TRANSCRIPT

Defense Writers Group

A Project of the Center for Media & Security New York and Washington, D.C.

Sartaj Aziz Advisor to the Prime Minister of on Foreign Affairs

March 1, 2016

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT AND MAY CONTAIN ERRORS. USERS ARE ADVISED TO CONSULT THEIR OWN TAPES OR NOTES OF THE SESSION IF ABSOLUTE VERIFICATION OF WORDING IS NEEDED.

DWG: Thank you to our guest this morning who is Sartaj Aziz, the Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs. Sir, thank you for coming in today. We do appreciate you making the time for us.

As the moderator I will actually turn things over to Mr. Aziz for his opening thoughts before asking the first question.

Sir, you’re in town for some meetings with the U.S. government. Give us your thoughts on where things stand right now.

Mr. Aziz: Thank you very much. As most of you may be aware I was here for what’s called the annual Strategic Dialogue with the U.S. government at the foreign secretary level, foreign minister level.

This is our sixth. We had started this process in 2010 when we had three meetings in the same year. March, July and October. Then the dialogue was interrupted for three years, when our government came in June 2013 and Secretary Kerry visited Pakistan in August we revived the Strategic Dialogue.

So it is six working groups under this dialogue process. One on energy, one on economy and finance, one on counterterrorism and related subjects, one on the overall non-proliferation regime, and the related subjects, and finally there is one new one on education, science and technology.

So these groups meet in the middle of the year to explore the possibilities of cooperation and [inaudible], and then once a year they present their report, both sides, the co-chair from U.S. and us, and to identify what progress has been made and what new ideas would come.

So if you want I can give you, if some of you are interested. In the energy sector we are focusing on more renewable energy.

Education is the new group which has been set up and it’s exploring various options of inter- university cooperation and more students coming in and so on.

Similarly, on counterterrorism we have a lot of cooperation on training, capacity building and intelligence sharing. And similarly on the nuclear and other related issues. Also there is very good interaction. So this is a very useful forum and it gives us a chance to, and then of course we also have discussed regional issues like and other regional and global issues.

So discussions went quite well yesterday.

Basically, my view, the situation as it is evolving, and maybe I should do that in any case, update you on the situation in Pakistan because that is the background of it, the discussions take place.

In the last two years and eight months since our government has come there are some significant developments which have improved the current situation. And the most important, of course, is our determined campaign against terrorism. Because we inherited this problem from 9/11 onwards when people were pushed into our side of the border and they became a threat to us because they lost their hold in that part of the world so they were trying to find a foothold. Our tribal belt between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a very long belt and a very open territory, so they came and established themselves in different parts.

Initially they came to seek refuge but they soon realized that unless the controlled territory and [the forces] they can’t survive there, so they started expanding their activities, and by 2007, ’08, they had covered most of the tribal area. And it was, they killed the tribal leaders and they started establishing their communication networks, IED factories, suicide training centers. It was unbelievable how quickly, and they trained themselves in the tribal belt.

And so we started getting very large-scale attacks in our cities, suicide attacks, bomb blasts, and I think in these 14 years we have lost about 60,000 people including 10,000 civilians and the economic losses will go beyond 100 billion.

So this became a very big threat.

The process actually did start in 2009 before our government came in in SWAT, and some other agencies in [South Waziristan]. But one agency was left and that was North Waziristan, because it was very difficult terrain to reach. The largest agency. And many of these, out of seven agencies that we have cleared, those groups which could not survive there, they all migrated and centered activities to North Waziristan. So North Waziristan by now, by 2013, had become the hub of many foreign and local terrorist groups.

2 Our own Pakistani Taliban as we call them, TTP, Chechnyans, Uzbeks, Chinese, it was, it has become a hotbed of myriad things. And our own [rate] was very limited at that time, apart from military camps.

So in 2014, June, the operations out of the [inaudible], military operation was started, and it was a very difficult operation. Now it has lasted 15 months and by now we have achieved the results that we needed because the entire infrastructure has been destroyed. And according to our estimation, the IED factories in this particular agency, if they had gone on the way, without disruption they identified at least for the next 20 years at the scale of attacks that they were doing, so they are [evolving] now. Communication infrastructure is also disrupted. IED factories.

In one mosque that I visited I remember in Miranshah, from the outside I didn’t see anything. But under the mosque there was a 70 room basement, three stories in which there were four or five IED factories, four or five suicide training centers, communication networks, [inaudible] room, conference rooms, amazing infrastructure. And similarly there must be 30, 40 in other parts of the agency. So this has been a very successful operation.

From there on, what the next stage was, what you call the next [inaudible] [plans]. This was not in 2014, but in December 2014 we had the school attack in Peshawar. 140 children were killed. And that created a tremendous reaction in the population. And in a way it led to a very strong national consensus.

Before that there were pockets of support for these groups, [vis-à-vis] Afghanistan, [inaudible], others. But when this thing happened in December 2014, the national, all the political parties, the [police] and others, including the religious parties. They met for the week and agreed on a war within two weeks, a national election plan. Twenty-point national election plan to take on anti, counterterrorism on a very systematic basis.

Following the operations [inaudible], the next stage was the flushing out of intelligence-based operations. And this is maybe half, maybe 40 percent of these were in this tribal belt. Once the operation started, they all migrated to cities. In cities they would take houses. And they didn’t have a big infrastructure of FATA tribal area, but around cities they could rent one or two houses and make small IED factories, suicide attacks or something, something. So their capacity to cause damage remained and they did line some attacks.

