Posts Tagged ‘Pakistan TV’

The chapter title is homage to Richard Holbrooke whose book by that title recounted his negotiations to end hostilities in the Balkans, also his objective in his oversight of the Af-Pak region.  Explaining that insurgencies rarely end with the surrender of a side but rather as a result of persistent diplomacy, Hillary states that from the start she insisted that the needs and concerns of Afghan women be taken into account, an issue she raised at the March 2009 Conference on Afghanistan.

Playing Catch-up With Mme. Secretary: The Hague Afghanistan Conference


A major objective in all diplomatic dealings on Afghanistan was the goal of peeling off the less ideological among the Taliban and winning them over to the mainstream government, a controversial policy that Hillary defends staunchly in this chapter.  Referring to statements she made at the London Conference on Afghanistan in January 2010,  she cites the conditions:  abandoning violence, breaking with Al Qaeda, and supporting the constitution. The process is referred to alternately as reconciliation and reintegration.  The links below provide Hillary’s words on this issue as well as on issues concerning the welfare of women and girls in Afghanistan.

Video & Text: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks on Yemen with UK FM Miliband & Yemeni FM Al-Qirbi

Hillary Clinton at Afghanistan – The London Conference 01-28-10

Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Afghanistan: The London Conference 01-28-10 Video & Text

Hillary Clinton, Busy in London

Reconciliation of non-ideological insurgents remained a strong item on the agenda when she and Robert Gates attended the NATO Summit in Brussels in October 2010.

Secretaries Clinton and Gates in Brussels

Richard Holbrooke reasoned that if Afghanistan and Pakistan could forge relations beneficial to both,  cooperation in battling terrorist activities could be strengthened.  Thus came about a trade agreement signed by both countries in Islamabad in July 2010 which was the inception of “The New Silk Road.”

Hillary Clinton: More Pics from Pakistan

Hillary refers to a roundtable with TV journalists during this trip wherein she explained the necessity for Afghan-Pakistani relations to be strengthened as well as the reconciliation agenda.  It was testy, yet she remained resiliently cheerful and optimistic in her signature way (another reason we love her).

Hillary Clinton’s Roundtable in Pakistan with TV Journalists

Video: Hillary Clinton With Six Pakistani Interviewers At One Time – Holds Her Own! AWESOME!

She mentions that this policy was reinforced at the Lisbon NATO Conference.  She did not speak there.  She attended with President Obama who did the speaking that time around (but there are some amusing photos in the link below).

Hillary Clinton at NATO Lisbon: Saturday Wrap and Slideshow


Early the next month, with the holiday season gearing up,  Richard Holbrooke became ill during a meeting with her at the State Department.  She recounts the painful hours from the time he went to the infirmary in the building through his death at George Washington University Hospital.  It was a devastating blow to her, to the department, to his colleagues, and to people the world over with whom Holbrooke had worked.

Update on Ambassador Richard Holbrooke

Update on Ambassador Richard Holbrooke

Ambassador Holbrooke Has Passed Away

December 13, 2010 by still4hill

The day he died, there was a holiday party at the State Department.  Holbrooke’s widow, Kati Marton, attended.  Here are Hillary’s remarks.

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks at Holiday Reception for the Chiefs of Diplomatic Missions to the United States

Secretary Clinton’s Statement on the Passing of Richard Holbrooke

Although she did not, in the book,  include specific references to these next two addresses,  I am including them here as part of the record of the Afghanistan and Af-Pak policy status at that time.

Video – Secretary Clinton’s Remarks: Review of the War in Afghanistan

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Briefing on Afghanistan and Pakistan

The memorial for Richard Holbrooke was held in mid-January 2011.  At the memorial, his friends remembered his great humor and huge personality.

Slideshow: Secretary Clinton at the Holbrooke Inaugural Lecture and the Memorial Service

Video: Secretary Clinton’s Remarks at the Holbrooke Memorial

Secretary Clinton’s Remarks at the Launch of the Asia Society’s Series of Richard C. Holbrooke Memorial Addresses

A negotiating office where the U.S. could talk with Taliban representatives opened and quickly closed in Yemen where the Taliban made it appear too official for Karzai’s liking. By the December 2011 conference  in Bonn,  things had turned.  Pakistan did not show up, and Karzai began to distrust U.S.-Taliban negotiations.  The Taliban, in turn,  pulled out distrusting Karzai.

Secretary Clinton’s Remarks in Bonn on Afghanistan

Her last official meeting with Karzai as secretary of state was in January 2013 shortly after she returned to D.C.  following  her illness and concussion.  (Not to be nitpicky, but she worked from home and even from the hospital while she was ill, so I did not want to say she returned “to work,”  She had been working all along.)   She hosted Karzai at a private dinner in the James Monroe Room and states that she appealed to his sense of his own legacy at this meeting.

Hillary Clinton with Hamid Karzai

She ends the chapter with a quote from Holbrooke: “The only way to start ending a war is to begin talking.”



Hillary Clinton’s ‘Hard Choices’ Retrospective: Introduction

Access other chapters of this retrospective here >>>>





Read Full Post »

Townterview with Moeed Pirzada of Pakistan TV


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Serena Hotel
Islamabad, Pakistan
October 21, 2011

MR. PIRZADA: As salaam alaikum. On your behalf, all of you the civil society members who are in this hall, and on behalf of the countless millions of Pakistanis who are watching this on live television, I extend a warm welcome to United States Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Secretary Clinton, without exaggeration, is a household name and face in Pakistan. And why not? She has invested significant tremendous political capital. She has been the principal architect of renewed U.S.-Pakistan relationship in the Obama Administration.

This is Secretary’s fourth visit to Pakistan after assuming office. During her second visit in July 2010, 15 months ago, I had the privilege, the opportunity to moderate a similar interaction with civil society and media. And the relationship between Pakistan and U.S. looked so good, it looked so smooth, so comfortable at that time that I was finding it difficult to coin a sentence to describe it. So while introducing her, I said, “Secretary, I’m sorry, I’m afraid you’re coming to a very boring Pakistan. There are no rumors, there are no conspiracy theories, there are no fears, no suspicions.” And she laughed wholeheartedly and she said, “Moeed, boring is good.” (Laughter.)

But, Secretary, I am afraid this is not true anymore. In the last nine months, the U.S. and Pakistan relationship has seen many difficult and tense moments. There has been a barrage of accusations, fears, suspicions, doubts. But fortunately, we have seen and the whole world has seen that in the last few weeks, the United States and Pakistan have reemerged from the difficult spot, from the difficult corner. It may not be completely, but it will not be unfair to characterize that the worst is over.

This is precisely how the Secretary Clinton is here today to reconcile (inaudible) relationship, and let me say a few words. The whole world has seen that the United States and Pakistan’s relationship may be complex, may be very difficult, may be very tiresome. But this is an enduring relationship that is based on mutual interest, mutual interdependence, and shared goals in the region. And this is precisely why today Secretary Clinton is standing here next to me.

Her biographer, Carl Bernstein, which I liked tremendous when I read her biography, had described her as mind-conservative and heart-liberal. Mind-conservative and heart-liberal. But I see her as an American politician, a reality politician, a realistic American politician who believes in the school of realism in American foreign policy, American diplomacy. Many people afraid when she talks tough. But I must tell you, that if she can talk tough in Islamabad, in Pakistan; she also has the ability to talk tough on behalf of Pakistan in Washington.

With these words, I invite the Secretary to speak. (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. Well, I am absolutely delighted to be here with all of you, and I thank you so much, Moeed, for your introduction and for once again taking on the responsibility of helping to moderate this interaction.

I think this is my eighth visit to Pakistan in 15 years. One very long and memorable visit in 1996, where I remember so clearly how easy it was to travel around Islamabad and Lahore. The memories of that visit, which I took with my daughter, are incredibly poignant and vivid in my memory. Three short visits as a senator and now my fourth visit as Secretary of State. And I am here because I believe the relationship between our two countries is so important, it is worth getting right. And I am certain it is possible, although it will take a great deal of work to do so.

It is easy to forget amidst all the noise that our goals overlap in critical ways. We share a vision of a sovereign, self-sufficient, and democratic Pakistan; a Pakistan at peace and trading with its neighbors and full of opportunities for both men and women. That is a vision that I carry with me as I do the work I currently do now as Secretary of State. We also share a threat that has claimed the lives of thousands of our citizens. And we believe strongly that is a challenge neither of us can walk away from.

So the question before us is not whether we should work together; the question is how. And as you just heard, it is no secret that our relationship of late has not been an easy one. We have seen distrust harden into resentment and public recrimination. We have seen common interest give way to mutual suspicion. Americans, who believe they have done a great deal over the last years, and in fact $2 billion in civilian aid has been delivered from American taxpayers to the people of Pakistan in the last year, are understandably frustrated when they see what comes across as anti-American sentiments. And many in our Congress ask whether this relationship is still worth investing in. And I know that many Pakistanis have questions of their own.

Like any successful partnership, this one needs to be a two-way street where each of us acts to secure our shared interests in an atmosphere of mutual respect and mutual understanding. I’d like to touch briefly on three issues in particular: our joint efforts to create opportunities for the people of Pakistan; Pakistan’s role today and tomorrow in the region; and our shared fight against violent extremism.

First, I want to be clear that the United States is committed to helping Pakistan meet the economic needs, the social development needs, of the Pakistani people. Now, we are not doing this out of some definition of charity, and we are not trying to purchase friendship. We actually believe that a prosperous, peaceful Pakistan is more likely to be a stable, secure Pakistan, and we think that is good for everyone, first and foremost Pakistanis, the region, and the world, including Americans.

And we have heard the desire from government officials and private business leaders and citizens alike to move from aid to trade, and we share that goal. So we are working with Congress to create an enterprise fund designed to jumpstart Pakistani businesses and a bilateral investment treaty designed to attract trade, investment, and create jobs. Our programs have been focused on building Pakistan’s capacity: helping you grow and make more reliable your electric grid; to build roads; to irrigate hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland; and fund scholarships. And when the flood waters rose, America rushed in to save lives, help communities recover, at the cost of about $900 million.

But that said, we understand completely that it is the Pakistani people yourselves who hold the key to your own prosperity. Only Pakistanis can remove barriers that stifle entrepreneurship. Only Pakistanis can take the tough political decisions to bring your energy crisis to heel. And only Pakistanis can make clear that when just 2 million people out of 190 million pay income taxes, that is just not a broad enough base to sustain serious investments in Pakistan’s needs.

Pakistan’s economic and political success also depends on closer links with your neighbors. And that is my second point: Pakistan’s critical role in this region. We believe that over time, Pakistan could and should become a hub that connects South and Central Asia on what we are calling a New Silk Road that binds together a region held back by rivalry and war.

Over time, India could become the largest market for Pakistan. Closer economic ties with Afghanistan could contribute to growth and stability on both sides of the border. We recognize that Pakistan has legitimate interests in Afghanistan, and Pakistan has the opportunity to show regional leadership by helping to end the insurgency on both sides of the border, and help bring about peace and reconciliation.

My third point is one we ignore only at our peril. For too long, violent extremists have been able to operate too freely here in Pakistan, and Pakistanis have paid a terrible price in the fight against terrorism. Nearly 30,000 Pakistanis have been killed or injured over the past 10 years – worshippers at mosques, shoppers at markets, soldiers, police, even children in their classrooms. And we recognize, too, that Pakistan’s military has been bravely fighting pockets of terror throughout your country.

