the evening starting at 8:00 eastern and then the state of the union speech live at 9 p.m. and following the speech, the democratic response. we'll also hear your reaction and comments from members of congress. president trump's state of the union address, tuesday night live on c-span. listen live with the free c-span radio app and available live or on demand on your desk top, phone or tablet at c-span.org. next, remarks from pakistan's ambassador to the u.s. at this event he said that u.s.-pakistan relations are under stress, but the relationship must be preserved. the center for strategic and international studies hosted this event. >> okay, yeah. so, i hold the chair here at csis. it's a privilege to be hosting this with dr. jones. we are going to be having a

conversation with the ambassador of the islamic republic of pakistan to the u.s., mr. aaziz ahmad chaudhry. he's from tufts university and from punjab, and had an interesting career in the foreign service, basically all the big jobs in the foreign service, ambassador to the netherland and it really, we're very fortunate to have someone of his caliber representing pakistan at this time. it's obviously a very challenging time for our relations between the united states and pakistan. we wanted to have this conversation with the ambassador. i think everyone is aware of all of that, but i think we think there's a-- 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 we want to also have a conversation that opens up the conversation a bit. because there are some things that don't have enough attention at all. i'll turn it over to the ambassador and then we will have an armchair conversation. please welcome the ambassador. [applause]. >> thank you. well, thank you very much, all of you for coming into this session and thank you, dan and ted for organizationing this event. and it will be my pleasure to share with you my own thoughts on a topic that you have suggested to us. in the last one month a lot has happened so i'd like to actually start from that.

last month you all recall that the united states government has-- the present administration has unveiled its national security strategy. which has given the united states a set of priorities and identified through their letter of text to the united states, the top of which is occupied by china and russia and then it goes down the letter to iran and north korea and then to jihadi organizations. this has been further elaborated by national defense strategy announced last week where it was the view that

interstate strategy competition and not terrorism will be the primary concern for the u.s. administration. and they identified, again, china and russia as the divisionist powers anti-to the u.s. interests and trying to displace the united states as a preeminent power in asia and of course, reinforces that iran and north korea will remain a threat because they are pursuing weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. it appears that the major power rivalry is intensifying, picking up. happened suddenly were these

two announcements made out of u.s. own calculations of what is part of a dynamic that was building up. i believe it was the latter. i think 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 world led by united states is giving way to-- you remember richard haass came up with that. he said that the world was in disarray, meaning to suggest that the second world war, world order, was now in flux, he didn't know what it would come out to be. and ellison came up with the

prediction that the united states and china might actually be destined for war, that's the topic of his book in walking into this trap, unless they come up with courageous and painful decisions not to enter that chapter. and we had another book by campbell on, i think it was the future of american state where he talked at great length on the new rebalance in south asia-- in asia. slightly earlier before that, the long-time statesman from singapore had suggested that china's rise will not be just another player in the world, but perhaps the biggest player, i'm using his words, in the

history and that would require a whole new balance or rebalan rebalance. i think australia-- australia prime minister also had to face something similar to that where he said that you had that-- that the spectacular promise made by china is like english industrial revolution and global information revolution, simultaneously combusting, and compressed into not 300 years, but 30 years. and that would require accommodation. so that means that it hasn't really happened suddenly that the united states had the organized this priority because it could feel that the time had come for them to make adjustment and see what is happening. for many people had already

started talking about competition, if you want to use that term, or perhaps even rivalry from a rising china and russia. but was it only to mean that this change was happening? i think that change is happening in a lot many other domains, too. look, for example, free trade or international trade for which for that is we learned that free trade is the best for everyone. it is a win-win solution. it is now on the threat from protectionist tendencies. protectionism. immigration or immigrants for centuries, i would say, would always consider as infusion of

fresh blood in a society and were welcomed to mingle and learn from each other, is now being viewed in some circles as economic or security threats. the global concensusen 0 climate change, for instance, is also under question marks. nationali nationalism, which for 19th century and first half of 20th century was a major issue. for nationalism, islamophobia and the likes are also now raising their heads. for clearly, the world is changing, has changed, we still don't know where it will finally settle. it's in flux. it's in turbulence. if i zoom in to my own vision

this year where my country is located, i don't see the situation much different. in china, or two big countries in that region, what i would call uneasy peace, in pakistan, don't talk to each other. afghanistan the situation continues to deteriorate with every passing year, passing month, and iran, the nuclear deal that was negotiated so painstakingly after a long time and people used to herald that as a victory of diplomacy is also into question marks. so, in a world which is changing and we don't know where actually it will head,

but certainly more turbulent in the region. sou southeast asia again the turbulence is visible. the broader region continues to grapple with the head of terrorism. how has my country, pakistan done? so when i measure it in that larger context, i believe that pakistan has not done bad. we were in the eye of the storm and remained there for a decade and a half. and we know that there was hardly a day when we would get up and not worry where is the next explosion that has happened. how did we come to face such a terrible situation where these militants turned their guns towards pakistan? long story, i don't want to go into that, but the fact is that

the nation of pakistan in the last couple of years, that terrorism and violence in any pretext is not-- and then on to the military action, to take these people out. today they all-- we can proudly say that the tide of terrorism has been dispersed and the militants are on the run and we are chasing them and we'll continue to do that. but is our job over? certainly not. because the mindset that which gives rise to these to pick up arms is still there and we need to deal with that and we will deal with that.