So the [inaudible] operation means police unit in every knows who’s rented which house and who’s living where, but it doesn’t have the capacity to take action. When the police intelligence is combined with the [inaudible] military intelligence which is our Rangers, the military force, then it works.

So this operation has now been going on for the last 13 months and they have apprehended or eliminated about 25,000 terrorists based on this operation. And so last year, therefore, as a result the total amount of attacks have gone down by more than 50 percent compared to 2014 and it’s gradually going down because of their capacity to operate.

3 So this is the immediate damage.

The second part is now starting. The important part is the Madrasa reform, because we have a large number of Madrasas which are set up during the [inaudible] war when they were training people to fight the Soviet Union, the U.S. and Pakistan jointly funded, armed and created. Those Madrasas had [exploded] and there were a large number, about 7,500 unregistered Madrasas. So they have now been closed down. Either they [inaudible] under the rules or they can’t operate. And their funding is checked and they can’t train foreigners. And now we are going to the next stage along with Madrasa reforms, the total control of their activities and funding and curriculum. And that is going on.

Now the next stage would be what you call deradicalization in which you de-recount the narrative of how young people are attracted and use of social media.

So it’s a very long term program, but I think Pakistan is, because of the commitment to act against terrorism without discrimination, it is moving in the right direction.

There are still, the job is of course not finished because there are [inaudible], the terrorists are a different kind of organization. Some have attacking our system openly, open warfare and those have required military action. Those who are not doing it so blatantly, they require a different action. Both administrative sanctions, control of funding, control of publicity, and [inaudible]. A lot of things we have taken action against those people who spread hate speech, literature, the control of their media projection, and so on and so forth. So it’s an ongoing process but I think in the region if you look at the rest of the world, the incidence of terrorism growing in Pakistan is under control. So I think I could almost venture to say we are turning the corner. I waited for a few months to share that because I think we are still in the process.

But this is the first damage in which I think, and U.S. and many other countries have participated in this effort. British are training our counterterrorism groups on various kinds of [laboratories], like testing of various things. How to evidence, how to prosecute people et cetera, so a lot of activities going on in that [direction].

The second important thing is, in my view, the process of sanctioning democracy. As you know we have had prolonged military rule and every time a political crisis, the opposition tell the military to come in and play their role. But I am glad to say that in 2006 both the main parties, the [inaudible], the People’s Party and , they signed a charter of democracy saying in future we’ll never invite the Army to come. That held, and we had five years of [inaudible] and peace rule, and despite our problems with the quality of governance, a bad democracy is better than no democracy. So it went on and there was smooth transition in 2013 from one elected government to the other.

But then in 2014 we had another challenge. Mr. Imran Khan party and another party started a four-month agitation to topple the government. But that’s the time when the [inaudible] and all the opposition parties joined hands in the parliament for two weeks to saying we are not going to allow democracy to get [divided] and that stopped [inaudible]. From then onward the [contingent] of instability is gone, and now the smooth process of --

4

And democracy doesn’t mean just having political elections. I think independence of judiciary which was secured in 2009 is an important factor, and I think generally free media, a vibrant civil society, these are elements which are now in place. So I can tell that the danger of military that we used to see every now and then is no longer there. And this is important, you know, to protect human rights. This is important to protect provincial rights, establish the rule of law, et cetera, et cetera.

The third important thing in our case is the policy of peaceful neighborhoods. Because our policies, priority is economic revival, and you can’t have economic revival unless you have peaceful neighborhood. So a systematic effort has been made to improve our relationship with Afghanistan, with , with and Iran and all our neighborhood. This policy is based on a clear policy of non-interference and trying to be, promote trade and investment and connectivity. So that policy, despite problems on the Iran front because of various reasons, our relationships are now much better than they were and the prospects evolve. We’ll come to that in a minute.

And finally, because of these factors and the security situation improving, the economy is doing better. For several years because of the security threat the economy was not doing very well, but now it is now improved considerably. Growth rate has moved to five percent and hopefully to move [inaudible] global recession will allow more prospects and on the whole I think the economic outlook in the coming years is quite positive. The rating agencies have said the same thing. The World Bank has been quite complimentary to our reform process.

So I think these are the four elements which have sort of changed the reality of Pakistan in the last few years. The campaign against terrorism, the strengthening of democratic process, better relations with neighbors, and finally, the economic revival.

So I thought I’ll give you this brief rundown on [inaudible]. I’m now ready for questions.

DWG: Thank you.

You mentioned that the number of terrorism attacks that you’d suffered in 2015 was approximately half of what you had in 2014.

Mr. Aziz: Uh huh.

DWG: How many are you still dealing with? And when you say you may have turned the corner there, are you looking to have it again or some other metric?

Mr. Aziz: The number of attacks of course vary in intensity and in terms of casualties, but the data develop, our Minister of Interior presents a monthly report to the Parliament on the implementation of the last election plan. So it’s calculated on the basis of what you call major attacks, whether it’s a bomb blast or a suicide attack, in which you know, at least 10 people are killed and others are considered minor attacks.

5 So in terms of the number of attacks it has come down from something like 300 to 150 or thereabouts, but the number of casualties has come down a little more, because their ability to mount big attacks has come less.

But let’s not forget that some of them are done by the terrorists; others are sectarian in nature. Some are ethnic in nature, and they’re the nexus between anti-sectarian groups and the terrorists. And so, and so to that extent it’s a complex problem because this nexus also from Afghanistan, drug trafficking, smugglers, and they kind of [inaudible], the terrorists give them protection and they do their work. So it’s a very complex and it requires much more.

