about the role of an investor and explain to this american audience some of the source and context which frankly many of us who follow development in the country we don't really understand. i will give you a couple with samples, the drone strikes. of course any american, in the person could understand why pakistanis would feel on front this is a violation of sovereignty.

but you just stated pakistanis are the biggest victim of terrorism. among others, the assassin of benazir bhutto, and of course others in the other networks that are responsible for the very attacks that have built so many pakistanis that you just mentioned. so of course we can understand as americans that there would be an upfront but one might expect that that outrage might be tempered by the understanding that as you put pakistan doesn't capacities of the jerome strikes, yes, they sometimes have collateral damage among the tribesmen buttonhole they are targeted at a jamdat going after these terrorists like the tool of massoud and others to reading

the secretary clinton confronted in her visit these fantastic and preposterous conspiracy theories that find such welcome in pakistan that these obama attacks that you have diluted two that are somehow the work of the cia or american security firms, which is absolutely the most preposterous notion and the fact that even some media, elite media folks in pakistan perpetrate because frankly it's incomprehensible at least to this american observer. thank you, mr. ambassador. >> it's a sensible for people in pakistan so don't feel it's just your problem. the fact of the matter is conspiracy theories there's a particular mindset to harm the constituencies. and, you know, within this country i know that certain data indicates that 20% of americans

have revelations about their own country's atomic that pakistan has a low literacy rate and the clear history as a preponderance of people believe [inaudible] please bear in mind we live in an era sometimes people believe anything. and so the solution to it is working with us and in hamdi american government after the cold war just walked away, so down the united states information agency, cut down on scholarship and fellowship programs, allowed many nations in pakistan you are more concerned about pakistan because it's on your radar screen. it's the sort of nation of attention that there are many countries in the world of people who would rather be.

he and secretary clinton came because she made the effort, she went and met people in town hall meeting but that was just one, for example in your government to speak languages and foreign languages and therefore can go -- even in the middle east right after 9/11 i remember then ambassador went on -- who speaks in arabic. you have to do that. why am i sitting here? i could have spent this celebrity with my family. i come here because i consider it part of my job to explain pakistan to americans. well guess what? it's the job of the government to explain itself and the idea

to the people of pakistan and the rest of the world. if you can say i am amazed that those guys, fortunately you are allies of trying to make them get it and if you can't provide resources and mobilize your government into doing it then may be part of the responsibility rests with the government. there was a time when i was very fantastic and should not be denied. it was a low point of view people should not be defined whittled may 6th planet. by the time we didn't explain it millions of people were starting to believe it and its now very clear that nations that you actually point out. sometimes you get your point of view across much better and i think that we recognize that. those in government and pakistan faced the conspiracy theories

and most the and and really day out what to do with them but that needs to be changed and it can only be changed in partnership and only by the u.s. government mobilizing its resources and has a pakistani ambassador does to america. >> [inaudible] >> we of the question the year. does this military establishment young pakistan's. it's hard for nuclear and other conventional weapons systems because that's not reflected in your policies, i second question

is the tax policy. what is stopping the government from focusing on the top two, 5% of the population and in terms of [inaudible] furs i do not agree with the last comment being a strong have enough, i don't know if you've been visiting the blogosphere until recently and the blogosphere is certainly not the landowning elite. it's the middle class, so i mean i have comments on that that i should withhold having made that particular comment. as far as the policy is concerned, the government is in the process of introducing new measures which will try and decide the tax burden more

equitably. the tax burden is concerned actually it is much more disproportionate today. the only thing is that most people in pakistan that call themselves middle class in case you deduct from their salaries. so then they just complain about a lot more. the businessman has to be evaluated, he has to fill out a thing in tax the middle class it's not that the of disproportionate, but it's just not 1.5 million people in small business who do not pay their fair share and they need to be assigned their share. the middle class is not overburdened. this proportion of labor demand of the others are not able to take the tax cuts they go. the only reason why the government funding for a lot of high year i think the question is specifically about the higher

education commission, which under the previous regime has a huge budget for sending people abroad. there are two things. a lot of people sent abroad on scholarships should not return, and so there was a cool evaluation of should we be standing people to study with. if these people are ever going to come back and say there's the general allocation of resources as being curtailed in many areas, and pakistan, the government primary responsibility in education is 42%. the women and children who do not go to school. so it's not that we do not pay attention, it's only a question of limited means. i would really like to support all young pakistanis who seek

higher education internationally as well as nationally, but it was a question of allocation of resources. the was on that subject. there is enough pakistan is concerned have been on the basis of sovereignty concerns and civilian casualties. pakistan has never, ever expressed any reservations about the consequence of attacks such as the elimination psp mix before the minister. i know given the time difference between pakistan and the u.s. you don't get much time for bed because you're getting for work when they are going to bed. these issues probably keep you awake. i wonder if it is the one that is quite often and with the next faugh cook occurs in the united

states and is successful, and of a tradition plan which does exist is put into effect what you see as the consequences? >> something that keeps you up at night, doesn't render you able to comment on building the day. [laughter] but let me just say that we hope to work with u.s. intelligence and the u.s. government and with the intelligence services of the european countries, and even with our neighboring countries to make sure that there is no terrorist attack that can be trucked to pakistan even after the case the have been allocated. intelligence has emerged as the people slipping into pakistan or into pakistan's tribal areas through some of our neighboring countries. and i am proud to report that in the last several months the intelligence cooperation between

the united states and pakistan has improved to the point where our cooperation has made possible for far more terrorist attacks that have been with a similar level of cooperation in the past so we hope we will continue to work on that and the worst case scenario not materialize. spec ambassador come on behalf of fred kent and my colleagues of the atlantic counand i pefule coming back. >> thank you very much. [applause

>> and now to london for prime minister's question time live from the bsh