But no policy that draws distinctions between so-called good terrorists and bad terrorists can provide long-term security. This year alone, more than 500 Pakistanis have been killed by improvised explosive devices made right here inside Pakistan. I believe the United States and Pakistan can work together to root out all of the extremists who threaten both of us, including the Haqqani Network.

Now, I was introduced by saying that I am a realist, and I know that every country decides for itself what is in that country’s own interests. Pakistan does. So does America. We could not, should not, expect any different. And it is no secret that our relationship today has challenges. But for all the reasons I have briefly mentioned, I would argue that our two nations have far more powerful common interests in improving our cooperation. And now we have to chart that pathway forward together.

And much like our relationship, I hope this town hall is a two-way street as well. I look forward to a good give-and-take, and to your questions, in the time we have together. And I thank you very much for the interest you are showing in our relationship by your presence here today. Thank you. (Applause.)

MR. PIRZADA: Will you clip yourself the mike?


MR. PIRZADA: I was told that you would do it yourself.

While the Secretary clips the mike, let me repeat, once again, when you ask the question, you must – I will ask the first question (inaudible). When you ask the question, you must identify yourself with your name and the institutional affiliation. There are two runners here – Azu here, Abdullah there. Try to ask your question or comment limit within a minute or so, so then the Secretary can respond. And then the mike will reach the next person. We’ll also try to take one question from left side and one question from right side, and try to have a gender balance in the questions.

Secretary, can I ask the first question?


MR. PIRZADA: Charity begins at home. My question, since I’m asking – (laughter). The view in Islamabad is that, whereas Pakistan is trying to achieve a broad-based reconciliation with all kind of insurgent groups, including the Haqqani Network, your Administration, the Obama Administration, is trying to pick and choose between one group or the other group, you’re not ready for broad reconciliation. What is your view on that?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that our position now, having thought deeply about this, consulting with many friends, including Afghan and Pakistani, is that we want to work on a process that is open to those groups or elements within them that are willing to sit across the table, and discuss a way forward that is committed to peace and reconciliation. And with respect to Afghanistan, the groups must be willing to renounce violence, as you should in any political process; cut all ties with al-Qaida, which is something that is important to us; and state a willingness to abide by the laws and constitution of the state of Afghanistan, including protection for minority groups and women.

So our position is that we have been exploring different channels and different offerings. But given what just happened with professor, former President Rabbani in Afghanistan, where he believed he was meeting with an emissary from the Taliban to discuss this process and instead was murdered, we want to make it clear that all are invited and welcome to this process, but we have to, in effect, see the seriousness and sincerity of their willingness to be part of it.

MR. PIRZADA: Since you mentioned Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, since Professor

Burhanuddin Rabbani’s assassination, President Hamid Karzai has been saying Pakistan needs to bring the Taliban around for negotiation. What is your view? You expect Pakistan to militarily tackle the Haqqani Network? Will you expect Pakistan to force them to come to the negotiation table?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s more the latter. I’m well aware of the military challenges that the Pakistani military has faced and the great sacrifice, as I referenced, of soldiers and civilians. But we do believe, as does our Afghan partners, that this must be a tripartite process, that Pakistan has to be a full partner in this effort, because we think that Pakistan, for a variety of reasons, has the capacity to encourage, to push, to squeeze – in General Kayani’s term – terrorists, including the Haqqanis and the Afghan Taliban, to be willing to engage on the peace process. So that is what we’re looking for.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary. Let’s take the first question. The gentleman here.

QUESTION: Hi. My name is (inaudible), and I graduated from Lahore University of Management Sciences. I believe you’ve been there. I have a simple and small question: Is there any Blackwater, or currently known as Xe Security, presence in Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, there’s no Blackwater, because they no longer exist. They’ve been disbanded, and certain functions have been purchased or merged into other organizations. Xe is still a private contracting group that does have some previous association with, through personnel, what was Blackwater. I cannot tell you, sitting here, whether they are or not a contractor here in Pakistan, but I will tell you that they are – that we use private security contractors to protect our embassies, to protect our diplomats, all over the world. So it wouldn’t be anything that would be unique to Pakistan.

The sad world in which we are living today, as we’ve just disrupted this plot against the Saudi ambassador in our own country, is that people who should be safe pursuing diplomacy anywhere in the world are now targets. So yes, we do protect them, and we protect our facilities, but I can’t tell you exactly who has the contract. But we do try, and we certainly have learned over the years, to have certain expectations and contractual obligations that we expect everyone who is working for the United States Government to abide by.

MR. PIRZADA: Yes. Let’s take the second question.

QUESTION: Yeah. My name is (inaudible). I am from (inaudible). I have some interactions with your Embassy public affairs office.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sir, could you pick the microphone —



QUESTION: I have some interactions with your Embassy’s public affairs office, especially with the community engagement component of that office. And I must say it was great to work with them or understand their things.

I would like to ask one thing. What is the U.S. Government doing to help organic voices inside Pakistani society and community against violent extremism, to protect Pakistani citizens, army, and law enforcement personnel?

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Thank you (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s an excellent question, and I thank you for your kind words about our Embassy and about our interactions with you. And I think your question leads to really a reference I want to make to civil society here in Pakistan and to our Embassy and our efforts out of the State Department.

We have, for many years, worked to support civil society in Pakistan. But I have reached the conclusion we must do even more, and we need guidance and direction and suggestions from civil society itself. If you look at the vibrancy of the Pakistani culture, there is so much interaction, and this is certainly not a shy society, as I have learned over the years. You have a very dynamic free press. You have a lot of people who are speaking out on all kinds of issues.

But I worry about the intimidation factor from the extremists. People should be able to express, in a democracy, competing views. And you may disagree and take that person to task, but it should not be the reason for murder. It should not be, as I tragically saw, the death of Governor Taseer and Minister Bhatti and others who have a right, as Pakistani citizens, to express their views. So if civil society gets intimidated and your space shrinks, the society suffers, not just the individuals.

So our ambassador, Ambassador Munter, and I were actually talking about this just yesterday, and we are going to be seeking advice from you about what more we can do to support civil society and differing points of view within your country.

MR. PIRZADA: Let me take a question here. Yes.

QUESTION: Good evening and welcome to Pakistan, Secretary Clinton. My name is (inaudible) and I’m an entrepreneur and a development activist. And like your fellow panelist over here, there are several interactions that I’ve been a part of, and the development work that the consulate and the Embassy is doing, it’s wonderful. And just like you, I get puzzled with the anti-American sentiments that some of us may harbor in the country.

Now my question to you, again, drawing from your comments about the critical role that Pakistan has in the region, the recent comments about the Af-Pak policy of the U.S. defines the three Ds – I’d like your comments on that – deterrence, development, and dialogue – because to a lot of us, these three Ds seem to be in contradiction with each other. How can there be dialogue if there’s deterrence, and how can there be development if there is deterrence? So I’d like your comments on that, please.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, (inaudible).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. I will certainly admit that much of what we see that needs to be done in the region may, at first, appear inherently contradictory. So for example, when we say that with respect to the terrorists and the peace process, we want to fight and talk simultaneously, well, that seems contradictory. But it has been our experience over many years that unfortunately, it is both simultaneously that will convince some to come to negotiations and will remove others who are totally opposed to peace and want to continue their violent attacks.

So with respect to our policies, yes, we feel strongly about development, but we are shifting our focus, as I said, from aid to trade. And the fact that you’re an entrepreneur is very encouraging because we want there to be more entrepreneurs, which means there has to be more market access, which means there has to be more trade, first in the region and then beyond.

And so I think that it may appear to be somewhat contradictory, but we live in a very complex world today, and therefore, we have to be very clear-eyed about all the different challenges we face and we have to work across them. And sometimes we will be promoting our defense relationship and supporting the need for deterrence of terrorist attacks while we’re trying to build up development so that there will not be fertile ground for terrorists and extremists to take root. So it may not be an easy concept, but it is how we see the many different pressures that we’re trying to respond to.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, in the last two days in a couple of talks here, you must have had some kind of discussion on the issue of fight – fight, talk, talk in Islamabad.


MR. PIRZADA: And the view over here is that it’s not really working. What is your view? Do you think this fight, fight, talk, talk simultaneously is giving you results?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t think that we’ve really gotten to the talk, talk phase yet. I believe that – and this is certainly my perspective – we’re only now at the talk, talk stage because there has been a reversal of Taliban momentum in Afghanistan. President Obama’s decision that he had to make upon taking office to increase our military presence in Afghanistan to reverse the momentum of the Taliban, I think, has laid the groundwork now to be able to see if there is anybody willing to talk.

And I have to be very candid with all of you. We’re not sure, that there may be no appetite for talking on the other side, that for ideological reasons or whatever other motivations, there may be no willingness. And there have been about 3,000 fighters inside Afghanistan who have left the battlefield and have been reintegrated into their villages and into Afghan society, but whether it gets beyond the foot soldier level up to the leadership level, that’s what we have to test now. So that’s what we are trying to urgently put forward.

MR. PIRZADA: There’s a question here, I think. There’s a lady who has a mike here. Yes.

QUESTION: Hello. I’m Tara Uzra Dawood. I’m a JD from Harvard Law School as well as president of the Dawood Global Foundation and LadiesFund.

The question I have is: Because we have awards for women entrepreneurs, networking opportunities and training for women entrepreneurs, we’ve indentified incredible talent in Pakistan, and those are the headlines I would like to see and we’d like to see internationally. Furthermore, with virtual businesses and technology, could you perhaps share your opinions and guide us how we can get Pakistani women or Pakistani entrepreneurs and American entrepreneurs working hand in hand in entrepreneurship rather than in isolation? Thank you.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that is music to my ears, because one of our principal programs in the State Department the last two-plus years has been to promote global entrepreneurship around the world, with an emphasis on women and with an emphasis on Muslim majority countries, because we think entrepreneurship, small business, medium-sized business development is key to economic growth and prosperity, and that parts of the world that have not been growing and providing inclusive prosperity over the last decade are now poised in part because of technology to do so.

Therefore, we have held entrepreneurship summits in Egypt, in Indonesia, in Washington. The next one is in Turkey. And we want to be sure – we’ve had Pakistani participants, and we want to be sure that the two messages of what it takes to promote entrepreneurship, because there are still legal and regulatory barriers. There are difficulties in many countries in starting businesses and growing businesses. We want to identify those, work with governments, work with business to try to eliminate them, and we also want to mentor. So we have websites, we have programs where we’re bringing entrepreneurs – in particular, women entrepreneurs – to work with counterparts.

So we want to do all of that, and we view Pakistan as a place with such potential. Pakistan is a country of small businesses, and there’s so much more that could be done and that can be linked to the global economy. And so therefore, we will redouble our efforts to reach out to Pakistani entrepreneurs and make sure that as many as possible are connected into what we’re doing globally.

MR. PIRZADA: I see more businessmen here on the third row.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary Clinton, my name is Ibrahim Qureshi. I’m founder of Raffles Computer, and a participant to the Presidential Summit on Entrepreneurship by President Obama. It was a great event. In the summit, there were four countries put in top priority list in terms of entrepreneurship development. It was namely Egypt, Palestine, Indonesia, and Pakistan. And one of my recent engagements in D.C., I was told that Pakistan is no more on that priority list of engagements in terms of entrepreneurship development. And my question is: What triggered that? Why Pakistan is not on that priority list of four countries anymore?

And secondly, I believe that – and I think that a lot of us believe here – that terrorism is financially motivated and not really justly motivated, and with the youth we have, if there are any serious efforts going on to really bring in development entrepreneurship in Pakistan like you’ve done in Egypt and in Palestine and in Indonesia. Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I am not aware of what you have just told me, and I will certainly check into that, because our original planning, as you know, was for Pakistan to be one of our four priority countries. I obviously believe it should be, and so let me look into whether a decision has been taken that I’m not aware of, and see what we can do about it.

MR. PIRZADA: That’s a great thing. Here’s a question here on the first row.

QUESTION: Good afternoon. I’m (inaudible), and I’m a student at National University of Science and Technology. I want to ask: You already mentioned that you think that we have anti-American sentiment here. But how do you expect the people of Pakistan not to have anti-American sentiments when day in and day out we hear about drone attacks that kill more innocent people than militants? You yourself mentioned that we have had so many losses of innocent lives. How do you explain that?

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that I do not believe that there is any basis for your comment, but I will say this: There has been a lot of focus on doing what is necessary to protect Pakistan, to protect Afghanistan, and to protect Americans, which is important for both of our countries. And I think that the difficulties we face with the safe havens that I referenced is that very often they are embedded in areas where people are going about their daily business, and we try to make sure that, in working with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, that any person who has committed a terrorist act or is about to be committing a terrorist act can be intercepted. And there are many ways of doing that. And I do not believe – and I actually think it is one of the real successes of the relationship between our two countries.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, I want to pick on this question of the anti-Americanism in Pakistan, the United States being the hyper-power that shapes the world has influenced everywhere. And countries and people like Pakistan, which are at the receiving end of the American power because America has to pursue its regional influences, have a reaction towards it. What people in Pakistan, the serious analysts see, there is a rising tide of anti-Pakistanism in the United States. And I think the American media, the way it reports the events – for instance, the leaks by unnamed officials, sometimes from State Department and sometimes from CIA, sometimes from the Pentagon, they build up a picture as Pakistan being the enemy, the Pakistanis are the enemy. Recently after Mike Mullen’s comments, (inaudible) of The New York Times has published a story in International Herald Tribune which was inaccurate. The U.S. Embassy officials, many diplomats privately told me, and they were outraged themselves about how inaccurate the story was. She accused the Pakistani army of deliberately conspiring to kill the American soldiers in 2007, which was investigated by a U.S. military general in Islamabad and found that no one was really involved. It was a soldier that got berserk, a reactionary, as it happens in Afghanistan all the time.

So this is the growing fear in Pakistan, that when Pakistan is demonized, the public opinion changes, it puts pressure on Congress – both houses, the House and the Senate – which then put impediments in the relationship your Administration wants to help Pakistan. They restrict you. So you’re restricting your own way because of the demonization.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but look, I think that we have the problem on both sides.

MR. PIRZADA: I agree.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that – I would respectfully say, I think that there’s been press articles on both sides that have been wildly inaccurate and wildly accusatory, to the detriment of the seriousness of what we are trying to do together. And I think, look, we both have democracies, we have people who are politicians who run for office who are responsive to public opinion. And so if the press and others are creating a public opinion attitude, then you’re going to have politicians responding to it, and then we’re into a vicious cycle.

Look, I’m here in part because I don’t think that’s useful. And we have real differences. We need to be sitting down and exploring those differences and trying to work through them together. And we do expect to find areas of cooperation that are mutually beneficial.

Now, I would hasten to add that in both countries, there is a lack of appreciation for the relationship that predates this Administration. It kind of comes and goes; it goes back and forth over time on both sides. But it’s not in anyone’s interest. I mean, we have real differences that we should respectfully discuss, but we have to get rid of all of the wild accusations and stories and incredible theories and conspiracies that afflict us. And therefore, I’m hoping by directly talking to the Pakistani people through this event and other events, we can clear away all of the chaff and let’s just focus on where we agree and where we don’t agree, as any two nations will, and look for ways that we can work together in the mutual respect and mutual interest that I seek.

MR. PIRZADA: Do you think something to be done to have better understanding to stop all this between the media accusations, the wild accusations?

SECRETARY CLINTON: When I became Secretary of State, I was told by our Embassy in Islamabad that they had just given up trying to respond to all the wild stories. There were so many every day and obviously, not just in the newspapers but in the – on the television and radio. And I urged them to keep trying to respond, don’t let accusations go unanswered when people make these outrageous claims, try to get in there and respond. But it is hard when you have a media. And of course, we have the same problems in our own country, with a vast media, now with the internet, where you can say anything about anybody without any verification. And so I think both of us in our democracies have to do more to try to clear the way for a factual basis for our conversation. We still may disagree, but at least let’s have a basis of evidence on which we discuss these matters.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Let’s take a question from here. Who has the mike?

QUESTION: Hello there. My name is Afan Aziz and I’m the president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chamber of Commerce and Industries. I’m also an ex-student of London School of Economics —

MR. PIRZADA: Can you bring the mike a little close?

QUESTION: My question was regarding a friend of, actually, the U.S. and a good friend of Pakistan, had launched a discussion regarding the reconstruction opportunity zones. You talked about trade being better than aid, and trade, not aid. This was exactly on those lines. And frankly speaking, to tell you the truth, this was one single factor that had been launched, and had it included Pakistan’s specific product that we could produce. This was one factor that could have changed the landscape of this place and would have helped you entirely in this war. To quote you a figure, because I belong to the field itself of textiles, if we had produced about $2- to $3 billion worth of apparel in (inaudible), which was very much possible and very easy task, we would’ve given employment to about 1 million people. And 1 million people with an average family size of six people would’ve affected 6 million people, which is one-third of the population of the province.

So – and this thing did not happen. Your predecessor started this discussion in 2006, and then this conversation kept on taking place, and now it seems like it is a dead horse. I want to convince you that this is something that really would change things around. I challenge the belief, number one, that people say that this would cause a loss in jobs in the U.S. It is completely incorrect because Pakistan is in the commodity business, and the textiles in the U.S. are technical textiles; they are value-added textiles. The only redistribution of jobs if ever is going to take place is from China, Bangladesh, or (inaudible). Pakistan today only export $1.5 billion, and we are minnows, because U.S. imports 72 billion. China exports 27 billion. Vietnam exports – just give me a moment, because I believe this is a very, very important point.

And secondly, I also challenge the belief that people say that this can’t be done in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. We have been a frontline state in the front line – of a frontline country. So you see, we have really suffered not over the last one decade but over the last three decades. We as – I’ll give you a figure to substantiate my point. We, as a percentage of the loan that was given out in Pakistan about 20 years ago, stood at 11 percent. Now these standards of population are at around 13 percent. Today, we stand at a paltry – at a paltry 1.7 percent. So you see of the entire loan that is disbursed. So there is no job creation in that area. And also, you see this something that needs to be targeted head on.

MR. PIRZADA: Afan, thank you.

QUESTION: So I would appreciate it if you could do something – (applause).

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I mean, you make a very strong argument, and there are many of us who agree that opening up our markets to your cotton, for example, would be a really big step forward in the economic growth of Pakistan, and also would have benefits in our relationship. We have a political system with different points of view. We have made the case – the prior administration plus this administration. It’s not the only issue that comes from the desire on the part of many of us to increase trade that doesn’t yet have a majority to pursue. But you’re not going to get an argument from me. It would be a very positive development.

And we believe strongly that the more we can move toward trade, the more you will have a sustainable base for economic growth. We do not think that much of the ongoing dispute over this, however, is Pakistan only. We have cotton problems with many countries, as I’m sure you’re aware.

So I can only reinforce your argument; it’s very sensible. And we want to see Pakistan grow so we’re making the case, trade not aid, and we’re trying to get the Congress to understand the importance of that.

MR. PIRZADA: Let’s take a question here.

QUESTION: My name is Shaddou (ph). I’m an entrepreneur. I was a part of Goldman Sachs 10,000 Women this year. My question is, since I’m not a politician or any analyst, from a common person perception in Pakistan, what is U.S. exit policy from Afghanistan? Because we feel that since 9/11 military operations, we don’t see any kind of improvement in terms of peace in Pakistan. And we, being in Pakistan, in fact, suffering a lot more than Afghanistan because you have a military operation there but we don’t have here. So what could be the possibility of dialogue rather than the option of military?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think that’s exactly what we are pursuing, and that’s why it’s so important that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the United States all work together. And I was personally very encouraged to see the statement that came out of the All Parties Conference a few weeks ago. And the second item was give peace a chance.

MR. PIRZADA: Give peace a chance.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And that was a very important statement, because there needs to be an unequivocal signal sent by all of us that the fighters, the terrorists, the insurgents, now must give peace a chance. So your government, all of your political parties, have made that statement. The prime minister repeated it. Foreign Minister Khar repeated it today. And I hope that it is heard by many elements of these terrorist groups on both sides of the border, because that’s what we want.

We want the people who are willing to become peaceful, reconciled members of society on both sides of the border to hear that message. So we’re going to do the best we can. You can’t make somebody put down their gun unless you do so in a fight if they’re not willing to. But we want to give everyone a chance to give peace a chance in their own lives and in the border areas and the two countries.

MR. PIRZADA: The gentleman in the second row from the left. Also, if I could take the mike back first please. Go ahead please.

QUESTION: I am Azhar Saleem from Human Development Foundation. I think you’ve talked about various ways in which U.S. can help Pakistan. You’ve talked about entrepreneurship, talked about the ways through which U.S. can help us in trade. But I think the base of everything is education. And there is a lot that is needed in education, and not just at the level of primary education. I think we need to do something much bigger than that.

You talk of the Millennium Development Goals. They only talk of the primary level of education. I think we need much more, and that is education at all levels. I think we need to sit down and think of ways of how U.S. can help us in education. Because if education is made better in Pakistan, I think rest – everything will fall in place.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I agree with you completely, sir. I think that education is the base on which every modern economy and society must be based now, because there is just too much happening in the world and people will be left out. And you look at Pakistan; you have some of the most educated people in the world. I mean, it’s astonishing the quality, the extraordinary success of the elite education in Pakistan. But then you have a huge number of people, and particularly women, who are not educated. And we know that educating a woman is the best way of building a society, because that education is passed on. There’s so much evidence. A child will not read above the level of what his mother reads at unless there’s an extraordinary effort made to guide that child into education.

So if I had a magic wand, I would say education in Pakistan is absolutely necessary. Now, going back for a minute to our struggles with the terrorist groups, one of the things we see in Afghanistan – and President Karzai told me a story, a very poignant story, when I was in Kabul yesterday, that when he was recently in Kandahar and he met a little girl of about eight or nine, he said to her, “Well, are you in school?” And she said, “No, we cannot go to school,” because her family was intimidated by the Taliban and prevented from going to school. And the United States has helped to build dozens of schools, and the international community altogether has had to build hundreds of schools in Afghanistan, and many of them have been closed and many of them have been burned down because there are people who do not want to educate women here in our world today.

So let’s do what we can to make it socially unacceptable to deny boys or girls an education. And then let’s talk about how we can help support a system that begins to really deliver education, because that’s unfortunately missing in many parts of this region. And I would just end by saying that it is quite troubling that many young boys do not have access to good public schooling. They go to madrasas, which is fine, but very often they do not learn what they need to learn to go on to higher education, to go into a skilled trade, to be able to function effectively in a modern society.

So you’ve put your finger on one of the biggest problems, and certainly our Embassy will talk with you about what we can do. But much of it has to come internally. There has to be a demand by educated Pakistanis for all Pakistanis to be educated, and a particular movement to educate girls.

MR. PIRZADA: There’s a question here.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Foundation. In recent past I have been to U.S. to attend one of the IV programs sponsored by the U.S. State Department on equal rights. Here I have a question you already mentioned in your speech – that the response in flood 2010 was very clear from the U.S. and we’re thankful for that. But the response in recent flood from the U.S., that is slightly slow. So what are the reasons behind why the response is not comparatively slower than in recent? Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, you know —

QUESTION: Many people ask this question.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. Well, I have to say that right now in our Congress we are totally tied up in our budget negotiations. There’s not much money going anywhere for anything. And I don’t say that with any satisfaction. It’s quite distressing to me.

Because at the time of the first disastrous flood, as I said, we contributed far more than anyone else. And we not only contributed for emergency relief but also for family income support, and we were very proud to do that. And now we are – we don’t have that flexibility in our budget any longer. And so we will do what we can, but I don’t want to sit here and tell you that we can do much more at this time.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, there’s a question from the last row on the left.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam, for being here. Your presence here is an endorsement that you believe in this strategic and synergistic relationship. My name is Ayla Majid. I am an elected director on the board of Islamabad Stock Exchange and I’m also working with different entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial development efforts.

We do understand that we do have challenges, we do have difficulties. I don’t need to reiterate that because we are very much on the same page. I can assure you on behalf of this very generation that we are practical people and we are very much wanting to work on this relationship. We have our odds, but we will have a working relationship when we both are looking forward in the same direction. So let’s continue to do that.

You mentioned about opening up of our borders for trade. So I would very much like your endorsement on this one to work with our policy makers. Because on behalf of private sector we are very open to these initiatives, and I would encourage the U.S. Government that whereas the G-to-G relation is important, it should be more G-to-B and B-to-B as well, and also work more with different entrepreneurs and young people of Pakistan. And we are very much hopeful to have the next entrepreneurial summit very much in Pakistan. Thank you.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you very much.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. (Applause.)

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, from my view – (applause) – the strategic dialogue which you initiated yourself which was taking shape the last time we met in October, then because of the tensions in U.S.-Pakistan relationship after January, the strategic relationship was kind of suspended. Are we expecting its full-fledged resumption anytime soon now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. In fact, we agreed to a work plan between Minister Khar and myself this morning at our bilateral meeting, and we will be doing a complete analysis of where we made progress, what more needs to be done, and we’ve asked our teams to put that on a very fast track, because I will be in Istanbul for the regional meeting about Afghanistan. I know that Minister Khar, President Zardari will be there as well. So we hope to be able to get a report so we can start moving forward again.

QUESTION: What are you expecting, since you mentioned the conference? What outcomes are you expecting from Istanbul conference?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s still a work in progress. There’s a lot of discussions and drafting of documents going on. I think that a commitment to the security of Afghanistan that is agreed to by all of the neighbors, because clearly, Afghanistan has long been used as a crossroads for competition and conflict – we want it to become a crossroads for economic development.

We want – for example, one of our projects, which we hope to get international support behind in the New Silk Road vision, is a pipeline that would carry natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan, through Pakistan into India. Imagine what that would do for electricity and for other power needs in the region. We want to look to see how we break down all of the barriers at the borders, and the young woman who was speaking about more trade all the time with everybody – there – if you look at the location of Pakistan between Iran and India, more goods in western Iran and eastern India should be going through Pakistan’s ports.

I mean, you think about just the geographic advantage that Pakistan has – and I’ve never been in Pakistan that a Pakistani businessperson has not said to me, “Talk to our government about opening up trade with India.” And I always say, “Talk to your own government about opening up trade with India,” because clearly – (applause) – what we now see happening with the good contacts between the two governments now – between the commerce secretaries, between the foreign ministries, even looking at most favored nation status – will be hugely beneficial to Pakistan. So I’m hoping that we’re at the brink of seeing a lot of positive developments in that area.

MR. PIRZADA: I assume that your staff is getting desperate for time so let’s take one or two quick questions. I know that you have pressure on your time.


QUESTION: My name is Mohammed Esfarosen (ph). I’m the general secretary of Pakistan-U.S. (inaudible) Association, (inaudible) chapter. And the trust deficit is the real challenge for the – both governments. And for me, 9/11 incident, the tragic incident of 9/11, lasted in U.S. for one day only. But since last 10 years, we the Pakistanis are paying the price of this incident despite your best efforts, despite your huge investments in the development sector. This trust deficit is rising day by day. A common Pakistani is not ready to digest the efforts done by the Americans. This crisis of trust is the real challenge for the – both the governments. What is your input on this?

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you. Would you suggest we take another question from here to wind it up?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Sure, and then I’ll —

MR. PIRZADA: Yeah, let’s take another question quick. What’s the last – yeah, please go ahead.

QUESTION: My name is Shamama (ph). I’m representing the women chamber of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. My question really more focused about my own province, of course. We all know that all of Pakistan is facing the brunt of whatever is happening and trying to cooperate with the U.S. And somehow, U.S. is like – is a mother-in-law which is just not satisfied with us and comes up with new ideas. (Laughter and applause.) So we are trying to please you, and every time you come and visit us, you have a new idea, so you tell us, “You’re not doing enough and you need to work harder,” and all. (Laughter.)

But I guess while Pakistan – the economy has taken a nosedive, but especially (inaudible) has suffered a lot. Our businesses have suffered a lot. So do you have – I would not call ROZ a failure right now, but yet it has not done what it was required to do. So do you have any backup plan or any other economic plan as a compensation to this part of the country?


SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, now that I am a mother-in-law – (laughter) – I totally understand what you’re saying, and will hope to do better privately and publicly. I think that’s a great analogy I’ve never heard before.

I think the two questions are very much related, and yes, we agree that there has been and is a trust deficit. We talk about it with our counterparts. It is something we are trying to overcome. We think it goes both directions. We don’t think it’s just one or the other. We think that both of us have to work harder to understand more clearly the needs and the interests and the concerns of the other side, and I take that very seriously.

And it goes to this question about the price that Pakistan has paid, which I know is a very high one, not only in lost lives, but in lost economic productivity. One of the programs we’re still hoping for is the reconstruction opportunity zones, the so-called ROZs, which would target areas that have been particularly hard hit and try to provide more market access and entice investors – Pakistani, American, others – to come into those zones because of the preferential treatment they would get into the American market. And we’re still hoping to get Congress to agree to that.

So we do have some Plan Bs, but our Plan A is to overcome the trust deficit, but to be honest about it – not to pretend; to have a very clear-eyed view of where we agree and disagree; and then to have a work plan and to try to make progress together toward shared objectives. And I think that requires a lot of dialogue and a lot of work between us, which we have to be committed to. And there is frustration on both sides, which I recognize, but I personally believe this relationship is critical, important to us both, and therefore we cannot give it up.

And once a mother-in-law, always a mother-in-law, but perhaps mother-in-laws can learn new ways also. And I don’t know what the proper other side of the analogy is, but I think there has to be that kind of give and take. And we need your ideas and we want to listen to you and we respectfully request you listen to us. And therefore, we are going to stay the course and do everything we can to try to overcome the difficulties that we have faced together, because we both have too much at stake. We cannot walk away. We have to stay committed.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, with your kind permission, this last question, Wahaj, the CEO for the Nayatel. This stop – we also – on time, I must – I’m being warned.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I am Wahaj us Siraj. I am founder of a company, fiber-to-home company which is – which has provided direct employment to about 500 very talented Pakistani people.

My question is that this talk on war on terror and the Taliban and Haqqani group is great, but the number-one problem of 180 million Pakistani today is the corruption and the mismanagement of the government which is leading to the hyperinflation, loss of electricity and the gas, and the basic facilities to the common people. And the people believe that this does not require from the U.S. side to invest in $1 million in asking the government to make itself correct, efficient, and corruption-free. What the United States is doing towards that? (Applause.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: On these issues that you mentioned, particularly energy, which is the number-one concern – every time I see a poll of Pakistanis from all over the country, that is the number-one concern. And education and health and all the rest are right up there.

We have been consulting with and advising the government for the last two and a half years, and we are also investing in trying to put on line a thousand more megawatts of power, through American investment and American expertise. But we recognize, like you do, that ultimately, in any country, it’s the people themselves through their elected representatives who have to make the hard decisions. And there are hard decisions that have to be made in Pakistan.

I said earlier at my press conference that in a country of 180 million people, 2 million people pay income tax. That is just unbelievable because you can’t possibly deal with your electricity problems, deal with your education problems, or any other problem if you don’t have everybody in the society contributing the resources needed to fix the electric grid, to do all the things that are necessary. So you will certainly find a receptive audience in us because we want to see a lot of reforms on both the political and the economic side in Pakistan because we think it’s good for the Pakistani people.

But we don’t have a vote in Pakistan and we certainly don’t have a seat in the parliament, just like you don’t have a vote or a seat in our Congress. And so we have a lot of political problems in our own system right now, so I would not begin to advise you about your politics. We have to deal with our own politics. But the fact is that continuing a reform effort will be very important for your future.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, I’m so glad that you could take out time and sit with us to share for almost an hour. The time is almost over. We can’t. You heard these people, the whole of Pakistan. The time is almost over. We can’t —

QUESTION: (Inaudible), I know the time is almost end, but I’m from Balochistan and I think my question is very important. I’m (inaudible), working with USAID-assisted agricultural development project in (inaudible) area. So due to time constraints, my question is that we have a lot of projects which is assisted by USAID, but you know we have short-term project. Do you think – can U.S. Government help us for long-term projects, like 10 to 15 years, to bring a positive change in Balochistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as you might remember, the Administration supported, and the Congress passed, the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Act nearly two years ago now. And it was to have a long-term commitment to Pakistan, and that is what we want to have. We are reviewing our aid programs now – that’s part of our work plan with your government – to try to figure out how we can invest in longer-term projects. So I would invite you to be sure to make your views known to USAID, to our Embassy, so that we can have the benefit of your suggestions.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, I’m so glad that you could outline, and you heard all these people, and thanks for the expanded media in Pakistan. All television channels showed it live across the country, so countless millions have seen and heard your message.

My one question to you last on behalf of all of these is: Would you be able to carry this voice in U.S. Congress?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I intend to try. I am one voice of many voices, but my voice will certainly be heard. And what I have tried to do – and I appreciate what you said, Moeed, at the very beginning – I have tried to be a good friend and an honest friend. So you may not always – (applause) – you may not always agree with what I say. But it is in the spirit of trying to make sure that we stay on a path together, which I think is very much in both of our interests.

So I will be appearing before the Congress, I think, next week. I’m sure they will have a lot to say to me, and I will do my —

MR. PIRZADA: “(Inaudible) talking?” (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh, I’m sure, but I will do my best to make the case very clearly as to why we must continue to work together in both of our mutual interests. And I am one voice of many, but it is certainly my intention to be as strong a voice as possible.

MR. PIRZADA: Secretary, thank you so much.


MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much. (Applause.)

How many townterviews did you DO, Mme. Secretary? *Awestruck*

Read Full Post »


Television Roundtable with Pakistani Journalists


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Pakistani National Council of the Arts
Islamabad, Pakistan
July 19, 2010

MR. PIRZADA: As-Salam Alaikum to all of you. Nine months after her first interaction with Pakistani media and civil society, United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton is back here. But I am afraid she’s coming back to a slightly different, somewhat boring Pakistan. Today, hardly anyone is talking of Blackwaters or the Americans running away with Pakistani nukes. There appears to be increasing degree of trust and stability in U.S.-Pakistan relationship. And I suspect it has something to do with the sustained, high-level interaction and engagement of Secretary Clinton’s team and Obama Administration has done with Pakistan’s political leadership, with Pakistan’s media, and Pakistan’s civil society.

But we have many more issues. Today, we are still concerned about the nature of the Strategic Dialogue, about this unending conflict and war in Afghanistan. We are concerned about market access and trade issues. And we are worried about water and its relationship with India. And we’re worried about an eroding nuclear parity in South Asia. But I am sure, true to her spirit, Secretary Clinton will take these issues head on.

On behalf of you, on behalf of the people of Pakistan, I extend a very warm welcome to Secretary Clinton. Secretary Clinton, welcome back.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you. Well, it is wonderful to be back, and thank you once again for providing this opportunity, for members of the press to ask questions and give me the chance to respond, and I appreciate your words of welcome, and also your brief assessment of where we are in the Strategic Dialogue. Boring is good. (Laughter.) Doing the hard work of finding ways to deepen and broaden our relationship, to set some goals and then slowly, but steadily work to achieve them was really my hope when we began the Strategic Dialogue. And I really relish this chance to report on the progress we’ve made so far.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary. Now, with your permission, let me introduce you to the panelists. This is a new panel, a younger panel. Some of these people you have met before.

Let me introduce – to your right is Anwar ul-Hasan. Anwar ul-Hasan, he’s the lead anchor for the Straight Broadcast of PTV. He has his program, which has the reputation of the longest running current affairs program on PTV. He’s also PTV’s diplomatic correspondent.

Next to Anwar is Sanna Bucha. Sanna is executive producer and anchor person for Geo Television. She is a woman of crisis. She loves crisis management. (Laughter.) Her program is called Crisis Cell. And she has also been writing and working with the English magazine, Newsline.

Next to Sana is Mazhar Abbass. Mazhar brings more than 30 years of experience with print and electronic media in Pakistan. He has been secretary general of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists. He is currently deputy director news with ARY television network and presents his own program called Do Tok.

To my left is Mehar Bokhari. Mehar is an emerging new talent in this country. She is the lead anchor person for Samaa Television and she’s also senior producer for Samaa Television.

Next to Mehar is Nadeem Malik. Nadeem is director of programs with AAJ Television. He also presents his own program, Islamabad Tonight. And let me also tell you that Nadeem has been an anchor person with CNBC Pakistan, which is Pakistan’s first business television channel. And in Nadeem’s program, there’s always an economic policy angle because of his background.

And next to Nadeem is Munizae Jehangir. She is a producer and anchor person for Pakistan’s only English television channel, Express 24/7, and you would remember her from Washington when we both had the opportunity of meeting and interviewing you at the first round – in the previous round with the Strategic Dialogue.

So let me also tell you that this program – we’re very grateful to the Straight Broadcast of PTV for helping us to organize all this. But it’s a contribution from all seven major networks in Pakistan.

But I have a very simple question for you. We met in Washington when you kick-started the previous round of the Strategic Dialogue and 13 working groups were created. We keep on hearing about the Strategic Dialogue, the buzz word. What exactly have we achieved in the last many months?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think we’ve achieved three things. The first is to create a mechanism for a broader commitment to the partnership that the Obama Administration seeks with Pakistan. And there were many ways of thinking about doing that. But we decided that rather than just have a series of meetings where officials talked with one another, we would go deeper and we would set up a Strategic Dialogue, which now has 13 working task forces, which is on a very, very fast track. You probably are getting sick of American officials coming for the meetings with their counterparts, but it is a demonstration of the seriousness with which we are pursuing the Strategic Dialogue.

Secondly, there have already been some positive results. This morning, I announced some major energy, electricity projects, major water projects, which I have to add is in the Strategic Dialogue because of what I heard here last October. Water was a constant –

QUESTION: Big issue.

SECRETARY CLINTON: – subject that was raised with me. And before I came, I didn’t realize the seriousness. Now, of course, I do and we have announced a number of water projects which will be of significance in the future, and in health and education, agriculture, and so much else. We’re actually putting some meat on the bones of the Strategic Dialogue.

But thirdly, there’s another element to it. From the very beginning, I have said we don’t want this just to be a dialogue between government officials; we want this to be a people-to-people dialogue, which is why I have had these media opportunities, which you all have graciously set up. I’ve reached out in town halls. I’ve met with business leaders, academics, and others, because the best way to anchor a relationship that is based on mutual understanding, mutual respect, and mutual trust is to develop many connections, because we both have democratically elected governments. We won’t have the same elected leaders in the future. Hopefully, in our case, not till after 2012, but you have to recognize that we want to set up a framework that stands the test of time so that presidents may come and go, other leaders, but we want this relationship to continue to flourish.

MR. PIRZADA: Okay, who wants to ask the first –

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, regarding your – one of your second points regarding water, now I understand that the Obama Administration wanted the Kashmir dispute to be resolved as soon as possible so that Pakistan would focus on the western front. But the fact of the matter is, unfortunately, the Indians have neither taken your encouragement or persuasion regarding Kashmir. Kashmir, it still stands unresolved, but another potentially catastrophic dispute which is now coming up is water. Sixty-two years we’ve debated with Kashmir, but with water we can’t – I don’t think we can wait for more than even five years. I want to know that what would be the role that the United States of America would play if there would be – which it seems like – an imminent regional confrontation?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, let me say that we recognize the importance of the water issue. And the way that Pakistan and India agreed back in the 1960s to allocate water out of the Indus River was the attempt at that time to try to regularize access to water. It is a program that has a built-in dispute resolution mediation mechanism, which we still think has a lot of promise.

However, we have now done an in-depth study. And what we have learned is that while you have a right to be concerned about future impediments to access to the water that the treaty provides, there’s a more immediate necessity for Pakistan to do a better job of managing its own water. The waste of water is extraordinary. Ninety-two to ninety four percent of your water – clean water – goes into agriculture. It is not used efficiently.

One of our projects, which we announced today, is to work with farmers to make more efficient use of the water. You have a system – the most extensive system of canals for irrigation and transportation of water anywhere in the world, but they’ve been neglected. They have fallen into disuse. And that’s not something that you can let stand. You have to address that. So we are helping you address that.

QUESTION: I’m so sorry, but what I just mean is that, you mean that – you’re talking about the Indus Water Commission. That’s already been violated, whether we talk of Baglihar Dam, whether we talk about the potential diversion of the Kabul River, which is, again, 25 percent of our river as well. Are you willing to play a regional role regarding this hostile confrontation which we’re all worried about?

MR. PIRZADA: I think what she actually means, will you be able to mediate on the issue of water between India and Pakistan? I think confrontation is not the right thing, but the cities —

QUESTION: If it adds up to that, which is what we fear.


MR. PIRZADA: The conflict. The tension.

SECRETARY CLINTON: – but first I want to – from our perspective, we want to clarify what the problem is, because it’s not that there may not be some serious issues that need to be mediated.

But Pakistan has to get control of the water you currently have. Because if you go to a commission or if you go to some other mediation body and you say, “Water is being diverted.” The first response will be, “You’re not efficiently using the water you have, so how can you say whether it’s being diverted.”

So what we have concluded in working with your water experts – and I have a list of the kinds of projects we’re doing – is that the most important thing is to rehabilitate the existing water system to construct more water storage. We’re doing that in Jacobabad and Peshawar municipal water to work to improve the capacity of local authorities, because we held, in this Strategic Dialogue, the first meeting ever in Pakistan of national and provincial and local water authorities. Because they’re not talking to each other and they’re not providing the kind of roadmap that is needed. So we’re doing dam irrigation projects and high efficiency irrigation projects.

So, my point is not that there will not be disputes; there very well may be, because the 21st century, I fear, will have many disputes over water across the world.

MR. PIRZADA: Unfortunately.

QUESTION: Absolutely.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And it’s something that we are trying to avoid. But in order to go into any mediation, we’ve got to work together to fix the existing system inside Pakistan so that whoever the mediators are, they don’t say, “Well, come back when you’ve gotten your own usage more efficient and you’ve fixed your canals and you’ve fixed your irrigation, et cetera.”

QUESTION: So the Council of Common Interest has identified the Bhasha Dam or the building of Bhasha Dam as crucial to their water program. If asked, would you fund it?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we are funding – the ones that we have listed today are the ones that were at the top of the priority list that we were provided. And what we’re trying to do is not substitute our judgment for anybody else’s judgment in Pakistan. What we want to do is respond to the needs that have been identified. So we’re going to be looking at all of the needs and trying to figure out how to prioritize the funding among them.

QUESTION: And that includes Bhasha Dam as well?

SECRETARY CLINTON: It includes the ones that –

QUESTION: But today, the announcement you have made is about Gomal Zal Dam, Satpara Dam, so —

MR. PIRZADA: But not the Bhasha Dam.

QUESTION: But not the Bhasha Dam.

SECRETARY CLINTON: No, that’s not on the list.

QUESTION: Okay, that’s –


QUESTION: In the future, it can be in the list?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We are going to continue to assess all of the needs, but there’s a lot that goes into this. I mean, part of it is getting agreement between the federal government, provincial, and the local government. Part of it is doing a needs assessment to determine what the most efficient use of resources is, because what you’re trying to do is solve the immediate problems more quickly –

QUESTION: Actually, ma’am, so —


QUESTION: Because I have that list of which you have made announcements, the generation of electricity is about 17.36 megawatts from Satpara Dam and similarly, 17.4 megawatts from Gomal Zal Dam. We have energy deficient country, rather stressed, and you know there’s a big gap between demand and supply —


QUESTION: Prolonged load shedding.


QUESTION: So Bhasha then will serve the purpose. Plus, can you tell us – can you tell the Pakistani audience that – do you have any plans of giving us civilian nuclear technology on the factor and scale which you have given to India? And talking about Indo-U.S. nuclear accord, Pakistan can expect from U.S. that it will also be provided with the same technology so that we can fulfill our energy demands?

And as you have mentioned, and I have a quote that you said on the eve of interministerial conference in Washington that the success will not be determined by how (inaudible) gather in summits, but by the actions and trust, stating that relationship into some sort of benefit for the people who are living in cities and villages from the people’s perspective.


QUESTION: People want to know that –


QUESTION: – we would be able to get that civilian nuclear technology.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me start at the beginning of your question and then I will get to that.

One of the things we’re doing is a study about smart grid and distribution of electricity, because one of the problems is if you just go around creating power plants and you don’t have a distribution transmission system that can actually deliver the power, you may have done a little bit, but you haven’t done enough to deal with the energy needs of Pakistan. So we’re looking at how we help the Pakistani Government create an energy system, and that requires not just looking at every form of energy, which we are, but also how it is put together and delivered.

Now, in our dialogue with the Pakistani Government, we have clearly said we will work with them on civil nuclear energy. It took years to do it with India. But we are committed to pursuing it and trying to overcome the obstacles that might stand in the way, because we think it is important to get as much of a varied source of energy all connected to the grid and all being able to prevent the lobe shedding that now is such a difficult problem for people –

MR. PIRZADA: Especially, in this season. It’s –

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, it is, and I was told today that the average urban resident in Pakistan loses at least six hours a day, but the average rural resident loses from eight to twelve hours a day. So it’s not only a very unfortunate problem for individuals, but for business, for industry as well.

MR. PIRZADA: Just – Munizae, you wanted to ask a question. Very quickly.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary of State, thank you so much for coming here, a very warm welcome and thank you for this opportunity. Now, underlying all of these problems is, of course, security. And one of my questions to you is, because you are going to be leaving for Afghanistan tonight, how can you bring sustainable peace in Afghanistan without playing a proactive role in resolving differences between India and Pakistan, especially with the latest logjam? Are you going to do anything to perhaps play a proactive role in removing that logjam that has happened?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, two aspects to your question: One, we stand ready to encourage, as we have done, the dialogue between India and Pakistan. We think it is absolutely in both countries’ interests. I happen to think, on balance, it’s even more in Pakistan’s interests, because opening markets – every businessman I speak with in Pakistan kind of whispers to me, “Please, can’t we get the markets open, because I want to go compete inside India.”

So there are many ramifications to the longstanding disputes over Kashmir and other issues between India and Pakistan. So even though the officials of both governments have been meeting, we want to encourage much more dialogue. With respect to Afghanistan, there was an important event last night here in Islamabad, the signing of the Afghanistan-Pakistan Trade Transit Accord. This is an agreement that was begun in the 1960s. But because of mistrust and historical problems between Afghanistan and Pakistan, it never was resolved. Finally, both governments decided to sign it, and I was privileged to witness that along with Prime Minister Gillani.

Why is that important? Well, because part of the way you fight the insurgency and the extremists is through economic opportunity. And the more economic opportunity that we can generate inside Pakistan and Afghanistan, the more people will turn away from being persuaded to engage in extremist activities and instead look for a different path.

This agreement will permit goods from Pakistan to go right through Afghanistan into Central Asia. And right now, it’s very difficult. If you unload a freighter with cargo in Karachi, it’s very difficult to get it out of Pakistan. You know that. This will give merchants and businesses in Pakistan a straight shot into a whole new market. At the same time, it will give Afghanistan, which is trying to develop a business base, the chance to come and trade with you.

So there are – these are steps, all of which are important to take. They’re not going to change everything overnight, but there needs to be more trust built up between Afghanistan and Pakistan while we try to work on the longstanding issues between India and Pakistan.

QUESTION: Right. Secretary (inaudible) —

MR. PIRZADA: I have to take a break. Just quickly – can you make it a quick comment? I have to take a break.

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, I just would like to follow that up. Like, you said that economic opportunities, but till the security situation is not addressed, economic opportunities cannot come our way. Now, regarding Kashmir, right now, Kashmir is burning and the stone pelters are being killed, not the militants on the streets. And now there are pictures of these young teenagers who want to take on and want to join JaisheMohammed. And we all know Jaish-e-Mohammed has fought against NATO troops in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. So then how will you eradicate militancy from this part of the region without addressing the core issues?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, that’s one of the most important challenges that we face together. It would be preferable – it would be, in my view, necessary – to create more of an understanding and resolve these longstanding disputes. And we should work as hard as we can to encourage the leadership of Pakistan and India to persevere despite the attacks in both countries. I really give the leadership in both countries high marks because it is not popular. They are attacked in the press, they’re attacked by organizations.

But it would be so much in the interests of long-term security and economic opportunity to try to resolve these disputes. In the meantime, however, we can’t wait for that to happen, because you’re right; the extremists continue to recruit. And that’s something that threatens everyone, particularly people in Pakistan. So we have to operate on many different levels at once.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you, Secretary. Let me take a break. I know, Nadeem, that you really want to ask a question, but I’ll ask you the first question after the break.

We’re here with the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Just let us take a break and stay with us.


MR. PIRZADA: Welcome back. We are joined here by United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton. I’ll go to you straight away.

QUESTION: Okay. My question relates to war on terror and security situation. Even today, there’s a statement, according to you, that if attacked – if an attack in United State is traced back to Pakistan, there is – there are going to be devastating consequences. And this is not the first time we have seen such a statement from a high-ranking U.S. official. We would like to know what are those consequences.

Secondly, you are going to be in Kabul tomorrow, and the reintegration and reconciliation of Afghan Taliban are going to be discussed and perhaps officially launched in Afghanistan. Why it is different in Pakistan? Why insistence on military-only solution to eradicate the militancy and all this terrorism while we are suffering a lot? We have almost lost 6,000 lives and perhaps other have been – areas are more vulnerable today than nine years ago.

QUESTION: That’s the reason. Can I add —

QUESTION: Let me – let her answer two questions.

QUESTION: They have also said that additional steps should be taken by Pakistan. Can you elaborate what additional steps?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, these are really important questions so let me just try to unpack them and answer them.

First, we commend the sacrifices that Pakistan is making and has made against the extremist threat internally. It’s been tragic to watch the loss of life among civilians and your military in this effort to try to rein in and defeat the elements of extremism that are attacking your society. So we are fully in support of what you’re trying to do.

There was an attempt, as you recall, for the government to try to accommodate the extremists in Swat. There was an agreement, as I remember the details, where the government basically said to the extremists, look, let’s just have an agreement to accommodate. As long as you behave and you’re – you can have more control over the people, you can do more things in Swat. And the agreement – the ink was not even dry before there began to be efforts by those same extremists to basically take more territory and move toward Islamabad.

So not every extremist group can be reconciled or reintegrated. That’s just a fact. And whether or not it can happen in Afghanistan or Pakistan is a very difficult set of decisions. It doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, but you have to try it with eyes wide open based on your own experience here in Pakistan. So we continue to support the security efforts by the Pakistani Government and we will do what we are asked to do to try to equip the Pakistani military to be able to take on and defeat this threat.

Now, what I mean is that if an attack is traced back to Pakistan, people in America will be devastated – devastated. Because you’ve got to understand that we believe that we’re facing a common enemy, that we have a common threat, and certainly, under the Obama Administration and the Kerry-Lugar-Berman commitment, we see ourselves in solidarity against this common enemy.

So it would be devastating and I cannot predict what the consequences would be because there would be many people in the United States who would say, “Why did this happen? Why are we investing so much in our partnership?”

QUESTION: But Secretary —

SECRETARY CLINTON: And we would then in the government have to do what we did after the foiled attack in Times Square.

QUESTION: What additional steps? You mentioned —

QUESTION: (Inaudible) fighting the war on terror —


QUESTION: Two promises and (inaudible) –

(All at once.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: But we’re not saying go do it alone; we’re saying we’re doing it with you. We’re doing more and you’re doing more. So there are, I’m sure, additional steps that each of us can and should take. The problem is that we don’t have any clear idea about how best to get at the people we consider to be our primary enemies. Al-Qaida, Usama bin Ladin, those are the people who attacked us and those are the people who are at the top of our list.

Now, they are somewhere, we believe, based on our best information. Where, we don’t know. We would like to work more closely together to go after them and to either capture or kill them, because we believe that at the center of this syndicate of terror that is terrorizing people in Pakistan, al-Qaida exists.

QUESTION: Secretary, I just want to ask you a question.

QUESTION: Let me —

QUESTION: Just to –

(All at once.)

QUESTION: Let me have one follow-up. Yesterday, there were suicide attacks in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Iran, in Algeria. If the military-only solution was working very nicely, then there should be some control inside of (inaudible) suicide attacks. I have a feeling that there is a need of proper review of this war on terror, both for Afghanistan as well as for Pakistan. Would you like to respond?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we don’t believe there is a military-only solution.

QUESTION: Well, you are following military-only solution in Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, no, that’s not true. I mean, we – when we took over, when President Obama came into office, it is fair to say that most of the emphasis for the preceding eight years had been on security and military action. And what we concluded is that we wanted to build a more durable, lasting partnership and we wanted to help Pakistan meet some of the needs that could perhaps eliminate the base for terrorism in certain places.

Yesterday, the prime minister said to us in our meeting he wants help with schools in Southern Punjab because the madrassas recruit young kids, bring them in, and heaven knows what happens to many of them. Well, we want to help because we do think that it’s not a direct line from military action to the end of terrorism; we think there are many paths in, and one of them is education and what we’re trying to do –

(All at once.)

QUESTION: Secretary, my question is related to this because a few weeks ago, a few weeks ago, we heard that Pakistani administration is trying along with the Karzai administration to open up channels of negotiation with the Haqqani Network. Today, we read that your Administration has decided to declare the Haqqani Network as an internationally – international terrorist organization or something like that.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, those are not mutually exclusive. I mean, first of all, we know that the Haqqani Network is behind many of the attacks in Afghanistan. This is not one of the groups that is sitting on the sidelines. They’re deeply involved in what’s going on in Afghanistan and they take credit for some devastating attacks within Afghanistan. So clearly, they’re a terrorist organization and they are killing Afghans, Americans, and others who are part of the international coalition.

Now, you do not make peace with your friends. That’s just a fact. You make peace during a conflict with those who are on the other side who have been your enemy. And the fact that there may be discussions with this group or any other group is something that we are willing to support so long as there are certain guidelines. Because we watched carefully what your government tried to do in Swat and we were not against that. If you could have made a deal that actually held, that would have been an internal matter. But it didn’t hold because a lot of these terrorists have absolutely no interest in reconciling.

So what we have said is engage in conversations, but remember, if you’re going to try to have a political resolution, people have to agree to abide by the constitution and laws of the country, whether it’s Pakistan or Afghanistan, they have to renounce violence, and we also want them to renounce al-Qaida —

QUESTION: Secretary of —

SECRETARY CLINTON: — and we want you to see whether or not it’s a sincere effort, not just a stalling effort.

QUESTION: Secretary of State, where do you see Pakistan after July 9/11 – after July 2011 and beyond that, when U.S. forces will start pulling out from Afghanistan?

Secondly, you have been talking about U.S. perception in Pakistan. There are reasons for that and one of the reasons is that if we can hand over 200, 300 people who are involved in terrorist activities or alleged to be involved, the United States – and on the other hand, if we demand one Pakistani prisoner in United States, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, U.S. always come to the excuses of justice.

Now, those people who were handed over to U.S. were also charged in Pakistan, but they were handed over to U.S. on your demand. Why can’t you consider one request from Pakistan to hand over Dr. Aafia Siddiqui to Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, you asked what will happen to Pakistan after July 2011. What we hope is that the relationship that we are developing will lead to even closer cooperation on many fronts. What July 2011 is meant to be is a signal to the Afghan Government that they have to address with urgency the need to defend their own country. And I was very pleased that President Karzai agreed to create local defense units, because the Afghan army is making progress but it’s not yet at a stage where it can defend the whole country.

So what we see is, starting in July 2011, a movement toward ownership and leadership in certain parts of the country by the Afghan army, but not the beginning of any wholesale withdrawal. That was never the intent. But what we have done in developing what I believe to be more open and confidence-building relationships on both the civilian and the military side is that all of this is being discussed with your leadership so that they’re aware of what we’re doing and why, and we’re aware of what you’re doing and why. So that’s a long way from where we were a couple of years ago.

And specifically on the case that you mentioned, that trial was just held. The process continues. I can’t predict what might happen in the future, but for the time being, it is a matter for our justice system because of the underlying facts of the case.

QUESTION: Okay. Staying on justice, in light of the recent outcome of David Headley’s statement, will the United States of America book him for murder of six Americans who died in 26/11?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don’t know everything he’s being booked for. I don’t know that. But he has been connected with many different events, including Mumbai, but others as well. And the interrogation that has brought much of this to light is continuing. He was fully cooperative and he was willing to explain in great detail a lot of what he had done over the years. So I don’t know the specifics, but I know that it has been quite a revealing set of facts that we’ve shared with the Pakistani authorities.

(All at once.)

QUESTION: Okay. Let Munizae ask a question, then you. Then (inaudible). Go ahead, Minuzae.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, (inaudible) Pakistan – will you give Pakistan access to David Headley if asked?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s up to the Justice Department. I don’t know the answer to that.

MR. PIRZADA: You ask (inaudible).

QUESTION: Secretary, going back to the Haqqani Network, now in a post-U.S Afghanistan, has Pakistan offered the United States a role for the Haqqani Network who are based in North Waziristan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: There are discussions about the Haqqani Network that go on all the time because the actions by this particular network are quite brazen and are publicly claimed by the participants. So it’s not as though it’s a stealth operation. They are quite proud of what they do and they trumpet it to anyone who will listen. I think that they are not yet among the groups

that pose a direct threat to Pakistani security, but my view is that all of these groups are developing a closer and closer cooperative network. And I think that any armed group that is convinced it has a right to kill in the name of its own objectives is a threat to the sovereign state of any nation. And so I believe that it poses a threat currently to Afghanistan, but that it has the potential for posing a threat to Pakistan as well.

QUESTION: But, Madam Secretary, adding to that —

QUESTION: If they put down the weapons, if they put down their weapons, would the U.S. negotiate with them or would you allow the Pakistanis or the Afghans to negotiate with them?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Look, we have said – and that’s why I repeat – you don’t make peace with your enemies. We’ve had – we’ve seen lots of conflicts around the world that were very bloody, very protracted, where people decided that they were tired of fighting, they wanted to have a more normal life, and they put down their arms and they entered into negotiations. We would never reject that. We would just caution that you need to enter into it very realistically as to the sincerity and the lasting nature of the commitments that are made. But we would certainly never reject any sincere offer to negotiate —

QUESTION: Madam Secretary —

MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible) is waiting (inaudible). Go ahead.

QUESTION: Maybe, I mean, adding to the same issue, it is also commonly believed that because Pakistan, as you said, it’s not directly – Haqqani Network is not threatening Pakistan maybe, but because Pakistan security establishment does not want to treat this as another enmity, another enemy altogether, so is this not a breach of our own national security needs when you try to push us or try to encourage us to open the front of another war, another battle, another operation with them?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think you have to look at this from a historical perspective. It has been the experience in most countries that armed groups inside a state that should have the monopoly on military power eventually pose a threat to that state. That’s just a historical fact. So even if there are – let’s say there are a hundred different groups that are armed inside Pakistan and maybe 25 of them are the direct threat, and obviously, any military, any government, has to prioritize. You can’t try to spread yourself so thin that you go after all 100 at once. And what the Pakistani military and the government have done is to try to go after those groups like the Taliban – the Pakistani Taliban in particular that have been behind so many of these terrible attacks inside Pakistan.

All we’re saying is that, at some point, it is hard to deny that any group that has got men under arms and believes it has a right to use military means to for their own purposes could, in the future, pose a threat. That’s – we believe that.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, it’s almost a decade now that you have been trying to also – you having operations in Afghanistan as well. The fact of the matter is that is it – now we’re hearing radical options like the Lebanon option in Afghanistan. Is it not time enough for you to realize maybe, or for the United States to realize that whether it’s the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani, or Hekmatyar, the militias of them, these are, in fact, the indigenous representatives of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and (inaudible).

(All at once.)

MR. PIRZADA: Let Nadeem (inaudible), let Nadeem (inaudible), because Nadeem has (inaudible). I think can you add quickly, quickly.

QUESTION: What she has said, just to add quickly – have you ever analyzed why 9/11 occurred?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We certainly have.

QUESTION: And what was the reason?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we may have a difference of opinion. I can tell by the way you ask that question. But look, there are groups that have, in my view, perverted their religious beliefs to justify their pursuit of power and have done so by utilizing traditional methods of terror combined with modern methods of communication and transportation. And speaking particularly about this incident, it was very clear when al-Qaida sponsored the first attack on the World Trade Center that they wanted to make a statement; that they wanted to declare that they were against the West, that they were against the United States, that they were against our values, our freedom, particularly women’s rights; that they had an agenda that was rooted in their view of the world.

They came back and, unfortunately, successfully destroyed the Twin Towers in 2001. They were looking for a name for themselves. They were looking for leadership of a global movement. And they had found safe haven in a place that had been largely rendered government-less and basically with very little check on them. And if you recall, after 9/11 President Bush said very clearly to the then-Taliban government, if you turn over bin Ladin, we will not retaliate. And the Taliban basically said no, we are totally —

(All at once.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible) that there’s a heavy presence of U.S. troops in Afghanistan and with the drone attacks every week or every day or alternate days, why U.S. have been not been able to track down Usama bin Ladin or Mullah Omar? Why expecting too much from the other countries?

And one question from the Afghanistan policy – U.S. policy. Many critics believe that peace in Pakistan is linked with peace and stability in Afghanistan. U.S. seems to be confused in Afghanistan of late. Sorry to use this strong word, but they lack vision and clarity. General Petraeus, the new ISAF commander, he wants to defeat the militants in the battlefield —

MR. PIRZADA: Can you shorten (inaudible) take a break?

QUESTION: And some senior U.S. officials say that there’s still room for talks with those who come from the cold. So can you tell us, is U.S. military still on the same page vis-à-vis Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yes. I mean, those are not mutually contradictory. And perhaps we are not doing a good enough job explaining it, but there is no contradiction between trying to defeat those who are determined to fight and opening the door to those who are willing to reintegrate and reconcile. That is not at all mutually exclusive. And I think that there is no doubt that this is very hard. I’m not claiming otherwise. But it is important to recognize that there is a military element to what we are doing, but we fully recognize that it is not the only element. So yes, do we have troops in Afghanistan? Yes, we do. And frankly, it would be very helpful if we could get access to bin Ladin and Mullah Omar. And I said when I was here in October that I believe that they’re here in Pakistan. And it would be really helpful if we could get them because that’s —

QUESTION: Secretary —

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s an important part of what we’re trying to achieve.

(All at once.)

MR. PIRZADA: Anwar, I have to take a break. I have to take a break. I’m sorry, Secretary (inaudible). We have to take a break, and join us after a commercial break and we will push the discussion forward in a different direction as well after the break.


MR. PIRZADA: Welcome back. We are joined here by United States Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton. This is the last segment of this discussion. We are going to push the discussion forward. Nadeem, you wanted to ask a question.

QUESTION: Just one more.

MR. PIRZADA: Quickly. A quick one.

QUESTION: Regarding Afghan Taliban issue, certain Taliban leaders’ name are being removed from UN sanction list, and this reintegration and reconciliation process is also being launched. Would you like to explain which are those Taliban which are reconcilable?

SECRETARY CLINTON: We don’t know yet. I mean, that’s the question: which, if any, are reconcilable. We know that there are many young men who joined the Taliban because they were seeking employment, because they were pushed into doing it or intimidated into doing it. They’re already leaving the Taliban. We have a lot of evidence of that. They are leaving and being reintegrated back into their villages and into society.

But who can be reconciled really depends upon what conditions they’re willing to meet, and we just don’t know the answer to that yet.

QUESTION: Can we (inaudible) that process in Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: You certainly could try. You’ve tried once. I mean, I go back to what happened with Swat. If you have people who you believe will genuinely lay down their arms and rejoin society, you should certainly attempt to do so.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Everyone is not going to (inaudible). There are going to be certain elements which are going to be reconcilable even in Pakistan.

SECRETARY CLINTON: There are. But you’ve got to find out which ones are and which ones aren’t.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, one question that I would like to ask, there is some talk of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, that the Afghan Government is reaching out to Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Would you endorse that kind of view? Because I know you’re somebody who stands for women’s rights, and that would be very controversial with the women in Afghanistan.

MR. PIRZADA: Is your question also on Afghanistan?


SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, what we have said is anyone who wants to be reconcilable has to be willing to abide by the constitution and the laws of Afghanistan, and that includes the rights of women. Now, I feel very strongly about this and I’m sitting here with these three remarkable young journalists. I do not want to see the clock turn back on those Afghan girls who are finally going to school, on those Afghan women doctors who are finally able to take care of their patients again, on those Afghan members of the government who happen to be women who now have a job. I would not believe that that would be in the best interest of long-term stability in Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. PIRZADA: Just give me a second. Just give me a second and I’ll explain what I’m going to say.

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s always lively.

MR. PIRZADA: The point is this, that I want to bring the discussion back to Pakistan. I want to connect them together.


MR. PIRZADA: And the issue is this, that we feel in this country – it’s an opportunity (inaudible). We feel in this country that whereas the pain of Afghanistan is (inaudible) to the U.S. Senate, to the Congress, to the U.S. media, to the Administration, the pain of the 117 million people of Pakistan who are suffering, who are dying every day – and it’s not only the death – the cycle of death. It’s that we are stagnating economically because of the war effect of Afghanistan. The investments are not coming. The production is not happening. We have an energy problem and things like this. And do you realize what’s happening to us? And what’s the solution? We’re not getting market access from you. For ten years we’ve been asking for this.

QUESTION: I just wanted to (inaudible) that exactly three days back on 16th of July, Madam Secretary, the government of Punjab issued checks for the affectees of the Data Durbar blast. It saddens me to say they bounced. We are critically going through a very bad phase. Every day we see 9/11s, 26/11s. What about the money you owe us? What about the coalition support fund? Is this not a big global disservice that that money is being delayed?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say we are accelerating everything that was owed and we’ve begun to catch up on the arrears. I’m not going to justify it. We inherited a lot of backlog that we are trying to clean out. But we are moving forward.

Also, with the Kerry-Lugar-Berman commitment, we are putting more money into assisting the people of Pakistan than has ever been done before because we do recognize not only the pain and the suffering and sacrifices, but the fact that Pakistan deserves a better future. And we know that there has to be actions taken by Pakistanis themselves, but we can assist that. There are so many reforms that are needed inside Pakistan that nobody from the outside can make happen. You have to have economic reform. You have to have tax reform. Your entire agricultural industry is not taxed. That is a huge loss of revenue. You have one of the lowest revenue collections per GDP in the world. So you don’t have the revenues coming in that makes sure checks don’t bounce from governments or builds schools in Southern Punjab. We know that we have a role to play that we are willing to play because we believe in Pakistan’s future, but we expect certain actions by Pakistan.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah, there has to be an understanding that over the long run, an outside can only do so much.

QUESTION: Yes, but when you speak of the Kerry (inaudible), we understand there’s authorization and appropriation process in the United States of America which we might not necessarily understand. But the Coalition Support Fund or the other money for us acting as a frontline ally, that money should actually come in swiftly. That’s the only issue. That money we’re not seeing.

QUESTION: Plus the Friends of Democratic Pakistan Initiative has been launched two years back, so out of 5.2 billion pledges we only received 1.9 billion pledged.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, but part of that is that the Friends of Democratic Pakistan are working with the government to determine where the rest of the money should go. And I just saw a very thorough study on the energy sector that was done by the Friends of Democratic Pakistan. Because when you go to the donors, you want to say here’s where the money will go, here is the roadmap for how the money will be spent. There is so much activity that is aimed at helping Pakistan and it does grieve me that the press and the people in this country feel as though you’re so alone, that you don’t have the support that I see you receiving from so many.

QUESTION: But, Secretary, I’ll explain. I’ll explain. The old economic theory shows this thing – I’m saddened by the fact when Pakistanis ask – for myself at least, I am saddened by the fact when the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani people keep on asking U.S. aid. That saddens me. All economic theory in 20th century shows the thing that aid does not help nations to progress. What nations actually need is trade. And what Pakistan is asking since 9/11/2000 – 9/11 is market access. Ten years have passed. Pakistan is not getting market access. I know getting the aid from Senate and Congress is not easy, but both the European Union and United States try to give aid to Pakistan and not – neither the European Union – you’re not producing any change in the structure of the regimen of the trade that can allow a war-stressed country, 116 million people suffering because of war in Afghanistan, we’re not getting trade access.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, we are working on trade access. We just did a deal on mangos, which I think is a big deal because we want to start importing agricultural produce and mangos are something that will have a good audience in the United States. We passed the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones through the House. We’re working on getting it passed through the Senate.

We are working on increasing the kind of investment that American businesses can make in Pakistan. I just met with a group of leading Pakistani businesses. Here’s what they asked me for. Of course, they want more market access. But in addition, they want more funding from American businesses, from our funding mechanisms like the Export-Import Bank, all of which we’re doing. And one of the businessmen said to me most of the people in Pakistan don’t know that every major power project in the past was funded with American dollars, most of it private sector dollars, as you point out, not public sector dollars. There’s a role for aid and there’s a role for trade.

The investment climate has been hurt because of the security. Now, that’s just something that we have to cope with and we have to —

QUESTION: And change.

SECRETARY CLINTON: And – yeah, and we have to change. And what we’re doing is taking Pakistani business leaders on trade trips to the United States so that they can talk to their counterparts, because there’s a lot of great economic activity that can go on here. But if you’re the average businessman sitting in the United States, you wonder, okay, is this going to happen, is it going to be a safe investment. So we’re trying to dispel that and create more business connections.

QUESTION: Secretary, since your last visit to Pakistan, have you noticed political stability in Pakistan and good governance, bad governance, fragile democracy? What have you noticed? Is the government stable going – because there are a lot of political uncertainties and that uncertainty is creating wrong perceptions about the Pakistan’s role in the war on terror as well.

And secondly, what will happen if you lose in Afghanistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first with regard to Pakistan’s democracy, we are very strongly supportive of the democratically elected government. We think that Pakistan has all the ingredients for sustainable democracy. You have a very active opposition, which we know is very much involved in a day-to-day way in opposing the government. That’s what oppositions are supposed to do. You have a very free press. You have a very independent judiciary. So there are many institutions that we, frankly, believe are making progress.

Now, it’s not a straight line because you don’t just do it overnight, but we believe that this democratic government and the passage of the 18th amendment which has devolved power to the provinces, which has begun to remedy some of the grievances that border areas like FATA and the North-West Province – now renamed – have had historically. So we see some positive signs. We think, actually, that it’s not easy. We’re not going to say that. But we do see progress.

And the goal is to institutionalize all of these aspects of democracy. And we think that is happening and we want to see a normal democratic process. We want to see this government fulfill its term, then we want to see a vigorous election, and then whoever comes next we want to see – we don’t want to see interruptions. We don’t want to see military takeovers. That should be part of the past. So despite the challenges of governing a large country like Pakistan, we see some promising signs.

Look, with respect to Afghanistan, we believe strongly that creating stability in Afghanistan is in everyone’s interests and we appreciate the assistance that we are receiving from the Pakistani Government. We appreciate the cooperation with the Pakistani military. We believe that trying to stabilize Afghanistan and create the base for a democratic government there is in the long-term interests of the entire region.

Again, it’s not going to be easy. Nobody ever said it would be. But we think it’s an investment worth making and we have said that we’re going to be there long after the combat troops are gone.

MR. PIRZADA: (Inaudible) have your question, please. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, I just want to ask you – and this question is in two parts, so I just want to make it very short. Do you think Kashmir is a cause or affectee of terrorism?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think historically it has been both.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then there was this idea of – and you were talking about women rights in Afghanistan. I’ll talk about human rights in Kashmir. And there was an idea that was being toyed with initially when – before President Obama came into power. And that was the idea of having former U.S. president Bill Clinton becoming special envoy for Pakistan and India to resolve Kashmir. Is that something that you could think? Would you recommend it to the Obama Administration now?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, in order to have anyone play that role, both sides have to agree. And that has not been the case as of now.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, just a quick question —

MR. PIRZADA: I know both of you want to ask questions. But let’s take a quick question from the young gentleman with (inaudible).

QUESTION: Yes. Madam Secretary —

MR. PIRZADA: Can you also introduce yourself?

QUESTION: Hi, Madam Secretary. My name is (inaudible). I ((inaudible) to a point you made earlier about how the American public would be very disappointed if another attack happened on U.S. soil originating from Pakistan. If you look at the recent biographies of people like, for example, Faisal Shahzad, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, all these individuals were radicalized on U.S. soil, whether through college or afterwards. Is this something which the U.S. is also —

MR. PIRZADA: Ask the question again. There’s an audio sync issue. Please ask the question again. I’m so sorry.

QUESTION: You made a point earlier about how the American public would be very disappointed if another attack took place on U.S. soil or was foiled on U.S. soil originating in Pakistan. I was wondering what steps the United States is taking to prevent radicalization on its – in its own country, given the fact that Faisal Shahzad, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and individuals like these were actually radicalized while in America.

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: I think that’s a very important question because radicalization is now taking place really everywhere, including over the internet, which is one of the main sources that we now see where extremists are basically radicalizing people and enlisting them. So every country has to be aware of what is going on inside, and that is certainly the case in our own. And we recognize too that we have to do more to try to prevent that from occurring. But there’s a difference between being radicalized – a lot of people believe things that are quite radical but don’t act on them and are not facilitated to act on them.

So in the case of Headley and Shahbaz and others, they took their radical ideas but basically they were facilitated, directed, operationalized elsewhere – and in those two cases, here in Pakistan, as we now know.

So we do have to do more to counter violent extremism and we have to understand more about this phenomenon. What takes a young man or a young woman who may have a set of opinions and move them toward violence and then move them the extra step where they’re willing to kill themselves in order to kill others? It’s that process, which is a multi-stepped process, that we have to do a better job of understanding.

But once someone decides to act on their radical beliefs, then it is important for the country where that is occurring to work to get law enforcement and judiciary and other elements of the society together to prevent the operationalizing of it. People can believe what they believe. That’s their right in a free society. But they can’t act on it to the detriment and harm of others. So we have to try to prevent the radicalization insofar as that’s possible, but then we have to work together – all of us – to try to prevent the acting on it.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, Munizae has a question and then Maher.

QUESTION: Have you discussed the utility of military (inaudible) in North Waziristan with Pakistan?

SECRETARY CLINTON: There’s a constant dialogue going on between our two governments and between our two militaries, and I don’t really want to comment on any specifics. But —

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: There’s a lot of discussion about anything that would make Pakistan safer and prevent further violence in this country and Afghanistan.

MR. PIRZADA: Munizae, quick question.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, a very quick question. You know you talked of supporting democracy in Pakistan, but the reality on the ground, it’s an open secret that it’s actually the military that led the civilian government to prepare for the Strategic Dialogue. Now, there is a fear in Pakistan that eventually the U.S. will tilt back towards the military in order to let its policies through or see its policies through. How are you going to address that fear?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I can tell you very clearly that neither I nor President Obama have any intention of having that happen or winking at it or permitting it insofar as we can prevent it, because we believe in democracy. And we particularly believe that Pakistan must have a democratic government that fulfills its terms with another election and another democratic government.

Now, having said that, we understand that any time there’s conflict in a society, there’s going to a very heavy security emphasis, and the law enforcement and the military elements are going to have their say, and that’s understood. But what we see is a partnership – when I work with Minister Qureshi and we send all of these officials that we’ve been sending to work on our Strategic Dialogue, the security dialogue is a part of that. And that, of course, is between defense and military officials.

So we listen to all of the voices inside Pakistan, but we support the democratically government.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary, adding to that, as you know that you shocked the world because owing to political reasons when you changed the command in Afghanistan, now in Pakistan there’s going to be a very natural change in command which is coming around in September as well. I would like you – I’d like your opinion on that, where you say you support the democratic process. Do you think that it would impact the war that Pakistan and America both are involved in if there’s a different general on either side?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That is an internal matter for Pakistan. We have not and will not express an opinion –

(All at once.)

MR. PIRZADA: I’d like to take a quick comment from the lady – the last lady on the first row. Very quick.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) and I’m a journalist from Samaa TV. I want to ask a question if we are facing a same war against terror, why you people are fighting this war with a modern technology like drone and EDC, and why we are facing that war with the 20th century old weapons? We are facing a lot in Pakistan. Why America always rely on promises when it’s come to military aid or a modern technology?

MR. PIRZADA: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we have provided an enormous amount of aid to Pakistan. Just recently, America delivered some additional F-16s, which is a very modern weapon, to the Pakistani military. And we are in close consultation and cooperation with the military, literally, all the time, to assess their needs and to work with them.

QUESTION: Do you have (inaudible)?

(All at once.)

MR. PIRZADA: Your team is killing me. Your (inaudible). (Laughter.) Last question, quickly. Quickly, last question.

QUESTION: One last question, Secretary of State. Why as a person I feel that when we choose a statement condemning Iran’s Government policies against their political opponents, the U.S. issues statements condemning that they crushed the protestors, but when it comes to Kashmir and atrocities by the India, U.S. always come out with a statement that it’s an internal dispute. Don’t you think such kind of – can I use the word “double-standard – always create an hatred against the U.S. among the people that, on the one hand, you are condemning a foreign country, its internal affairs, and on the other hand you are calling a dispute, an internal dispute? Similarly in Middle East, your policies towards Israel, your approach toward Israel, is something different than what happened in the other side of it.

MR. PIRZADA: Mazhar, thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first let me say that I think there’s a big difference between India and Pakistan and Iran. India and Pakistan have vibrant democratic institutions, free press, independent judiciaries. We do not find any of that in Iran. So there is a recognition that although Kashmir is a very important and difficult issue, you’re dealing with two countries that are not making threats against the rest of the world. You may have very difficult historical issues between the two of you which we would like to see resolved; but in contrast, Iran is threatening all of its neighbors, is threatening to wipe countries off the map, is funding terrorism all over the world.

So I think the fact that the people of Iran, in our assessment, tried to change their leadership and were so brutally oppressed is a very significant fact, and therefore we will condemn it because we think it runs counter to the rights of the Iranian people as they attempt to express them.

(All at once.)

MR. PIRZADA: Unfortunately, we running short of the time and we have no more time. We’re glad you could join us for more than an hour.


MR. PIRZADA: It is always difficult to manage time in a situation like this, and there are many more questions, I’m sure, but I’m glad that Secretary Clinton could join us for more than an hour. Thank you so much.

QUESTION: Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, another lively session. (Laughter.)

MR. PIRZADA: It was more than an hour. Last time it was 38 minutes.

# # #




Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: