Reset of US-Pakistan Relations (Part 01)

A webinar on ‘Reset of US-Pakistan Relations’ was held under the auspices of the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations (KCFR) on January 12, 2021. It was chaired by Chairman KCFR Mr. Ikram Sehgal and moderated by member Board of Governors (BoG) KCFR Mr. Moeen Fudda. The panelists for the webinar included Assistant to Prime Minister of Pakistan on National Security Division and Strategic Planning Mr. Moeed Yusuf; former US Ambassador to Pakistan Dr. Cameron Munter; member BoG, KCFR Dr. Huma Baqai, and Senior Research Professor, John Hopkins SAIS Mr. Daniel Markey. The panelists underscored the importance of the bilateral relationship between both countries and identified areas where cooperation can be improved. Chairman KCFR Mr. Ikram Sehgal thanked the panelists and expressed hope for continued engagement with KCFR for an enlightened and constructive discourse. The transcript of the webinar is as follows:

Cdr.(R) Sadeed A. Malik: Mr. Chairman, it’s 5 o’clock. May I have your permission to start the webinar, sir?

Cdr.(R) Sadeed A. Malik: Thank you sir. Dr. Moeed Yusuf and the worthy panelists, Chairman, members of the Karachi Council on Foreign Relations, Assalam-o-alaikum and a very warm welcome this evening from Pakistan and early in the morning in the United States of America. It’s a pleasure and honor to have you all for this very important webinar.

KCFR Chairman Mr. Ikram Sehgal: Please go ahead.

It would be a ritual for our members to know who we are and what we do. For our worthy panelists, I would like to briefly inform you that KCFR was formed 18 years back and our former chairman was Retd. Justice Lt. Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui, then we had Quaid-e-Azam’s nephew Mr. Liaqat Merchant, then Shahid Amin, then we had Federal Minister Moeen Haider, and then we had former Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Shahid Kaleemullah as our chairman.

We hold seminars, and after this pandemic we have started holding webinars. We shall complete 300 such sessions very shortly.

We have also signed MoUs with a lot of international and local think tanks including in America, China, India, Turkey, Iran etc. Without any further ado, may I request our member Board of Governors Mr. Moeen Fudda, who is a senior BoG member. He is the former Managing Director of Pakistan Stock Exchange and the present Chairman of PBC. He is the also the honorary Counselor General of New Zealand in Pakistan, Mr. Moeen Fudda.

Mr. Moeen Fudda: Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for joining this very prestigious event. Thanks to our chairman Mr. Ikram Sehgal at whose request the four panelists have joined this webinar. I am sure this is going to be a very interesting and thought-provoking webinar. We have Dr. Moeed Yusuf with us and together with him there are 3 panelists, two joining from the US and our own Dr. Huma Baqai.

The process for the webinar is as follows; Dr. Moeed Yusuf will speak for 15 minutes, followed by the 3 panelists who will speak for approx. 10 minutes each. Thereafter, we will have questions and answers. KCFR members may raise their hands, other participants may please write their questions in the chat box. We hope to conclude this webinar by 6:30 PST and in the end for about 10 minutes or so, our Honorable Chairman will do the closing remarks.

I have the privilege, ladies and gentlemen, to introduce Pakistan’s youngest security advisor Dr. Moeed Yusuf. He’s a scholar currently serving as the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan in the capacity of an Assistant to the Prime Minister on National Security Division and Strategic Planning.

Before joining the government, Dr. Yusuf was the Associate Vice President for Asia at The Institute of Peace in Washington DC. Dr. Yusuf has taught Political Science, International Relations at Boston University, George Washington University, LUMS and Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.

Dr. Yusuf has authored numerous articles, opinions and books. Three of his books that I would like to mention are ‘Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia,’ 2018, ‘South Asia 2060: Envisioning Regional Futures’, which was co-authored in 2013, and ‘Getting it Right in Afghanistan,’ co-edited in 2013. Dr. Moeed Yusuf is expected to play a crucial role in resetting the relationship between US and Pakistan and we wish him all the best. I request Dr. Moeed Yusuf open the discussions with his address.

Dr. Moeed Yusuf: Ji thank you, Assalam-o-alaikum and good morning to the people in the west, good afternoon and evening here. First of all, thank you very much, Ikram sb and the Institute for the opportunity and Moeen sb and for the introduction. Very grateful for the introduction, except you set me up to fail in the last sentence because if the reset is on me, I think we are in trouble.

But let me be very candid in the next few minutes to layout what I think is the future here. You know, as an official, I am still yet to learn the ability to curb my independence in terms of my views and I think it’s not beneficial for this kind of audience for me to just plainly lay out what my wishes are. Where do we want to go is the real question?

Let me begin by saying that the current administration that is taking over in the US; the new administration; a lot of those people are well known to Pakistani officials and interlocutors and vice versa because a lot of them served in the Obama Administration as well. The difference is that we are now going to re-engage in a completely different world. And this is a critical point that both sides must internalize because otherwise I am afraid we will start from where we left, and while we were very close Partners, there were still issues that they did separate us at the time and created some level of discomfort.

Why do I say it’s a new world? First of all the key element of the relationship at that time was Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is in a very different place today than 2016. We have an active dialogue process, we have timelines, we have agreements. And the main reason for the sort of disconnect, I would say, at that time was that we were not reaching the point in Afghanistan, but thanks to efforts by Pakistan that everybody in the world has acknowledged now. We are at a point where there is a peace process, there is a dialogue process and we do have timelines to achieve peace in Afghanistan.

The entire world including the US has acknowledged Pakistan’s role in it. So there is no reason for us to be stuck in the old groove on this. We have a clear line in front of us that we need to cross to achieve peace. We have milestones. We need to stick to that and achieve them.

Second, there is a major change in terms of the US. It’s a very different conversation, the internal issues that we have seen unfortunately, so perhaps we are not at a stage that we were in 2016 where the external facing policy was just as important as the internal one. I suppose the external elements will be more important going forward for some time.

Third, we are dealing with a very different India, and of course India is sort of the elephant in the room every time for conversations with Pakistan, but this is not the India that was left behind in 2016 even, even though it was the same government in India. We are seeing an India that is now being called out for its fascism, for its approach towards exclusion of millions and millions of people, for its approach to disputed territories like Kashmir by the Western press, and the US Congress and the British Parliament.

We are not talking of Pakistan here. We have also seen the real face of India perpetrating an anti-Pakistan narrative, with this Dis info lab. We have put out what India’s daily activities in Pakistan are in a public dossier, etc. etc. So we are dealing with an India which may be seen as a counterweight to China by some but frankly for the region is a country that now has a spat or a conflict with every neighbor and has become a liability.

Why am I putting these out? Because all of this ultimately also links to an internal reality of Pakistan, which is the security problems and threats in Pakistan are simply not what they were and thankfully due to the efforts of our armed forces and leadership, we are simply not the country that was in the eye of the storm as far as time terrorism went. If you look at the security situation and the violence, it’s infinitely lower than what it was. So that’s in-the-face conversation about the security concerns. Don’t need to happen the same way now.

This, to me, opens a real opportunity for Pakistan and the incoming administration to have a conversation for once where we have a truly bilateral relationship, not the relationship from an Afghan lens or an India lens or a China lens, but really a relationship that is about Pakistan and the US. It may be more realistic, it may be more modest but a relationship that truly looks at both sides bilaterally and sees where mutual interest lies.

Let me just in the last part crystallize for you what Pakistan would be looking for, and this is important because again the institutional memory or the muscle memory, I would say, always takes the conversation in a negative direction saying, oh security state, India-centric, civil-military tensions and everything that you know, we have heard in Washington and I used to hear and write about for years.

The first thing I want to put out on the table is that Pakistan is formally, as dictated and approved and instructed by the Prime Minister on an Economic Security Paradigm. Pakistan’s focus is economic security, and human security and military security are built around that, because if we do not have the security through Economic Security, nothing else matters, what does that mean?

Number one; it means Pakistan is interested in the world and in the context of the conversation, the US, benefiting from Pakistan’s geo-economic location. We are not talking of geo-strategic location. That is true, that exists but we are talking of the geo-economic location and treat us as a melting pot for positive global economic interests, not as a staging ground for competition between great powers. So there may be conversation about military bases in the past. We are offering economic bases now; that’s the Economic Security Paradigm.

It has three pillars. Number one, connectivity. CPEC is one big example of that. Why do we want peace in Afghanistan? It’s because we want access to Central Asia. Sea-based connectivity is the third and we even are open to Eastward connectivity, but of course, India’s outlook, behavior and regressive attitude makes that impossible right now, but connectivity is one.

Second; we want to talk about development partnerships, not assistance. Of course, Pakistan will remain dependent on assistance from the world for some time. But the focus here in the US-Pakistan conversation should be on true development partnerships, and the third and last pillar of this is what we call responsibility within to Pakistani citizens and responsibility beyond borders in terms of regional and near neighborhood peace.

So did Pakistan take advantage of the India-China standoff? Because India was talking about that every day that Pakistan is going to do this or do that. No! What is our policy on Kashmir? Again and again, human rights and international law-focused.

Domestically, wherever we can improve our situation, it’s economic, it’s the welfare state concept of the Prime Minister and weaknesses. For instance, in many areas where we can improve, on index of Human Rights or whatever, that’s the focus. This is the Pakistan you are talking to today. I think it will be a complete waste of time if we start talking about what happened in 1979 and then 85 and 90 and whatever. This is where we want to start from and very specifically for this audience, let me tell you where I, this is my personal view. I should have mentioned that I was invited today as an individual. So please don’t reflect what I have said here as state policy. This is my view. Yes, I understand. I sit in an office, but I was invited to speak my mind. So Economic Security Paradigm. You will hear that conversation from Pakistan, nothing else.  Genuine convergence in the economic and global space. How?

The ROZ concept, for example, the Reconstruction Opportunity Zones. Why can’t we revive that, not only for the erstwhile tribal areas but the entire Pakistan for concessionary exports to Afghanistan? We don’t have a Pakistan-US Business Council, which is B2B the private sector. Why not create that and let the private sector take forward sectoral plans in priority sectors, like IT, like agriculture, like energy. A lot of conversation happens about CPEC, but, American companies are some of the highest profit-making companies in Pakistan for years. That’s the conversation to have on how to build on that. And I can see Adnan Asad is here, and he can bail me out on this.

Global issues and climate change. The Pakistani Prime Minister has championed climate change despite the fact that we are very low in terms of the emissions globally and very high in terms of the threat of climate change or the vulnerability to climate change. So there is now a climate envoy in the US. Why can’t US and Pakistan take it jointly, one for the global North one for the global South and push the agenda.

The pandemic, Global Health. Pakistan has lessons that much of the developing world does not. Thankfully, our performance has been very good. Why can’t we share that and work with the US to spread that globally to prevent the next pandemic or at least to manage it.

Diplomatically, Afghanistan is obviously a big issue. US-China. There are two ways to look at this. There is a rivalry and there is a possibility of Pakistan creating more cooperation, lowering the temperature, talking about climate change, talking about global norms, and helping this environment cool down if that is of interest.

Yes, China’s is a strategic partner. Yes, Pakistan’s relationship with China is going from strength to strength and there is no compromise on that. But no way has Pakistan has said, and frankly Pakistan cannot afford camp politics. US is the largest export market. We want to increase it even further. So my plea, would be not to consider, and not to buy into the narrative that frankly comes in from our Eastern neighbor that Pakistan is lost to another camp, and there is no point dealing with Pakistan’s reasonably.

If I were today sitting in the US, I wouldn’t understand how it would benefit the US to lose a country as important as Pakistan just because there is a sense that oh it’s in another camp. We are in no mood to do that. Actually, we can help in this space. And then of course, we need to come up with a mechanism to talk. This is going to be a structured environment. You know, we used to have a strategic dialogue. We need some high-level mechanism to have new conversations on new issues. Otherwise, I’m afraid we will then again caught up in the old debate and that won’t be good for both sides. Last point, I haven’t mentioned big things that you would expect me sitting where I’m sitting to mention. India-Pakistan; huge issue for us. Anybody who ignores it, is at their own peril. Things are going from bad to worse and frankly, I say this as a scholar, going from bad to worse because of India.

This is a conversation that will come up, but I am not talking about this today because I am focused on what I am suggesting to you as a new conversation. Next, I haven’t mentioned the word monetary assistance. We are not looking for it. We are talking partnerships. So don’t expect Pakistan coming in and saying here is what we need and the US saying do more. No need for that. We are not talking about that at this point. Terrorism is not the behemoth it was. We are at a point we where we can share lessons with the world on how we have done what we have done. That’s the conversation we want to have.

So there are old agenda points that will be discussed. But please take this as a new conversation that Pakistan is offering on mutual interest that are truly going to benefit both sides. Now the worry is that old minds will start old conversations. We want to avoid that. So we need to engage early. US needs to benefit from Pakistan’s position, location, relationship with China, the other diplomatic issues in the region we can help with, and Pakistan is definitely interested in improving this relationship even further on a completely new platform and track and quite frankly if now we don’t see a response, very many nay-sayers will quickly conclude that it’s the US that is pushing Pakistan away under the pretext that India is more important, which frankly if not today, tomorrow, everybody will wake up to the reality that it’s become so, sort of, weak and divided internally, that forget about a counterweight, it’s going to be a liability even for its partners.

That’s my very candid view, thank you very much

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much Dr. Moeed Yusuf for setting the 360-degree scene for the US-Pakistan Relationship. Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my privilege to introduce Ambassador Cameron Munter, who is well known to us as he was most popular US ambassador to Pakistan.

Previously, he was Ambassador in Serbia and has served twice in Iraq. He has also served in Czech Republic, Poland, and Germany. And besides having three decades of diplomatic career, he has been the President of East West Institute and has taught at the University of Columbia and, California. A trusted friend of KCFR chairman, Ambassador Munter, we are delighted to have you here. Your morning, our evening. Thank you very much. The floor is yours. Enlighten us with your views

Ambassador Cameron Munter: Thank you very much to you, to Ikram, to everyone who is listening. Thank you for this opportunity. And I’m sure Dan Markey would join me in saying this is the best time for us to engage, at the outset of the new American administration, to try to do what Moeed Yusuf has said, to try to see how we can make this conversation be fruitful rather than stuck in the paradigms of the past.

Let me make a few comments about the atmosphere as I see it from the American side. What has happened with Pakistan in the United States is that it gets less attention and that need not be a bad thing. The attention that Pakistan got certainly in the time ten years ago, when I was the Ambassador. Let’s not forget, it was 10 years ago this month when the Raymond Davis case began and our problems really hit a peak. At that time, Pakistan got lots of attention in Washington DC. It was not good attention. Now, it’s time to create, as Moeed said, to create a new way of doing things.

Now this new situation gives us the opportunity to move past what he referred to as the Afghan-lens, or focus, the terrorist-focus. These remain very important issues for both Pakistan and America but I agree they should not be the only ones. Rather, there will be a new style among the Americans.

What I think is important for Pakistanis to focus on is this new style will be a lot more multilateral than we have had in the past. And by this I mean that the way the new Administration in the person of many people, you know, people like Tony Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Will Burns. The people who are coming in at the senior levels of our foreign policy are going to be looking at solving problems through multilateral means, so I don’t mean to knock the props out from under what Mr. Moeed Yusuf said about a new bilateral relationship, but do be aware that the new team is going to focus very multilaterally. It’s interesting to see that for example, with Europe, the Americans will engage on climate change, on the pandemic, on trade and on digital governance. These are all important things. But what’s missing here? These are not things that are focused on the region. These are things that are global issues. I urge you to expect from the Americans that you will be hearing about these global issues and the way that the bilateral relationship will grow my opinion will be the means by which America and Pakistan, in a fresh way, find common ground on the climate change issues, find common ground on the pandemic, very much as Moeed suggested.

It will probably be more in the context of multilateral institutions whether they are the UN or other regional groups, than we have had in the past. So I predict we will have less of a focus on the bilateral relationship, and more of a focus, at least from the leadership of the American foreign policy elite on the way in which Pakistan can work with other friends around the world to deal with these big issues. This allows for certain possibilities that I think the Pakistani government wants to focus on, to get away from the old reputation of Pakistan.

To be sure, as I have always said in the past and I will say in the future, not only does America need to reform itself at home, and that will be a big focus of Joe Biden, whether it’s medical care, whether it’s the violence that we saw last week, the problems in America, Pakistan must also in order to be a good partner, focus on the kinds of reforms that we have been talking about. The idea that the economy is still crippled by the fact that the taxation system in Pakistan is so weak. It is still crippled by the fact that there are inequities everywhere. In other words domestic issues in Pakistan and domestic issues in United States will be important in order to build together on this.

What I would like to see, is to see Pakistan emerge in the mind of Americans as a player of positive effect that Pakistan is seen not as a problem as it was 10 years ago, but rather as innovative, and as a solution to problems, not a problem itself.

A couple of examples that I would give would be, we can expect enormous American focus on trying to rework or at least re-engage with Iran on the JCPOA. Pakistan has a border with Iran, Pakistan has good relations with Iran, if Pakistan could show initiative to try to be a positive force in trying to find solutions, I think something like this would be welcomed. It would be in Pakistan’s interest. It would certainly be in America’s interest.

Similarly, the bigger problem is with China as Moeed suggested. There is a way to try to deal with China which is confrontational and there is a way to try to find where there might be common ground. And I applaud Moeed Yusuf for how he says this, it’s not a question of playing off the Americans with the Chinese or choosing who loves you more. It’s much more whether the Pakistanis as friends to China and friends to America can come up with ways of talking about issues, whether it’s climate change, whether it’s the pandemic, whether it’s trade. How can Pakistan contribute to making America and China work in a more constructive way? This can only help Pakistan, just as it helps the Americans. In other words, it’s a new role for Pakistan; the role of a positive player. I think within the context of multilateralism and again, I stress that for you. I would not expect a lot of attention to be paid to building a bilateral relationship, desirable as that may be. It would be a question of can Pakistan and America find common ground in multilateral issues, in the Broad Global issues because that is where the new Administration, I believe, is going.

I think you have reasonable people in the new administration who will be open to what you say. There will be, in the United States, a debate about India. India’s domestic issues, which are disturbing, linked with the questions that come up or are associated with the idea of the QUAD, and the issues of India, Australia, Japan and the United States dealing with China. So this is a very, very difficult road to deal with but I hope that our friends in Pakistan can help us understand things and deal with them in a way that is only positive. So that’s my focus.

I urge Pakistan to do just what Moeed said, be an economic international player, be a diplomatic player, and it’s time that Pakistan can put behind it the reputation of being a country that is a problem in Afghanistan, a problem in terrorism and itself a problem in governance. So I think you have an enormous opportunity and I think most of us who are friends of Pakistan and the United States see real possibilities now. Thank you very much.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you, Professor Ambassador Munter. I think once we are through with the two other panelists, then I am going to request Dr. Moeed Yusuf to react to your suggestions.

But now my privilege is to introduce Professor. Dr. Huma Baqai. She is the member Board of Governors KCFR. An Associate Professor and a former chairperson of the social science department at IBA. She has been associated with teaching and research for the last two decades. She is working with both national and international media as an international relations and political expert, and political analyst since 1999. Dr. Huma Baqai is regularly invited for guest lectures and public speaking events.

Prior to joining IBA, she was an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations at the University of Karachi. It’s my privilege to welcome. Dr. Huma Baqai to share her views.

Dr. Huma Baqai: Hello everyone. Good evening. Good morning. Good afternoon, wherever we are at this time. I am still trying to get my video through. So we have heard from Moeed Yusuf, which is the government’s point of view. We have heard from an ambassador, which is a cautious point of view. I am going to talk about how things are felt on the ground, and what is the general understanding.

You see, for Biden, reset to my understanding is a lot of damage control, course correction and image building both internally and externally. And he has to walk the tightrope of being bipartisan. Now in that construct I don’t see a lot of space for, if I may say Pakistan. It’s not just Biden framed his entire election campaign as a response to Trump’s Presidency and Trumpism. It seems now that his entire presidency will also be spent on damage control, course correction and image building for the United States.

I really don’t see much of a difference between Biden and Trump’s presidency for Pakistan especially because I think Pakistan once again will be engaged for specifics.

We will never be more than a contingent partner. Our engagement is contingent to either terrorism or Afghanistan or perhaps now this whole New Politics of camps and how it is unfolding in South Asia.

Unfortunately, as a commoner, I think trust deficit and public humiliation continues to haunt Pakistan-US relations. In fact in Pakistan some of us see public humiliation by the United States as a tool of foreign policy. We also think that US will keep Pakistan’s nuclear policy and assets under close scrutiny. It will continue to exercise pressure through FATF and international financial institutions. And of course we can go into the debate that these are independent institutions and all that. But that is the perception that exists in Pakistan. Andin foreign relations perception is sometimes much bigger than reality.

Reciprocation on Kashmir despite Indian atrocities has not happened, not even the lip service that Pakistan would perhaps be happy with. Something they can sell to their own public. Unfortunately that has also not happened.

And that remains an issue when private conversations happen. Most assessments agree that the greatest geopolitical risk of 2021 concerns relations between the two global powers, the United States and China. Moeed just referred to it. It’s now being called the camp politics. For Pakistan, that is where the word balance sort of comes. How we look at Pakistan-US relations right now is achieving balance. US remains an important and key ally for Pakistan but the key word that defines Pakistan-US relations is a balance.

Biden may not pair Pakistan with China as the target of Washington’s Indo-pacific strategy to exert dual American and Indian pressure as this may put Pakistan firmly in the Chinese camp and thus lose to Beijing’s strategic plans. But the truth of the matter is that Pakistan has already started calling itself the Strategic partner of Beijing and sees a convergence which is more deep with China than perhaps it was with the United States. We of course continue to see our relations with the US through the Indian lens and crave balance there also, but what Pakistan is looking at right now is at being neither overly allied nor alienated.

I mean, that’s how I see the relationship. And I also think that that president-elect Biden will be constrained by his domestic challenges and we saw a glimpse into it on 5th January.

A Stratfor 2021 forecast predicts a constrained return to multilateralism by Biden. And the constraint seems to be growing. The world is in short supply of Global Leadership, as much as Biden wants it. It will not happen. Moreover in other predictions or a trend that is emerging in 2021 is insularity. It’s a defining feature of 2021 and that is what is being said geopolitical futures and annual forecasts that countries will be so consumed by their own problems, especially post pandemic and the economic recessions, that the much-needed convergence or cooperation that we are looking for will not happen naturally. We also see United States stuck with that problem. Post pandemic economics slowdowns, states will strive to develop their own strategic identity rather than have it shaped for them by regional or institutional affiliations.

And if we do a debate on global leadership, as much as Biden would want to retain that for the United States, a lot of people are seeing China emerging as a contender, and it’s a new China. It’s both aggressive and confrontational.

And last but not the least, something which is extremely important for Pakistan is US getting out of the forever wars. For Biden, it won’t be easy. It has direct implications for Pakistan, especially the gap between the Taliban and Kabul’s positions remain wide. And the way things are shaping up, I don’t think negotiations alone will help. How much Pakistan will do what it can. It will facilitate, not because US is asking us to, but because it suits our own interests and it’s important for us.

When we say a balanced relationship with the United States, we are looking at a functional relationship with both Afghanistan and even India, but having said this, I think US will continue to remain committed in doing the arm-twisting it initially did for both Kabul and Taliban. It’s only then that Pakistan can play a role which can be of value in this entire situation.

So ladies and gentlemen, this is largely my take on the reset that will happen between Pakistan and US. It is a tricky relationship and I personally think it will so remain.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you Professor Dr. Huma Baqai. As usual you have highlighted relationship between the two countries and the future extremely well. The last panelist ladies and gentlemen is Dr. Daniel Markey who is a Senior Research Professor at John Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. Earlier, he was a professor of politics at Princeton University. Dr. Markey was a senior fellow for India Pakistan and South Asia at the Council of Foreign Relations. He held a South Asia portfolio on the US Secretary’s Policy Planning Division at the State Department.

He is the author of numerous reports, books and opinion pieces. His latest book ‘China’s Western Horizon: Beijing and the New Geopolitics of Eurasia’ was published in 2020. He has written a book on the future of US-Pakistan relationship. ‘No Exit from Pakistan: America’s Tortured Relationship with Islamabad.’ And now after the new regime, I hope his new book is going to come soon, hopefully in a positive tone, and encourage the US to play a bigger role to recognize Pakistan’s existence in the region. Over to you, Dr. Markey. Thank you for joining us.

Daniel Markey: Thank you. Great to see all of you. Good morning from Washington DC, Good afternoon and good evening to most of you. It’s great to see some familiar faces and old friends, and especially good to hear some of the constructive and positive, forward-looking tone of the conversation thus far. I hope that I don’t depart too much from it. I don’t mean to bring about a more negative or in any way counterproductive perspective, but I do think it’s important to be clear as Professor Baqai just was about some of the challenges that we face as well so that we might adequately attempt to overcome them looking forward.

So it is true and I will agree with those who have gone before mean that that president-elect Biden and his incoming team are both familiar with Pakistan and with the region and bring great expertise and experience with them into government. But also that they would like to I think begin a new chapter, a more constructive chapter in relations with Pakistan in particular.

Remember if we go back not so long ago that this is Biden who during the Obama Administration frequently made the point that Pakistan, more than Afghanistan should be Washington’s principal strategic focus in the region.

He appreciates and I think those closest to him also appreciate both Pakistan’s scale and Pakistan strategic significance and human significance on its own terms. But having said that, my recollection is also that now president-elect Biden was then profoundly frustrated with attempts to engage with Pakistan’s leadership and to gain a better understanding about what Pakistan really wanted or needed from the United States in the region.

In other words, I recall him specifically saying things like “Why can’t Pakistan make it clear to us precisely what it’s vision for a future in Afghanistan ought to be. Why can’t they share that with us in a way that we can work with them on?” That kind of frustration despite the desire to turn the page I think is probably the most immediate thing to come to mind within this new group, or this returning group of policymakers.

So it’s that much more important and essential that efforts be made early on to revise that thinking if possible. I will agree with other speakers so far that finding a way to escape what I call the instrumentalzing of Pakistan; the seeing of Pakistan always through some other strategic lens will be as difficult as it has been in the past. It’s possible, but it’s going to be hard.

Moeed was again, very constructive and forward-looking in his characterization of the situation in Afghanistan, but I will tell you that seeing here from the Washington DC, the current situation in Afghanistan looks a great deal more precarious and uncertain than the way that he framed it. The Trump Administration has promised to pull out US forces by May which may have been fine if we had made greater progress in negotiations between the Kabul government and the Taliban, but at this point, there are serious questions about whether they can produce anything that would approximate a stable arrangement by that date and there are serious people, including if you read pieces in Foreign Affairs recently by Barnett Rubin among others, people who are suggesting that there will be further delays, and there ought to be delays in that US final troop pullout. But even then, these types of delays six months or whatever, still raise questions about whether the United States can achieve even its minimal counterterrorism goals under the circumstances. And in every instance, the answers to these questions always implicate Pakistan, that is, Pakistan is always seen as either being reasonably helpful as has been the case of late or not helpful enough which raises irritations in the bilateral relationship with the United States. And at the same time, we see all of this and certainly here in Washington, we see these events within the broader context of the tightening US-India strategic partnership, which is certainly something that has persisted throughout the Trump Administration. And while the Biden Administration may be more concerned about the deterioration of India’s and certainly Narendra Modi’s commitment to minority protection, to democracy, to liberal and pluralistic practices. Yes, the Biden Administration will be worried about these things, but that is not likely to shift it off its principal strategic course, to reverse that course or recede India as anything less of a strategic partner. And that’s because the Biden Administration comes in with an ordering principle of the world that is driven principally by strategic competition with China. So I would say once Washington, hopefully finds its way to escape from the current moment of political turmoil and preoccupation with a pandemic at home and to somehow outlast needs immediate crises, its principal strategic focus will be China and that translates to a strategic relationship with India and has consequences for Washington’s relationship with Pakistan.

Now I too am eager to look for ways to improve US-Pakistan ties, and I agree that there will be no way for us to go back to the past. And so it’s good to hear when Moeed talks about that there’s no interest in Pakistan in return to development assistance. There is very little appetite for those kinds of conversations back in Washington either and I don’t expect that will change. I don’t even anticipate that government-led efforts at promoting business to business relations will really take hold of the imagination back in Washington, although there is an openness to greater US business activity in Pakistan certainly. There is also no desire in the United States as far as I can tell for us to try to outdo China or compete for Pakistan’s affections with China , to try to somehow one up China in its efforts with China-Pakistan Economic Corridor or with investments in other ways and there’s no serious interest in rekindling major military to military sales, certainly not assistance, training and exercising maybe something that comes back onto the agenda but there’s still going to be strong pressure in similar ways whether in the Financial Action Task Force or elsewhere for Pakistan to keep a lid on the problem of terrorism that the United States has been so focused on for now so long.

However, we should be looking for other areas of potential cooperation and some of these have already been identified. Global pandemic response, I agree with Ambassador Munter. This is largely going to be a multilateral exercise by the United States but I think you are likely, and I hope you will see a degree of American leadership in this area, which would be appealing to Pakistan and I hope much of the rest of the world in ways the Trump Administration has simply not attempted.

You will see a return to American leadership in areas of climate change, of clean energy and of related technologies in ways that you again did not see the Trump Administration undertake and I think there are tremendous opportunities there for Pakistan as well.

There will be a return to nuclear diplomacy with Iran by the Biden Administration and there too, I think there are potential opportunities and openings if we do see any kind of success in the US Iran relationship loosening or relaxation of tensions that will redound to Pakistan’s advantage as well. Pakistan will be reasonably well placed to take advantage of those opportunities and we have one other narrow and interesting angle for potential evolution in the relationship having to do with Pakistan’s own position on Israel, which is something that I think deserves some attention and will be something that the new Biden Administration will be watching, a surprise to many of us, to see how other countries in the in the Muslim and Arab world have moved closer to Israel in recent months, and there will be questions as to whether there will be any implications there for Pakistan’s own relations.

Last I would be remiss if I didn’t share my serious concern and suggest that this concern is not my own but one that is more widely felt in Washington that there is a terrible potential for another regional crisis involving India and Pakistan possibly also China. At the outset or the early days of a Biden Administration, which would profoundly color and shape the administration’s perception of the region, an India-Pakistan new crisis, potential small war or even something worse is the type of thing that would of course change and shape the way that all of the top administration officials perceive Pakistan and perhaps reduce or limit the prospects for a more constructive path in US-Pakistan relations going forward. And so while it’s impossible to see exactly how that might play out, chances are that sympathies and Washington in such a crisis would at least initially lie more with India than with Pakistan and that the crisis would not play to Pakistan’s advantage. And so this is a concern that many of us have. Crisis management is something that I think will be on the minds of those who are entering this administration at the National Security Council and elsewhere because we’ve seen that play out in the past and we’ve seen how dangerous that can be and so in the near term, that’s the type of thing that could throw this relationship for a loop and which worries us, certainly worries me sitting here in Washington DC. So on that somewhat troubling note, I will pass it back to you. And again, thank you all for the opportunity to address you this evening in Pakistan.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. Dr. Markey. You certainly have brought some sensitive issues on the table, and with your reference also to Iran, Professor Munter’s reference to Iran and Pakistan’s position in the region, I think before I open the Q&A, I would like to request Professor. Dr. Moeed Yusuf to give his reaction to the speakers’ suggestions and views.

Moeed Yusuf: Thank you, Moeen sb., I appreciate it. Thank you to the other speakers. I’ll be brief because I don’t want to hold the Q&A. First of all, I agree with the multilateral part, but I’m not sure that multilateral essentially prevents a good bilateral relationship. I mean, there are some multilateral issues in which I think the way to approach this is that partnership on multilateral issues should benefit the bilateral relationship.

I think it’d be a tragedy if we compartmentalize partnership on let’s say, pandemics or maybe climate or whatever, and then just simply ignore the fact that that should affect the bilateral relationship positively because if we only talk multilateral I would say all we are doing then is going from an Afghan lens, this lens that lens to a multilateral lens, but I am very interested in a purely bilateral relationship even though multilateral is going to be very important, so that’s to Cameron’s point.

Much of what I have to say is in response to Dan’s comments, because Dan, I mean, I agree with where you’re coming from, but I think there is a tinge of the old in what you’re saying as well. Afghanistan, what is left to explain the vision? There is an agreement, it’s on paper, there are milestones, there are dates and now it is up to the people; wasn’t the conversation for years that you and I used to hear and talk about and write about that we need to get to an Afghan owned and Afghan-led process. That’s the process. There is a room, there are people who are sitting there and there’s a conversation to be had and the conversation is happening and they know exactly where they need to go. So frankly, Pakistan will facilitate whatever it can, but I think it’d be very unfair to ask the question on Pakistan’s vision, because the vision is success of this peace process, and the vision is also that the success is dependent on the people sitting in the room, not on Pakistan. And so at the end of the day, I think there are two ways to come at this; one is to say, well, it needs to happen no matter what and so we’re going to start pulling punches and telling people to do this or that, the other one is, everybody who needs to be in the room is in the room, after a lot of effort by all countries including Pakistan primarily. They need to push this through now, and Pakistan’s vision is whatever this dialogue ultimately agrees for the future of Afghanistan, Pakistan stands with them.

So I think that conversation is passé now. I mean, I think whatever the conversation was at that time is not needed anymore. All focus should be on making it to the finish line.

Now one thing I will say; keep in mind that every time milestones are changed, it’s going to be that much more difficult to achieve that target, because then the conversation is, okay today this person wants this, the next day somebody else wants this, and it keeps going. And so, I think we have to stick to what we’ve agreed and get there as soon as we can. On the India strategic partnership and your last point about India Pakistan crisis, I just linked the two.

I’m not sure you’ve heard from Pakistan that we are saying you shouldn’t have a partnership with India. You are two sovereign countries, want to have whatever partnership, good luck, as long as it is not directed at Pakistan. How can it be directed? Well, if there are understandings, agreements, sales, postures that are directly threatening Pakistan, we know where this can go, we will have a problem, any sovereign country would have a problem, but I don’t think the conversation in Pakistan is that it’s very bad that India and US are partners and friends. I mean that’s up to you and India.

Yes, if we find that India is using third territories to undercut Pakistan through violence, we will have a problem with that. So as simple as that. We will raise it, we’ll raise it unapologetically. But your second point,I’m actually more worried about. As you know, I have a whole book on thissubject. My worry is, you are saying there may be a crisis, and that won’t reflect well on Pakistan. But Dan, the crisis is going to come from India. What has happened since 5th of August, 2019 that tells you that the crisis is, this is old script that we’re talking about. If anything, the world should be asking why Indian leaders and officials have been saying publicly that they want to attack Pakistan. Why is it that we are having conversations of a military action against Pakistan, no matter what the logic maybe.

The point is, I hope that Biden Administration is very worried about an India-Pakistan crisis, and that should immediately lead them to New Delhi to tell them to behave, because frankly, I mean even the thought of a crisis occurring is bad for Pakistan. I am talking to you about an Economic Security Paradigm. Where does the crisis fit in that? So frankly if there is a crisis there’s only one actor that’s going to create it. And if after that, Washington’s going to come down and say Pakistan looks bad, then I don’t know where we go with that.

So, I mean, I sure hope that there’s going to be objectivity, first of all to prevent a crisis and we can see which country is going in which direction. I am here talking to you about Economic Security, moving forward, connectivity and we know what’s happening on the other side. So this is what I’m saying; new conversations. I’m not talking about a crisis. But if a crisis happens I sure hope there is going to be objectivity in seeing why and from where and for what reason. All you need to do is dig out official statements of my counterpart, other leaders in India and what they’re saying military adventures against Pakistan. I mean that is enough to see where things are.

Just two more points; one is your idea about private sector. Look, I think at the end of the day we can rule out virtually all avenues of cooperation. If private sector is not going to happen, x is not going to happen, then of course, there’s no relationship, right? Private sector is like osmosis. I mean, if there’s good conditions for business, they’re going to do business. And so I think all we need to do as governments is facilitate it, and there I will tell you I have a chart in front of me on my computer here. The GlaxoSmithKlines and the Procter & Gambles, and all of these, their annual profits in Pakistan are a factor of five, six, four, seven of what they earn globally. To me, that’s the conversation to have. You know, there are two ways to come at it. One way is oh it’s Pakistan, the bilateral relationship used to be this way or that way. The other one is to say, you’re going to make a lot of money, and that’s I think where the private sector should be focused on.

I guess the point I am making is; because of the old paradigm, they’re always going to be ways to come at things negatively, and I think that would be a bad start, we should talk about the things that genuinely we can start with, and then build on them and no reason to shy away from the fact that there are going to be challenges which we need to work on.

Last point I think you mentioned in passing somewhere, that’s the most important. I think you said somewhere that you also want to see the relationship improve and positivity or something like that. The question to ask is why do you say that? And why did I say that when I started? There must be genuine reasons where the two countries need to work together, should not lose each other because it will be harmful for both sides. If that’s true, there must be a way for us to come together, put the past behind us, find the right avenues and move forward and I really think there are many. It’s just about making sure we don’t talk past each other like we used to when you and I were together as colleagues. Thanks.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you Professor. Dr. Moeed Yusuf. I think the response is due from both. Dr. Markey and Professor Cameroon and maybe Dr. Huma Baqai so how about this if I just give you a couple of minutes each to react and then I’m going to open the Q&A for another 20 minutes or so. So first to Professor Munter if you want to respond or react.

Ambassador Cameron Munter: I have just written a chat that will make the same point. I don’t mean to imply by my emphasis on multilateralism that the bilateral relationship doesn’t matter, and indeed, that the problems not need to be addressed. I was only trying to point out that what will be different in the Biden Administration will be a style of trying to focus on issues, if you listen to Tony Blinken, if you listen to Jake Sullivan, if you listen to Will Burns, you will hear a style of defining issues in a global way.

What I am hoping to offer my friends in Pakistan as a way to engage with America, that doesn’t go down the same roads as we’ve gone down for many years. It’s up to Pakistan how Pakistan wants to engage, for example Arif Khan had a great very good point that Pakistan could have a wider role in the Islamic world and help define for America how it could creatively deal with the Islamic world. My point is only that the style in which the Biden Administration approaches these issues will be different. The style gives an opening for Pakistan to redefine itself. So I hope Pakistan takes that opportunity.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. Dr. Daniel Markey, if you’d like to enlighten us with your reaction.

Dr. Daniel Markey: Of course, thanks Moeed for the thoughtful responses. And I must say that it’s nice to hear a view that is so forward-looking. I’m more familiar with being reminded of history when I have conversations with Pakistani counterparts. So, looking forward is a positive thing.

I also agree with this point about multilateralism is sort of in the DNA of Biden, close working partners of president-elect Biden, but there should be opportunities for bilateral mechanisms, and I think that that would be a smart way to systematize the US-Pakistan relationship in ways that the Trump administration was unwilling or unable to do and that would be a healthy thing. I agree with you Moeed that Pakistan’s position on Afghanistan is a great deal more clear than it was when Biden was last in office. My point there was only that that, that sense of frustration with Pakistan left a bitter taste in his mouth and will probably be the first thing that comes to mind when he thinks about Pakistan, but beyond that, I would also say that frankly sitting here in Washington, the notion that we are sort of on the right track in Afghanistan, that this is yes, an Afghan-led Afghan-owned process, and that everyone knows where they need to go and just needs to get there. We need to push this through. That sounds too rosy by half. You know, I’d like to believe that that’s the case. I’m much more worried that our timelines are short. Our progress has been slow, and the potential that the United States would be forced into a very difficult situation of either accepting a terribly unstable situation and departing nonetheless. We’re attempting to prolong its involvement in ways that may themselves be destabilizing, that will be a devilishly hard choice for this administration. But that’s the one that I think it will be faced with more likely. On US-India, correct. We understand, well, I understand that Pakistan would never want to see the US relations with India directed toward Pakistan and I understand your points about seeing India as a more belligerent partner in the region and perhaps more responsible for any next crisis, but precisely how that crisis might unfold within a broader context as you know Moeed of the United States seeing India as an essential strategic partner, not with respect to Pakistan, but with respect to China in Asia, you know how this may play out and while we can both say that that would be unfortunate, the potential is quite real. And so and that’s why it’s worrisome. And that’s why it’s dangerous. You know, I think everyone will come out of such a crisis looking worse. I think the United States does have a need to explain that to its Indian counterparts as well. We are playing with fire when we see these crises and that would be a defining feature and a clear determinant of US perspectives on the region going forward in ways that I think would be detrimental. That is the point that I wanted to try to make there.

And then lastly, yes, governments can try to facilitate business in Pakistan, but none more than Pakistan’s own government, and the United States is typically less in the business of facilitating US business in any one specific country, but is eager to promote US business globally and so to the extent that those things are complementary, I think we can all make progress. That’s the way I would frame it. Thanks again. Great to see you.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: I’d like to also give the floor to Dr. Huma Baqai.

Dr. Huma Baqai: Thank you so much. I will be short because I think we should be now taking questions. So my response is fairly simple. There were two participants from Pakistan and there were two participants from the United States. Both of them, who understand Pakistan, but despite that, we are not on the same page. There is a mismatch of expectations, but at the same time there is a palpable desire to engage but that has been the story of Pak-US relations, and I don’t see that it’s changing. So sorry to end on a negative note.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you, Doctor Huma Baqai. So Dr. Moeed Yusuf very rightly mentioned about the US Pakistan Business Council, which is in USA, but we do have American Business Council here and perhaps the business community will need to set up a counterpart here. There used to be one, Dr. Moeed Yusuf, under the FPCCI some time back when I was the Country representative of Center for International Private Enterprise of the US Chamber of Commerce, but that does not exist anymore. To take up the business side of it. I have Dr. Rafique Pardesi here attending this physically. He’s also talking about the economic relationship between the two countries and also the role that Pakistan can play in rebuilding Afghanistan. At the same time one participant here, Ms. Sadaf Khalid, she has put a question, but I would like to give her the floor for a minute.

Ms. Sadaf Khalid: Thank you. My question is for Mr. Moeed Yusuf. How do you see the present set up in the United States in terms of engaging our foreign missions as we talked about B2B projects and increase our exports, and secondly my question is about tourism potential between the two countries. Yes, Mr. Moeed Yusuf. Thank you.

Dr. Moeed Yusuf: I think Dan or Cameron would be able to answer the US side better. But what I’ll tell you is, Dan, that sort of made this remark about history and future. Dan, the only thing I’ll say in response to your question, ma’am, and also to tie that. This is not, this part is not me speaking. I wouldn’t be saying this if this wasn’t a Whole-of-Government, Whole of-System approach to this, but the missions; thePrime Minister has a dedicated Economic Outreach Initiative. It’s called the EOI. And essentially the idea is, that Pakistan’s diplomacy has to be centered around economic diplomacy. If you want to center it around economic diplomacy, then your missions have to be much stronger with targets, with KPIs, knowing what you’ve got to market just like businesses operate, right? Andthen also FDI. So our missions are gearing up and being pushed very hard to focus in these areas. On the US side I think Dan or Cameron perhaps could answer better. On tourism I’m the wrong person frankly, my answer would be a lot of potential but that’s a good official answer but my colleague in the cabinet Zulfi does this so I won’t say much because I don’t really know the numbers.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you. Either of you. Dan or Cameron Munter you’d like to comment on the business side of the countries from US

Ambassador Cameron Munter: Well again I don’t think either of us are in the US government, so it’s hard for us to say how the US government would foster that kind of work, but I think the focus on both sides, and why I think America will applaud the kind of Economic Security Paradigm, that Moeed Yusuf mentioned, is that you want to unleash the possibilities of Private Business, and so yes if you can do it, no one is going to be against it. The question is whether we use the old ways of trying to do things like, for example, when I was Ambassador the Pakistani government used to try to get greater quotas for textiles to be imported into the United States. To me this is a tired, old way of focusing on old industries that aren’t cutting-edge things that will make Pakistan a world player and a success and a partner of the United States. Instead of doing these old kind of things, figuring out ways to get your young entrepreneurs to work with our young entrepreneurs and to see whether American Capital can find new opportunities. I’d love to see that. But again, I’m not sure in the context of the question that was raised about embassies. I’m not sure how much embassies can do that, but how other entities need to engage. Dan, over to you.

Daniel Markey: I agree fully I think, my experience watching US government efforts to promote business activity in Pakistan has been that, that’s just not what the US government is best at. There are other actors who are better placed at that, and self-interest of the actors. And so and I think it’s always incumbent upon other countries to appreciate the extent to which American companies like to make money. They’re happy to make money, and where they can do so they will come, but they but they have to be motivated by that, and so I applaud efforts by Pakistan to make Pakistan more attractive to American investors who American companies to American firms of various types, but not to anticipate that we’re not China, we’re not going to press state-owned enterprises into action in foreign countries. That’s just not going to happen, so it has to be a different type of mechanism than that.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. There’s a question from Mr. Kashif. How US is looking at BRI and CPEC when Pakistan and China are on strategic partnership.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: I’m sure Dan or Professor Cameron Munter you can react to this question.

Dr. Daniel Markey: I’m happy to pick it up. So as you mentioned, I have a book on China’s Western Horizon, so I’ve given a fair amount of thought to how the United States is perceiving China’s activities like CPEC and BRI and I think to put it very crudely and simply whereas the Obama Administration initially was open to the possibilities that Chinese investments in infrastructure in places, like Pakistan, were not threatening to anyone. But Trump Administration has shifted its response and as probably many of you know, has been much more critical of Chinese initiatives including CPEC and also BRI more broadly, critical on the basis of I think some legitimate concerns having to do with things like what we call debt-trap diplomacy and the lack of accountability or transparency of some of Chinese initiatives, but I would anticipate that the Biden administration will take a slightly different, at least rhetorical approach, and I would I would hope that they do so in a couple of ways. But beginning with the notion that the United States need not be critical of everything that China does globally, that is not probably the way to successfully compete with China or endear ourselves to other countries and we would be in a better situation if we can find ways to either harmonize our activities with other initiatives whether they’re Chinese or otherwise, or find other areas where we can better work with countries, including Pakistan without being negative about everything.

That approach I think is less effective, while simultaneously still raising if quietly legitimate concerns, about precisely how these arrangements work because sometimes we perceive that Chinese deals really don’t redound to the, to the benefit of these countries including Pakistan but also we’ve read a lot about Sri Lanka and elsewhere. So I think it’ll be a slightly different rhetorical approach. I think we’ll be looking for ways to be more constructive. But that US China competition globally is still going to be an important feature internationally looking forward.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. KCFR board member Farooq Afzal would like to ask a question? Please unmute yourself.

Farooq Afzal:  Yes, sir. Thank you very much Moeen bhai for giving me the opportunity to ask a question. I would like to ask question to Mr. Dan. It’s regarding the Pakistan-US Relationship. We have been an ally of US for last more than 67 68 years, but in return we never got any economic benefit from the United States, we needed investments, like China has been now doing investments in our infrastructure. Had US also done this earlier, we could have been in a much better economic situation. Instead of investing in infrastructure we have been given aid through USAID where we do not need aid but something concrete so Pakistan gets better economically.

Secondly, since Pakistan has a good textile sector, we could have been given at least half duty rebate to get access of the US market for our textiles because US has already given duty-free status to so many countries, so why not Pakistan, at least to slash duties by half so that we can get better access to the US market. So I would like to ask this question. So what do you say about it sir, please?

Dr. Daniel Markey: I’m happy to respond. Yeah, I think Ambassador Munter has grappled with a similar set of questions repeatedly during his time in Pakistan. So I’d also like to hear him, but I think just in terms of the historical record, we should be clear, the United States has both invested in Pakistan’s infrastructure historically, including dams and other and Canal-building and other major enterprises indirectly through multilateral organizations including with US technologies and so on, including in areas beside infrastructure, of education and elsewhere.

US investments in Pakistan going back decades have been considerable, and have played to the benefit of Pakistan’s people over time and so I think historically we need to recognize that. Beyond that, I think again Ambassador Munter was there during a period where the United States was considerably more interested in providing direct assistance to Pakistan. That is no longer the case and as Moeed pointed out, Pakistan is no longer looking for that and that’s not likely to materialize in a Biden Administration, certainly not in the terms that we saw before and then finally on trade and textiles, Ambassador Munter mentioned that as well.

I think what we found is we continue to run into the same obstacle again and again and again, which is opening the door to Pakistan’s textiles in the US market runs directly into certain entrenched American interests. I don’t think that this has changed. But I also agree that perhaps we ought to be looking for different areas of material commercial cooperation going forward and not looking back to ones that have repeatedly failed us in the past.

Ambassador Cameron Munter: Yes. Thanks, Dan. And I agree. Everything that Dan said please take that as for me as well. I mean who built Tarbela Dam, who built IBA, who built LUMS? I mean there are monuments to the American commitment government-to-government. You can always do more and we could have always done more and more effectively, but you will not see American state assistance.

It’s the job of the Pakistanis to build. It’s the job of the Americans to make money and when you make it possible for the Americans to make money, they will contribute to your success. Now, I think one of the real problems is that in the structure of the Pakistani economy, you have a dynamic sector, say the young people who are the entrepreneurs in Lahore and Karachi who are kept bogged down by the fact that the political parties of the country don’t respond to constituents. As you all know, it’s a top-down system where its patronage from parties. They’re not responding to constituents, and the patronage of the people who are in the parliament are the people who are the big landowners, who aren’t paying taxes, who own the textile mills, who own the agriculture, you know, the whole structure of your country is such that the way that we can help you is if you take a hard look at the way that Pakistan is structured and you unleash the young, the innovative, the people in tech, the people in services, they’ll find enormous partners in the United States, but trying to sell more towels in the United States, to me, that’s not the future of Pakistan.

The future of Pakistan is its dynamic, younger people who can be partners with American businesses and this gets us far, far away from assistance and aid, and far, far away from the very real ups and downs and the past and it gets much more to what I see Moeed Yusuf trying to do, which is to build this new idea of partnerships, the idea of connectivity. These are the kinds of things that American firms can do, not trying to get Senator Lindsey Graham to allow a certain passage in a law to give access to textiles in America. This is yesterday’s work. Tomorrow’s work is the kind of thing I think Moeed is talking about.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. I think I’m going to just read out the last question and then thereafter our chairman is going to do the closing remarks. This question particularly relates to Dan’s observation with regard to Israel. Muslim countries are getting lose to Israel, recognized it, but this gentleman is asking what Israel is doing to address the grievances of Palestinians.

Daniel Markey: Look, I don’t think that anyone is suggesting that it’s Israel’s shift on issues having to do with Palestinians and Palestine that has brought about its warming of ties with Saudi Arabia or sorry with other players in the Arab world, in the Muslim World. It has everything to do with a broader strategic context which has I think more to do with Iran and with many of these countries’ concern with Iran but also to do with economic development because countries like the UAE appreciate that Israel’s technology and opportunities for tying into that are mutually beneficial and they’re looking to advance that agenda.

So it’s a strategic agenda and an economic agenda and not a Palestine focused agenda and to the extent that Pakistan may or may not be willing to sign up for those efforts that will I think determine Pakistan’s own position on Israel, but I would be very curious to hear Moeed’s perspective on this issue because I haven’t recently heard an updated view from Pakistan on this.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you very much. Professor. Yusuf, are you ready to respond to this or should I leave it for some other time between two of you?

Thank you. I think we are running out of time close to this 90-minute session. Big round of applause to our four panelists. Thank you very much for joining us from DC, Professor Moeed Yusuf from Islamabad and Dr. Huma Baqai is physically present here.

Ladies and gentlemen, this webinar was conceived by our chairman. Professor Ikram Sehgal. Every now and then when you open the newspaper, you will find an article from him either in Urdu and English. He is a defense analyst, soldier on the ground, fought the war, a pilot, running a huge security company in Pakistan, and we are honored that he is the chairman of the Karachi Council of Foreign Relations. I’m sure he is going to host you all in Karachi or in Islamabad whenever the situation gets better. There is a suggestion also to host a foreign policy conference by the KCFR. We’d love to do that physically, but now I request Honorable Ikram Sehgal sb for his closing remarks.

Chairman KCFR Mr. Ikram Sehgal: Thank you Moeen Fudda sb. I’m very grateful to you. First of all, let me thank Ambassador Cameron Munter, my good friend and fellow Director in EastWest Institute for many years and also, Dr. Daniel Markey, straightaway he responded when I requested him. And obviously we’ve seen the benefit of two candid, fair-minded Americans on US-Pakistan policy and I think that is most important; a candid conversation; and that candid conversation must carry on from our Pakistani interlocutors and for that I am grateful to Dr. Moeed Yusuf. First of all for having agreed to this, and of course his contribution was magnificent. And of course, Dr. Huma Baqai, she really brings a lot of luster to all the discourse that takes place.

We have had a good discourse. I would just like to mention a few points. My first point is, Pakistan is not the same of 10 years ago, or 20 years ago, Pakistan, as I discuss with my World Economic friends, is a part of south Asia,is a part of central Asia, is a part of the Middle East, if you look at it, we are a geographical pivot, and as Moeed has just talked about, we are onto geo-economics with the BRI and CPEC.

We are actually, if you look at it, the gateway to Eurasia, the gateway to MENA, and the gateway to South and Southeast Asia, that is, if India decides to have a meaningful and good relationship with us. So, things have changed. I kept on telling a lot of my Pakistani friends that every morning when we go for Fajr prayers, we should pray that Modi lasts for a long time in India, because what he has done to India as far as South Asia is concerned, Pakistan would never have accomplished in a thousand years. He has now got bad relations with Nepal, India has got bad relations with Sri Lanka, India has managed bad relations with other countries and with Bangladesh. After having declared 2.5 million Bangladeshis as alien in Assam, you think the Bangladeshis are very happy about it? So I think we should every day get up in the morning. And obviously what Moeed has said is very relevant. India is the belligerent here, with every country in this region, they have a problem.

Mr. Biden is a very fair-minded person. He is on record for saying that India has been using Afghanistan as a platform against Pakistan. This is on record. This is exactly what Senator John McCain said and this is what Lindsey Graham said when he came with Senator John McCain to Pakistan. So the United States very well knows what India’s role has been. First of all using the Soviets as a platform against Pakistan then the Americans as a platform against Pakistan. And now, the only reason the deal with Afghanistan is now coming to fruition is because India is out of the process. The day India went out of the process, we had headway. Yes, it has to be an Afghanistan-led process. It is going to be a messy thing. It’s not going to happen quickly. That everyone realizes, but it is better than the all-out war that has been going on for the last 30 years. So one has to be very clear about that.

Now, as far as we are concerned, I think the Americans should take and go back to BRI and CPEC. We must have a neutral stance. We must have a neutral stance because we cannot afford to be antagonistic towards Iran, and we cannot afford to have animosity towards Saudi Arabia. So, let us take it like this. It is not a Shia-Sunni thing. Let me tell you a positive thing. Pakistan is the only country, a Sunni country, with the largest population of Shias in our Armed Forces, and till today in 70 years of our existence, not a single incident had has taken part within the armed forces as far as Shias and Sunnis are concerned. All Shia-Sunni things have been sponsored from outside. Whether it’s Iran sponsored against Saudi interests or the Saudis against Iranian interests, and now of course, we know that India is trying to sponsor terrorism because they have openly said so.  

So I see a future good relationship with the United States provided we remain neutral as far as China is concerned. We have a good economic relation with China. We are a gateway for China. We are necessary for China to get into the Middle East and Central Asia. But at the same time it is in our interest to engage United States and engage United States positively, and I like what Dan said, and Ambassador Cameron Munter said, it is the private sector which has to come in and realize, where the money is made they will come. And as I see it, Pakistan’s gold coast from Karachi to Gwadar exists. Everybody talks about north-south. There is a Gold Coast where you can have the same sort of economic zones that were made in China. Our labour is much cheaper, much more skilled than the labor in China or otherwise in Vietnam.

I am very grateful for this. I’m very grateful to every one of you. Let me tell you, we’re having another session, this time with the Foreign Minister on the 19th of January, and I look forward, not to make this a one-off thing but to engage with you in the future and to make sure that our relationship with the United States lasts, and we not do not give it up as a transactional relationship like it has happened from the last 70 years. Thank you everyone. Thank you for being with us.

Dr. Moeen Fudda: Thank you, Chairman Mr. Ikram Sehgal. Ladies and gentlemen, KCFR is being headed by Commodore Sadeed A. Malik. KCFR members have full confidence in him. He is doing a wonderful job and he is doing to do the closing statement for this for this webinar. Thank you very much for joining us.

Cdr. Sadeed A. Malik: Thank you very much, sir. I have a large list of thank yous for all the panelists on behalf of all the members. Dr. Moeed, Ambassador Cameron Munter, Dr. Daniel Markey, and our last panelist, Dr. Huma Baqai, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman may I have your permission to close the seminar.

Mr. Ikram Sehgal: Please go ahead.

Cdr. Sadeed A. Malik: Thank you sir. This webinar is closed.