with some sort of deal to cut spending. what might that mean for the federal wo force? guest: first of all, where we are right now from the law that was passed, from 2012 to -- for 10 years, $930 billion will be cut from the federal budget starting with 2012, $25 billion, and then it escalates to reach that $900 billion market. on top of that, the commission will be cutting $1.20 trillion or it goes into sequestration which is a cut across the board. that is where we are. host: you fear cuts to the federal work force or a pay freeze? guest: i fear all of them. agencies are already freezing

hiring, but that is not a result of the debt law. that is a result of the budget that we aren right no also, for instance, social security is closing offices around the country a half hour early. that is not a result of the debt crisis -- not a crisis, but the law that has been passed. i think we are going to see for federal employees a drastic cut in employment, including federal contractors. there are more federal contractors then there are federal employees. it depends on what you look at. simpson-bowles, the gang of six, or the limited information out there. summer calling for a 10% reduction or 300,000 less federal employe.

host: is there room for reductions in the federal work force? the office of personnel management put together -- these are the numbers from them, that the turnover has been minimal at federal agencies bank zero people laid off or fired at the fcc. nuclear regulatory commission, two. national labor relations board, one. nasa, 13. the numbers go on and on. this is from a "usa today" article. the federal government runs the place to work for those avoiding losing a job. san francisco state university management professor at john sullivan says the low departure rates show a failure to release poor performance and those with

obsolete skills. rather than indicating something positive, rates below 1% would indicate a serious management problem. guest: that is a lot to chew on. first of all, i do not think it is a bad thing because the federal government has a stable work force. it shows the quality of federal employees. when federal employees enter public service, they know they are not going to make the money in the private sector on a professional job. and they know -- well, it is not a private sector job. they are doing things for the public good. this thing about firing for pr performance is such a bugaboo. it really deserves to be looked at in a serious way. if there is a poor performer, and certainly our union members -- nobody wants to work with

someone who is not pulling their load, so fire them. there are plenty of ways in the federal government. there are procedures -- host: what is the process like? does it protect the federal worker? guest: there is some due process, but it is like any other business. so, that really -- under the national security personnel system where they give management the total right to fire and to pay for performance, the firings were just the same as they were before the nfps. you cannot fire your way -- you cannot say you are going to fire more people and make the federal government more efficient bank that is complete a wrong-headed

look. the federal work force is good. i think it is a credit that they perform as well as they do. to say that they are not firing enou people in the federal government, i do not understand really what the motive is to say is. and to say that there is a stable work environment, i think that is a good thing. i think they're probably ought to be workforces in the private sector that ought to have more stability. i think that is wher the problem is. the job losses we are seeing in the country now -- it is a job crisis, not necessarily a deficit crisis. we lost 9 million jobs. that is the revenue issue. th is why we are in the crisis that we are in. to say that we are going to whack the hell out of government ograms, i think it is really

shortsighted and will add to the job crisis. these cuts that we are talking about, these are going to be cutting budgets of counties and states and cities all over the country, and it is going to add to unemployment in a very big way. infrastructure, education, health, many programthat really supplement our states and counties and our cities. host: let's go to a fedal worker in miami. caller: yes, hi. federal government doubled in the last 10 years? shouldn't we just cut some of those duplicity agencies? we need efficiency. guest: here are the figures. in 2001, 649,000 civilian fte. 10 years later, there were

777,000. that is an increase of about 100,000. if you look at where it is, it is in dod, va, border patrol, in choices that the country made to increase employment in the federal sector. i do not think what our country has faced in the last 10 years that that is a runaway increase in the federal government and the number of employees. host: and independent from california, go ahead. call: we are a military family and we have been for 66 years, air force and the army, and i haveatched this many times. i am a teacher at. i lost everything in california. i feel that from the predent,

congress, representatives, every federal employment person from unemployment to the welfare offices, cut your wage in half, pay more in benefits, and if you are an obese federal employee on two or three more medications and smoke, which should not have to pay for your health bills. i am not the only one who feels this wayto get the waste of federal employees -- and to what you people gloat, i am so disgusted. host: we will get a response. guest: there is a certain amount ofannibalism going on out there. "i lost my job. why should they not lose their job?" that is not really the goal. we should be increasing jobs out there and increasing good-paying jobs out there. i cannot connect the dots between wiping out a federal job or government job in thetates

with giving someone else a job. so i can understand how people are upset and the pain that we have out there in the country, but to go after another person's job because you may have lost your job to me it does not make any sense. host: here is clinton smith with this tweet -- guest: that is not true. that is just not true. the research bears itut. the labor statistics group is the best in the country and in the world, and they show that if you are talking about some of the low-grade federal jobs, they might make a tick more than the private sector, but there are fewer and fewer of those. if you go into the professional grou, they make less than the private sector. i still do not see that federal

employees on average may make $70,000, and the private sector might be lower than that. is not lower than that. we ought to be trying to raise salaries across the board in the private sector. real wages have been frozen for 10 years. working people are really the ones who are paying for this deficit and the ones who have given sacrifice. we have to cede some of the wealthier people pulling their unload. host: we are talking about the federal workforce and budget cuts. who do the american federation of government employees represent? guest: we have va employees,

border patrol, the department of labor, epa, quite a few agencies in the federal government. we have been around for 75 years. the fastest-growing unions in the country. we are very proud of what we have been able to do for this country for efficiency and representing more workers. host: emily from columbus, ohio, good morning. caller: my sister worked for the government for 30 years. she goes into set up -- she goes to work on saturdays for free. my sister does the work for for -- myb sister does the work for like 7

bosses. guest: the way they have been able to consolidate things or by pharmaceuticals in bulk is tremendously efficient, and the rest of the country should be doing it. the way they have the electronic files on patients is jus head and shoulders above the rest of the industry. our people work very hard. every year, there are cuts spendi. to keep up the services that the public really demands si really going to be difficult. we did a survey of the public and how they feel about government and federal workers. when you say "government," 70% have a negative view.

how about the va nurse in your city? "i like them." you wonder if people -- what they really think governmetn is. they think it is some bureaucrat in washington. our members are out there in the states and in the cities all over the country, a normal, hardworking americans, and the public really has to connect the dots when it comes to who the federal workers are and with a r. host: art, what do you do? caller: i am a management analyst for the navy department. i am a little confused because recently there was a federal executive magazine article that said the average federal employee makes $130,000 a year, and that does not surprise me. there are 15 grades and 10 steps

within each grade, so there are a lot of opportunities for people to continually to earn more money. budget cuts in the federal government and out being people being required to use non- retractable pens instead of ball point pens or cut back on their travel plans. guest: the average of all federal workers, high grades, all the way up to cabinet members, down to the lowest clerk, the average is $70,000 a year salary. if you add in benefits, there is additional money there. how much that is is questionable spending retirement, health insurance, and that is basically it. if you add in all benefit, it would be over $70,000.

host: we will go next to mike, it republican from pensacola, fla. caller: i took a very early retirement and i have been working in the private sector since then. i can say that the private sector is far better run, generally speaking. my managers are adults where i work now. where it was before, they were just bureaucrats who seem to be clawing their way up as much as they could. there are too many layers of bureaucracy and management for a person working on an aircraft or waiting on people in the social security office, which i had a good experience with an office worker the other day bk bought your union is not doing anything -- by your union is not doing anything to rely support

trimming and looking inward. back in the 1980's, the military looked inward and they became their best critics. they decentralize everything just about the tt they could to put more responsibility out to the lowest levels. it took us from a force in the late 1970's to a force that could waltz through something like desert storm. i was a reservist at the time also. the reason they were able to do that is because they were able to look critically at themselves and say we are not working as we should and let's turn it around. wh you talk about border patrol, you have people with the department of education which does almost nothing that gets down to the classroom level in public schools in this country. guest: these layers of management -- first of all, we

do not represent management. we have made the point that in some agencies, we need more workers -- more indians, less chiefs. congress change laws every year. it is not so much like a private seor because there is a constant change. social security is a good example. there are constant law changes that the whole agency has to react to. i have had some opportunity to look at the inner workings of some of the agency's. there are some very smart and dedicated people running these agencies. i guess you can always say there are too many of them are too many managers, but when you look at the missions that some of them have, very large missions, i think you have to walk in

someone's moccasins to really understand the pressures that some of these agencies have and the limited staffing. point.ciate the collar's host: welcome to the conversation. what do you do? caller: i am retired now, but i worked as a chemist in a laboratory. theroblem with federal service is the very top make high salaries. whenever they give a raise, they just said in the paper federal workers got 4% raise. people athe top, they got 8.5%. we got 2.3%. that happens every time. when i for started -- after a