And we have started the operation in Karachi and actually in September 2013. Without that the blow-back would be much stronger. And the blow-back has been manageable although still we have had this Peshawar University attack in Charsadda recently, and one or two others.

But in our assessment, it is manageable and it went down because of the intelligence based operation in which they are being uprooted from all the areas where they were.

So all in all I think it is a fairly good progress.

DWG: Thank you, sir.

On the terrorism part, the India Defense Minister today said [inaudible] non-state actor from Pakistan can’t function smoothly without state support. Given that so much you have said right now about actions that Pakistan is taking [inaudible] network, how do you see his view? Do you agree with his view that --

Mr. Aziz: It’s a bit out of date. This is the old narrative which India has been following. And I think the situation now is very different because as I mentioned in my remarks, initially there were sympathies for certain groups and others not, but after the policy of December 2014, after the school attack, now there is no good and bad terrorist. We are going to move against all of them. But obviously you can’t move simultaneously against all of them. You move gradually and sequentially.

So to that extent I think the policy direction is very clear. And on the whole, there was support for these groups within the local communities. For example, funding. Because many of them had a lot of [inaudible] activities and because of that they would raise funds. Now it has been, now they can’t collect funds without any accounting and so on and so forth.

So I think the suspicion that, and I think some of it refers to the old, the previous one, when they [inaudible] because they say don’t forget that the Mujahedeen of Afghanistan were trained and funded and armed largely by U.S. and Pakistan and it was a different kind of operation.

So at that time it was felt that Pakistan, but they were not terrorists in that time. They were [inaudible], they called them, the Mujahedeen and they were not --

6 And now once 9/11 happened and they all became terrorists. So now if you talk to them they say you are supporting them. But our policy of not supporting them is very significant because we realize that now by supporting them is bad for our security. So therefore that’s why our relations in Afghanistan started improving. The same is true of others.

So I think one has to update this [inaudible].

DWG: And secondly, Secretary Kerry yesterday expressed concern about the rise of [inaudible] of Pakistan’s nuclear [inaudible], and he indicated that would like Pakistan to put a cap on it. Is Pakistan considering to refuse or put a cap on this nuclear [inaudible]?

Mr. Aziz: See, I’m [inaudible] deterrence and it is India which is expanding its nuclear arsenal at a much faster rate than we are. So the concept of deterrence is a dynamic one, so deterrence has to be factored and our deterrence is India-centric because if India had not started a nuclear program we would have no [inaudible]. So India is developing nuclear stock and its ability [inaudible] India to divert more stocks to it more fissile material to nuclear weapons, naturally increase [inaudible]. So in the security I’m sure we have already good interaction with them and they largely our accept our views for effective deterrence. So I don’t think we have any major issues on this. We keep discussing these things and [inaudible] to accept this importance of resolving the rules, improving relations, both of us won’t need these. But unfortunately that is not happening. And so we have no option but to have effective, what you call minimum effective deterrence. That’s what you have.

DWG: You sound just like Washington and Moscow.

Mr. Aziz: They have also improved their [inaudible], so we hope we can do this. And in India we have a dialogue, once it begins, we have a frank discussion on some of these things, and also our [inaudible] , we want to keep [inaudible] so we have an agreement to make sure that there is no fighting or other things going on. So that’s why the importance of having a regular dialogue between the two countries, so that things [are clearer].

DWG: Just a small quick follow-up. How much would be [inaudible] number of [inaudible]?

Mr. Aziz: You can’t define it like that. As I said, it’s a dynamic concept. If you keep expanding every month, every six months, every one year, obviously you can’t [inaudible] at this particular point in time, this is the one.

DWG: So at this point in time you are not thinking of any reduction or capping the nuclear --

Mr. Aziz: If India does, we will think about it, but if India doesn’t, then how can we do it?

DWG: Pakistan and Russia seem to have entered a new phase of much more active dialogue and engagement. [Inaudible] from Russian officials to Pakistan or Pakistani officials to Russia right now.

7 The other part of this is there was a contract recently signed for MI-35 helicopters with Russia [inaudible]. [Inaudible] Pakistan’s plan to purchase any other military hardware or arms from Russia?

Mr. Aziz: Well I think you remember in June 2014 an agreement signed and they reach, the military defense cooperation was resumed. It was not there before June 2014. And after that in I think December 2014, the first indication of the MI-35 helicopters was agreed upon and now it is being negotiated.

And the second big project was not in the military field, it was to build a gas pipeline. And your Minister of Energy came three months ago and we signed an agreement to build a pipeline.

So now the exchange of delegation is quite frequent and President Putin met with the Prime Minister in Ufa last year, late last year. At that time I think he extended an invitation to come. And there was some kind of indication that possibly when the pipeline project is ready for implementation, so today the foundation is [inaudible] element [inaudible] then Putin [inaudible]. That has not yet, basically the indication of how the project is moving is not here, but I think the ministerial level, quite frequent, Minister [inaudible] was there, Minister of Petroleum on this pipeline and the Trade Minister. So I think, and our trade is also expanding because of the [funding] for more [inaudible] projects, working [inaudible]. The economic relationship particularly.

DWG: And the weapons?

Mr. Aziz: I think there aren’t any other, I’m not aware of any specific one, but there are discussions --

DWG: There was talk about SU-35s. The Flanker aircraft. But I never saw a Pakistani or Russian official saying anything directly about it. I was wondering if you could say something.