so that's-- that is the situation that pakistan has done in the last two years, three years. we have-- we think that we have achieved a commendable success against these formidable enemies of pakistan. law and order has improved. which has had an effect on the economic situation. investment is pouring in from all across, of course, most of all from china, but also from europe and elsewhere and corporate america. so we, we think that we her on the right track. our destination is still very far because there's a lot of work that is still to be done. all our gains would be at risk and will remain tentative

unless afghanistan next door stabilizes and that's where i would like to bring in my relations of my country with the united states. this relationship is very important to us. has always been for the last seven decades and we believe at that it must be the preserved and strengthened. currently it is under stress, you 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

the lens of afghanistan, that since the united states is not making progress in afghanistan, could actually be up against the failure, perhaps it is because of pakistan and therefore, they tend to view pakistan in their narrow lens. sometimes it is viewed through the lens of china, the china which is now an emerging rival for the united states, perhaps pakistan being close to china is not going to be friendly with the united states. sometimes it is viewed through the lens of india. that india now is a strategic partner for the united states and is expected by the united states to play a larger role in the region and since pakistan is not on good terms with india, therefore, perhaps pakistan is not to maintain relationship. and sometimes it's also viewed purely from counterterrorism

lens, or security lens. i believe this is a very narrow approach to a country the size of pakistan and the potential of pakistan. the topic that dan has given me beyond the lens or broadening the lens, i think, is so apt and relevant because pakistan should be seen for what it is and not through the four lenses that i talked about. and that would of happen if the relationship is deemed for what actually it is. there are two levels to see how pakistan has built their relationship. one is the government to government level and other is people-to-people level. i think while the relationship

h , g to g has been ups and down, p to p has-- the people of pakistan and united states have remained connected regardless of the relationship between the two governments. yes, it helps enormously the p to p relationship if the g to g relationship is also positive, no doubt about it. what i was telling you in the other small room, that even today the united states remains the most attractive destination for pakistani students h the united states is the home to the large body of pakistani physicians, many of whom are interested that their young generation continues to come to this country and serve here.

the united states has been a steady partner, very few people know about it in the field of agriculture. we're a country starting from 50's and '60s when u.s. was our partner in introducing green revolution in pakistanment and up until now some of the leading universities here are still very actively engaged with some agriculture universities of pakistan. i.t. sector another, we have a -- i know millions of pakistani youth are connected virtually with silicon valley and contributing to the development of technology-based software. and so on i could go on, a large trading partner for pakistan, but all of this tend to get on the side because the conversations tend to reduce to

the -- to one lens or the other. and it remains a security-driven relationship. the only issue at this time which is causing distrust between pakistan and united states is afghanistan. where the united states has invested billions in treasure, but also in-- but unfortunately, this situation is deteriorating and some would say is close to what it was around 9/11. so set for itself an objective that never again would they allow the soil of afghanistan to be used as a sing sanctuary

for militants could plan a 9/11. and is there a military solution to afghan problem. how should we move forward. is pakistan really possibly for the failure in afghanistan? all of these are the questions that i would leave for the q & a session because i was given the timetable of 10 to 15 minutes to speak, so i won't go there. why has the relationship of pakistan and the united states oscillated so much, why has it been a rollercoaster-- how can we broaden it, what new areas can we bring in and how can we broaden that lens that dan is talking about? thank you very much for your attention. [applaus [applause] >> thank you.