while, they decided they had enough chemists, so i was no longer in that category. instead of raising me up to another level, and ey held me back three raises. one of my co-workers have recently got a divorce. he had to prove that he did not get that pay raise. this happens all the time. we had tqm in the lab. they would not accept any suggestion. they would take it as challenging their authority. it makes sense to me that if you do the work, you are the one who is more likely able to irove that work. guest: i agree with that 100%. there really should be stronger

and better ways for employees to have a voice at work and to help impre or change the procedures of the agency. i am 100% for that. managers of these agencies make under $200,000, and they may have 100,000 people working for them. in the private sector, that job would be worth millions of dollars. they are on a fferent riase schedule than the regar employees. so, i do not think anybody in the federal sector are stealing or getting wealthy from the salaries of their being paid in the federal government no matter how gh up you are. host: richard, welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning. i was noticing your comments

earlr about the low attrition rate for federal employees in terms of budget cuts. my recent experience is contradict the kinds of things that you were saying. recent expience is having been tax auditors ofe the irs. for the last six months or so, have been dealing with a presumably very sile problem fairly indeptly. -- ineptly. there is no way for me to complain about the quality of these auditors to anyone. the auditor and her supervisor clearly should be dismissed and have been incompetent to do anything from my personal experience. especially taking six months to do this with this kind of emergenc leave and "oh, i

was out sick"and "somebody died." it is as if they are not working at all. guest: there are avenues to make complats if you are not dealt with properly in any federal agency, and i would encourage you to make those complaints. when a complaint comes in from the public or a congressional complaint, it is looked at very seriously. if you feel yo have not been treated properly, no matter what agency, i really suggest that you complain, and there will be people there to take your complaint seriously. host: when you look at the 12 members of the super committee representative chris van hollen from maryland, he is the only one with large federal presence. have you talked to him? what do you think this means for

your constituency? have you talked about the white house about this committee? guest: representative dan holland really understands the federal sector -- representative chris van hollen has been a wonderful advocate, but not just for federal employees. we are very happy in maryland to have a representative chris van hollen in such an influential place. yes, we have talked to him and they're very concerned about federal retirement. we think that is going to be on the chopping block. that is one thing that we are really advocating to make sure that people look fancy -- federal employees have already taken a pay freeze and they a going to have a huge job cuts. going after people's retirement is something i think is the wrong thing to do.

host: are we talking about healthcare? guest: no, we are talking about pensions. if you were making $50,000 as a federal employee, your pension would be about $16,000. the plans that we have seen will increase the employee contribution to that pension and reduce the actual amount to $10,000. now, that is a very heavy hit. these pensions are not as glamorous as people think. so, i just hope it does n get caught up in politics and ideology, and people realize that you have to get good employees in the federal sector. reducing pay, cutting retirement and health care is not the way to do it. host: how can the country continue to a fourth

offering benefits like that? younger americans are not relying on social security. why should federal workers save in other ways? guest: pensions have served this country very well for many years. to say now we are not going to have pensions for workers, let them put it in their 401k -- i do not think that is progress for our country or for workers in general. lowering our standard of living for average working people is not the way to be a great country. when people say, well, i do not have a defined pension, so why should you? i like to look at it the other way. i think defined pensions are just a bedrock of employment in this country, and we need more companies offering defined

benefits than less. so, i look at it the other way, that i think the glass is half empty and we ought to fill the glass and make benefits, especially pensions and health care, better for working people, private and public. host: janet. caller: i worked for the government for 10 years, and i have to say that a lot of the reasons why people loved working for the government is because the management is not there when you need them, first of all, and they get so many vacation days a year and so much sickime. they can take off any time the want to. they have sick time and vacation time, and it starts right when

they're hired. guest: talk to a transportation security officer about how easy it is to get leave. their leave is very restricted. have to be on the job. leave is not generous. there are leave rules that are government-widend enacted by congress. i think they work well. if there are abuses of leave, then people are punished for it. you know, a lotf work gets done by this federal government. when you heafrom the public that people are now working hard, you wonder how social security every month for miions and millions of americans and how these big jobs

that the private sector really could not or would not do because there is no profit in it. so, i think people have to take a look at these agencies individually and see the incredible jobs that they do and maybe not look at things from a story they might hear second hand from somebody that might go on in the federal government then in host: joanne is a federal worker from chicago. what do you do? caller: i am a retired postal worker and a first-time caller. what i wanted to say is people think that at the post office -- we always talk about how ups made more money than we did. carriers do a hard job. people do not realize. i was also injured on the job which caused me to be retired.

i trained for clerk work but they did not keep me. the retired meat on but a struggle. when you are retired, on disability, you pay for most of your health care premiums and everytng. it is not as easy as everyone thinks it is. i really enjoyed my 13 years, working for the government. it is still not like what people think. they think that when you work for the government, you get big parks. it is the private sector that makes all the money. >> one thing -- guest: e thing that is going on with of the post office right now, a law was passed that they had to fully fund their retirees' health care completely into the future. no one does that. the post office, because of this law that was passed -- that is

why there are problems financially in the post office. they would be very self- sufficient without this mandat >> we are taking you yet -- taking in next to the school of international studies for comments from pakistan's former secretary, riaz mohammad khan. that is just about to get under way, live here on c-span. >> let's start. i want to welcome you all this afternoon to what i think is going to be a very interesting talk on the relationship between pakistan and the u.s. on the stage with me today are two of the most accomplished ambassadors who have served in the pakistan foreign service, riaz mohammad khan and touqir

hussain. they are both retired, but they continue to write on issues regarding pakistan, south asia, and the larger international situation. ambassador hussain, as some of you know, is a senior fellow here at sais and teaches a course on pakistan. he has been an invaluable asset. there was a very senior faculty member who said to me the other day it is great that we have him here, because there is so much swirling about in the public domain that is only partly right. it is good to have somebody who knows what is right and can put it in the larger context. my typical day here starts with an hour-long conversation every morning with ambassador hussain.

we normally talk about events in south asia, and we have a lot to talk about. there always seems to be something coming up in the news of significance regarding the region. ambassador hussain will introduce ambassador khan, who was the highest tier credit position in the pakistani -- who was until recently in the highest democratic position in bureaucracy. thi >> thank you, walter, for the kind and affectionate introduction. i am fortunate to be here and contributing, in my own modest way, to the work of this great university and south asian

studies program. we are very fortunate to have among us ambassador riaz mohammad khan, one of the ablest and most distinguished pakistan diplomats, who held high ambassadorial positions as well as the top of the foreign office, being a professional had the ministry of foreign affairs. the foreign secretary. apart from that, equally important, he is a scholar of international renown and has written two highly acclaimed books on pakistan. he combines the academic excellence with his professional ability to talk to us about an issue which is very complex and hard to understand,

especially as there is much confusion and misunderstanding surrounding it, since it touches some of the fundamental issues of national interest toward pakistan and the united states at this time. there is immense media interest in these issues, immense public interest both in pakistan and the united states, and they are not always in sync. there are conflicts of interest, conflicts of policy. the interest and the policies converge to some extent and diverged to some extent. there is not really any sort of malevolence. the interests are so vital for both sides that it is hard to find a policy which is satisfactory to both of them. often, we simplify it or define

it in narrow terms. but the relationship itself is long standing and very vital. my own understanding is it will remain vital for a long time to come. right now, we are at a conference where a number of things are adding to the complexity. i think when the dust settles we will arrive at a mutually acceptable agreement were both sides can be happy. nobody is more competent to explain these complexities than the ambassador, who has been a friend of mine for many decades. i have learned from his wise counsel and ideas, and in my own way to have mutual understanding. here is the ambassador. >> thank you very much.

and thank you, professor walter, for inviting me to this prestigious institution. thank you for your generous introduction. you have been a very respected and admired colleague in the foreign office. i am so happy that now you are here to help the understanding of our very complex challenges that we face in pakistan. i was asked that i may speak about u.s.-pakistan relations, whether these reactions are transactional or strategic. this is a vast canvas. so i am going to speak and come

up with some observations. but i will largely depend on many questions which i am sure you must be having, to try to offer clarifications and try to offer other perspectives on some of these important questions which relate to these five or relations. -- vital relations. u.s.-pakistan relations contribute us transactional or episodic, or dependent on expediency. they witnessed high points during the cold war in the 50's in particular. during the 1980's, the days of the jihad, and then after 9/11.