Mr. Aziz: Well I think all the armed forces keep exploring all kinds of options when the time comes. So I think we have had some discussion, you know, on the, we have this operation, JF- 17 Hunter. JF-17. The engines of that aircraft used to come from Soviet Union through China. Now they are, instead of buying them from China why not buy them directly from Russia? So that has not yet been finalized. But that is one possibility. The aircraft engine. We already have a fairly large fleet of JF-17 and it’s a very good aircraft. The [size] is expanding and a substantial part is locally manufactured with a Chinese corporation. So that is one. But I think you have a large number of possibilities [inaudible].

DWG: But nothing specific?

Mr. Aziz: Not so far.

DWG: Thank you, sir.

8 DWG: Yes, sir. How much of Pakistan’s problems in the tribal belt were sown by the ? You were I think pretty upset following President Obama’s State of the Union Address a couple of months ago where he said that there was instability around the world including in some parts of Pakistan. And I believe you said that the holy warriors were created by the folks fighting the Soviet Union in Pakistan. Even if you didn’t name the United States explicitly.

How much of that is a hangover from your perspective of what you’re going through in the FATA, of the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan to drive the Soviet Union out?

Mr. Aziz: Well I implied in my own comments there is a history to it because when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan obviously there was some kind of apprehension that probably they want to reach the warm waters of the Indian Ocean. So after Afghanistan if they captured a part of Baluchistan, they could do that. So obviously it was our common interest to prevent that kind of expansion of the Soviet Union at that time.

So in ’79, December ’79 the attack came on Afghanistan and within I think ’81, ’82 it was decided that U.S. would support the effort to do so. And it was quite a major operation in the sense that these Mujahedeen who were trained in simple, small weapons, they were able to defeat a super power just like in Vietnam, with small weapons were able to defeat. I think both the super powers were defeated in the 20th century by small arms plus ideology. It was quite a remarkable thing.

Now obviously at that time the mistake that I think was made, that when the Soviets left in 1991 everybody else left at once. If at that time the forces which at that time achieved that result had stayed on and provided even five percent of the assistance, the amount that was spent after 9/11 in Afghanistan, Afghanistan today would be a different place. Because all the people who are fighting, they would have got jobs. Some of the construction would have started, et cetera, et cetera. That was not done. They started fighting each other. All the seven commanders were [inaudible] of piece of territory, whatever it is. And that’s where the vacuum got created and Taliban were sucked into it.

So I think the thing I was referring to, instability, was that particular factor, not because the initial effort to train people to fight their wars, obviously a giant effort. But abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets left was a big mistake, and that I think was the main cause of instability.

And then after 9/11 those very people are pushed into our side of the border. So that was another effect which created, and to that extent I said, you know.

And the basic point was that, you know, his assessment that instability would continue does not tell you the assessment that I mentioned, that we are determined to protect our borders and we have managed to control it. I don’t see that instability.

DWG: Just to follow up on your opening statement, you mentioned that the Strategic Dialogue had lapsed for three years and Secretary Kerry encouraged it to begin again last year. Why did it pause?

9

Mr. Aziz: You remember there were some incidents, Raymond Davis, Salala, Abbottabad. At the time --

DWG: UBL?

Mr. Aziz: That’s Abbottabad. So I think those three [inaudible] misunderstanding. And that’s why when we came in the first thing we did was to restore this relationship.

DWG: Well you cut it off, right?

Mr. Aziz: No, we didn’t. The, at that time, I mean the circumstances were such that it could not [be scheduled]. So soon after we came in and Secretary Kerry came, the first thing we discussed was that I think we should put the relationship back on the rails and not allow, it’s too important for both of us and we should not allow it to be affected by these, even these kinds of incidents. Some of them are accidents, understandable. And so we should resume the dialogue.

And since then our relationship has not only got back on the rail but become much better.

DWG: Does it have disturbing echoes of the Pressler Amendment to you? This off again, on again, off again, on again.

Mr. Aziz: That was in 1990, so about 16 years ago, 26 years ago. I mean that was related to, again, the nuclear issue. At that time [inaudible] in fact [inaudible] to facilitate certification, and then it became an [inaudible]. But I hope that is behind us.

DWG: Thank you so much for being here. I’ve got a couple of things.

One is just a first order of business on some of the statistics that you were citing in your opening. About 60,000 people killed in the counterterrorism campaign, I think, and I just, and 10,000 being civilians --

Mr. Aziz: 60,000, 10,000 security personnel -- police, Army -- and 60,000 total people.

DWG: Okay. So 50,000 would be security personnel?

Mr. Aziz: These are casualties to civilians. These are 60,000 casualties which include killed and injured. So half would be killed and half would be injured, something like that.

DWG: And this is all during the last --

Mr. Aziz: From 9/11 onward.

DWG: Oh.

Mr. Aziz: From 2002 until now. And now it has come down.

10

DWG: I wanted to make sure I heard it right then.

Could you provide us with an update on the use of armed drones by Pakistan forces in the counterterrorism campaign? How many strikes have been carried out by Pakistan?

Mr. Aziz: I don’t think we used drones. Americans used drones during the last, from 2010, ’11 onward against terrorist targets, and we were against them because we thought they [inaudible] and they should not be used. And now of course they are virtually stopped because we have uprooted the camps in Pakistan. Afghanistan they still use, but we don’t have the drone technology.

DWG: I’ve sat with your colleagues before and we’ve had this discussion about the use of flying armed drones in the campaign, we’ve written stories about it, but that’s, has that changed since then?

Mr. Aziz: There was some [loose forces] in Pakistan that developed drones and that would be [inaudible]. I don’t think -- There is armed drone and unarmed. Unarmed drone is a much simpler affair and that I’m sure we have for reconnaissance and things like that. But armed drones are the more sophisticated and particularly the kind of drone that U.S. uses [inaudible] operate very precise, [inaudible].

DWG: I just wanted to throw that out. If I could do one more that is probably less difficult, I hope.

I wonder if you might update us on Pakistan/Iran relations and business deals, actual, what’s actually happening now that we’re a few months on with the lifting of sanctions on Iran, as well as what Pakistan is hoping will happen.

Mr. Aziz: You see first of all, our trade with Iran went down drastically after the sanctions. It was something like $2 billion and it climbed to about $300 million in the last four years since the sanctions. India and Turkey both have previous agreements on [inaudible] protected, so some of the trade continued [inaudible].

So now that the sanctions have been lifted, the first thing we have done is to remove the sanctions from our planning [inaudible] so that at least those who want to trade have a lot of potential for rice exports and fruit and vegetables on both sides, and border trade. And so now trade can take place through the normal banking channels. So that’s the first.

And since we are neighbors, at the border level there is [inaudible].

The second possibility is on the border areas they have [inaudible] electricity. And our areas in the border are removed from the grid. So we are getting about 100 megawatts and they offered about 1,000 megawatts to feed the electricity, the quadrants of the border area. So, but since we could not pay for them, even that 100 megawatts it was not great. So now I think that is a possibility.

11

The third major factor is the gas pipeline and that, they are building a pipeline to that side of the border. We need energy and we will now activate that project and see if we can find financing for it and then that can be taken up. At least it was under sanctions so we never explored the possibility of financing.

DWG: Has anything tangible happened in terms of --

Mr. Aziz: Feasibility. Feasibility to find the lined area from which it will come and --

DWG: Feasibility studies.

Mr. Aziz: That was done in 2008 and ’09.

DWG: What about in the last two months?

Mr. Aziz: No, so far we were only studying the removal of sanctions. They removed only three, four weeks ago so we have carried out the study of how much money is stuck in the banks and what [inaudible] and so on and so forth. So that process we are doing. These things will be revived in the current budget process.

DWG: Good morning, sir. I wanted to ask you about the populist and violent backlash, the execution of the body guard who shot the secular governor. I’d be interested to get your perspective on what you think is fueling that. But perhaps more importantly, how you think that might affect the government’s efforts to combat extremist groups in Pakistan.

Mr. Aziz: Well I think on the whole it’s a very positive development that this particular case was taken to its logical judicial conclusion. Because as some of you may recall, this, we had the governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who in I think 4 January 2011 was in for a visit and one of his guards shot him [inaudible]. And the reason was that he had, there was Asia Bibi’s case in which she was charged with blasphemy, and all he said was that she should apply for clemency, to do so. So this guard said that since she was charged with blasphemy why is he trying to sympathize with her. And that’s the reason for the shot.

So the religious groups tried to sympathize with him that blasphemy is a bad thing and anybody who does anything [inaudible].

But Supreme Court ruled I think four or five months ago that [talking] of blasphemy laws, [talking] of the need for reforms, it doesn’t amount to blasphemy [statute]. It is something totally -- It was important [inaudible] from a judicial point.

So based on that, he was sentenced to death, but then it was under appeal. And last week the Supreme Court ruled that the death sentence is upheld and should be carried out. So day before yesterday his sentence was carried out.

12 And it is a very, was welcomed by the population in general because everybody realized that somebody who tries to protect somebody, and he goes and takes the life of, even if there was a legal, now of course there is no legal reason, but even if there was a legal reason, you don’t take life with your own hand.

So I don’t think the, in fact in the last few months after this new thing has started, the anti- terrorist suicide is now actively coming out on the street and saying this cannot happen. And so if there is one [profession] on that side there is another from the other side. So we have now a change in the ground situation as far as counterterrorism is concerned. The extremists do not have a free hand to, to propagate terror and try to scare people away. That if you do this, you wind up in jail. And that is the strength of the civil society, that they are now about the liberal and the moderate civil society wants to protect the right to protest and to protest on these things. So I don’t think it is going to lead a to very major --

DWG: As I saw this morning, there are still acts of violence being carried out. I’d like to get your sense on, you talked about sort of the gray line between religious fundamentalists and actual extremist groups. Do you see any connection there between those two?

Mr. Aziz: Well obviously, see, there are groups who are looking for an issue, so whenever they find some kind of an issue they always take advantage of it. But that doesn’t mean that those things have, in any case, see our extremist groups never had in the electoral sense big support in the population. They are vocal and they are well organized and many of the parties are now members of parliament, so they are mainstreamed and they do not participate. But still the fringe elements which were all [around there]. They are now being hopefully marginalized, and that is what we are hoping for. But there will always be some who will like take extreme positions.

Just for example, the Punjab Assembly, and that was also day before yesterday, the law passed by them was signed which was against domestic violence. And it called the Protection of Woman’s Rights. And it was that if somebody, husband indulges in violence against his wife he is forced to leave the house for two days. And if he indulges second time then the punishment is much more. So this is the first time that this kind of a thing in society is being enacted and some of the religious parties are objecting to this. They are saying how can you, if somebody wants to check his daughter or his wife, where were you or why did you come late, and you [inaudible], this is a very unusual case, and yet it has been passed and everybody has welcomed it. It’s a symbolic sign of the shape of things which are changing.

And you also saw that on the same day, it was an eventful day when all the three things happened. One of our documentaries won the Oscar against honor killing. And the significance was not that the film was good, it was because when the film came out the Prime Minister her and [inaudible] to show their film to the entire cabinet, which she did, along with a lot of other guests, and he promised that now we pass a law against honor killing. And so the fact that films can now lead to response and legal action is also symbolic.

So these are small indications of things that are happening but they indicate what I was saying in the beginning of how the situation has changed for the better.

13 DWG: Thank you.

In the last month the U.S. has expanded its airstrikes in Eastern Afghanistan against the Islamic State pockets between 1,000 and 2,000 Islamic State fighters that the government has said found safe harbor in that same border area and still find freedom of movement between the Afghanistan and Pakistan border.

My question to you is, are you in support of the airstrikes? Are you providing any intelligence support or communications to target these fighters? And if you have any estimates on how many Islamic State terrorists are in Pakistan at the moment.

Mr. Aziz: You see, the Islamic State of course is an organization which is [inaudible] the whole world. It’s not just Afghanistan and us. It’s more concentrated now in Iraq and area.

But our assessment is that some of the groups like our Taliban, when they have been [returned] from Pakistan they are rebearing themselves with ISIL. They are not actualized as coming from there, they are, and many other groups which don’t find a proper place to label themselves, they find ISIL is a good label, you know, in that sense.

So there are small groups in some parts of Afghanistan.

We have already banded [inaudible] so we can fully cooperate with anybody who [inaudible].

In Pakistan the presence is also minimal. I mean there’s no organized presence but there may be some individuals who call themselves ISIL, but Afghanistan and a couple of districts there are [more].

So we fully support the action that both Afghanistan and U.S. is taking, and we are very elaborate intelligence sharing, not just in ISIL but generally with UAS on the Pakistan-Afghan border because that’s where a lot of movement takes place. And you see, it’s a very long border, about 40,000 people cross every day. It’s a porous border. Some come for work, some are travel. How many of them are smugglers? How many of them are terrorists? How many of them are [inaudible]? So obviously that large-scale movement, but our cooperation with the USA on border controls and intelligence sharing is very elaborate. And now with Afghanistan also we are intelligence sharing.

But management of this border is extremely important because that is where in the long run we can find security. And the situation, and of course the situation within Afghanistan with the large number of fighting season that has happened and large number of casualties [inaudible], but overall they have not made much ground. A couple of districts have changed, so the Afghan Security Forces in my view have performed fairly well in holding them back. Now we are starting the reconciliation process that will lead to a reduction in violence. But overall, so I’m a bit more worried about the internal violence in Afghanistan rather than the ISIL footprint right now. But this attack, because Taliban and ISIL are not ideologically on the same, they have their own [inaudible]. So let’s hope that they also help to reduce the footprint in Afghanistan.

14 DWG: And one follow up, if you had to rank your top security concerns, would it be, would nuclear deterrence still be at the top? Or would it be internal domestic terrorism? What is Pakistan’s top security concern?

Mr. Aziz: Well I think the security concern is strategic and conventional imbalance with India because that is something which is growing and we have to [inaudible]. Terrorism is something our own domestic, and it is the whole flow of terrorism from Afghanistan that is, becomes the second one. Because within our borders we hopefully will be able to control it in the next year or two, but if Afghanistan becomes unstable, and that’s why our stake in peace in Afghanistan is as strong as Afghanistan’s own stake in the peace because if Afghanistan becomes peaceful than Pakistan will also become peaceful. So these are the two.

DWG: Concerning the recent purchase of F-16s from the U.S., the recently announced purchase of F-16s from the U.S. I was hoping to get some insight from you on the rationale for why Pakistan wants them, what you’re hoping to do with them.

Mr. Aziz: You see, first of all Pakistan’s defense capacity has been U.S. dependent for the last 60 years because we started off in ’54 the Mutual Security Act, and then [inaudible] and then [inaudible]. So over the years our system is geared to it. And normally once a system is there you have the infrastructure, so our Air Forces have been dependent on F-16s.

But more recently, the F-16s were used very intensively in the tribal areas because it does precision bombing and counterterrorism operation if you have precision aircraft, you avoid collateral damage and killing of civilians. So they were very extensively used. And the process continues, and therefore many of those F-16s that we acquired from the U.S. the last 30 years, they required replacement.

And these F-16s that have been [bought] do not require any supplementary additional funding. The U.S. funding that is [inaudible] promise foreign military assistance within that the Air Force shared what it is [inaudible] standard equipment. So it’s not new monies. The normal military assistance that U.S. provides in the last five years, the Air Force has been saving that to be able to finance these F-16s.

So that’s why the administration has recommended that these will be sold, because it is a very critical part of our counterterrorism operation.

DWG: A quick follow up. Does this fill your need? Are you going to need more of them in the near future or future?

Mr. Aziz: Well, I think the need for these aircraft will remain, but we right now are expanding our own JF-17 Thunder because our domestic production. So that is filling the need as well as broad deterrence is concerned. But right now the specialized need is counterterrorism operation which heavily depends on F-16s. So we are initially starting with 18, but now we have come down to 8 because of the financing problems. So of course, if we could afford it we would buy more, but right now this is all that we are asking for.

15 DWG: -- the tribal regions? That’s where you’re --

Mr. Aziz: They are a part of our fleet. But in the last two or three years they have been extensively used in the tribal areas and in North Waziristan.

DWG: Thank you.

DWG: I wanted to talk about the situation in Baluchistan Province where China [inaudible] corridor will [inaudible] what’s going on there. Can you talk about the presence of the Baluchistan local insurgents and then al-Qaida, Taliban, [inaudible] over the past few years? What Pakistan is doing to counter that, and if the U.S. can help with the Baluchistan situation in any way.

Mr. Aziz: The Baluchistan situation has improved enormously because in the last two and a half years after the election of 2013. The government decided to share power with the local, nationalist parties who were previously sort of more, looking for more autonomy and so on and so forth. So last two and a half years they are coming to power and being a part of the government to pacify those groups which were agitating. So now the situation is totally under control.

There are some minor groups that may still be indulging in some degree of insurgency, but compared to what it was in 2011, ’12, ’13, it is considerably [inaudible].

Number two, the overall development situation in Baluchistan is also improving. And the amount of investment that is going on both in building roads and trying to encourage the livestock sector as their agriculture sector and provide jobs and other things has also tried to improve.

In the long run, I think the development of Baluchistan which will control the insurgency because if youth are unemployed and they are fed propaganda, you know, looking for their rights, et cetera, then obviously [inaudible].

So I think we are on the right lanes as far as that is concerned.

And also as I mentioned in my opening remarks, a democratic process, every time you see you don’t have democracy, all the small provinces, the [inaudible] areas, feel denied of their rights. In a democracy each unit manages their own affairs and sub-units also manage their own affairs. So I think that is the process by which the Baluchistan is becoming more peaceful and therefore more developed.

DWG: Just a quick follow up. Is the U.S. playing any role in the security situation there? Will China play a role? Will Iran play any role?

Mr. Aziz: Well I think the cooperation that we have with the U.S. on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border also covers Baluchistan. So to that extent it’s very helpful. But our own TTP, Tehrik-i- Taliban Pakistan were cooperating with some of the elements, particularly anti-sectarian

16 elements in Baluchistan which are now being [inaudible]. So to the extent we manage the Pakistan-Afghanistan border better, that will also be helpful.

DWG: could you give an update on the Taliban peace talks? I know they’re supposed to take place by the first of March on a very specific date. Who exactly is taking part in them? And what are the expectations? Is this sort of just you know, come to the table and talk? Or are there specifics [inaudible]?

Mr. Aziz: You see, I’m sure you recall that this process started in July last year when we had the first meeting in Murree, 7th of July in which the Taliban and the Afghan government for the first time sat across the table and started discussing. And it was a cordial meeting because previously they were saying that we don’t recognize the Afghan government and we are not going to talk to them. So in that meeting they started talking and they talked of prisoner exchange, they talked of amnesty, they talked of a couple of things at the beginning. And we scheduled a second meeting on 31st of July, within 24 days after that in which they were going to take up a bigger agenda including the agenda of reducing hostilities in Afghanistan, at least declaring some cities sort of free of insurgency.

But two days before the meeting the death of Mullah Omar was announced from , and that derailed the talks because everybody said if he died, who do they represent? And we still don’t know why and how, why could that, he died for two years, and yes, it could wait for a few days and the talks would have taken place.

That certainly derailed the process and we lost six, seven months.

So then we kept emphasizing that while reconciliation talks are not going to be easy, is there an alternative? Because Taliban may not be able to capture Afghanistan because of the presence of ISAF and other forces, but their ability to carry on insurgency for five years, ten years, remains undiminished and they can go on and Afghanistan will not become peaceful unless you reach some kind of political settlement.

So finally on the 9th of December last year when we had the Heart of Asia Istanbul Conference in Islamabad, President had come and we had meetings between Pakistan, Afghanistan and U.S.; and then Pakistan, Afghanistan, U.S. and China; and that is when we agreed to have a quadrilateral coordination group and with these four countries together, because you see, Pakistan alone cannot sort of do this. Everybody has contact. So if all the countries were contact, come together.

So now the quadrilateral group has had four meetings so far I think on the 8th of January, then on the 18th of January, then on the 6th of February, then 23rd, February. And in the first meeting they agreed on term of reference, and in the second two meetings they agree on a road map which decides to what stages will the dialogue begin. So the 23rd February meeting which was only a week ago, 10 days ago, they have finalized this and they agreed that both sides will meet in the coming days, hopefully in the first week of March to start talking. And the date has not yet been fixed. I think it was expected that, I’ve been away for three days so I don’t know if

17 anything has happened in the last one or two days, but we are expecting that in the first week of March at least the premier meeting will take place in Islamabad.

That meeting will then determine the agenda for next talks and so on, so forth, and the level at which those talks will take place. So both sides have to I think indicate their respective delegations. And according to the road map, there are no preconditions. No side can impose preconditions that this must happen or that must happen. So once the process begins it’s not going to be a quick process but I think our anxiety is that if in the coming weeks some progress is made, then it can have an impact on the level of insurgency in the summer months. Because if we don’t make progress and the summer starts and then the insurgency can become much stronger. So let’s hope that these talks --

DWG: A follow up on the question of indigenous drones, armed drones. They were used in September 2015, the [ISBR] came out with a statement that they were now going to start using indigenous armed drones. So you’re saying they’re not being used as much anymore? Or --

Mr. Aziz: I don’t know. We have developed probably the capacity, but I’m not, we have not seen any reports of their being actually used because within the country if you can use your aircraft, why do you need a drone? I mean we are using the aircraft much more effectively and they are used. The drone is still in my view in the experimental stage and if it is not, the procedure which is the advanced stage of drones is not there, then in counter-insurgency it causes casualties because you are not precise. Where an F-16 is a precise targeting possible [inaudible].

So that’s why it’s a good capacity to have and use it for the purpose, but right now I’m saying it’s not sufficiently advanced to be a replacement for the F-16.

DWG: Thank you. I want to ask you about [inaudible] last week where the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Bob Corker, he said, and I want to quote you this and I want to see what’s your reaction to this. He said he was in the region a couple of months ago and witnessed the continued duplicity of Pakistan’s [force]. Outside blatant duplicity where they continue to support the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and give safe haven to al-Qaida.

How do you respond to this criticism? I know you mentioned this briefly in your opening remarks with Secretary Kerry yesterday. But I want to see if you can address this concern. It seems to be that several other lawmakers, from both parties in both chambers of Congress, have expressed similar concerns.

Mr. Aziz: You see, our own assessment is that in Afghanistan since the last 12 years there is, there was this perception that Pakistan continues to support the Taliban. And historically, it’s not just Pakistan, but the U.S. and everybody else were supporting. And as I mentioned in my remarks, in 2013 there was a change of policy in approach. Now we support them to the extent of, you know, [inaudible] and this [inaudible] political solution, but we don’t support them in “coming to power” or support the militarily, in any way. And this I think we have conveyed.

But the dominant narrative of Afghanistan still remains the same. That somehow anything goes wrong in Afghanistan, they say Pakistan must be behind it because of the mindset. And don’t

18 forget that in Afghanistan the Taliban were fighting the Northern Alliance, most of whom are now in power in Kabul. And so the mental state of every Taliban is still [inaudible].

So anybody who visits Afghanistan is still exposed to the same narrative that was there before, and not updated with the new policy that we are following.

So I’m sure if Senator Corker had come to Pakistan [inaudible] he would have seen the [inaudible]. And I think [inaudible] and explain the situation, and I’m hopeful that everybody will be able to see the sincerity in trying to promote peace in Afghanistan. And the question, as I said in my remarks, why would we promote instability in Afghanistan? It’s not good for ourselves. It’s not good for our own people. It is all here, that without peace in Afghanistan we can’t have peace here. So I think it’s just kind of a remnant inherited from the past, a narrative which is --

DWG: If I could ask one follow up, I mean he also mentioned the Haqqani group and al-Qaida. And he went on to say that Pakistan, they know exactly where these people are living and they are not living in the FATA region. They are living in Pakistan’s neighborhoods and they could interdict while we’re still having this hearing and they are not doing that.

Mr. Aziz: See again, the Haqqani Network was a part of the Pakistan Taliban and they obviously were very strong in the [inaudible] area. So this everybody acknowledges, that we have now dismantled their infrastructure. All the terrorist networks including Haqqani Network. So they do not have that. But is like other groups. They are scattered and they can shelter behind, in different parts of the city, different areas of Pakistan. Like I mentioned, many of the groups, and we are gradually flushing them out, so this also applies to Haqqani Network because their capacity to operate and even the independent experts have verified that 90-95 percent of the Haqqani Network’s capacity is within Afghanistan. And they may have some, there is some support from areas [inaudible], and we are committed to gradually interdict and take care of all of them to the extent we can.

But I don’t think it will [inaudible] in Afghanistan. It is something that has to be attacked from within Afghanistan. So I think there is a lot of, and we are now having much greater cooperation in sharing information on these things, and I hope that gradually -- this is a work in progress. I mean the last 12-14 months [inaudible]. And my own impression is that the administration is more up to date and more aware of the progress that we are making. But it does not reach the congressional to that extent.

DWG: Did you meet Senator Corker during this visit?

Mr. Aziz: We are meeting some [inaudible]. I think [inaudible].

DWG: As you try to get a handle on the extremism within Pakistan and also improve relations with India, how are you dealing with like the recent attack on the air base in India? Masood Azhar was arrested. What is happening with his case right now? And are you, is he going to be [inaudible] interrogation? [Inaudible]?

19 Mr. Aziz: I think the response to the Pathankot incident have been very positive. And [inaudible] cooperate. So whatever intelligence came from there to the National Security Advisor was immediate, action was taken immediately to take under protective custody some of their leaders as well as [inaudible]. Set up a joint investigation team. The first information report which was a legal requirement for investigation to begin has been filed and I’m hoping that the investigation team will not go in the next few days. And then you will be able to trace through the phone calls who [inaudible]. The phone call came to one or two numbers. But then they are linked and the identities of the four people who were killed in the attack have also got to be established yet because we haven’t yet figured their ID, their photographs, their fingerprints. So once [inaudible] and considering the time that has elapsed I think very good progress is being made and I hope that this will demonstrate to India that we are cooperating in this exercise and they have shared the evidence that we require [inaudible], then whatever prosecution is required, we will take [care of it].

DWG: Would Pakistan make Azhar Masood [inaudible]?

Mr. Aziz: First of all, we have investigate ourselves as to what it is. And if it is and he does something we [inaudible].

DWG: All right, sir. We are out of time. I appreciate your thoughts.

Mr. Aziz: Thank you very much.

DWG: I wish we had more, but we do appreciate your coming in with us.

# # # #

Transcribed by: Professional Word Processing & Transcribing (801) 556-7255

20