okay. i'm going to turn the floor over to my colleague and new friend, dr. jones. you have the first question. >> thank you. and thank you for your comments, it's an honor to welcome you to csis. you're actually-- you've beaten me by two and a half weeks since i started here, welcome. we're in many ways on the same turf. let me begin you're a graduate from tufts university and for those of you in the audience who don't know the mascot for tufts is the elephant or the jumbo. before we move on to a whole range of questions i'm going to raise the elephant in the room and we will deal with a whole range of issues, regional trade, peace negotiations, and other issues. but let me first turn to the issue of pakistan and militants. and i think your response here

would be helpful in part because it's been a subject of this town for quite some time. i think there's no question that as one looks at the last decade and a half, pakistan has made countless sacrifices, there's no question about that, in blood and treasure. you notice the u.s. experiences in afghanistan. in a struggle against militants, i was in pakistan, for example, as i told you earlier during parts of a campaign, saw that up and close. and very cognizant of the thousands of pakistan soldier, police, civilups, specialists that have died over the past several years and that the civilians had to deal with bombin bombings in islamabad, karachi and other cities. and around this town, government and senior officials from u.s. agencies continue to

point the finger at pakistan for providing particularly isi, support to some groups, certainly not all. they raise issues of afghan, and the network that has control on the pakistan side of the border. if i quote president trump from one of his recent tweets, they give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in afghanistan with little help. no more, the u.s. president said recently . i think it's worth noting u.s. officials will also argue that pakistan officials will regularly deny their support in public and in private, but that few may actually believe this line so i want to give you a chance to respond to these concerns and these issues with at least support to some militant groups. you know, to be fair, states,

including the united states, do provide to some state and nonstate actors, i'm well aware of that from my own personal background in the u.s. military. so, could we have an honest discussion about that? how do you respond to the -- this broader discussion and pakistan support on the afghan side in particular? >> thank you, dr. jones. the -- let's try to create the rules of how pakistan came into contact encounter with the militants. until 1979 there was no such thing as militants in pakistan. we were living about our own life. but then 1979 soviet forces came into afghanistan. the united states and pakistan

perhaps together, perhaps at u.s. suggestion came up with the concept of joe had aed and that's where militancy was born and created over to provide an army of militants who would fight the infidels, the communists. once the soviets left, these people stayed back in afghanistan and after 9/11, once again, the united states came to focus on that area and other places were bombed heavily and so many of them the border towards pakistan. and pakistan had to make a choice whether it wants to be part of the international coalition to fight them or not. and pakistan made that choice, and there by, the militants thoughts that pakistan was a

target for that activity and that is the time about 2002, 3, that militants began to turn their guns towards pakistan. and hardly a day would pass when they would not attack one facility or installation or the other, and on the security establishments, either on the military or the intelligence faciliti facilities. from 2004 to 2014, all hell broke loose. we used to have terrorist incidents by the month on the average. until the nation said that enough is enough. and all the politicians they got together and held a series of political conferences

between june of 2013 and june of 2014 and forged a national concensus that we would not allow any terrorists to remain in pakistan nor we would allow anyone to use pakistan for tlichl-- in pursuit of this national concensus, the military moved in. the military would not have moved in without this concensus, otherwise they would have faced some resistance from the ground. i will also tell you that the militants who were in the areas symptomatic, somehow found a lot of tracks in the local population. that afghanistan was occupied by the communists is and we got rid of them and today it's being occupied by americans,

and we will get rid of that. so that was the simple narrative and that this is a holy duty called jihad and therefore support us. and you have to have an equally strong, simple, but strong and effective counter narrative to expose the flawed nature of that narrative. because why i say flawed is because if killing innocent people on the streets and the schools, that means that it is -- it is not holy duty. it is outright militancy or terrorism. and provided an opportunity for us to build that counterterrorism and the attack, and the school, killing 137 school children. and those pakistani officers

and soldiers fighting them in the mountain, to send a message to them that you are our enemy. and therefore, when they moved in, 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 not a single discordant voice from far right of the political spectrum came and we almost swept through the area and cleaned out hideouts and ied factories and whatever else was there and today, if you don't hear any such-- don't see any such, because we were able to eliminate that. so when somebody turns around and tells us that there are

existing there, we say show us where. it's been ten months or so we've been saying. please show us. we would like -- of anybody hiding in caves in pakistan and if somebody says your military or intelligence is playing a double game and supporting these militants then i will ask them that go and meet those officers and those who have lost their children and loved their ones in the attacks by militants and then you tell me that they would allow their own fellow servicemen to support those people who killed their childr children. no, sir, it's not so. pakistan is happy, we're happy. we've paid a huge price, 6,000 soldiers and officers, 3000 civilians, but we're happy, we're still happy because we were able to defeat them, put them on the run and they are on the run. and those who need to know,

they know it, that the bulk of them have gone to afghanistan and we will force the remaining of those who are hiding anywhere also to afghanistan. and the taliban and the haqqan haqqanis, our message to them, you should join the political mainstream for afghanistan. you should not be in pakistan. we will squeeze all of the space on you that we will-- by denying them accommodation of facilities or health or whatever else and they're pretty much going there, but since we keep hearing this from some of the security authoriti authorities, it leads the people of pakistan to believe that perhaps we are being scape-goated for failures in afghanistan. look at the contrast, in the last four years we have improved the situation and afghanistan, according to your