in between, there have been long times when this relationship has been somewhat strained, and you can call them a low point. therefore, because of these vicissitudes, people argue that they are transactional. recently, there has been began what appears to be the beginning of a downturn in relations. it seems to suggest that this view of these relations being transactional is inviolate. but in my view, this does not have to be the fate of this very important relationship. i will come back to this point, suffice it to say.

pakistan is an important country in the region, where the united states has very important interests at stake. therefore, this relationship need not necessarily remain in the kind of transactional mode we associate it with. it should be based on a more long-term and stronger foundation. i will very briefly touch upon the pre-9/11 phase of the relations. i will touch upon the milestone of that, almost five decades. then, i will discuss the

cooperation, and also the sort of problems, expectations, it disconnect during the post-9/11 time until now. then, i will examine this question of whether these are transactional or strategic, and how they can be managed. first, the milestones. briefly, i would say that in the 60's, early 50's, during the cold war, there was cooperation, a relationship of alliance. at that time, the united states needed bases around the soviet union. pakistan needed assistance to build its army. it felt a security threat from its neighbor.

so there was a convergence. but by the early 60's, we find that this relationship started eroding. there were a few things which happened. one is that the american need for basis -- bases was no longer as acute with the development of missile technologies. secondly, because of the skirmishes between china and india, the u.s. relations with india started getting closer. the u.s. offered military sales and military assistance to india. pakistan felt let down. at the same time, pakistan

started opening its relations with china. this is something which rankled washington at that time. pakistan had, during this time, tried to leverage this relationship with the united states to get a solution of the kashmir issue, something which would be favorable to its position. if you read the accounts of those days, you will find that they reflected a desire that the united states should appreciate their perspectives on south asia and on india, on the regional politics. i think it was probably the wrong approach, in the sense that pakistan should have at

that time tried to look at the interest of a global power, a superpower in the region. that is instead of having this expectation that the united states would pay heating to our perspectives in the region. when we come to the mid-60's, by 1965 all the u.s. assistance and military aid to pakistan -- they ended. hear, pakistan fell at a disadvantage -- here, pakistan felt at a disadvantage, because for military needs, pakistan

depended on the united states, but india was depending more on the soviet union. so at that time, pakistanis felt a feeling of letdown. 70-71 was a brief time when there was an extremist tilt toward pakistan. but that also coincided, if you would recall, with pakistan facilitating the united states opening to china. it is a bit ironic that something which had rankled earlier, 1962-63, in 1970-71 became quite useful for the united states to open up toward china.

one of the results of that role in as intermediary -- in fact, it was not much of an intermediary. but it was a critical role as a post office, i would say, a critical role, because certain understandings had to be reached between china and the united states. that affected all of our relations with moscow. they said we're going to teach a lesson to that dirty brother left in pakistan. then we come to the post 71 situation. the important milestone i would say is post-1974. in 1974, india tested a nuclear

device. pakistan literally wanted to rectify this imbalance which had developed between the two countries. the u.s. put a great deal of pressure at that time that pakistan should be stopped. pakistan should not resort to the nuclear option. in fact, i remember, and this is something i have seen -- there are a number of other things that get reported. this is something i have myself seen in the papers. dr. kissinger had met the prime minister in 1975. dr. kissinger made a very strong case that pakistan must not pursue the nuclear option. mr. bhutto argued why are you

putting pressure on us when it is india which has tested a nuclear device, not pakistan. pakistan is nowhere near to it. dr. kissinger made a remark. he said, "that horse has bolted the barn. we're going to make sure this is not repeated here." i am mentioning these things because these are historical memories. sometimes, there is a disconnect between historical memories of one nation and the other nation. so when one talks about pakistan-u.s. relations, some of these things do need to be pointed out. the next milestone is 1979. the relationship catapulted. there was a new convergence now.

the assistance resumed. pakistan received its first aid package after a long time. that was under president reagan. it was $3.20 billion between 1983 to 1988. also, the military supplies or military sales were resumed during this time. the next milestone is 1989-'90. 1989 is the year when the soviets left. this is a whole history i do not want to go into with details. as touqir was mentioning, my

first book, in 1989, was published by duke university press. it focuses on that time of 17 -- up 1979-1989. pakistan does not get the certification on the nuclear question and all assistance is stopped. but more than the assistance, -- thate of the f-16's created a great deal of ill will in pakistan, because pakistan had paid about $700 million for f-16's. the money was not returned until the later -- until the year 2000, when part of it was returned in the shape of exports

of soybeans. but over these long years, between 89 and 2000, this was a question which rankled with many pakistanis, especially the military. some of the equipment which was sent here for retrofitting was confiscated because we came under sanctions once the certification was withdrawn, because we were pursuing the nuclear option. you would recall that president clinton had visited our region in the year 2000. he had spent about five days in india. at that time, the relations with india were going strong. with difficulty, we were able to

persuade that he come to pakistan. he came to islamabad for about four hours. he refused to have a focus session with president moshav -- musharaf, who was at that time chief executive of the country. that had come about to a military coup in 1989. pakistan was shunned at that time. it was quite -- it was a low point in our relationship. but before 2000 -- let me also make one other reference, and that is 1998, when india conducted nuclear tests. pakistan came under pressure not to follow suit, not to conduct nuclear tests at that time.

president clinton offered some say about $10 billion assistance if pakistan were not to do that. with that, lifting sanctions and opening of the military sales, all that. but it was a very difficult question for pakistan, because having conducted the nuclear tests, soon after, the indian papers and many others started questioning pakistan's capability. they said that by testing we have called pakistan's bluff. there was an ambiguity about the whole question of whether pakistan was capable. pakistan had pursued an untested path toward where

urbanization, nuclear weapons -- toward weaponization, nuclear weapons. there were centrifuges. there was a call that pakistan should make its capacity fell. i was at that time ambassador in brussels. i had meetings with some of the european parliamentarians, including the chairpersons of the foreign relations committee. some of them at that time commented, because we were saying that the indians have done a very nasty thing and it is a big problem for pakistan, what should we do, and all that -- like the ambassadors are supposed to do, we were asking there be some kind of denunciation of the indian tests.

but what i found was that a couple of them said, "we know if you have that capability, you will test. if you don't have it, you will not." again, a question mark on pakistan's capability. this ambiguity could have been very dangerous and had to be removed. at that time, many of us recommended that pakistan test so there was a clarity and strategic balance was established. nonetheless, because of that, we came under sanctions. they hurt pakistan, because pakistan's economy was not in good shape. the indian economy was doing far better, as compared to us. when i give you this scenario of these milestones, it is

suggestive that when there is expediency and convergence of interests, these companies cooperated and work in alliance. faults expectations so word these -- soured these relationships. when there was a change of circumstances, they put a distance between the countries. during those times, there was acrimony. there were recriminations, i would say short of hostilities. there were sanctions, especially on military sales on which pakistan had come to depend. all these things, they affect an

anti-american sentiment in the public, which is an important point to note. now you see a lot in the press about anti-americanism. this is not a new phenomenon. it has a certain memory behind it. coming to the post-9/11 phase, 9/11 catapulted again pakistan's relationship, a u-turn on the taliban. the united states needed certain facilities from pakistan. pakistan agreed to that. the famous seven demands about the bases and air route. motion rough -- musharaf's response is one that some can discuss. my recent books talk about these

recent things. this book covers the time from 1989 onwards. during this time, post-9/11, there was a recognition that u.s.-pakistan relationships should not be based on a one. agenda -- based on a one-point agenda, but it should be -- it should have a long-term strategic basis. it should have a stronger foundation. this was reflected in an offer in 2006 when president bush came to pakistan, march 2006. it was the american side and which offered a strategic dialogue. five areas of cooperation were

identified, which were expanded, etc. even during this time, there were problems, misgivings, and they started surfacing more and more as the taliban started recruiting inside afghanistan. pakistan started getting more and more deeply embroiled in the conflict in the area, partly for the reason that all shapes of militance who had found shelter inside afghanistan -- they were ousted by the american intervention and found refuge in the pakistan tribal areas -- al qaeda, militants from central asia, militants from chechnya, militants from the arab world.

