Media Point » Statements

Statements by American Officials about Pakistan-11Mar

editor — Tue, 12 Mar 2013 05:52:22 +0000

Remarks by National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon

Subject: The United States and the Asia – Pacific in 2013

Location: Asia Society, New York City, New York

MS. DIMAGGIO: Staying in South Asia for a little bit, Asia Society, our membership, we have a very large Pakistani diaspora as part of our membership, and I did receive several questions wanting me to ask you how you see our relationship with Pakistan moving forward, particularly in light of recent problems that we’ve had with them, particularly with the military.

MR. DONILON: Yeah. We have had with Pakistan a very important partnership in the counterterrorism area. And indeed, you know, the Pakistanis have suffered thousands of casualties in the battle against extremism. And as I said, they have been an important partner of the United States in our efforts against the most extreme elements.

We have had difficult issues between the United States and Pakistan. And indeed we had a long period of time when it felt like our relationship always had a crisis. We obviously had a difficult time after we executed successfully the raid against Osama bin Laden in May of 2011 in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and there was a reaction. We had a very — we had a terrible cross border incident November of 2011, where two dozen Pakistani soldiers were killed. We had the closure of our ground lines of communication by the Pakistani government.

We have worked through these issues. And we, I think, actually are now at a point where we’re having broader conversations without the overlay, if you will, of some crisis, and talking about kind of more fundamental strategic interests that we have — that we have in common.

We both have in common a stable Afghanistan at the end of — at the end of this process, and we’re working together — we’re working together on that. We both have in common the fight against extremist elements, and we continue to work on that — on that partnership.

So we’ve had, as you might imagine, as has been clear, some difficult issues, but I do think we’re at a point here where we don’t have a crisis hanging over the relationship. We continue to work intensively with the Pakistanis on the kinds of issues that I talked about, and we’ll continue to do so.

They have some milestones coming up of their own –

MS. DIMAGGIO: Elections.

MR. DONILON: — in their elections, very important.

State Department Regular Briefing

Briefer: Victoria Nuland, Spokesperson, Department of State

Location: State Department Briefing Room, State Department, Washington, D.C.

MS. NULAND: Yep. Can you tell me who you are?

Q: (Name inaudible) — with Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper.

MS. NULAND: Mmm hmm.

Q: This morning, Monday morning, Pakistan and Iran performed the ground-breaking ceremony for gas pipeline, and by Monday evening the stock market in Karachi had crashed. And it appears that the United States may impose severe sanctions. Would you like to allay those fears?

MS. NULAND: I would not like to allay those fears. I would refer you back to comments that I made on Thursday and on Friday, I think, which repeated things that we’d said two weeks before. That, you know, we have serious concerns, if this project actually goes forward, that the Iran Sanctions Act would be triggered. We’ve been straight up with the Pakistanis about these concerns. And as I said at some length last week, we are also working very closely bilaterally to support alternative projects to provide Pakistan with the energy that it needs.

All of that said, we’ve heard this pipeline announced about 10 or 15 times before in the past. So we have to see what actually happens.

Q: But do you see the sanctions coming?

MS. NULAND: Say again?

Q: Do you see the sanctions coming soon?

MS. NULAND: As I said, if this project actually goes forward, we have serious concerns that sanctions would be triggered.

Please.

Q: And in view of Pakistan’s grave energy needs and the fact that you waived sanctions provisions for some of the countries last year, EU and Japan, on import of Iranian oil, will there — can there be a consideration that you will waive sanctions provisions for Pakistan in view of its energy needs? You know, it has to meet energy needs?

MS. NULAND: Well, as we’ve talked about here before, what the legislation calls for is for our partner countries to be making a concerted effort to reduce their dependence on Iranian oil over time so we are able to waive sanctions as we see reductions being made.

In the case of the EU, they’re now at zero. In the case of Japan, they’ve been making a steady decline, as have other countries that we have waived sanctions on. This pipeline project, if — as I said, if it actually goes forward — we’ve seen that promise many times — would take Pakistan in the wrong direction right at a time that we’re trying to work with Pakistan on better, more reliable ways to meet its energy needs.

Q: But, you know, the alternative, which is from Turkmenistan, it requires long-term stability and peace in Afghanistan, so that is not being seen as a very viable option right now. What are you, you know, encouraging, and what are you offering Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Again, I can go through this list again. I went through it some — quite extensively on Thursday, but just to remind that we are supporting large-scale energy projects in Pakistan that will add some 900 megawatts to the power grid by the end of 2013, fueling an additional 2 million households. These include renovating the power plants at Tarbela, at — and the Mangla Dam, modernizing the thermal plant at Guddu, Jamshoro and Muzaffargarh and building new dams at Satpara and Gomal Zam as well as our work together on the TAPI pipeline.

Print this Report

Amb Sherry Rehman’s Speech at Harvard University-19 Feb

editor — Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:16:51 +0000

Print this Report

“Pakistan and the United States: the road to 2014 and beyond”

President Gilpin

Dear students,

It is my great honour and pleasure to be here with you tonight.

I must thank President Gilpin for giving me the opportunity to share what’s on my mind as we enter a period of robust renewal and engagement in the Pak-US relationship.

It is also a particular privilege and pleasure to be at Harvard. Its reputation as a center for academic excellence crosses all borders. But for me its gravitational pull exceeds the virtues of its public brand.

For me, and for many Pakistanis, it is the University that our first woman Prime Minister was so proud of being associated with.

I start with Benazir Bhutto today, because both Pakistan and I owe her a great debt of political, and moral gratitude. My own personal story in the political mainstream in Pakistan began with her recruitment and mentoring of so many young women at that time; I was one of them.

But more importantly the Pakistan we speak of today, at a crossroads of history, struggling each day to move from a challenging past into a future she dreamed of, a Pakistan at peace with itself and at peace with the world, owes much of its new story to both her vision and sacrifice.

I mention her sacrifice particularly, not because her memory needs to be burnished by it, but because her sacrifice against terrorism, her search for regional peace and her battle for democracy remain Pakistan’s three defining projects.

Every day we move towards institutions that buttress democracy, while we re-shape our future in the region, and every day we fight extremism and terrorism with our lives.

Without getting into a victim narrative, which strips us of agency and responsibility, I say this because it will help refract for some of you here the daily challenge we face as we re-build our country in the 30-year old shadow of great conflicts in the region, from the violence and alien extremisms that came with it.

Why do I bring history to the table on a discussion on our bilateral future post 2014? Because history is the path to two crucial elements in the terrain between the US and Pakistan. It is the lost space where many forgotten dots between cause and effect re-appear, casting a light on some understanding, and it is also the place where we build a strategic playbook of lessons learnt for the future.

Now I will come back to that playbook shortly, because my first task in this great country, ladies and gentlemen, is to bridge the cognitive divide that has arisen over the last decade or so, the decade when we have once again, since September 11, been allies on a battlefield.

Although our two governments are working together closely again, it is not enough to dismiss this drift as a misunderstanding of our new strategic motive and move it to the dustbin of the clichéd “ trust deficit”. If we are to move forward in lockstep to stabilize the region, which should be our fundamental joint goal, then we have to understand each other better.

Pakistan’s first battlefield encounter with the US in Afghanistan as allies against the Soviet Union informs the collective memory of my generation, the fifty-somethings. Now for us, before the 1979 war as it came to be known, the concept of terrorism and militant extremisms were totally alien. In fact, the drugs, guns and terrorist triad that we saw suddenly by the 1980s was the blowback we were left with from an outsourced war in Afghanistan. This is not to say that our own mistakes were not legion. They contributed to how we contained the fallout then.