own reports, reports, every six months, it's under the control of afghan forces is going into the hand of militants and today it's more than 40% of that huge territory. why with the haqqani's and militants live in pakistan where we're breathing down their net, and not live in afghanistan where they plan. talking of money, they're not short of funds because the drug trade in afghanistan is booming. 400 million dollars, it's increased according to your own reports, since 9/11, 3400 times it has grown. and then there are other players which have come in. who are ready to work with them. so when we compare the two

situations, pakistan and afghanistan, people in pakistan say that why are we being-- for failures of afghanistan. are we really responsible for those failures? is the failure only because certainly taliban and haqqani's, is that the sum total of the problem in afghanistan? what about issues of governments and corruption, and hig high-- the national security forces who go then 0 the other side, and the green on green attacks and green on blue attacks, which are growing according to the report i'm not quoting anything from pakistan forces. so, i think that people feel that we are the bogeyman that has to explain why 680 billion dollars in afghanistan have not

solved the problem. and another 21 billion dollar. so, these are the questions that keep coming up and we're having these conversations and constantly telling, look, we want it even more than you. because when soviets left, they just left and then you would leave, you would just leave. it's us who will be left holding the bag. it's us who suffered from that wave of the those who come to live in pakistan at least eight years down the line, 3 million of them. and the clash in culture and the blood and what have you, and today, those refugee camps are used by the militants to recruit afghan terrorists to create trouble in pakistan, therefore, what we are saying to the united states, that you

ought to stabilize afghanistan because it's a long war, you want to do. we believe that that's your stated objective and and that's your real objective. and for pakistan, also, we want to see afghanistan stabilized because we will suffer from it if it does not stabilize. so please do not scape-goat us. do not place all the burden on us for these failures. we want to work with you because we think that there's work to be done and we think that afghanistan needs help and stability and we are ready to work with you, but we will not take the blame, wholehearted blame, full blame on afghanistan. >> i want to just signal to the audience, what we're going to be doing, we're going to be taking cards and questions from q & a, we're going to write them up and have a conversation about a half hour among the three of us. if you have questions, we're going to collect them and then we'll read them and read, four, five, six or them. collect five or six of them. i'm open to doing that, i think

we've handed that out. ambassador, let me ask you a couple-pronged question. i think what i've said to my friends and colleagues, i think we'll have a broader conversation with pakistan. many people say, dan, you're crazy, why do you want to work on this issue, why do you want to work with pakistan, there's a lot of distrust in washington. so everything i heard you say, i know you're speaking with great passion and i believe that, but there is very little trust here in washington, and i think it's reciprocated in pakistan, little trust between our two governments and so still trust that even official statements sometimes are not being believed. what do we do about a situation when we don't trust each other,

a, and b, is it fair to say, is it possible to say what's going to happen is that the pakistani -- is it one thing for the civilian government to say one thing and is there a different-- and i heard you say very forcefully about, and i know that there's a before and after what happened in 2014 in pakistan when those school children were killed. military, the children of the soldiers were killed and there was a watershed moment in pakistan. i know that for a fact, but there are many people who say well, there's one thing for the civilian government to say one thing and that the pakistan deep state and so, what your-- >> we both have deep states, by the way. >> right, it's become an overly used term recently in our discourse in the u.s., but perhaps, is there just this issue of trust? and is part of this issue of trust, is it fair to say that,

what do you say if you say it's one thing for the civilian government in pakistan to say something and to say there's a whole other game going on? what's the reaction? >> welcome, i have heard this. >> yeah. >> so many times, but it's not true. and we have repeatedly made it a point you'll hear the one and only narrative that was built. to prove the point, when they visited a couple of months ago, the entire military leadership sat together to meet him. so that this view which is often propelled in the u.s. by vested interest to drive a wedge between pakistani civil

and military authority is addressed. this time around, when president trump made a tweet on the eve of new year's, we decided not to respond that day at any individual level. instead-- >> i'm sure it was a very long day for you, i'm guessing. it was a long day. >> it was late afternoon in pakistan. the next day the national security committee, which comprises of the leadership, top leadership on civil and military, they prepared a response to that. i think gone are the days when people can say that, all right, we can drive this wedge and sell our narrative. it's not going to happen because people of pakistan are very conscious now that this is

what certain lobbyists try to do. so, we are saying to you whatever. it's come now directly from the full endorsement of both civil and military leadership and most of the statements that we've now issued, including the response to august 21, by president trump, also, from the same forum national security committee. the people of pakistan are highly proud of our armed forces and our other security authorities for the peace that they have returned to the people of pakistan. we have always said that this war was not our war, it was imposed on us. and had it been decided, the leadership, all right. if it is important, then bring it on and we did. so i think today you cannot

find even a minor between the two. we're speaking with one voice. what is our message, you started the question with trust. >> trust. >> the message that we have is that, look, we mean well, that we need peace in afghanistan. we have achieved successes against terrorists in pakistan, we can repeat-- or the international community can repeat and learn those lessons and repeat them in afghanistan. we think that a peaceful afghanistan will serve us well. and we think that united states and afghanistan together, and can achieve common milestones. if you don't hear about al qaeda today, an organization which was responsible for 9/11, it is because pakistan and united states worked together day in, day out in the first

decade of the-- to to eliminate al qaeda. but if this is not working together, but some other part, whatever it is, i'm afraid the pursuit of the shared objectives of peace in afghanistan and defeat of terrorism will not be able to make that much more progress. so therefore, i think this is the message that is coming out of the civilian leadership and military leadership of pakistan, that, look, we have been partners, we achieved a lot, and we need to work together to finish up what you started or what was started in afghanistan. that's the message that we are trying to convey.

. not to aportion blame by one against the other. >> i want to turn to trade issues. both regional trade and also broader global trade. if one looks at some of the more significant initiatives in the region, we can take a look, for example, at china's belt and road initiative which is significant, includes upwards of 68 countries, 4.4 billion people, 40% of the world's gross domestic product, network of everything from rails and roads to pipelines, ports, and projects. and one important component of that is the china-pakistan economic corridor. i wonder if you could layout, at least from your standpoint, what pakistan's vision is for regional trade and how that sits, particularly with the role of china, you know, as you

noted earlier, the national security strategy here and the national defense strategy now both label from washington's standpoint, china as a competitor. so, what's the vision for regional trade and how does that sit then with u.s. development efforts with a country that is now viewed increasingly, at least by the government here, as a competitor? how do you think through those issues? >> certainly. china has always been a friend of pakistan ever since china became an independent country. not once ever there was any shallow point. and the relationship has continued, but mostly at the political levels. the translation of political goodwill into economic cooperation has happened only very recently. the genesis of the economic

transformation and the shifting the priorities ever since president xi came to power is important to understand and to bear in mind. while the chinese for two decades were experiencing a growth, when president xi came to power, 2013, i think there was shift of emphasis to mobilize domestic consumers and for equity in the investments and economic development. and it came to light that the western part of china was more less developed than the eastern part of china. when each of the cities were exporting billions of dollars of goods and therefore, the emphasis began to shift towards the investment part of china. about the same time we had a change of government in

pakistan from one democratically elected government to another democratically elected government and the present government completing its term this summer came up with this idea that what if the chinese are focusing on the investment part of china and we have economic priorities and these get linked? the idea of china and pakistan corridor had been in a way at a conceptual stage existed, but there had been things that prevented that, but the two governments took on the challenge and started connecting across these mountains, these two regions, western china and pakistan. it was very good option for pakistan and for china, to invest in china, if you want to come to the persian gulf and onto the red sea into the

mediterranean, you would probably go over the land for 5,000 kilometers and then to another 8,000 kilometers to come here. whereas the other way is 2,000 kilometers. it would make perfect sense, economic sense that you should utilize this link to reach to the-- to the, you know, sea that would link china to europe and gulf. so, that is what actually pushed both governments to move in that direction. it was also the underlying emphasis that the net gain will not be restricted only to the people of pakistan and people of western china, but in good time this should blossom east and west and should bring prosperity to all. in fact, already there is a talk of extending it westward

to afghanistan, should afghanistan become peaceful because if you go up north, the first region to benefit is kandahar region of afghanistan. and it makes economic sense to get into that project. this, of course, did not mean that roads only, it meant whole lot of avenues of connectivity, that including road and rail and fiber optics, and pipelines, and whatever else that falls in the domain of connectivity. it is still happening, bulk of our deficits at that time-- and infrastructure. with these massive investments, most of these investments are now almost completed. we used to have what we used

call load sharing, which means blackouts for about 50, 60 a day is down to zero. >> in the entire country. >> yes. >> and we used to have the roads, motor ways and links, and only 1100 kilometers of beautiful roads had been built and new set of roads, but even there i would like to-- i'd like to show how u.s. and pack sta pakistan work togethero change the area. ...

had taken securities and exchange commission apart. they all are situating themselves to benefit from what is about to come up. >> ambassador, just to show for this group, , what was the growh rate in 2017, at least the last couple of years? >> there continues improved from 3% or so in 2013 and now it is 6%. >> laster it was over 5%. >> 3% i think there. and now the prediction is 6%. it is been constant. these massive investments will now move on to make nine special economic zones all along the corridor from china to pakistan.