all kinds of people. if you will recall, there were about 30,000 or so arabs who fought a war in the 1980's and could not go back to their own countries. where did they go? they stayed behind in afghanistan. that is the genesis of al qaeda. many of them came into al qaeda. -- many of them coalesced into al qaeda. these people came into our trouble areas, so pakistan got sucked into this conflict. then, of course, the pakistan i religious militants, these jihadis who were linked to kashmir, etc., also became

active because they were highly resentful of the government's who abandoned the taliban, because after all these were kindred spirits, so to speak. they were very violently opposed to the policies that musharaf followed. but those policies had a rational. generally -- these policies have a rationale, and generally people 9/11 was such a cataclysmic event, that there was at that time sympathy for the united states in pakistan. but, why the taliban started

regrouping, one of the reasons -- i would say, i would mention three reasons -- the main reason in my view was u.s. attention was diverted to iraq. in 2003. that is soon after. you would recall that after 2007, there were less than 19,000 u.s. troops committed to afghanistan. for most of the time, less than 15,000. whereas more than 150,000 troops were committed to the iraqi situation. with this kind of present and this kind of commitment, it was difficult, it was not possible to neutralize the taliban. focus. eeded complete

but the attention was diverted to iraq. the other point i will mention is even in 2002, 2001, you can say by december 2001 and 2002, at time of the process, pakistan was suggesting an effort should be made to bring in those taliban leaders and elements who are pliable and who may be ready to join the process. but what happened, the taliban were lumped together with al qaeda. pakistan, during the process, which is in 2001 and 2002, they

have lost their voice and as far as the afghan affairs were concerned -- i would say pakistan's position was in a way validated with the united states position on the taliban. there are two things which are needed for the stabilization of afghanistan. one is reconciliation and the other is reconstruction. reconciliation with him? the first time a direction came was the afghan posh tunes themselves in august of 2007, when there was a grand jurga invited who had also gone in kabul.

the important decision that came out of that with about 500 or 600 largely posh tune elders from the pakistan side and leaders from the afghanistan side was that we should read jal -- reach out to the opponents. who were the opponents? they were the taliban. let me say that there has been a disconnect between pakistan and the u.s.. which persisted. pakistan would not have treated the taliban leaders or the taliban themselves in the same manner as it treated the al qaeda leadership. al qaeda, we hunted, we captured, we neutralize and eliminated. most of the al qaeda it you find in guantanamo bay -- there are those who were basically captured by the people of

pakistan. inunder 48 weretu 2008. most of the important al qaeda leaders were neutralized with cooperation between pakastani and american intelligence. the americans will vouch for it. . don't want to give the names let me come to the other aspects of these misgivings and i would say false expectations. there was a disconnect on the question of how to treat the taliban. second, there was also

distressed at the operational level. this was a genuine, for example. there was these repeated reports from 2004 onward that the pakastanis are not cooperating when intelligence is provided to them, the targets run away. assuming this intelligence is linked to the target -- leaked to the target. if you were to hear the pakistan side of the story, it is that we do not have a rapid deployment, quick action capability for which you need helicopters and others. hear, targets are not regiment's

sitting somewhere or battalions sitting somewhere. targets would be a group of people or one-person or two- person and naturally, if pakastanis were to take action, sending a platoon of soldiers to capture their target, it's not going to be areas. our own military was operating in the area -- these were the on going spaces that were traditionally and governed. traditionally, pakistan had not captured its military over there. with the afghan jihad of the '80s, the whole political system had been in disarray and the militants and others who became influential, replacing

the influence of the tribal elders -- on top of that came these very violence militant activists who were in fact up until 2007, the figures were about 600 tribal elders were murdered by these people. so they asserted control over the area. these are the complexities of the problem i am mentioning. when we would ask about helicopters or a night goggles or to enhance the capacity to expand the corps, there would be questions that these helicopters would be used on the eastern france, so -- on the eastern

front. so that in 2007, only half a dozen helicopters were provided, of which only one was operational because the others did not have spare parts. with this kind of situation, i'm saying these are the operational call themcan misgivings or distressed -- there was the demand that pakistan should move its troops from the eastern borders and deploy them on the western border in these tribal areas. pakistan kept on increasing the numbers until 2004 or 2005 and today, it is almost close to 146,000 troops in this area.

but if you look at the pakistan army situation, it is half a million strong. it is not possible to deploy more than this number that has been deployed today. this formula of one third, one- third, one-third, it is on the eastern front. first, the traditional security threat is from the eastern front. but, more than that, there were two incidents. one was in 2002. an attack on the parliament. what happens? >> the indians mobilized the

army of about 1 million troops. pakistan also had to mobilize. there was a time when we should have been more focused on the western front, but we had to focus on the eastern front. you would recall that it was in 2003 that tensions finally started. if you come to recent times, there were threats that if something similar happened again, similar action would have to be taken. in this kind of situation, it is very difficult and there were also other aspects like goldstar, which the deployments of the indian army -- given these factors, it was not possible to expect pakistan to

remove the tools from the eastern border. so this was one of those things which was the source of misgivings. drone of tax -- a lot can be said about this, but this creates a lot of resentment within the public. the government is always on the defensive on this issue. though one way which was suggested and continues to be suggested is that there should be coordination between the two sides for drought attacks. there is a whole history of drawn attacks, but if i go into history, we would not have much time left for the question and answer sessions. so, then, there is the question

of u.s. demands to do more. how does it impact in pakistan? this basically plays into the hands of those people who are detractors who question pakistan's policy of association with the war on terra -- or on terror, etc. and two were a post to the u-turn taken by president musharraf. they argued this is not pakistan's war. this is not their fight. pakistan has been sucked into what is the american war or america's fight. whenever there are these demands, whether through the media or some official statements, what ever levels,

they resonate in pakistan and they say look, this is the proof, this is the vindication of what we are saying. this is not our war. the dictator is coming from somewhere else. i am trying to explain the sources of these misgivings and distrust and the ill feeling that you find. so, the question of the public opinion -- it is extremely important because, for the military to take action and for the government to take action, public support is extremely important. this was proven when we took action. before 2009, it was not possible to take action there and here, i

may say one other thing, which is the so-called peace agreements -- we had peace agreements and there was a lot of international criticism of those. but, within pakistan, the argument was there are your own people. you cannot simply deploy military means to address this issue. if there's a possibility of offering a piece through these agreements, we should try them. regardless of these agreements, the politics of the situation demanded we must try that approach. when this peace agreement was made with the local taliban, and they overreached, and so since

they were not one of the tribal areas, that turned the public opinion against the local taliban. it allowed the government to take firm action, which led to the exodus of almost 2 million people who were out of their homes for almost six months to a year, but everybody tolerated it and understood it. had the army taken this action before this agreement and before the taliban overreached, there would have been a lot of criticism that the government is only trying to pacify their own people through military means, killing their way to trying to achieve a solution, which should be achieved through political means. so public opinion is extremely

important. the question of aid rankles on both sides. in the united states, you see almost every fortnight, if not every week, we have given $20 billion and they have not delivered. they are double dealers, there duplicitous, they're playing a game, those kinds of things. the pakistan army and pakistan intelligence -- all of that. the taliban are considered an asset. again, these are long arguments. pakistan do not consider the taliban to be an asset because that taliban has no chance to return to the free-9/11

position. the taliban and the pashtuns are part of the afghan political landscape. they simply cannot be wished away. many of them come into our areas. we have more than 3 million. they are mixed with that population in the bordering regions. seoul, i was mentioning eight, assistance. there are accusations on the part of the u.s. that there is double dealing and pakistan is not delivering. but, there are those who favor and those who are convinced that there has to be close relationships between pakistan

and the united states. they fear that the united states or the americans generally are not appreciating the complexity of the problems pakistan faces and the sacrifices it has made. in this fight, we have lost close to 5000 military troops. we have lost more than 35,000 civilians. we have deployed troops in that area and, our economy suffers because of the situation. the latest problems start with this episode of raymond davis. anybody who has followed those events could see it was the

cooperation between the cia and the isi that finally led to his release. he was no diplomat. he killed two persons. he was a cia contractor. but what happens that as soon as he is released and leads pakistan, the next day, there is a drone attack that killed 46 people in the tribal areas. this was not reported over here. in pakistan papers, every paper carried an editorial. so there's a kind of insensitivity here. there is a question of the big london -- the osama bin laden episode -- how come he was living in a garrison town -- it

is not a garrison town, but there happens to be an academy there. if you went there, or if you into a slot blot -- if you went into islamabad, these are sprawling populations and many of them are undocumented. in islamabad, there are sectors which are afghan sectors. there are afghan sectors. so we don't have any restrictions and it has happened that this man through his companions got a place which was a complex, but it is a very modest place if you look at the pictures. but nonetheless, they got him

and he never left that place. if there was any complicity on the pakistan side, that would have come to light because there is a lot of material which was taken away by the seals from that apartment. in pakistan, the debate is not on the question of whether osama bin laden was there. there are questions that are raised about this and it is part of the mandate of the commission which has been set up. but, the public comment was more focused on how come the americans were able to come and carry out the operation when everyone was sleeping?

so you can see this disconnect in the media perception. somehow -- i will try to wrap up. on the aid question, there are a number of things. assistance itself is the package, which was about $5 billion between 2003 and 2008. the next package became very controversial. about support team billion dollars is a very poorly negotiated arrangement on the part of pakistan, which is for compensation for all of the deployments and equipment which is used for counter-terrorism activities in that area.

on the other hand, if you look at the situation, pakistan provided three bases and they are providing the transit which accounts for 70% of the supplies at present. pakistan was not charging anything for that. in my view, i think that was a mistake and we should of charge for this and not the deployments which would have been a much neater arrangement. but, today, this $14 billion or what ever is basically seen as the aid which is given to pakistan and pakistan has not delivered on this. pakistan -- i always maintained pakistan can do without the aid, but what pakistan needs is good, positive, constructive relationships with the united states.

we have tried hard to have market access, etc.. but nothing came out of that. finally, the question of whether this is a transactional strategy, i would say if you look at the size of pakistan and you look at conventional and unconventional military capabilities, it's in a region where the united states has stakes and basically, this relationship has a strategic quality to itself. given all the problems i have mentioned, there is the question of how it should be managed. one can discuss in greater detail, but what i feel is that this relationship has to be managed and delivered on the basis of realism and frankness.

it is an important relationship for pakistan and i think it's important for the united states for all the reasons i have mentioned. it's not just the question of the stabilization of afghanistan. there is an opportunity because stabilization be -- stabilization depends on reconciliation. for reconciliation, there are only three players apart from the taliban. the taliban are the ones who have to be pacified and brought into the process. the afghan government. they must lead this negotiation. the united states is there. you can call it the occupation, but the power that is present. and pakistan, not because of any special claim, but because of the demographics of the situation. why? because the pashtuns are half

the population of afghanistan and there are three times as many in pakistan and afghanistan. demographics and dictate that pakistan has to put pressure on the taliban and the pashtun leaders to be cooperative and real -- and realistic in their demands when some accommodations are offered to them. but, the fear is that because of this downturn, this opportunity may be lost. but there are other areas. the nuclear area, there are other regional issues. i will not go into that. the most important points i would like to end is that the two countries must develop and

continue a frank and regular dialogue and be open about their concerns, sensitivities and clearly dealing with the areas to maintain this relationship on an even keel. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. an excellent talk. for presenting pakistan's case very cogently and forcefully and in a very clear headed manner. i would briefly take some of your points and that my own comments on this strategy and then use my privilege to ask to discuss the question. as you rightly said, we do have

grounds for having a strategic relationship and a need for that and a potential for it. but, against the historical baggage, it is becoming a difficult. currentlytl that two countries are facing are creating complications. how can one have a strategic relationship when every day there are transactions to be done which have the potential to be irritants which the operational side is one side and politics are the other? the strategy and policy is being dictated from here, so you cannot have good cooperation when you are expecting this

strategy should be operational lies in pakistan. you have to have greater coordination and understanding to have a unified strategy. that is one issue. as you said, the strategic relationship needs a broader convergence of perception, interests, and policy on issues and that is not happening. will it happen in the future? my own hope and guess is that it will, but, we will continue to have difficulties during the current time when so many other issues are surrounding. there is an overhang of what is going on. there is a bit of anti americanism and there are islamists. you have very serious concerns

about security. nobody has called pakistan the most dangerous country in the world before 9/11. who has caused this? the easy way out is to look for outside explanations. that relationship is a big factor. the relationship between the civilian government and army is a big factor. a number of issues are surrounding this relationship. some are not f f f f f feign policy issues, but national issues. it is not easy to manage this relationship, as you rightly said. but thank you, again for an excellent help for us to

understand this. my question is, you have an ambassador to china and i want to make use of your expertise of your ambassadorship there. when pakistan comes under too much pressure, they see that perhaps they should get closer to china. that is a kind of nike that view because the relationship between small powers and great powers cannot be dictated by a small country. especially, china would like to take charge of pakistan. if they united states has a relationship -- there are things china can do and would not like to do and would like the united states to do for example. the united states would like to introduce something its can-do

and would not like to do. in many ways, the chinese are concerned about their own image in pakistan and they have benefited enormously from anti- americanism because by contrast, they look quite good and they would not like to do anything which makes them on popular in pakistan. so, what is your considered view as to what are the prospects of pakistan getting closer to china? >> let me first make one other comment because the u.s.- pakistan relationship is a vast canvas. there is one thing i must say -- it lacks a certain depth because whenever there has been these times of closeness, it has been at the official level, the military level, the civilian

brock a sea level. , but somehow, the interaction which should develop between -- which develops between the in formal institutions of democracy these days, india comes to mind -- between academia, the media, the financial institutions, markets, etc. -- that has not developed. in the case of the united states, one thing which is very important is the role of the expatriate communities. how strong they are in the united states. in the case of pakistan, that has not developed. here, i would place the blame on leadership which probably lost many opportunities. on the question of china, yes, pakistan has had this

relationship of i would say naturally, as you mentioned, there are certain limitations to what extent china can help pakistan. in today's world, it's not a question of that you have choices. he have bad relationships and to move to another, like it used to be between the two blocks where if you get on trouble on the one side then you have the option of going to the other block. i think the post cold war situation is far more complex. we have to develop our relationships independently and there are very strong interests which are common between

pakistan and china. there are also certain limitations as well. for example, the people to people contact, etc.. the economic relationship that is not as strong as the political relationship. partly it's because of the political situation in pakistan. we could have attracted a great deal of many times more investment into pakistan from china because china has all of the surpluses if our security situation was better. but, because of the bad security situation which all of you know all of the conflict, etc. that opportunity or that possibility has not materialized. these are the kinds of limitations. but politically, one can expect china to stand by pakistan.

pakistan is also very sensitive to many chinese concerns. there is a lot which appears that there may be some return on that account, but this is media speculation. pakistan has been cooperating with china on the question of etim. he was killed in pakistan by pakistani forces and some of of leaders of -- these are people who basically shifted from the soviet union to afghanistan when afghanistan was completely

isolated and insular and ostracized. then, after the american intervention, they came into our own areas. the point i want to make is we are very sensitive on these questions when it comes to china. >> thank you. i will now open the discussion to questions. kindly just ask questions and not make any comment because we don't have much time. this is a subject on which all of us have a stronger view. if you could identify yourself. >> i am a freelance journalist from baluchistan. i would like to ask the world's worst terrorist was found just

outside pakistan's west point. it is the pakistan military academy. why was the pakistan military -- why did it day hand over the choppers to the chinese for inspection and why is pakistan conducting a genocide in baluchistan? the first thing i have tried to explain that osama bin laden was hiding -- i may say one thing about pakistan. intelligencearmy's -- if you go to pakistan, pakistan is one of the most undocumented societies anywhere. i remember attending a similar

event and when someone made this comment that he must have applied for getting the land for the house or this and that, these kinds of things -- the question of the high walls, you are from baluchistan, so you know is the same culture that these high walls are there and households, every household is surrounded by very high walls, etc.. in pashtun culture, especially so. it was possible for the man to be able to hide. yes, it is embarrassing. and, there are so many things which happen that can cause embarrassment. but why should we feel ashamed? we did try and we have given -- on al qaeda, the policy was very

clear and that's why if you look at the list of al qaeda leaders who have been captured or neutralized by pakistan, you would realize it simply does not make sense that we should be protecting the top man while we should be capturing, killing every other leader of al qaeda. secondly, as i said, the seals have taken all of his computers, all of that, and the little bit i know of the american society, if there was a stretch -- if there is a shred of evidence, and if it comes, i would be surprised -- these things, you cannot be 100% sure of anything, but so far, nothing has come out that there was complicity on the part of pakistani establishment.

that is one part of your relations. the other part is the detail of this helicopter. i do not know that that detail has been given to the chinese because i think there would have been quite a protest. the charges we provided access to the chinese. but let me say one thing. what we do with the chinese or don't do with the chinese is a different thing. if the helicopter has crashed, i would be very surprised. i'm retired persons. i would be very surprised that if we do not take a piece of it for our own sake to analyze what

is, we would be foolish if we don't do that. we are living in the real world. technology is one of the most important things to get access to. if pakistan has bundled everything and give it to the americans without taking a speck of anything, i would say as a former what ever, it would be [unintelligible] haveat one day we don't those kind of technological capabilities -- we do have a few here and there, so we might be able to be accused of that. i will say that much. baluchistan is a very sad issue with all of us in pakistan.

we hope -- basically it has to be a political approach which will somehow assuage the concerns of our brothers from there. i think the present moment is trying to do something. hopefully we will succeed. this is an effort. >> please, go ahead. >> during your talk, you referred to several times where there has been the same event seen through a different lands. different perspectives, the americans having a perspective, the pakastanis having a perspective, as a former pakistani diplomat, is there enough of an exchange between

american diplomats -- you spend some time here -- is there enough exchange to promote that type of mutual understanding so that we are able to solve and address these issues? are there ways american diplomats should collaborate more? should we have more exchanges? what should be done? >> like as said toward the end, there has to be regular exchanges and candid discourse between the two sides on what are the concerns and the sensitivities where we can cooperate. there is one basic problem at times i feel.

the united states is a superpower with its own interests and the way it looks at things. pakistan is a medium-sized country but it is a large country with a population of 180 million. while on a number of issues, i think the two sides are on the same page. for example, the question of terrorism, extremism, countering extremism is in pakistan's interest. and it happened. it took strong action. we are on the same page for the strategic view of terrorism and extremism and violence. we have to counter it for our own sake, for our development.

but, the tactics which need to be deployed, how we do it, pakistan would want to do with its own way. when there are differences, then there are misgivings between the two sides, especially at the operational level, which i was describing. it ismes one feels that's also needed that the united states should try to understand that this country, what are its interests and the sensitivities and concerns? in the same as pakastanis should not feel what down or ruffled if our point of view is not finding acceptance in the corridors of power in washington because a superpower has its own interest.

the point i is making toward the end is that the united states has a lot its stake in that region. in pakistan and afghanistan and the areas surrounding us. good relations, positive, constructive cooperation between the two sides is not just in the interest of pakistan. it's in the interest of the united states. but, it has to be based on realism, understanding, and frankness. >> a question from this side. go ahead. >> thank you. i'm from the department of defense. i've got two questions for you. you mentioned a lack of acknowledgement of the sacrifices by pakistan in the war on terror. how the excess -- how you suggest the u.s. go about doing that, acknowledging the loss of

lives and livelihood than the cost of the war itself within pakistan? the second question is about the anti-american sentiment in pakistan. part of that, i feel personally is because of the lack of transparency between the governed and the government in pakistan itself. there seems to be some kind of a vested interest in pakistan that, for whatever reason, wants to keep its dealings opaque and therefore does not allow the person to person or academic to academic contact you were talking about. that goes back to the '50s and '60s when there was that kind of contact and we had duke ellington playing in karachi, etc.. i was wondering if you could touch on those issues. >> if you could clarify the second issue a little more? >> what i mean is that anti- americanism in pakistan seems to

be propagated by the lack of transparency between what the government is doing and how the public perceives it. >> the first question -- i am basically talking about the fact that there is a feeling that there is a lack of appreciation. i'm not going into whether this feeling is right or wrong, but this is a fact. how it gets reflected -- it gets reflected in the comments when there is an accusation that pakistan is playing a double game. that pakistan is not delivering. that pakistan has turned away

$20 billion or whatever and the u.s. taxpayers' money and there is no return for that. these -- if you look at it from the other side, these are very simplistic statements, which will show to the other side that, look, the kind of mess we are in -- some people can argue that this mess was not there before 9/11 and was created after, although it is part of the real situation. after all, there were these people and there's a whole history of the three decades or so. so the strongest center of this kind of insurgency partly shifted to our tribal areas and many other parts of pakistan.

i would not say it is the fault of their united states, but this is how history is proceeding. you have to see how the other people perceive the problem. i would say as far as the public is concerned, the media has to play an important role, but media is a very new phenomenon. even in the united states, people feel it's a phenomenon that you fully do not understand. in pakistan, it is wreaking havoc in terms of creating perceptions which would not be that healthy. basically, i don't want to get into that area but media has an important role. if you look at the kind of articles that come about in

pakistan, there may be some information which may have some merit, but if you look at the article, the arctic cold would regurgitate almost everything- about pakistan. so this is the kind of phenomenon over which no one has control, but hopefully, here i am saying that top level, decisions are taken which matter when it comes to management of relationships between countries. there is an appreciation and i see there is an appreciation because if you look at the statements by president obama or admiral mollen or others, they have been -- admiral mullen,

they have been positive statements and this cooperation is important. the second thing, about anti- americanism, that's a long discussion. there are many -- it is fed by many factors. the regional situation, the situation -- look at one effect -- the palestinian issue, which is located far away from pakistan. somehow, it impacts the psyche of the people who were there. it creates its own negative implications. it feeds into that. so if you are to look at the present situation, and the present situation, i think this

whole issue of the religious militants, religious sentiment, that has turned against the intervention, after the american intervention. that is one factor. the other factor is the drone attacks. droned attacks, collateral damage, it rankles the public. the third point, the pashtun population, they saw the american intervention led to the collapse or the retreat of the pashtun control of afghanistan. i have mentioned to you how the population of the region is.

so all of these factors are there. but, in world affairs, nothing remains static. these things can change. >> i'm with a group called walkabout development solutions. i come to these things often and i'm struck by the fact that it gets to be very focused on today, the media. partly that is driven by the fact that the news is on a 24- hour cycle of problems you are facing are very long term. i always try to connect the dots. that's my game. how you connect the dots? it's unusual to have people of such breadth and depth at the same podium. some maybe you can help me connect the dots. i made a list of some of the dots i am trying to connect.

in your language that you used today, you referred to sides -- the u.s. and pakistan on two sides. that does not like sound -- that does not sound like we're living in the same world. >> i said we are on the same page. i use the words demands, which does not some collaborative, yet you talk about america's war and public support and aid. against those dots, i would like to have you discuss something we take for granted in the united states. each one of you has in front of you a bottle of water. when you started this, you asked your associate to turn on the lights. in pakistan, your population is growing very rapidly. you are running out of water and food prices are escalating and

there's not enough energy to go round and forests are being denuded. that's another set of dots which is a long term but existential. yet 25% hepatitis infection rate and polio. as i see it, you have a group of elite and a large number of people who are basically disenfranchise, hungry and out of control of their own lives. those are a bunch of dots i would like to hear you comment on and tried to make some sense of for me. >> as regards to these problems, yes, there are these problems. we have to develop and progress. we have made many mistakes and we have many problems. you have spoken about the elite and yes, there has been a failure in governance. i am not talking about today, but i am talking about 60 years

of history. we have not been able to pay the attention that was needed for development for education. education is another area. this is my personal view. for a country like pakistan, it is not the outside assistance for which we should be grateful. we should be grateful and we ought to be grateful and we must acknowledge and we are thankful for what ever we get. but, for a country of this size , it has to rely on itself and it has to have the correct policies to overcome these problems. nobody, even with the best of intentions can really help us if we are not prepared to help ourselves. this is the first big thought i

would connect. we have to have the right kind of policies. we this is a cumbersome kind of progress. this is how it works. that process is very cumbersome one comes to -- when it comes to making decisions. other politics is because of

this. eight will be the people that will,. through the process, and hopefully we will keep from progressing. this is a great challenge of the extremism. this has to be addressed. anything which is a done that pakistan on this issue creates problems for pursuing the right course. that is why when i was

mentioning this, you mentioned about demand. it is not like two countries. it was used a bit loosely. when it comes to demands, anything that is seen to be like a demand, that was the problem. they know very well that it comes from democracy.

it was not necessary. how is it commented upon? these are demands. we are fighting somebody else's war. that distorts it. there was a public report that this action was necessary. >> thank you for giving me this last question. we're over time. let me push this further. the assignation ass -- the

assassination of the minister. in the security guards were there. they told them they were going to do it and he let them do this. i never heard of this any other time, were the other body guards stood by. you mentioned them supporting the operation. look at the reaction. the lawyers are found praising the murder. when the extremism has continents, even affecting the body guards who are invested -- vetted, what do you do? >> thank you. the question you have raised gives an opportunity.

if there's the rise of extremism. half of it is about the conflict and how they get intertwined. this book incidentally is also from the john hopkins press. yes, this is a very important challenge and a very important area we have to address. the gravity of this whole issue is now felt by people who are exposed to the outside socities, who also believe in a

certain, in an apporach-- apporacroach that places this on rationalism. let me say that in pakistan, there is a course that our people, who are still trying that these laws should be ammended -- i can mention names, but no need. there are these institutions that are sponsored.

you mentioned the lawyers. i'm not much concerned about the body guard. there was the golden temple issue. it is not that. i consider it more serious that there should be a body of lawyers who should be taking sides with this kind of big con. here there is a whole history of how it has come to this spot. we have to bring

rationality in our public discourse. >> we will have the privilege of thanking you. >> thank you very much. we appreciate it. [applause] i want to make 1 announcement. china came up. we have probably china's leading economic expert speaking here on the 25th on china's view toward pakistan and india.

normally, you can expect a u.s. approach to indian/pakistan. he would give the chinese approach. it will be the 25th of august. i think he will find it interesting. i think he will be on this question as well. thank you for coming. we hope to see you at future events. our academic year has not started yet. it is still technically our summer. our academic year starts on the 28 or 29th of august. with afford to seeing you then. -- we look forward to seeing you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> hillary clinton and l panetta. they spoke today at the national defense university on the challenges facing the united states. we will bring that to you tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. all this week on "washington journal" a loo inside the fbi. the director of the resource planning office talks about the key problems and how tax dollars are spent. it starts at 9:15 a.m. eastern here on c-span.

next, newt gingrich criticized that the new joint select committee on deficit-reduction in a speech to the heritage foundation today. he said it had a congress has to advance a suicide mechanism to do something, you have a breakdown of the legislative process. his remarks were followed by a question and answer session. this is one hour. >> it is a pleasure to have newt gingrich here with us. this is the national debt we have a year.

the orders will make recommendations to reduce the deficit by $1.50 trillion. they should take seriously the words "at least." this can be done with our plans. you hear that this cannot be done without raising taxes. our plan shows that it can. we're very proud of our plan. we have it here. we are proud of the work that they undertook during the budget ceiling debate. speaker gingrich who we have worked with in the past is eminently suited to give his views on these pressing issues. he was speaker of the house of representatives during a time when they produced a budget and

one that was balance. he is the author of 23 books. he founded several organizations to advance conservative ideas. we are here to discuss policy and not campaigns. his speech will be on policy and not on politics. this is not a campaign event. we will not entertain questions on what is happening on the campaign trail. those are important issues but not as important as the ones he will address today. we look forward to continuing this discussion. we welcome speaker gingrich to the conversation. [applause]

>> i want to thank all of you. it is great to be back here. i have been working with the foundation for a long time. it is a remarkable institution. i want to thank heritage for the remarkable work they have done. if you look at the range of new proposals, and the number of conferences they have sponsored is a major force in the city and the country. it has played a cigna began a role. i was delighted to have this opportunity to talk about it. it is led the most important

crossroads in american history. i am going to say some things that are very bold. i would like to get across especially to the washington elites that boldness is sometimes exactly what we need. it is not pie in the sky. i have lived through two cycles. the economy was crashing. we rationalize gasoline. jimmy carter was giving a speech. we have 13% inflation, a 22% interest rates. the soviet union was an offense. ronald reagan came along. the city thought he was hopelessly idealistic. it was impossible to do what he did. 10 years later, the soviet union

disappeared. i participated now as a junior member of congress. i turned around and 1994. no one in the press corps thought they could secedes. we went out and campaigned the largest one county increase since a 1994. the congress they can gain is 26 seats. we gained 54. the city cannot balance the budget. the within three years, it's a

balance for four consecutive years. people said you cannot reform entitlements. we reformed welfare. we did this the right way. we did it out in the open. the american people concluded if we did it right . 92 some of the american people favored it. including 80% of the people on welfare. half the democrats voted for it. that required the process of government. i want to start with the biggest mistake that the president and congress may. you leave washington by leading america. americaot leavd washington.ng

no one knew the stimulus package. then we discover later on that the shovel ready jobs were not shovel ready. obamacare was passed in secret. despite the presence promises of being on c-span. speaker polo season we had to pass it to learn what was in it. -- pelosi said we had to pass it to learn what was and it. the debt ceiling to was passed over night in order to get the final number of votes. it was not on line for three days. it was not open for amendment.

at the last minute, come up with a proposal. you need to cut off your right leg or shoot you in the head. which you prefer? we call that government. the result has been that a reporter, a 17th term of the country believes we have -- 14% of the government believes we have failed as a country. -- succeeded as a country. that is a low number. we have had enormous turbulence in our history. we had a passionate belief that power resides in the people. what you see now is a desertion of this. it was by the insiders for the

insiders. no understanding of the legislative process thatit'll pf intelligent behavior. that is what it comes down here. they have tried to come up with a fallback so disgusting that people want the alternative. they did in voluntarily. lincoln was was challenge to a duel. he said shotguns at three paces. the guy that challenge some said that would be murder. lincoln said "yes."

he was making a point. if you have a congress that has to invent a suicide mechanism in order to try to force itself to do something, you have a breakdown of the legislative process. that is what they have done. they set up the wrong model. how will you cut $5 billion out of defense about knowing what you are cutting or defending or who threatens you. let's find it and cut it out. we're not wasting $500 billion in defense. how can we cut it? to say i wanted revenue -- i want to threaten you, is this is a total disaster and constitutional means of solving our problems. it is not start with the deficit. the deficit is a function of the economy.

you have 16% that is underemployed and not looking. there is a breakdown. they're asking the wrong questions and coming up with the wrong answers. let me start with the core. all men are created equal. they are endowed with certain inalienable rights. this says god gives you

personally sovereignty. the only society that is part comes from god to you personally, you're never a subject. it has to be thoroughly overhauled. they treat americans as though they were subjects. does not treat them with the dignity and authority of being citizens. to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their powers from the consent of the government.

2010's and not the guys who are in. they are not getting the fundamental changes they deserve. is a truly bad idea. this applies for legislative process. the first is 535 -- 535 -12.

what is that? what did they going to do? it will become an excuse to do nothing. the levy will focus their attention on the super committee. industry a bad idea. what do you doing? where is my representation? why do these tough extraordinary power and the rest of you are not? 117-1 is the number of standing committees and subcommittees. 117 already existed.

since they're not doing their jobs, we now have one that would magically do the job of 117. yet 12 doing the jobs of 535 m1 committee doing the job of 117. this is fundamentally wrong. a major problem in american government today, and i know this is a hard thing to cover. it is not money. it is not will power. it is knowledge. i have been fascinated with a group called strong american now. mike george is one of the creatures of a management team. this is the kind of management system that ibm uses.

this is the kind of management system that boeing uses. this is the kind of a management system that motorola pioneered. they are more productive in arizona with higher paid american workers than in china. he believes that if you apply the concepts of this to the federal government, use a pipe under billion dollars a year. $500 billion a year over 10 years is a trillion dollars. that is over three times the goal. sitting on the table, ibm and counties issued a report that

saidgovernment like a standard multinational company, there is $125 billion sitting on the table. we did a book several years ago called "stop paying the crooks" because the freeze was sufficiently clear. with food stamps, there are comparable numbers as a percentage. if a super committee got together, there is the regular authorizing subcommittees. bring in experts to know how to do this. find out how to change the federal government so it may set the pace. there is no hope of a paper base bureaucrat keeping up a someone

with an ipad. we have a dentist in new york state to buy 992 procedures a day. and got paid. ibm and american express pays 0.03 1 s because they have a very advanced system. .03. new york mets estate is above -- new york medicaid is above 10%. you are more likely to pay a are with an you american express card. they would hold hearings.

the biggest single new idea in governments since the civil service reform, you end up having to fundamentally replace this. you cannot have a permanent tan yoenure. what really broke it was that we visited the boeing plant. think about this in terms of the federal government. then go and look at all these huge building sitting around here. 4 boeing planes that had been

built to look like guppies. they fly in entire segments. they are manufactured in korea and japan. they fly into trust and where they are assembled. they are showing us this. the names of their most prestigious management. we were looking at a particular work sites. they said this process currently takes 16 days. we want to get it down to six.

imagine going through the federal bureaucracy? arby's the system is a disgrace. it says if you want to be law- abiding, it will be expensive and time-consuming. for less money, you can hire a coyote and come across the border illegally. can you imagine going through that entire visa application process? of course cannot. you cannot imagine real change. have to do less of what we're currently doing. tore going to expect you change in order to pay the taxes. he cannot expect our government to change. the cannot give this kind of thinking which 12 people.

it is revealing everything they supervise. i just got a study from the gulf of mexico that if we went back to the pre-obama permiting system we would have to under 30,000 jobs in louisiana. this is straightforward. we have avrorororororororom an - from canada to houston. it is all at a profit. the it. the chinese are speaking up paying for the pipeline. skipping the united states totally.

so much regulation will kill them. this of his lineup every day. think about it. if you're trying to create jobs, you'll have to be for real change. my first challenge is to slow down and think how you're going to learn enough. we need 90 or 200 small bills. each one is getting something good done. the action could read it and understand here the only save

half the amount. $2.50 trillion. substantially more than the super committee. it would be a super committee. what does that mean? why is it super other than they have aggregated power? i believe you cannot create jobs and class warfare. i think the idea is that you get to keep your company but you cannot run it. the bearcats -- the bureaucrats will tell you how to run it. if you're serious about job creation, you would repeal

dodd/frank and replace the epa with a new agency. you create a new food and drug and illustration whose job predict administration whose job was to know about science and move it to the marketplace. it should approve american lives. in the largest market in the world, it would make america the dominant provider of health services. people get up in the morning and say how can i help get these things to the american people, not how can i stop them. if you read it, you will discusdiscovered that salk discs

the vaccine and get it to his own family to make sure it is safe. the next year, the entire country was vaccinated. you realize that he would never have had the money to go through the process. he still have people dying of polio. back then, they were able to use common sense. what is the risk of trying this out? they moved with enormous speeds. beazer also the people who fought world war ii. the reviews to the i did you had to be passed. -- these were also the people who fought world war ii. they were used to the idea that you had to be fast.

it is not just taking out waste. it is defining what you're trying to accomplish and maximizing the rate of getting it done. it adds value. it is not just internal taxpayers. what if you tripled or quadrupled the number of jobs. how do you quantify the advantage? and has all sorts of emphasis on growth. what are you going to achieve? let me suggest a brand of -- a grand package.

i am against tax increases. i am for more revenue by getting americans back to work. i am for more revenue by identifying federal assets and using them. i am for more revenue by developing american energy. let me take the second and third and combine them. if we had a goal to produce our own energy, keeping 400 billion at home, the economic side effect of $400 billion that went to the united states to others, at the effect of the world market, lowering prices would be extraordinary. from a security standpoint, it to be a terrific thing if we could have i rang getting a lot less money. offshore,drilling

they pay royalties. it could allow virginians to develop offshore and give 50% of the royalties to virginia. you co uld finance the rebuilding of norfolk in order to handle offshore development. by paying for it with the offshore development. if you have a more economic activity, you get more revenue. we have more total energy than

any other country in the world. we have an anti-american bureaucracy and government. these are important jobs. it does develop new technologies. they will tell you that we can now use gas below. about buildingng this out of the country. this is what bureaucracies are always wrong. they're always stagnant.

unless you're pennsylvania. yes 72000 jobs since last quarter of 2009. it is turned out to be 25 times bigger than expected. that is 2500% bigger. it is now 3% unemployment. what is the secret? that is partly energy and partly technology. they work very hard. they actually had seven tax cuts. when i was speaker, we cut the largest capital gains tax in history.

people being active and investing. everybody agrees the current american corporate tax rate actually reduces the amount to revenue you get. this is just applied in a practical way. if we went to a top 15 surtaxes urge corporate tax rate, you get money out of general electric. we get no money today because at 35%, said the higher the largest tax frame in the world. it pays them to hire the workers. @ top 150 they would fire half the lawyers. he did see an increase in government revenue. the city cannot do it. it all this locked up in politics and ideology. it cannot come home at 35%.

if he had a tax holiday, almost all that would come home. it is a fundamental difference barret particularly now, and there are huge volumes of property held and for the property. they are deteriorating. the second most obvious example, you will not leave the american people. you on 69 some of alaska. elasticized the size of texas. texas is a huge -- and alaska

is half the size of texas. texas is huge. that lead you in an area half the size of texas you could develop. the largest coal reserves is an alaska. some people propose to could use the call in alaska to create gasification to take a carbon recapture and use it to enhance recovery. it cannot be creativity out of people. imagine you said this to both the house and senate, why did you review all american properties and decide which ones we love you to develop. we on something like 89 sermon

nevada. some of it is military reservations. some of it is seen a. 89%? surely some could be opened up for development. the chinese work hard to get rare earths. they are very scarce. we have huge deposits in california that are currently off limits. i am for more revenue for getting people back to work. if you did those three things, you would dwarf any conceivable tax increase. i am for fundamentally i think they have been going at a backward. i say this as someone who got a fair amount of thing passed as speaker of the house. when you centralize into a grand

bargain is coming to maximize the ideological conflict. one of the most important lessons i ever learned was to try to train people to say "yes if" rather than "no because." i have a proposal that the house republicans take up the webb/warner bill and pass it. to that amendme -- do not amend its. you have a bill that provides for offshore development of oil and gas. it is offered by a two democratic senators. he thinks it could be a model for the country.

this is a revenue bill. it is all in one. what is harry reid then do? does he say that a bipartisan bill introduced by his members is unworthy of the senate considering? or does he say "listened to the president -- let us send it to the president?" at that point, if the house republicans would focus on legislating, and they would take it. they would start by scanning what the democrats introduced. the democrats introduced a good idea, pass it. it starts to create a new

rhythm. i propose that at one point we adopt the principle that is the first three days of the week you only bring up hills be rigid bills people agree on -- you only bring up bills that people agree on so they are used to it. it is so dramatically different then "no we cannot do it." it also led to sidestep the tax. the lesson i learned from grand deals as watching reagan. the democrats are going to get $3 as spending for every $2 a tax increase. these grand compromises do not work very well.

1000 small, smart things actually would get more done than trying to lump it into one thing. i would feel more comfortable if the congress had the following rule. by the beginning of november, we've the past so many reforms that we will save more than the goal of the debt commission. dramatic modernization of the system, it dramatic improvement it capabilities to reduce spending. my guess is you could be in the $3 trillion range by christmas. scored over 10 years. it is a very different model.

they're very threatened by it. they distrusted deeply. also, someone who has legislated a fair amount. i believe this model would were dramatically better. i urge members to look at it seriously at a model of legislating now. do not worried about negotiattibuild of things to do. you'll be very pleased by thanksgiving. if i might just toss it open for questions. >> introduce yourself before you ask a question. we have a microphone in the back. anybody? i did not scare anybody off with the no campaign talk? of their we go. -- there we go.

>> speaker gingrich, part of your problem is that you are rational and logical. there are probably liberals in congress who will hear everything you said and come up committeeer deuper and those in the media that will echo it. what's culpability does the media play. they have some this is thehehehe

if the think about the total range, all the different things, i commend all of you as a great steady of remarkable book of a lincoln and cooper union. it was written by someone who had been a press secretary. lincoln believed in rationality. he has been given an invitation to get his first major speech in the east. he spends three months at the library during his and research. he gives a speech that gives two hours to deliver. it was a different era.

he repeats the speech once and ryland and what the massachusetts and then goes home. that is in february of 1860. is that speech was the farewell address in springfield. when reporters tried to get into a comic, he said to read -- to get another comment, he said to read the speech because if i give you an answer you will spin it. lincoln is fighting a civil war and suffering enormous casualties. people are deeply frightened and pessimistic. he is calling on the better angels of their spirit. he is calling on their mind. read the gettysburg address as a campaign document spir. i think you are getting it. if you read it that way, there

have been a couple of studies of it. think about what he is saying- ho. he actually went up on the word "people." they shall in door. i can just say this briefly. the 25th anniversary in march of 08, of two of his great speeches, i had been shaved by a remarkable book called the "education of ronald reagan." you have indeed in this city in both parties who want to lead the country by leaving

washington. i did a movie on reagan. when you watch reagan, he is educating the american people. his speech is dense. the idea that he was shallow and articulate is nonsense. he is creating a data base to surround your mind as a result of which you see the world differently. he said i would show the light to the american people so they would turn up the heat on congress. this will now be 12 people. he would say that it is cheerful persistence and

eventually they pick it up. i guarantee that lien 6 sigma will in a year from now be a common thing. my george is right. he has over 20,000 islands -- mike george is righ p.t. he had over 20,000 iowans sign up for it. i was there when welfare was a radical idea. he was an evangelist. by 1981, i became something that split the democratic party. ideas can grow. they can grow. >> thank you for your remark.

>> he was a mere child and a first came to heritage. -- when i first came to a heritage. >> you made a point about the concentration of the power on 12 individuals that will heighten the ideological differences and that it will come to some sort of ideological grid lock. he referred to the sequester mechanism. what do you think the odds would be if congress, doing what it did in the past, and just wave of the consequences as a get to that point. do you think they would lead the cuts go into play? >> nobody knows what they would do. i think they're caught in a

genuine bind now. one reason i am engaged in these things is because you see us regret to say this right reject -- pc s -- let me say this right -- we are at the road where choices. they urge is waiving markets would be horrendous. on the one hand, if you have people saying this. and that is what makes this so absurd -- the current spending baseline is $45 trillion over the next 10-years. the current projected deficit is a $9 trillion over the next 10-years. they're not trying to get to a balanced budget. balanced budget.