Yet despite even the best policies, the porous border with Afghanistan left Pakistan awash with the world’s largest population of refugees. We still host them today. They are the forgotten statistic from that war, but for us they are the new demographic. They too will shape how we deal with 2014.

The 30-somethings generation of Pakistanis has a quite different perception of the United States. They did not see Tarbela dam being built by the US, nor did they benefit from the opportunities of scholarships open to middle class Pakistanis, to go to schools such as Smith College and Harvard University. They see Muslim discontent in the Middle East, they see drone attacks on forty television channels every time there is such an attack, and this is how they see America projecting power abroad. They hate the terrorists that rip through our schools and hospitals and ask our government and parliament why Pakistan is often asked to ‘do more’ every time there is an IED attack in Afghanistan, or why 46 000 of our citizen’s and soldiers’ who have been killed don’t count enough? They ask many such questions, but still most Pakistanis defy the polls that tell you of mass anti-Americanism, and understand that the US still seeks to be an ally and a friend. Most Pakistanis vote for peace, for stability, for jobs, for an education, for safer streets, for access to healthcare and for all these things they do see the American people as an important global advocate for reform and partnership.

Contrary to what you see in the headlines, most Pakistanis are not extremists. That is why democratic governments now pivot sharply for a diplomatic and trade surge in the region.

This new regional pivot, driven specifically by President Zardari of Pakistan, forms the fundamental bedrock of what is Pakistan’s new strategic outreach as it seeks to shore up American gains next door, and initiates and amplifies a diplomatic surge across the board, both east and West.

But this regional policy will only bring stability and prosperity to the region if the US plays its part, and work through the endgame of a long war, without too many unintended consequences, this time. As I said earlier, both our countries were in two wars together next door. Both the United States and Pakistan won the first war, but we lost the peace. The jury is still out on this one.

I say this because a review of strategic setbacks and what caused them should be front and centre of our “lessons learnt” menu as we attempt to stabilize the region together.

Pakistan and the US should have learnt two important lessons from the first war in Afghanistan: One, Terrorism must be unambiguously defeated everywhere, but the application of military force is never enough in a theatre such as Afghanistan. I try very hard to resist the graveyard of empires cliché, but fail clearly.

Pakistan has certainly learned one lesson, that no one can broker a sustainable peace in Afghanistan except the Afghans themselves. Therefore, Pakistan fully supports an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned process of reconciliation and peace. Today, it is our considered coordinated inter-agency policy that Afghans have to lead the peace process in Afghanistan.

Pakistan will support all roadmaps for a negotiated settlement of this war. What we will not do is support any groups, or play any favourites. Let me say unequivocally, the government and state of Pakistan do not see Afghanistan as our strategic backyard.

We hope that the important gains made by US NATO forces can be protected, especially in terms of fundamental freedoms for women and access to social services.

We want to see Afghanistan as a united, independent and sovereign state. We urge all concerned to join the reconciliation process, because we recognize that Pakistan has vital stakes in a peaceful, self-ruled Afghanistan, just as we have the most to lose from a turbulent neighbor. We also recognize that the road ahead is full of challenges, but our goal is to be diligent in our search for clarity and convergence among our three nations.

We understand U.S. compulsions relating to Afghanistan. We want to help the U.S. to manage a smooth and responsible transition in Afghanistan. To that end we would like the U.S. to lay down the foundations for Afghanistan’s future political and economic stability. This is in Pakistan’s self interest. Peace in my Pakistan is difficult without peace in Afghanistan..

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The U.S. hopes to conclude the war in Afghanistan, the longest in its history, in 2014. That date looms large over policy and public debates today. There is deep concern over whether the U.S. will be able to leave a reasonably stable Afghanistan behind or if the blood and treasure invested over the course of a decade will have yielded no tangible results.

If the United States approaches the timelines to 2014 with concern, you will forgive me for saying that the mood in Pakistan is informed by a calendar of imminent anxieties.

I am sorry that memory remains such a tangible ghost at the bilateral table.

As Secretary Clinton told Congress in 2009, “The people we are fighting today, we funded twenty years ago. We then left Pakistan, we said okay, fine you deal with the stingers and you deal with the mines along the border, and by way, we don’t want to be dealing with you, and in fact, we are sanctioning you.”

You can all understand just how crucial it is that the principal actors in this fight – the United States, Pakistan and Afghanistan – get it right this time round.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Pakistan cannot afford a repeat of the 1990s, when the Soviet withdrawal led to the same by the U.S. and Afghanistan sank into a devastating internecine conflict. We hope the international community can see a clear learning curve and rethink the approach to the region. We certainly have. Afghanistan is entitled to the same consideration and respect from us as we expect for ourselves. It is our neighbor, not our sphere of influence. We do not wish to impose a government in Afghanistan or work with only select partners. Rather, we will do our best to work with whichever government the Afghans choose for themselves, and convince it of our respect and friendship. Here again I must underscore we have the most to gain from a peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan.

Despite our difficult economic circumstances, we have invested $ 300 million in Afghanistan’s infrastructure as a sign of our goodwill. We have revised and upgraded the nearly fifty-year old transit trade agreement with Afghanistan to bring it more in line with contemporary realities. Afghan trucks will now be able to travel across Pakistan all the way to the Pakistan-India border.

Our regional pivot focuses on bringing down an architecture of trade barriers both with India and Pakistan, and we are on course, despite flare-ups on the Line of Control in Kashmir, to forge with building investments in peace, trade, economic integration and opportunities for our huge youth cohort

A dialogue at multiple levels is also underway. Pakistan’s cabinet is considering extending Most Favored Nation status to India while pressing India to dismantle its tariff and para-tariff barriers to Pakistan’s exports. The two countries recently agreed on an expanded visa agreement. Some experts see bilateral trade touching $ 7-8 billion within a couple of years.

Pakistan is also moving fast to connect with countries in Central Asia. We are working on the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan, and hopefully, India, gas pipeline. We hope to see progress on the CASA initiative also.

Above all, Pakistan is now a democracy. For the first time in our history, an elected government is set to complete its full constitutional term. A caretaker government will soon be in place. Elections will follow in a maximum time frame of 90 days, and these will be supervised by an autonomous election commission, already in place, appointed by a multi-partisan committee of all parliamentary parties. We are all held accountable by a raucous and independent media, while the President has devolved his powers to the head of parliament. Leadership is being feminized pro-actively and anti-poverty programs target women at the bottom of the pyramid, already drawing 18 percent of the population into its service net.

I would rate this as the single biggest reason for a solid and productive bilateral relationship, post 2014. The two countries have been bound by geo-political compulsions in the past, but these associations proved brittle and unsustainable. It is time that we allowed the bond of shared democratic values and ideals to work their weight. I am certain the results will be to our collective benefit

Ladies and Gentlemen,

So, what can Pakistan and United States do in the lead up to 2014 to prevent a repeat of history? I would venture to make a few suggestions:

One, trust each other. Share notes, build communication through formal channels, not the media.

2) Strategic sympathy: Try to understand each other’s challenges. Don’t interpret differences of approach as duplicity. Don’t confuse capacity issues as lack of will. Do not exacerbate each other’s sense of insecurity or anxiety. When we have our schoolgirls like Malala shot by TTP terrorists massing in Kunar, on the Afghan side of the border, we do not leap to the public conclusion that this was deliberate or planned, notwithstanding the conspiracy theorists or the fog of war. We expect the same consideration.

3) To recognize that the problems in Afghanistan are multidimensional and require the same complex solutions. Pakistan has been making this point since the first year of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Force is of course an important element. It is, however, only one of many, and on many issues, not even the major necessity. There has to be an equal emphasis on a political solution. The more people and groups the U.S. can bring under the reconciliation tent, the better. No one who is disposed to talk should find the road too difficult or the door too tightly shut. We are therefore glad to see such emphasis from the U.S. on the reconciliation process in Afghanistan. I believe the phrase “Better late than never” applies here.

4) Lets do a reality check on the situation in Afghanistan. Do not go crashing out in an exit that run the risk of sinking Afghanistan into instability and economic un-sustainability. More than a military victory, what the U.S. must now try to ensure is to leave an economic infrastructure behind that allows the Afghans to build on after U.S. departure. After fighting the war, the U.S. must win the peace. We will work with you on it, and I believe we are.

5) There needs to be a robust anti-narcotics element to U.S./ISAF activities in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, a great deal of time has already been lost. This seemingly ancillary issue can threaten many of the gains made over the past decade. According to a United Nations report published last November, the acreage devoted to poppy cultivation in Afghanistan increased by 18% from 2011 to 2012. This should be a cause for concern to all of us. An immediate result of such increase is that the Afghan insurgents will have more funds available to continue their opposition to the U.S. and the government in Kabul, and become intransigent in their demands. A longer term casualty will be Afghanistan’s post 2014 stability.

6) Know the limits of our reach and capacity in Afghanistan. Both sides should understand this. Do not expect us to deliver stability in an arena where 40 countries and billions of dollars could not. We are not the coalition of the unwilling. Know that we spend 5 billion dollars a year on defence, while the US spends two a week just in Afghanistan. Pakistan has lost 78 billion dollars to just the war on terror. The glass must be seen as half full, not half empty. Demonising a partner doesn’t help.

7) Stabilize and moderate the US footprint in Pakistan. Enough said.

8) Work with the societies and people of our two great nations. Expand the opportunities for travel, investment, education.

9) Make trade the highway to our new future.

10) Do not just see us a function of Afghanistan. Lets build on a common future together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Enough of looking back.

I believe Pakistan – U.S. relations provide an opportunity for an exercise in foresight; we are looking forward rather than backward.

2014 is certainly important. However, history will not end in 2014. Pakistan hopes to be a valuable friend and partner of the United States beyond that important milestone.

Pakistan is the world’s sixth largest country and the second biggest Muslim country. With a median age of 21.5 years, Pakistan is among the world’s twenty youngest countries and the biggest in this group. Pakistan one of the biggest middle classes outside China and India. This middle class is upwardly mobile, technology savvy and historically consumption oriented. Pakistan has the ninth largest pool of English language speakers, it has one of the biggest trained work forces in the world. It is served by a competent bureaucracy and boasts a network of good universities and colleges. Of course, Pakistan is doing everything it can to invest in its youth cohort, but the results will be better if the U.S. joins in this endeavor. There are scores of workers, professionals, entrepreneurs, scientists, artists and consumers in this enormous pool of young people. Properly equipped, they will lead Pakistan and contribute to the prosperity of our country, region and the world.

The relationship is back to a new sober but stable and upward trajectory. Our working groups are engaged even as we speak, in Washington, and a level of confidence is returning as we the GLOCS and AIRLOCS become the main artery for the NATO supplies and drawdown.

But allow me to finish with what I think are the most important stories; they happen right here in rooms like this:

At a recent ‘All World Network Meeting’ a gathering of the world’s most successful and rising young entrepreneurs at Harvard Business School, arranged in collaboration with U.S. State Department. Pakistani participants constituted 30% of the total.

The “Pakistan 100” as they are called, was defined by success stories of young Pakistanis who have excelled in business enterprises through their innovation, creativity and hard work. These 100 Companies from Pakistan achieved the “All World International Standard” for competitive fast growth by growing on average at 55% a year, with the top ranking company registering an amazing 2000% growth.

So of course, yes, we can.

Print this Report

US State Department Briefing (Extracts concerning Pakistan) 7 Feb

editor — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:19:50 +0000

Print this Report

Time: 1:04 p.m. EST, Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013

Q: This is a kind of a broad subject, but I don’t think so broad that it would preclude you from responding or engaging. Yesterday we saw, late last night, the president and the White House turn over these Department of Justice documents relating to the drone program, but only after lawmakers, including Democratic lawmakers, threatened to block nominations for key national security posts. There is a great uproar, as you know right now, over the drone program. This president was elected in part based on his criticism of the previous administration for the conduct of the war on terror. Is there — is there a case to be made that this administration, in fact, is conducting the war on terror in a less secretive, less lethal way with less collateral damage to civilians abroad?

MS. NULAND: James (sp), I think this subject, this basic set of questions was addressed to my colleague Jay Carney at the White House today, and he gave a pretty full response, and I don’t think I have anything to add here.

Scott, can we go to you?

Q: Well, let’s say — can I — I just — not on that specifically, but I’m wondering if you have any comments about the report that came out this week from the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, which found that the number of deaths of children from airstrikes and attacks in Afghanistan doubled between 2010 and 2011, that hundreds of children have died in Afghanistan as the result of attacks and airstrikes by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, and that this is due, according to them, to a lack of precautionary measures and indiscriminate use of force.

MS. NULAND: I have not seen the report, Matt. Let me take the question and see if we have something to get back to you with.

Q: Madam, just going back to drone attacks, Pakistan’s ambassador, Madame Sherry Rehman, has accused the United States that the U.S. is violating Pakistan’s sovereignty and Pakistan’s rights by attacking drone attacks inside Pakistan. And she said that it may hurt the relations between Pakistan and the U.S. Any — and also, Pakistan delegation was led to the OIC in Egypt, and they also discuss about this issue.

MS. NULAND: Well, as I always say on this subject, I’m obviously not going to get into intelligence issues at all from this podium. But what I would say is, as you know, we have a

strong — we have an ongoing dialogue with Pakistan with regard to all aspects of the relationship, but in particular the counterterrorism relationship, security, cooperation. And we

work hard to try to address each other’s concerns.

Print this Report

US Defense Department Briefing (Extracts concerning Pakistan) 23 Jan 13

editor — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:57:18 +0000

Print this Report

Statements about Pakistan by US Officials

Wednesday, 23 January, 2013

Briefer: Lieutenant General James L. Terry, US Army, Commander International Security Assistance Force Joint Command and Deputy Commander, US Forces Afghanistan.

Location: Pentagon Briefing Room, Arlington, Virginia.

Time: 10:30 EST.

Q: General, thank you, sir. Still, some Afghans have fear among them that what is their future because one generation is already gone, 30, 40 years or more that they have gone through the wars and still going. What they are asking is that after you leave, what is their future? And also, as far as reconciliation is concerned or talking to Taliban or bringing them to the mainstream, do you think it’s working, or what will the future after you leave? Because some Taliban are saying after U.S. leaves, they are waiting for another war — (inaudible).

GEN. TERRY: So your question is about the concern on the part of the Afghans?

Q: Yes, sir.

GEN. TERRY: I think there’s concern about the uncertainty. I think this past week here with events in Washington have helped solidify some of those questions that are out there. And I think they’ll look toward future announcements by the — by the president about, you know, what the future looks like out there.

You know, the Afghans are somewhat cautious as they look toward the future because of the past 34 years of war. And when we look at everything they’ve been through, I don’t think we’d be any different from that. And I — again, I think there are multiple opportunities out there for them that they have to capitalize on.

And one of the opportunities that they have, quite honestly, is a younger generation that has advantaged itself over the last 11 years in terms of education. I mean, there’s a younger generation underneath the surface of Afghans out there that are very smart, very intelligent. And I try to talk to them as much as possible, although I look like an old guy. I know for certain they don’t want to go back to the way of the Taliban. And again, I’m sure there’s going to be some solution that’s out there. And I can’t look toward the future and tell you exactly what it is, but I think the Afghans will sort it out.

Q: Can I just –

Q: Quick follow. As far as many nations in the region, including India and including Pakistan are amongst, they feel that after you leave, what will happen? Those Talibans and al-Qaida still inside Pakistan and in Afghanistan, where they will go? Because India is also fearing and Pakistan is also, among other nations, that fear. What is the — what surety or guarantee can you give to those who are working in Afghanistan from other nations?

GEN. TERRY: Again, I can’t — I can’t look to the future and ask them that question for you. I think what we have to look at, then, is, as we — we have to rest comfortable with that, through Bonn, Lisbon, Chicago, up to Tokyo, the international community has made a huge commitment to Afghanistan.

And frankly, I think that’ll have an impact on the region. And so when you look at, you know, $16 billion that have been pledged in international commitment, again, I don’t want to be overly optimistic, but I don’t think Afghan’s going to be — Afghanistan’s going to be left there, you know, standing alone. We want them to stand up, but again, I think we need to be there beside them.

Q: Thank you.

Q: (Inaudible) — question and another one on Pakistan. Can you review the — (inaudible) – on what is the profile of the enemy — of the insurgency today? Roughly how many Taliban are there? How many al-Qaida? What are your best estimates, and, you know, the break down between the hard core and those that are seasonal?

GEN. TERRY: That is a very difficult question. (Chuckles.) You know, part of it — part of it deals with, you know, the nature of how things move in and out of Afghanistan for certain. I’ve seen numbers, quite honestly, as low as 20,000 insurgents and up there, if I listen to my Afghan partners, around 30.

The exact percentage of what’s hard core and what is not is very hard to break apart. I would tell you, I think there’s three sources of violence in Afghanistan. One’s — one is the ideology that drives the insurgency. I think there’s probably some tribal dynamics and ethnic dynamics that are out there. And I think there’s a criminal component to it also. So to try to take those three apart is quite hard.

Q: Well, I have a follow-up. On what progress have the U.S. and Pakistan made in shrinking the safe havens? What’s the extent of the cross-border coordination center coordination, basically?

GEN. TERRY: Well, we — from a military perspective, we are starting to move away from — because we have to — a trilateral type of — you know, with Afghans, U.S. and Pakistan – in other words, Afghans in the middle.

And I think it will take time to where we’ve got to now have Afghans and Pakistan talking

together. And you know, if you’re familiar with the — (inaudible) — coordination centers on the military side, that is a mechanism that’s — it’s a tool, if you will, for when there is tension at the border, that can come together, discuss it and move out. And then we have what we call the border flag meeting process which involves the general officers. Now I would just offer to you that, you know, on the political side, we’re starting to see Afghans and Pakistan start to engage more. And I think there’s great potential there in that regard.

Print this Report

US Department of State Press Briefing (Extracts on Pakistan) 15 Jan 13

editor — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:54:56 +0000

Print this Report

State Department Regular Briefing

Briefer: Victoria Nuland, Spokesperson, Department of State

Date: Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Q: When you talking about overthrowing a democratic government, how are you viewing the situation inPakistan? We had a mass rally in Islamabad. It’s calling for the government to wrap up. The Supreme Court has issued orders for prime minister’s arrest. Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’re obviously not taking a position with regard to the march and all of those — the various issues — political issues that the marchers are out in the streets for. What we have said is, as we say around the world, we want to see any kind of demonstration remain peaceful and that the government protect the right of people to a peaceful protest and that the protesters remain peaceful in the way they approach things. But with regard to the larger question of political future of Pakistan, that’s an internal issue for Pakistanis to resolve, as long as it is resolved in a just and transparent manner that protects the constitution, protects the rule of law.

You know what we’ve said consistently, that we stand strongly in favor of a democratically elected civilian government in Pakistan, and we’ll continue to do so.

Q: But does this situation where the government is almost paralyzed affect your ability to talk to the Pakistani government and work on the issues that you have been working through during the last few months?

MS. NULAND: Well, we’ve been talking to the Pakistani government throughout this period. I think you know that Foreign Minister Khar is in New York today, and Ambassador Rice will have a chance to meet with her, so we’re continuing — our lines of communication are very much open.

Q: Will the situation in Pakistan also be a topic of discussion?

MS. NULAND: My understanding is that Foreign Minister Khar is coming primarily because Pakistan is going to take the chair of the — of the council, so I assume that the conversation will focus primarily on U.N. and multilateral issues, but I’ll refer you to USUN to give you a readout after the meeting.

Q: Have you issued any new security-related kind of instructions to the embassy staff? Who is the ambassador in touch with in the Pakistani government at the moment?

MS. NULAND: Well, the ambassador’s been very active, as you can imagine. I’m not going to get into details of his diplomacy. The embassy, though — because of the march and the large number of people in the streets, the embassy has been closed for public services yesterday and today. We anticipate it’ll also be open (sic) tomorrow. The usual advisories are out for American citizens as well to avoid –

Q: (Off mic) — closed.

MS. NULAND: It’s — will be closed for public services tomorrow as well because of the number of people in the streets, and the usual advisories for Americans to stay away from crowds, et cetera, are out.

Q: And then just one last one. There are some sections of the media in Pakistan and certain political parties who are saying that the U.S. would also welcome any change that is caused by this rally or any other means because it has lost confidence in the Pakistan government’s ability to deliver. Do you have a comment on that?

MS. NULAND: That is not our view. Our view is that internal political issues in Pakistan need to be resolved by Pakistanis, as I said, in a just, transparent manner that accords with the rule of law. And as I also said, we stand strongly in favor of a democratically elected civilian government in Pakistan. We always — we have for a long time, and we will continue to.

Q: Has anybody from the embassy met Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri, who is leading this mass rally?

MS. NULAND: I don’t have anything for you on that one way or the other. It sounds like he’s a pretty busy guy at the moment.

Q: Victoria, just on –

MS. NULAND: Still on this? Yeah.

Q: Yeah. You said that you didn’t want to comment on the broader political issue, and then you laid out the principles, rule of law, respect for the constitution, et cetera. Do you have a view on the narrower question of whether the Pakistani Supreme Court’s ordering the arrest of the prime minister may have been a politically motivated act?

MS. NULAND: We’re — our only comment on any of this today is to say that these issues have to be resolved among Pakistanis in a democratic and transparent manner.

Q: Do — but do you regard — I mean, it — I think it’s a serious question, because there are cases of what State Department spokespeople themselves say they regard as politically motivated prosecutions, right? And when the Supreme Court orders the arrest of the serving prime minister of a country, it is a natural question to ask. Is that a question you yourselves are asking yourselves, you know, is this politically motivated, or is it not even a question that occurs to you; it’s just the march of justice in a democratic society?

MS. NULAND: Our — my understanding is that this was rooted in a long case that — based on charges that were made some time ago.

We are not in a position to evaluate the merits of the case one way or the other. If that changes, we’ll let you know.

Print this Report

Secretary Panetta at the Center for a New American Security on 20 Nov 2012

editor — Sun, 25 Nov 2012 06:27:18 +0000

Print this Report

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta(Extracts concerning Pakistan)

November 20, 2012

Remarks by Secretary Panetta at the Center for a New American Security, Washington, D.C.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE LEON E. PANETTA: Thank you very much, Michelle, for that kind introduction.

I’m always reminded of my father who, as I say to many people, was an immigrant from Italy with my mother, and came over, and then eventually, you know ran a restaurant in Monterey during the war years. And my earliest recollections were washing glasses in the back of that restaurant. My parents believed that child labor was a requirement.

And then he bought this farm in Carmel Valley, after the war, and planted walnut trees. And then I remember working in the walnut orchard. And my father would go around — when the walnut trees got older, we’d go around with a pole and hook, and basically shake each of the branches. And my brother and I would be collecting the walnuts underneath the trees. When I got elected to Congress, my father said, “You know you’ve been well trained to go to Washington. Because you’ve been dodging nuts all your life.”

And I have successfully been dodging nuts all of my life. But I listen to the list of positions, and I’ll tell you a story. When events occurred at the CIA last week, my wife immediately gave me a call.

She said I hope that there is no way that the president is going to ask you to take that job again. And I said, no. I said, been there, done that.

Ladies and gentleman, it’s an honor to have the chance to share some thoughts with you on — on some of the issues that we confront at the Defense Department.

And I also, if I might, just take this opportunity to — since we’re close to Thanksgiving, to wish all of you and your families, a happy Thanksgiving.

……… And at the same time with all of those challenges, we have to be able to take care of our service members, and our veterans, and our military families. The sacrifices they’ve made, they deserve that we stand by the commitments we’ve made to them. And particularly in light of the force structure reductions, which are going to take place. We’ve got to make sure that we provide them the support system so that they can return to their communities, and to their families, and be able to reestablish their lives. All of that is out there.

All of that are issues that we have to think about, and we have to be prepared, in order to protect the national security of this country, we have to be prepared to deal with.

But tonight I wanted to focus on the goal that still remains at the top of the priority list, as it must. The goal that the president made very clear, that we have a responsibility to disrupt, degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat those who attacked America on 9/11, al-Qaeda.

Since September 11, 2001, our country has worked relentlessly to bring those responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in our history, to justice. We have made very clear, that we are at war with al-Qaeda. We’ve also made clear in going after Osama bin Laden, and dozens of others, that nobody attacks the United States, and gets away with it. And we have made clear that we will do everything possible to ensure that such an attack never, never happens again. That means counterterrorism will continue as a key mission to our military, and intelligence professionals as long as violent extremists pose a direct threat to the United States, our allies, and our global interest, we have a responsibility to counter that threat.

During my tenure as Director of the CIA, and now as Secretary of Defense, I have truly been privileged to meet, and work with thousands of professionals who have made this fight their fight, who have put their lives on the line for their country, and who have built the most effective global counterterrorism network the world has ever seen. Their work, I believe has made the American people safer, the United States more secure, and has put al-Qaeda on the defensive.

Let me describe some of the progress that has been achieved in this fight against al-Qaeda.

First of all with respect to core al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And that’s where the leadership of al-Qaeda, after 9/11 found refuge. Our military forces, our intelligence professionals, our diplomats, our development experts have taken the fight to al-Qaeda’s leadership – first, through dramatically expanded counterterrorism operations on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border, and second, through a renewed, revitalized, and properly resourced effort to help build an Afghanistan that can secure and govern itself. And that’s the fundamental mission in Afghanistan, is to ensure that that country can govern and secure itself, so it will never again become a safe haven for al-Qaeda.

Over the last few years, al-Qaeda’s leadership, their ranks have been decimated. That includes the loss of four of al-Qaeda’s five top leaders in the last two and a half years alone. Osama bin Laden, Shaikh Saeed al-Masri, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, and Abu Yahya al-Libi.

Through what has probably been the most precise campaign in the history of warfare and by partnering with local allies, numerous other experienced operational terrorists and commanders in this region have been killed, or captured. This pressure has significantly demoralized and weakened al-Qaeda in terms of their core capabilities. And it seriously disrupted their active plotting against our homeland.

The broader military campaign in Afghanistan has also been central to our efforts to disrupt, and dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda. And that is why roughly 68,000 American troops remain in Afghanistan today, supporting the ISAF mission, and our Afghan partners.

Together they are battling a violent insurgency that seeks to topple the Afghan government. They have not given up on that effort. And they seek to be able to return to Afghanistan in order to provide sanctuary for extremists. If we are to defeat al-Qaeda, that cannot happen. And make no mistake, we remain determined to prevent al-Qaeda from ever again launching a terrorist attack on America from safe havens inside of Afghanistan.

Over the past two years, since the 33,000 surge troops were ordered by President Obama, and arrived in Afghanistan, we have continued to put pressure on the Taliban-led insurgency, and dealt them a heavy blow, and made real progress in building an Afghanistan that can in fact secure and defend itself against that threat.

….. As the insurgency has been rolled back, we have vastly improved the capabilities of the Afghan National Security Forces to maintain these gains after most of the international forces will have departed. Every day, every week, every month, Afghan forces are shouldering more and more of the burden. 2011 — I mention this time and time again — I believe marked an important turning point in the war effort. Because we were able to see Afghan forces become operational, and take charge of security. In 2012, that process of transition took firm hold across the country. The transition is now well underway. We have transitioned an area that involves 75 percent of the Afghan population. And that population is increasingly secure.

As a result, we are on track for two key milestones. One is that the Afghans will be in the lead throughout the country for security in mid 2013. And Afghans will ultimately full responsibility for security by the end of 2014. After 2014, the United States has made clear through a strategic partnership agreement, that we will maintain an enduring presence, and a long term commitment to Afghan security. And NATO made a similar commitment to a post 2014 Afghanistan at the Chicago summit last May.

All of this sends a very simple, and a very powerful message to al-Qaeda, to the Taliban, and to the violent extremist groups who want to regain a safe haven in Afghanistan: we are not going anywhere. Our commitment to Afghanistan is long term, and you cannot wait us out. This is important, because al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other associated forces under pressure in Pakistan, continue to view the rugged terrain of northeastern Afghanistan, especially Kunar and Nuristan provinces, as a viable safe haven. A relentless, and effective counterterrorism effort, conducted by our Special Operations Forces this year, made clear that we will not allow them to regain that sanctuary.

As a result of prolonged military and intelligence operations, al-Qaeda has been significantly weakened in Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Its most effective leaders are gone. Its command, and control have been degraded, and its safe haven is shrinking. Al-Qaeda’s ability to carry out a large scale attack on the United States, has been seriously impacted. And as a result, America is safer from a 9/11 type attack.

These gains are real, but it is important to point out that even with these gains, the threat from al-Qaeda has not been eliminated.

We have slowed a primary cancer, but we know that the cancer has also metastasized to other parts of the global body.

Two examples of that spreading al-Qaeda presence, are Yemen and Somalia.

For years our eyes have been wide open to the growing capabilities of Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has also targeted our homeland for attack, and sowed violence and chaos in Yemen itself. We have struck back in an effort to disrupt and dismantle this group through a very close partnership with the government of Yemen.

By training local security forces, we are building and training a counterterrorism force poised to be the most effective over the long term. And that force is the Yemenis themselves. And by participating in joint efforts against key leaders, and key operatives, we have put unprecedented pressure on AQAP, and given the Yemeni people an opportunity to free themselves from the grip of these terrorists. AQAP leaders who have targeted the United States have met their demise. Plots have been disrupted, and innocent lives have been saved.

But this fight has not been easy. As Yemen’s government became destabilized last year, AQAP attempted to seize the initiative, taking control of several key cities in the south of Yemen. In the months since, AQAP’s advances have been largely reversed through a renewed, and even more effective partnership with Yemen new’s government led by President Hadi.

Our work in Yemen is far from done. Dismantling AQAP, eliminating it as a threat to the United States will ultimately require sustained pressure, more U.S. training and assistance, close partnership with the Yemeni government, and the Yemeni people, and steadfast support for political transition.

…. But what will it take to achieve the end of al-Qaeda, or at least the beginning of the end?

First, it will be essential to finish the job that we started, and that we must complete in Afghanistan, and we are on track to do that. As we and our NATO partners agreed at Lisbon, Afghans need to responsible for their own security by the end of 2014. This transition is our goal, and it’s the Afghan’s goal as well. But it will require continued commitment by the international community, and the United States in order to help the Afghan forces achieve that goal. We have come too far, we have invested too much blood, and treasure not to finish the job. There are no shortcuts, nor can we afford to turn away from this effort when we are so close to achieving success in preventing al-Qaeda from ever returning to this historic epicenter for violent extremism.

Second, we will need to maintain pressure on al-Qaeda in Pakistan, on AQAP in Yemen, and on al-Qaeda-associated forces in Somalia. That means degrading senior leadership, dismantling their organizational capabilities, remaining vigilant, to ensure the threat does not reconstitute, and working to build the capacity of our partners, including Pakistan, to confront these shared threats. Despite challenges in the bilateral relationship between the United States and Pakistan, one area in which our national interests continue to align — continue to align, is defeating the terrorist on Pakistan soil that threaten both of us. We remain committed to pursuing defense cooperation based on these shared interests.

Thirdly, we must prevent the emergence of new safe havens for al-Qaeda elsewhere in the world that could be used to attack the United States, or our interests. The last decade of war has shown that coordinated efforts to share intelligence, to conduct operations with partners, are critical to making sure that al-Qaeda has no place to hide. We will expand these efforts, including through support and partnership with governments in transition in the Middle East and North Africa.

This campaign against al-Qaeda will largely take place outside declared combat zones, using a small footprint approach, that includes precision operations, partnered activities with foreign special forces operations, and capacity building so that partner countries can be more effective in combating terrorism on their own.

Wherever possible, we will work through, and with local partners, supporting them with the intelligence and resources they need in order to deter these common threats. For example in Mali, we are working with our partners in Western Africa who are committed to countering the emerging threat to regional stability posed by AQIM.

Fourth, in support of these kinds of efforts, we have to invest in the future, in new military and intelligence capabilities, and security partnerships. Our new defense strategy makes clear that the military must retain, and even build new counterterrorism capabilities for the future. As we reduce the size of the military, we are going to continue to ramp up special operations forces, which have doubled in size from 37,000 on 9/11, to 64,000 today. Special operations forces will grow to 72,000 by 2017. We are expanding our fleet of Predator and Reaper UAVs, over what we have today. These enhanced capabilities will enable us to be more flexible, and agile against a threat that has grown more diffuse.

We are also continuing to invest in building partner capacity, including through Section 1206 authority to train and equip foreign military forces. Our new Global Security Contingency Fund has been very helpful in placing new emphasis on cultivating regional expertise in the ranks.

Which brings me to the final point, that too often takes a backseat to our operations against al-Qaeda. What do we do to prevent extremist ideologies from attracting new recruits in the future?

Over the past decade, we have successfully directed our military, and intelligence capabilities at fighting terrorism. And yet, we are still struggling to develop an effective approach to address the factors that attract young men and women to extreme ideologies, and to ensure that governments and societies have the capacity, and the will to counter, and reject violent extremism.

To truly end the threat from al-Qaeda, military force aimed at killing our enemy alone will never be enough. The United States must stay involved and invested through diplomacy, through development, through education, through trade in those regions of the world where violent extremism has flourished.

That means continued engagement — continued engagement in Pakistan, and following through on the commitments we have made in Afghanistan to their long term stability. Secretary Clinton has also outlined a comprehensive strategy for North and West Africa, combining security assistance, economic development, strengthening democratic institutions, advancing political reforms.

These regions are undergoing a — an historic transition that offers many in the region hope for a better future. But these changes, unless influenced by the international community, could result in greater turmoil. The American people were outraged by the loss of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and three others in Benghazi. They were emissaries of peace, and friends of Libya. And the Libyan people have turned against the violent extremists who killed them.

…

Thank you.

…

MODERATOR: OK, for the last two questions, we’re going to have a competition on who can frame the question most concisely. (Laughter.)

Tony, you’re the first contestant.

Q: When the Pakistan strategy was first rolled out in 2009, it was called Af-Pak. There were a lot of concerns from lawmakers that the United States was hinging too much of its Afghan strategy on Pakistan.

Realistically, what chance will the U.S. strategy have to succeed in 2014 if more of the safe havens aren’t dealt with more stridently than they’ve been to date?

SEC. PANETTA: Look, in many ways the success in Afghanistan is dependent on having a Pakistan that is willing to confront terrorism on their side of the border and prevent safe havens.

You know, I — look, I think that right now the ability to develop a security force in Afghanistan that is able to provide security, that can establish, you know, operational capability to confront threats on the Afghan side of the border is extremely important to the future.

We need to have — you know, we’re building this 352,000 ANSF [Afghanistan National Security Force] force. That is extremely important to our ability to make the transition and to have an Afghanistan that can, in fact, provide security.

And that’s going to be an important key. But to able to succeed in Afghanistan is also going to require — I mean the threats I see that we’ve got to worry about in the future are the following: Number one, we have to have an Afghanistan that can govern itself, that can move away from corruption, that can, in fact, have the capability to provide the kind of governance that you need in order to be able to truly secure that country and govern that country for the future. That’s an area that I think demands a lot more attention for the future.

The other is Pakistan because of the safe havens in Pakistan. And the ability of terrorist groups to move across that border and to attack in Afghanistan and, obviously, the challenge that that represents.

You know, obviously, we can take them as they cross the border. We’ve been going after them operationally when they do that. But the problem is that when they move back and escape into a safe haven, it makes it very difficult to complete the job.

So in order to really have a secure Afghanistan, ultimately Pakistan is going to have to take responsibility for taking on these terrorists and eliminating the safe havens.

MODERATOR: Last question. Over here.

Thank you. (Applause.)

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=5154

Print this Report

Statements of Pak’s Interests US Govt – 22 Oct 2012

editor — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:52:13 +0000

Print this Report

Statements about Pakistan by Government Officials

October 22, 2012

State Department Regular Briefing

Briefer: Mark Toner, Deputy Spokesman, Department of State.

Location: State Department Briefing Room.

Time: 1:19 p.m. EDT

Q: Did Pakistan share with the U.S. the report — the report of the Abbottabad commission, which was established after Osama bin Laden was killed in last — May last year?

MR. TONER: Frankly, we’ve just seen reports in the Pakistani press about the Abbottabad commission report. You know, as we’ve stated previously, we obviously share with the government of Pakistan a profound interest in finding out what kinds of support networks bin Laden might have had. So, you know, we believe such a report, when it does finally get finalized and published, that it’s an important for the American people and the Pakistani people to know.

Q: Do you agree with the assessment that also come up in the news reports that no one in Pakistan knew about the presence of Osama bin Laden in — (inaudible) –

MR. TONER: Can you repeat just the first part of your question again? Do I agree with –

Q: Do I — do you agree with the assessment of the report which has appeared in the Pakistani newspapers and elsewhere that no one inside Pakistan knew that Osama bin Laden is present in the city for last five years?

MR. TONER: Again, we’ve not yet seen the report itself so, you know, you’re asking me to comment on press reports about the report’s contents, so let’s wait until we have the report, and then we’ll be happy to comment on it.

Q: And finally, during this investigation, did the Pakistani team seek any information, assistance as part of the investigation from the U.S.?

MR. TONER: From the U.S.? Not that I’m aware. If that’s different, I’ll find out.

Q: Thank you.

MR. TONER: Yep.

Q: Different question on Pakistan. As far as shooting of the 14-year-old girl, Malala, now she is in U.K. for further advanced treatment. And what do we learn from this shooting? And is there a message for anybody from this shooting that there is still — terrorism is still there, or –

MR. TONER:Well, the message couldn’t be more clear, you know, when you’re talking about the right of young girls to receive an education, you know, and the fact that these individuals, these terrorists are looking to wipe out or stop these girls from access to education, access to their very basic rights. I think it was a clear message to the Pakistani people and one that’s clearly resonated with them. And, you know, and I think it strengthened their resolve.

Q: Anybody from the administration had any conversation after the shooting with any Pakistani officials or ambassador?

MR. TONER: Ongoing, I know. In fact, Ambassador Grossman was in Pakistan over the weekend. So I’m sure that that was a topic of conversation.

Print this Report

Statements of Pak’s Interests US State dept – 3 Oct

editor — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 15:07:32 +0000

Print this Report

State Department Regular Briefing

Briefer: Victoria Nuland, Spokesperson, Department of State

Location: State Department Briefing Room, State Department, Washington, D.C.

Q: People in Afghanistan are worried about the security transition in Afghanistan.

MS. NULAND: The security –

Q: Security transition. And still the situation in Afghanistan — (inaudible) — rocket fired from Pakistan to Afghanistan, and 2014 also close, and you know, the strategic partnership was signed between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Afghan people don’t like that they are — (inaudible) — and they say although Pakistan is still — they didn’t change this, you know, policy towards Afghanistan. Just generally, what do you think about the general situation in Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, the secretary spoke quite extensively to our relationship with Afghanistan, to the Afghan-Pakistan relationship before or after her meeting with Foreign Minister Rassoul today, so I obviously can’t improve on what she said. We obviously focus very intensively still on security with the Afghans. We have strongly supported Afghan-Pakistan-NATO-U.S. conversations about the cross- border issues, and we will continue to do that.

Q: OK. As you negotiate with the Afghan government this new agreement, which I guess is going to supersede the current SOFA (ph), they have events coming up such as the local elections and there’s the reconciliation talks. And obviously, that will decide, to some extent, I guess, U.S. success in Afghanistan. To what extent are you concerned about those domestic affairs that are going to be taking place in Afghanistan? (To what?) concern are you — concerned, if you will, with their local event?

MS. NULAND: Well, the electoral process is obviously an important milestone in Afghanistan’s democracy. This would be the third election, I think, and it will be very important that it be free, fair, transparent, that they allow international monitors, that there be a stable environment for it. So obviously we’re very focused on that in our political conversations and in our security conversation with the Afghans. On the reconciliation side, as we’ve said for a long time, we support an Afghan-led process. And there has been a lot of work done to prepare the ground for that. It’s really — the ball is in the Taliban court, whether they want to play or not.

Q: What is the — what’s the basis for the conclusion that Taliban is no longer interested in talks with Afghanistan and Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: They themselves made an announcement back in March that they were suspending participation. And so, you know, they’ve got to make the decision whether they’re going to take advantage of the opportunities that are open to them.

Q: Madam, as far as reconciliation is concerned, do you think it’s working now? And what is the future because still there are some — attacks are still going on. And also, what she was asking, that — (inaudible) — full cooperation and really understanding from Pakistan as far as the ending the war in Afghanistan. It cannot work then because in the south there are still problems of Taliban across the border from Pakistan. So what do you think the future will be for the people of Afghanistan that were fighting for this free and fair election and also freedom for the last 20-plus years?

MS. NULAND: Well, obviously I don’t have a crystal ball as to where reconciliation is going to go. I think I said a couple of times here earlier in this brief that, you know, it — we have supported the Afghan-led process, they’ve got an open door to it. It’s now for the Taliban to decide if they want to take advantage of it. They’ve got an open door to it. It’s now for the Taliban to decide if they want to take advantage of it.

Q: On Kashmir, last week Pakistan President Zardari at the UNGA said that not resolving the Kashmir issue is a sign of U.N. failure. And this week on Monday, India’s external affairs minister said this remark by President Zardari was unwarranted. There have been extended words between the two countries on Kashmir issue. Two questions: What is U.S. position on Kashmir? Do you think U.N. still has a role to play in resolving that dispute? And secondly, these extended words do you think would derail the peace process which is going on between India and Pakistan right now?

MS. NULAND: Well, more broadly, we have said for some time that we applaud the progress that India and Pakistan have made in their dialogue, particularly on the economic side. We are encouraged that they’ve taken some concrete steps to normalize trade relations, including the recently signed agreement on visa liberalization.

We want to see this economic warming extend to other areas. With regard to our own policy on Kashmir, it hasn’t changed. It’s been the same for a very long time.

Q: Just to follow? (Inaudible.)

Q: On Iran?

MS. NULAND: Yes. Oh, sorry, let’s finish on Kashmir. Sorry, Margaret.

Q: Madam, what I feel and say after talking to many Indians and Pakistanis on area, there is always — every year there’s a tug of war between India and Pakistan at the United Nations, like this year also, same thing. If this thing continue, then India brings up the issue of terrorism, that unless Pakistan stops terrorism into India, then no talks will continue because of this Kashmir issue they keep bringing. My question in here, I had been interviewing and talking a lot of Kashmiris from the occupied Pakistan Kashmir. And what they are saying is always U.S. and others talking about the human rights in India’s Kashmir, but nobody talks about in Pakistan’s Kashmir, which the situation is horrible. And nobody talks. And time has come, but they are saying that U.S. should bring this issue, what is happening inside Pakistan Kashmir.

MS. NULAND: Well, more broadly, I would say that we do talk about human rights regularly with the Pakistan government. We report on these things in our annual human rights report. So obviously, human rights in Pakistan is a — something that we watch carefully and that’s important to us. On the broader issue of Kashmir, as I said, we want to see this economic warming now translate into a better conversation on that issue as well.

Q: (Off mic) — issue came up when secretary met — (off mic) — Krishna and President Zardari in New York, Kashmir issue?

MS. NULAND: I don’t think it came up in the Pakistan meeting. I will check for you on the Krishna meeting. As you know, I was here, so I’ll check on that one.

Q: Madam, one more quickly?

MS. NULAND: We — yeah.

Q: Just any readout, madam, on the meeting between secretary and the Indian foreign minister, Krishna, please?

MS. NULAND: I think we had a written readout on that that came to some of you on the day. Let me see what I have here. So they reviewed the trilateral meeting that we had, Afghanistan, India, U.S. They also talked about regional economic integration, including the TAPI pipeline, Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline. They discussed our joint efforts on energy, civil nuclear cooperation, visas, trade and bilateral investment, cooperation with India’s near neighbors. And as I said, the secretary commended India on India- Pakistan work together on the economic side.

Q: Did you say trilateral between U.S., India and Afghanistan, madam?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

Q: So what will be the role of India for in the future in Afghanistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, India’s been a big economic investor, it’s been a big development investor, it’s been supportive of police force strengthening in Afghanistan, and they’ve been a big contributor to the broader Silk Road vision that the secretary strongly supports. So India’s playing a constructive role in Afghanistan’s future.

Print this Report

SPEECH BY, FOREIGN MINISTER OF PAKISAN AT THE OIC AT JEDDA 13 Aug

editor — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:26:39 +0000

Print this Report

Bismillah-ir Rahman-ir Raheem

Your Royal Highness

Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Abdullah Al-Saud,

Your Highnesses,

Excellencies,

Distinguished delegates,

Assalam-o-Alaikum

Let me first express our profound gratitude to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Majesty King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud for convening the Fourth Extraordinary Islamic Summit in the blessed month of Ramadan al Mubarak to foster unity and reinforce solidarity of the Muslim Ummah.

We in Pakistan attach special importance to our relations with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia based, as they are, on unshakable bonds of religion, brotherhood, cultural affinity and history. Saudi Arabia has always stood shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan during difficult times. We are deeply indebted for this steadfast support.

Your Royal Highness,

Today, the body politics of Muslim world has been shaken by a series of crises which seem to be moving in all directions posing a major threat to the established political and social order. If we look around, from Mali to Somalia, and from Yemen to Afghanistan our lands are confronted with serious challenges. As in the past, we shall overcome these challenges through determined action.

We strongly condemn unilateral declaration of independence by a radical group in Mali. We assure the people and government of Mali of our full support at this difficult juncture.

The ongoing vicious cycle of death and destruction in Syria is a matter of deep concern for us. We strongly condemn the continuing bloodshed by all parties in Syria.

The bloodletting in Syria must stop forthwith. End of violence is imperative for return of social stability in the country. Social equilibrium, once disturbed can have unintended consequences.

We urge all sides to show restraint and announce ceasefire in deference to Ramadan and Eid-ul-Fitr. It would provide space for all sides to engage in dialogue. Political differences should be resolved through an inclusive dialogue.

The democratic aspirations of the Syrian people must be respected.

Your Royal Highness,

Since its inception, the OIC has weathered many storms. Despite heavy odds, we always maintained unity and solidarity within our ranks. In line with the OIC Charter, we respected sovereignty and territorial integrity of Member States and upheld the principle of non-interference and non-intervention in internal affairs of Member Countries. Any departure from this principle would seriously undermine the Organization’s moral high ground.

Pakistan has always stood for the principles enshrined in the OIC Charter and opposed to punitive or coercive measures against member countries. Indeed we have adopted it as a cardinal principle in conducting our foreign relations. In our assessment, such punitive actions especially under Chapter VII of the UN Charter only add to the miseries of civilian population in the targeted countries and always end up further complicating already complex situations. Nevertheless, Pakistan will continue to support all OIC initiatives that would bring about stability in Muslim lands.

Your Royal Highness,

Pakistan fully supports the realization of Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self determination and creation of an independent and viable Palestinian State with Al Quds Al Sharif as its capital. We also support Palestine’s full membership of the UN.

Pakistan remains committed to a just and peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions. We deeply treasure the unwavering support extended by the Muslim Ummah for the Kashmir cause.

Pakistan regards peace and stability in Afghanistan as synonymous with our own security. We support an Afghan-led and Afghan owned reconciliation process in Afghanistan. Like always, we will stand firm with our Afghan brethren in dealing with the challenges of transition up to 2014 and beyond.

Your Royal Highness,

We are deeply distressed with the situation of Muslim minorities in various parts of the world.

Stigmatizing of Muslims and smear campaign against Islam are unacceptable and should be strongly condemned by all people of conscience in the world.

Continued repression and atrocities against Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar is a source of deep anguish and concern for Pakistan. We support OIC’s decision to dispatch a fact-finding mission to Myanmar. We hope it would receive full cooperation from the Government of Myanmar and help in protecting life and property of Muslim minority in Myanmar.

Terrorism is the most serious scourge of our times. Many of our societies have seriously suffered from this menace. We are deeply concerned that very often terrorism is associated with our noble religion. We need to pool our resources to eradicate this malice from our lands.

We propose convening of a meeting of Religious Scholars from all over the world, to discuss and issue an authoritative Declaration against suicide attacks and all other forms of terrorist violence. Pakistan would be happy to host this Conference.

Your Royal Highness,

Your Highnesses,

Excellencies,

Distinguished Delegates,

Let me conclude by reiterating Pakistan’s continued support for Muslim causes and unwavering solidarity with Muslim Ummah.

May Almighty Allah grant us the wisdom and strength to transcend our differences as unity, reconciliation and brotherhood are divinely enjoined and not optional for Muslims.

May Allah bless us all.

Print this Report

Statements of Pak’s Interests US State dept – 23 July

editor — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 06:08:35 +0000

Print this Report

US Government Official about Pakistan

Date: 23 July, 2012

State Department Daily Briefing

QUESTION: As far as war in Afghanistan is concerned and Pakistan support, there’s a bombing in Pakistan, bombings in Afghanistan. And also, what Pakistan wants from the U.S. is that U.S. should stop immediately drone attacks because now Pakistan has opened the doors for the U.S. route supplies to Afghanistan. And Pakistan’s ISI chief supposed to be here this week – I think with army chief, but they have again, cancelled a fourth one. Is U.S. going to stop all these drone attacks against Pakistan?

MS. NULAND: Well, I think you won’t be surprised that I’m going to give you the answer that I always give you, Goyal, which is I’m not going to talk about intelligence issues. What I will say on Pakistan is that we’ve got good news with regard to the ground lines of communication. As you know, they’ve been open for some week and a half, two weeks now, and we have some 400 trucks either having passed or getting ready to pass through. And so that is working very well.

QUESTION: As far as the India-Pakistan dialogues are concerned, the cricket diplomacy again coming back between the two countries –

MS. NULAND: We’re for cricket. We don’t understand it, but we like it. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, they love their cricket, but at the same time, there are problems on other issues like terrorism and border problems and also prisoner exchange and so forth. Now, India’s Foreign Minister Krishna is visiting Islamabad, I believe, in the next two or three months. What my question is here – that there are some issues between the two countries which are hurdle and not bringing them together and solving major issues between two countries, and people are eager that two countries must work together and as far as people to people and opening doors of visa and so forth. My question is: What role do you think U.S. is playing now between the two countries so it can solve these problems?

MS. NULAND: Well, listen, we share the interest of people in India, people in Pakistan, and you personally, Goyal, in seeing these two countries continuing to improve their relationship. We have been supportive in all of our diplomatic encounters at every level with the Indian side, with the Pakistani side in some of the progress that they’ve made. They’ve made considerable progress on the economic side. We are encouraging them to do better on issues like sharing counterterrorism information, dealing with threats to both countries, moving forward to work on trust and political issues, so we will continue support dialogue between them at every level, but it’s obviously up to Indians and Pakistanis to continue to work on this.

QUESTION: Last –

QUESTION: The major issue between the two countries now going on is to bring this famous prisoner out of Pakistan into India, which Pakistan announced that they will release him last month, but he’s still there. Is U.S. aware of this or anybody ask the U.S. to intervene or –

MS. NULAND: Again, this is a subject that the – dealing with the aftermath of the Mumbai bombings and bringing people to justice that comes up in all of our discussions with Indians and with Pakistanis. And we’ll continue to advocate for full justice being served, not least because Americans lost their lives as well.

Print this Report