and we think it would be very helpful if the united states engaged. regardless of what the u.s. government takes, corporate america's all remaking of its own mind. they are there and we want them there. simultaneously why we had these good relationships with china, all along it believed people like me have that our relations with china and with the united states are not a zero-sum game. that we had relations with china since 1979 when we gain independence and we've had relations with the united states since 1947 1947 when the united states became the first company to set up an embassy and pakistan pics i think we go back in time. we do not see that as a zero-sum game. we think we should stay engaged. there are millions of ways in which we have stayed engaged, and economic investment is the most important what. >> i want to pause and say my friend chris metzger who is your

will be collecting cards. he walked down the aisle and collect cards. we will turn, i need to collect those cards and sort of questions so if people can get them. i want to turn, if i may, to the issue, , there's an election coming up in pakistan. there are several things about to mention about this. one is that there has been a reduced, there's a perception in the united states of heavy military engagement into society both economically and politically in pakistan. but it's a notable, in my mind, that there had been several moments where the military has not left its barracks pics of the one thing is for the first time since 1947 there was a democratic -- one democratic elected government to another

democratic elected government. that it never happened before. something to know an important that i don't think many americans appreciate. there have been several moments when the military could have come out the barracks and done something at the democratic in the sense of having a coup and that is not happened. so then ambassador think, correct me if i'm wrong, i think i'm up on pakistan current events. there was some number of judicial decisions made in the last 12 months about the leadership of pakistan, that the current democratic government mandate, although it is ending in several months, so could you just comment on the current domestic political situation, given what i just described, and i'm not necessarily shop want to ask you what your bet is what's going to happen in the election, ready to talk a little bit,

could you comment -- >> you can if you want. there are beds in uk, betting parlors, about that but if you talk a little bit about the elections that it come in. what does that mean in terms of some of the things we've been talking about? what does it mean in terms of the economic opportunities? what does it mean on a number of different fronts? i think it is important. going back to what you were saying, if there is an alignment of the civilian government and military government and is a consensus on things like terrorism, there are certain things we expect would not change. are there some things we could expect to change? >> i think the agreeing of people in pakistan is democratic. the reason for that is the person who led this for independent and pakistan, a great leader that we call them out of respect, he was a man

deeply committed to rule of law. he led the entire political struggle in a democratic fashion. and, therefore, it is deeply ingrained that we have to follow that route. it is true, unfortunately, that our democratic process was interrupted four times, but the people of pakistan had become wiser that that wasn't in the interest of pakistan so since 2008 the first government completed its term. the second is all, you know, likely to complete, almost there. but then there are also lessens the people of pakistan are beginning to learn from this. we are beginning to learn that democratic processes are noisy by definition.

everywhere. and we are no exception, but noisy does not mean disruption. and second, they had been repeatedly assured now by the civil and military leadership combined that the only path forward for pakistan is a democratic elections. i have personally met the entire leadership, both civil and military, and i came up stronger in my conviction that everybody wants this democratic process to continue. i'm also, you know, the ambassador to the united states, i believe that this is yet another area which endures the people of my country with the people of the united states. the values of democracy and rule of law and freedom and liberty that your country has advocated

for over 240 years is a beacon of light for everyone, including my people. because they also believe in these values which are i think supreme values of democracy and freedom and rule of law. i think we're moving in that direction. we are getting there. as to who would make it -- >> i'm hanging on your at the word, ambassador. >> no problem, because i i woud not be an ambassador if -- [laughing] because of course i believe in voting. i voted last time and i will probably vote this time. >> can you vote overseas? >> as the government, we get options about a month or two in advance and were able to do that. we are trying to work how, overseas pakistanis can also vote because there's a big demand for that. i don't know whether the

election commission can manager that but certainly we would are all excited about the elections. i think it should happen. that's the only way democratic governance should go forward. >> and i think we get to q&a and a second. a two-part question. first when it was brief. based on your answer to the question about regional trade in china, what is your response, or probably better put, what was pakistan's response to the withholding of aid in the broader context, it is a tiny drop? how do you respond, and what was the response in general to use decision to temporarily freeze aid? more broadly, i think your broader issue that you noted up on peace in the region is important, and i wanted to turn to that really briefly because

what i would be interested in, what are your thoughts specifically on steps of how pakistan and afghan government and the u.s. might take to ensure peace in afghanistan? it is driving the drug trade. it is driving militancy. so what are your prospects for peace? what role should pakistan play, and what about other regional players, afghanistan, india, china? is of the u.s. doing enough to support the peace process? >> just remind you the first one is about the use decision to withhold aid and pakistan's reaction, , and the second the peace settlement. >> certainly, we think that the figure of a that was quoted in the tweet which was $33 billion, half of it was the reimbursement

that the united states was to make to pakistan in lieu of the expenses that we had incurred ourselves in pursuit of common, predetermined objectives to fight terrorism. because the rational at the time was between congress and congress approved. that the burden sharing, in other words, united states would be doing the same at a much greater cost. but that reimbursement has been withheld on one account or the other. so to that extent about $1 billion is an amount that u.s. owes to pakistan. then there is economic consistency which is not contained health sector, education and others, and then

there is security cooperation about eight, about $5 billion. but economic assistance has, over the years, now i'm talking for a long time that this system has also gone through nongovernmental channels, to the ngos and to international agencies. the government and the people of pakistan don't know where that money was being spent. in fact, there's a big reaction now against ngos about what is it they're doing in pakistan. so frankly, nobody pakistan has commented about this suspension of aid. we have actually said we don't need aid. our leadership has said it and i said that what we need is not this kind of transaction relationship, but a relationship based on mutual respect and

mutual trust. so that's our response to this a phenomenon. the other, what is it that we can do together to bring peace in afghanistan? we think that we first must come out with a conclusion that there is no military solution. if there was a military solution, it would have come by 150,000 troops with a selfishly long. and it's a well resourced effort would have achieved. we think that that is not the route that should be taken. we think that a comprehensive political solution in afghanistan is required. which acyclic means that allow the people of afghanistan to engage -- basically means -- as

serious reconciliation process. all the nation's all across the world that we would come across have gone on that route and found their own truth. in fact, there is already a book, somebody was giving a reference to that and one of the analysis by max boot, the road not taken which was a biography of cia operative, edward, who had advised against use of force in vietnam and suggested that a peace agreement be made and united states would withdraw,, but his advice was not taken and 58,000 american lives and millions of lives later, this is exactly what happened. the people of vietnam were able to build that piece, make enormous progress and become a friend of the united states which it is today. so many people see that this is the route that u.s. could

threats take in afghanistan. the people of afghanistan are for peace. since 1979, almost 40 years, that the event suffering some kind of military solution, which is being found. you need to have a political genuine reconciliation. the people of pakistan, , sorry, the government of pakistan from the government of united states and china must support the process. second, we should also focus on management between pakistan and afghanistan. we don't want that, the people that are pushing towards afghanistan, taliban, who we believe should join the political -- [inaudible] should come back.

in any case there are bad guys who live and cross borders and can do bad things and, therefore, we have to integrate that movement cross-border movement. so pakistan is already started on our own, on this huge, humongous price, 200 -- i have looked over those mountains. i don't know if he did or not. it's not easy. we started in 2016 and we should be done by 2022. then will be setting up 900 votes to control the border. but we cannot do it alone. we need support from afghanistan and u.s. to do the same on the other side of the border. because it has as much responsibility as it is ours. we also believe part of the solution is to allow the refugees to go back.

we are proud of that hospitality that we extended, but now that the security, that should also be part of the solution i believe. and i think there should be a regional consensus not to use -- [inaudible] to achieve your own political objectives. for example, india has been given a role by united states in afghanistan. which we believe india is using to create a double squeeze situation against pakistan. india-pakistan is issued and, therefore, the thing that over 200,000 troops engaged on the western border, will remain engaged with that much less pressure on them if afghanistan remains, or if afghanistan can be used by their spies and others to create instability. we think there has to be a regional consensus not to allow anyone to use at dan to create

personal instant or advance their own political agenda. i think that is also equally fortified, if you want to really achieve peace in afghanistan. >> i have several questions on the audience. the first relates to this issue of is there a time frame set up for afghan refugees to return to afghanistan? you made reference to it earlier. >> i'm not aware of that, but issue what is called -- [inaudible] those of this then to live in refugee camps, more than half of them do, that enables them intd some kind of stipend money to continue their life. and, but that limit is expiring soon of that kind. we think that there should be serious negotiations between u.s. government, pakistan

government, unhcr to make arrangement for them to go and live in afghanistan, their own lands, and the money that they receive your as stipends should be given to them there to build our lives. but for that, push factors not enough. in fact, it's not a desirable factor. there should be a full sector in afghanistan. how do you create that? when he came to power he made references to giving land ownership rights to those who come back. i think that would be a great factor but i don't know whether that has been followed through. together with international community using these resources to allow them to settle and afghanistan, i think that's a benefit to everybody. otherwise if afghanistan remained in stable and if they continue to run for the life menu will come to pakistan. others will go to europe and other google also. i think it is only fair to the people of afghanistan that we take a very sympathetic view of

this situation and help them. >> let me stay on this issue of the afghan issue, and we talked about throughout this conversation. two questions for you, ambassador. president trump urges pakistan to take decisive action against the taliban and other terrorist groups to get, in order to get this assistance back. is pakistan willing to do that? that's one question. i think the other is what level of influence does pakistan have, hold, over the afghan taliban? >> pakistan would very much want to push the taliban and the haqqanis through afghanistan because they don't -- we don't want them to bring -- [inaudible] relation to our country.

we think they should join the political mainstream there, and we will continue to move on that part. regardless of whether you assess the decision on aid or not. we don't want it to be transactional in nature. this is a step that we're taking in our own interests -- >> regardless of the assistance? >> regardless of the assistance. and own interest and in the interest of peace in the region. as for our leverage with taliban, let me tell you that for two consecutive years, pakistan made enormous effort to bring taliban to the table. the first effort was in 2015 when in a town on a night, long session during ramadan, the taliban for the first time that taste to face with the representatives of the government. this was -- i was for sector then and i did moderate that

evening. >> you were there? >> i was a very moderating. so with the chinese and the americans were there as observers. it was a serious effort and we came out with a joint statement, and then we were planning to meet before the month ran out on 31 31st of july to come up with a set of deliverables. but on 29th july the news about the death of -- [inaudible] was leaked by security establishment without talking to us and the whole process got scuttled and then there was a rat race, sort of commotion as to what would happen in the taliban ranks. and we did not really know what would happen. and then another your past, a a fresh attempt was made which was that the coalition group was

formed, the four nations came together, united states, china, pakistan and afghanistan, and we made another ten. ten. this time we were negotiating who had become then the ruler, not really, become the leader of the taliban. and we had five sessions. we had the session in which we agreed that all four countries would now go back to taliban, use their own link, come back to exchange notes it at on 21st of that month, the man who cross over -- [inaudible] after that pakistan believed we lost in a leverage with taliban, or it had gone down that much because they feel that we push them to a situation where they are betrayed. nevertheless,, we think we don't want to give it up. united states has revived the process, and there was the first

meeting in i think january, in december, sorry. and i think they had been able -- we don't know what it finally goes, but we know that the only way forward is for all four countries to continue to exercise whatever influence they have on taliban to push them to join the political mainstream in afghanistan. >> i have two other questions. given the historical animosity between india and pakistan with the prospect of energy cooperation between india and pakistan? >> well, of course india is a neighbor of pakistan. we need to have good neighborly relations with india. we always maintained that, for that to have, both countries to stay engaged in a dialogue. but at this point in time india leadership feels that they are not ready for a dialogue with

pakistan. and their view is that pakistan needs to take action against certain indian militants that they think live in pakistan. and as pakistan supporting terrorism, and we tell them i personally don't, my counterparts, that we, we have done more than any other country to defeat terrorism and we will continue to do that in her own interest because of the commitment pakistan has given to the people of pakistan. but when you suspend the dialogue you actually give those militants what they want. every time pakistan add come together something happens, you suspend the dialogue, sit back relax and wait for the next time you come together. so in a way the agenda or the objectives of the militants seize are being served by the suspension. what should i i try happen is exactly the opposite, that both

pakistan and india should stay engaged and work together to reduce the militants both in pakistan and in india. in india also militancy is growing. i think it is a problem that we need to stop by cooperate with each other and not my -- [inaudible] >> there's a question about, what is pakistan's vision, what is the government of pakistan's official vision for its future? that sort of how i take this question, but maybe a little bit broader is, or may be more specifically is, what, and it refers to the china-pakistan economic order which i think is been a real game changer for pakistan, very notable when i visited several years ago, giving it was the price tag of $50 billion of investments from

china and china saw pakistan is opportunity. what is, talk a little bit about what, what's a positive scenario, economic and political, social singer for pakistan? maybe that would be able to get this question. maybe you might talk about how does the u.s. fit into what is a rosy, there's lots of scenarios. thinking 15 or 20 years out, what are your hopes for pakistan economically, socially and politically? how does china fit into it and how does the u.s. fit into it? all in three minutes. >> okay. >> that's why you're a diplomat. >> i have a very concise -- the investment that chinese abroad to pakistan, the bulk of them are in the private sector. these are joint ventures between private companies in pakistan

and enterprises in china. and in many of them, many of those projects, i think others are also in. and i believe that the future that i see a pakistan is a pakistan that is friendly to both the united states and china. or to china and united states. i think that's the only future i see for my country. this country has, you know, we go back in time. it will be such a loss if we were to squander such a deeply, dense relationship because we don't see eye to eye on one particular issue. it would be a tremendous loss. it would not serve both countries will. i think it would serve both countries well if we continue to look for, then win solutions for pakistan, the united states and china. and there are plenty of them.

>> thank you. please join in thinking the ambassador for being with us today. [applause] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> will is created as a public service as america's public cable-television companies. >> the u.s. senate is about to get into start their day. lawmakers focusing on the nomination of an assistant army secretary. a vote to confirm is set for 1:45 p.m. eastern this

afternoon. a simple majority will be needed for that. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: