Foreign Minister's Interviews

[Cha.Cal]

Mr Shah Mahmood Qureshi gave a couple of interviews during his recent visit to the US. One was to Charlie Rose. Here is the transcript. The video is available at the link to the original website.

Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Foreign Minister of Pakistan

CHARLIE ROSE: Shah Mahmood Qureshi is here. He is the foreign
minister of Pakistan. They are a critical ally in the U.S. fight against
terrorism. Ties with the country have historically suffered from distrust,
but last fall, announcing his strategy for Afghanistan, President Obama
committed to building a new relationship with Pakistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: In the past, we too
often defined our relationship with Pakistan narrowly, and those days are
over. Moving forward, we are committed to a partnership with Pakistan that
is built on a foundation of mutual interest, mutual respect, and mutual
trust.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: As part of that commitment, the U.S. and Pakistan held
two days of wide-ranging talks in Washington this week. Foreign Minister
Qureshi led his country’s delegation. I am pleased to have him back at
this table. Welcome.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Thank you.

CHARLIE ROSE: So here’s what I want to know. You came to this
believing that the United States was genuinely interested in eliminating
whatever distrust they might have between the two countries, and Pakistan
was interested in gaining the confidence of the United States for its
institutions.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Uh-huh. I think in the last two years, to be
more precise, in the last 18 months, we have covered substantial ground in
narrowing the trust, in converging our interests, and today, I think we are
speaking from the same page.

What President Obama just said in the last 48 hours, I was working on that,
trying to convert this relationship into a partnership. And if you look at
the sacrifice, if you look at the decisions, if you look at the resolve and
the determination shown by the Pakistani people, the Pakistani armed
forces, you would recognize that Pakistan has taken concrete steps in that
direction. You know, the army, the military operations in the tribal belt,
in Swat and Malakand, have paid off, and there is recognition for that.

I was at the Senate -- I was -- I met members of the Congress, and I could
feel the difference. You know, I could see the change in mood for the
better. So I think we moved on.

CHARLIE ROSE: What is the accomplishment that this new relationship
might achieve?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: See, the accomplishment, the immediate
accomplishment is that we achieve our shared objectives in Afghanistan.

CHARLIE ROSE: Which are?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: A peaceful, stable Afghanistan.

CHARLIE ROSE: And what role for the Taliban?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Pakistan is seriously fighting the Taliban
today.

CHARLIE ROSE: In Pakistan.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: In Pakistan. And our fight in Pakistan has had
a very positive and backed across the border in Afghanistan.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because the two have connections? Pakistan and --
Afghan, Taliban, and Pakistan-Taliban.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: There is a nexus. And one recognizes that.
And our operations have curtailed, you know, the border crossings. Today
Taliban, al-Qaeda, and their associates are on the run. Pakistan was once
considered to be a safe haven. No longer. People are running away from
Pakistan because they have seen the seriousness, the resolve of the people
and the armed forces.

CHARLIE ROSE: Where is Mullah Omar now?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I wish he was in my pocket, but he isn’t there.

CHARLIE ROSE: If you knew where he was, you would call for a drone
missile attack?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: We’ll get him. If we knew where he was. But
we would go for him.

CHARLIE ROSE: Most people believe he’s in Pakistan.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: These people speculate about it. It’s all a
guessing game.

CHARLIE ROSE: The central point you’ve made is you’ve begun to close
the borders so that people are running out of Pakistan knowing it’s not a
safe haven, correct, because you’re coming after them? The best evidence
of that is what?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: The best evidence of that is recognition by you
as our allies that many of, you know, the big names have escaped, and
they’re looking for new destinations.

CHARLIE ROSE: People like Mullah Omar?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: No, I can’t -- I can’t take names, but many are
trying to escape and go into places like Yemen, Somalia -- whatever, like
other places. Because Pakistan is no longer considered to be a safe place
for them.

CHARLIE ROSE: This is General Petraeus on this program several weeks
ago, talking about North Waziristan. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, U.S. ARMY: They have been in north Wazirstan.
There’s a little bit of popular misperception that they have not conducted
operations. They have conducted operations and they’ve continued. Now,
they have not done a clearance operation. They’re not going to do what
they call -- they have explicitly ruled out a steamroller operation, and
certainly they can’t do it until they consolidate some of the gains.

They’ve done a lot. They’ve taken significant losses, frankly, the
military, and the civilian population, too. And what they need to do is do
some transition. Remember, it’s clear, hold, build, transition.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: And they need to do some transfer. They’re
working on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHARLIE ROSE: So there he is. That’s General Petraeus.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: That’s recognition of our effort.

CHARLIE ROSE: But with respect to north Wazirstan, you know, do you
expect to see the kind of operation he talked about?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Certainly. See, we are moving in a systematic
manner. We cleared the insurgents from some of the settled areas that they
had intruded into like Swat. We moved into the tribal belt.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: We have moved into different agencies of the
tribal belt. South Wazirstan, which was considered to be the headquarters
of the Tariqa Taliban, has been cleared and not just cleared. We are
holding it successfully and winning the war, support of the people, the
local tribes over there.

North Waziristan is a challenge, which we will take, and which we have
accepted. But we have to move in line with our resources. We do not want
to overstretch as General Petraeus said. We move, and we want to
consolidate. Once we’ve cleared an area, we want to hold an area. We want
to consolidate opposition. Build the area. Restore the confidence of the
people, and then move on.

CHARLIE ROSE: How do you measure India’s interest in Afghanistan?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: They have relations. Obviously, their
interests cannot be the same as ours because we share a border. They do
not share a border. We have been impacted. They have not been impacted to
that extent because even today, we have 3 million Afghan refugees living in
Pakistan. Afghanistan is a land-locked country. The bulk of their trade
is carried through Pakistan. Practically our economies are one.
Culturally, linguistically, ethnically, there are commonalities, which
Afghanistan shares more with Pakistan than India.

CHARLIE ROSE: Drone strikes on the Afghan-Pakistan border, including
North Waziristan, are seriously disrupting al-Qaeda. That from the
American CIA director. How do you see it? What is your appraisal of al-
Qaeda’s disruption?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: He is correct in his assessment. They have
seriously disrupted them, they have successfully taken out many high-value
targets. Yes, that’s correct.

CHARLIE ROSE: Is al-Qaeda on the run?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I think so.

CHARLIE ROSE: So what happens to Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri?.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I think they’re losing support, certainly in
Pakistan. The overwhelming majority of public opinion has turned against
them.

CHARLIE ROSE: Because?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Because they do not want their way of life
imposed on Pakistan, because the people of Pakistan do not want to see
Talibanization of Pakistan. We are a democratic society. We are a
moderate society. And we want to move on. We want economic development.
We want growth. We want jobs. And their presence, their existence, and
their activities hamper what we want to achieve.

CHARLIE ROSE: You’ve had a very successful capture in the last six
months, a very high-level Taliban figures, both killed and captured.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Uh-huh.

CHARLIE ROSE: So you assume that the information is being upgraded,
and you have more access to intelligence about the way the Taliban and al-
Qaeda are operating than ever before.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: We have been -- we have been asking for that.
We have been asking for intelligence sharing. We have been asking for
real-time intelligence sharing.

CHARLIE ROSE: With the United States.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Absolutely.

CHARLIE ROSE: And they refused because they are not certain that ISI
has not been infiltrated or some other reason?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: You can see the cooperation going up.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: You can see the understanding going up, right?

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: You can see the coordination going up, and you
can see the results are obvious. The more the United States cooperates
with us, we are willing to cooperate. We have demonstrated that in the
last two years since the democratically elected government has come into
office that we mean business.

We are serious. And we have demonstrated our seriousness. Look at the
sacrifice the people of Pakistan have made, the armed forces of Pakistan
have made. You name me one country that has lost so many people since
9/11. We have lost 30 -- almost 31,000 individuals. You name me one
country that has had 31,000 casualties.

CHARLIE ROSE: And do you think the United States government
appreciates that?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I think they do. When I went to the Hill, when
I met senators and congressmen, this time around, I could see appreciation.
We’re engaged--

CHARLIE ROSE: Was their response to you as the representative of the
Pakistani government, as the foreign minister was more --

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Was very positive.

CHARLIE ROSE: Right.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I could see a shift in mood. I could see
appreciation. I could see recognition. And I see that today, the United
States administration executive branch and Pakistan’s government on the
same page.

CHARLIE ROSE: But they are not sharing as much intelligence as you
would like for them to.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: It has improved considerably. The confidence
level has gone up. It can go up further.

CHARLIE ROSE: Back to al-Qaeda, you have basically said that they are
not as hierarchical and structured organization as we might presume.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Uh-huh.

CHARLIE ROSE: Therefore, it makes it more difficult, you know, to
know where some of the leadership might be.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: That’s my reading.

CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah. And some of al-Qaeda is shifting to Yemen or
Somalia or wherever?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: To different places, but leaving Pakistan.
Because they see the seriousness on our part.

CHARLIE ROSE: We mention Taliban in Pakistan. What is the
relationship between ISI, your intelligence agency, and the Taliban leaders
in Afghanistan?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: The way the ISI has been operating and the way
the ISI is being targeted by Taliban, is in front of you. Look at the --
look at their casualties. Look at the number of people that have been
injured in the last year and a half. Directly, you know, ISI operators.
Look at the way their different officers have been attacked in Peshawar, in
Lahore, in Multan. It is very obvious that ISI is no longer considered to
be a friend of theirs.

CHARLIE ROSE: This final question before I let you go -- or you can
go without me letting you go. ( laughs ) This question: is opinion on the
street about the United States, about Pakistan’s role that it can play in
partnership with the United States changing? Is respect for the United
States changing? On the street?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: I think there’s a lot of ground that needs to
be covered. I think this messaging that has been sent out, this
interaction that we’ve had in the last 48 hours sends the right message
back home.

CHARLIE ROSE: And it goes out to the street.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: It does go to the street. But a lot has to be
done. It’s not going to be easy. Perceptions on both sides have to
change. Perceptions of Pakistan in the U.S. have to change. And U.S.
perceptions in Pakistan have to change.

Then only can we have a long-term partnership. The people-to-people
relationship has to improve, and that is why when I was in the strategic
dialogue, when I was trying to expand our sectoral (ph) tracks, what I had
in view was areas that affect the ordinary people so that the people of
Pakistan can realize and see that this American help, this American
assistance has made a difference to my life.

CHARLIE ROSE: Does your government believe that the Taliban can be
stopped in Afghanistan and the present strategy is the way to do it?

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: The present strategy is a far better thought-
out strategy. It’s wider. It’s more comprehensive. And it’s not just
talking of the military option.

CHARLIE ROSE: It engages the people.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: It engages the people. It talks of
development. It talks of governance. It talks of building civilian
structures and institutions. So it’s a better strategy, and I think we
should give it time to work. But it has to be a very careful balance
between engagement and the application of force.

CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you very much. Pleasure to see you again.

SHAH MAHMOOD QURESHI: Thank you.

 

[Cha.Cal]

Here is the second interview - to Newsweek.

‘The Silent Surge’

Pakistan's foreign minister on what his country is doing to combat militant Islamists.

Newsweek Web Exclusive
Mar 29, 2010

Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Pakistan's foreign minister, runs a balancing act: on one side, Islamists and nationalists; on another, the United States; on a third, India; on a fourth, Afghanistan. Qureshi was in the U.S. last week for his country's strategic dialogue with the State Department, where he affirmed his government's willingness to fight the Taliban. Afterward, he stopped by NEWSWEEK's New York office to chat with editors about his military's "silent surge," the back channel with New Delhi, and the sacrifices Pakistan's intelligence agency has made fighting militants. Excerpts:


NEWSWEEK: Tell us about this deal between the U.S. and Pakistan.
Qureshi: They were a breakthrough dialogue. We finally succeeded in putting the message across that we have been friends with our allies, and we've had a long relationship that has been cyclical and transactional. What we need to do is convert this relationship into a partnership. I have been hammering on this ever since I became foreign minister, but I think it finally has sunk in.

What do you think caused the breakthrough?
First, the recognition of the need of each other. Second, the realization in Pakistan that this menace [of the Taliban] is blocking the progress and the growth of Pakistan. The third factor is that for the first time, the democratically elected government gave the fight to ownership. Even the Army felt that we cannot fight the insurgency unless we have public support. Finally the Obama administration has been engaging more frequently and has been listening. The fact that they nominated a focal point for a constant engagement helped, and so did the fact that we demonstrated our seriousness through actions and sacrifices. Name one nation in the world that has had 31,000 casualties and has arrested, apprehended, and eliminated 17,000 terrorists.

Yet the U.S. position has always been until now that you need to do more. Is that part of the breakthrough?
Not once in this engagement has anyone said to me: "Do more." And for the first time there is the realization in Washington that their delivery has not matched the urgency that is required in the field. What we have succeeded in is converting public opinion and deploying 150,000 troops on the Western borders. Never in Pakistan's existence and history have we ever deployed these numbers there.

Has the administration asked India to take any measures?
Frankly, India has not been that helpful. They have been shortsighted. Terrorism is not geographic or area-specific. Do you think they will stop here if they can move on? They will not! The Indians must realize that it is in their long-term enlightened self-interest to see Pakistan succeed in defeating [the terrorists].

Skeptics will point to the traditional analysis that Pakistani support to the Taliban is a threat to Indian influence in Afghanistan.
I think they are out of date. Pakistan today does not consider [the] Taliban our friends. We do not want to see a Taliban control of government in Afghanistan.

Do you want to see them part of it?
That is to the Afghans to decide. For the first time, there is a qualitative change that people are not realizing. It was often said that Pakistani intelligence had an interest in who governs Afghanistan. You have had elections in Afghanistan. Ask the U.N. representative and the EU envoys there, "What was Pakistan's role?" We took a conscious decision of not interfering. Whoever the Afghans elect through the democratic process as their leaders, we will engage and work with them. There has been a change of thinking in Pakistan and a greater realization in Afghanistan that we are destined to be together. We share a border. Afghanistan is landlocked and trade has to go through Pakistan. That is why we are negotiating a new transit trade agreement. This is all new.

Some say that the offensive against the Taliban might have been short of going after Taliban leaders who are friendly with Pakistan intelligence.
You are misreading that we are differentiating between Pakistani Taliban who are hurting us and Afghan Taliban. I think the distinction that existed is diminishing. If you look at the late operations in South Waziristan, which was considered as the [Pakistan Taliban's] headquarters, the myth was that it had never been occupied by any force and that it was impossible to do it. We have done it. The next question is: "Fine, you have done that but you are not going into North Waziristan where the real bad guys are?" My answer is that we are, but do we have to announce it? It's a tactic again.

Are you sending troops there?
We have troops there. But we have to move according to a plan, in line with our resources. The strategy that has worked in Pakistan and that has not worked in Afghanistan is simple: we clear, we hold, once we have held we can only hold with the support of the population. Now we are at a critical phase of maintaining the momentum we have gained, which is build and then transfer authority from military to civilian authority.

Aren't those fierce Pashtun mountain warriors that have taken down every empire?
Every foreign empire. We are not foreigners. They do not look at us like aliens, but as saviors, because the people living in the tribal belt are sick and tired of the Taliban.

Are you saying that there is a military solution or at least a solution that begins with occupation?
No. The solution needs to be more comprehensive, but where force is required, force has to be used.

Do you think there will be visible action in the Northwest Frontier province in the next six months?
The allied forces call their surge the military surge. We are doing a silent surge.

What is the endgame? Occupy and hold the entire Western region?
On the Pakistani side? Obviously. We want to hold, clear, and frankly to amalgamate the tribal bit into the mainstream. But it will have to be done in a phased manner.

Is there a role for American drone strikes in the silent surge?
People understand that drone strikes are a precise and superior technology that has taken out some well-known targets. The problem has been the collateral damage. The issue of sovereignty remains. We have used airfire of late and nobody has complained. A missile fired from one of our planes can also target innocents. But when a U.S. drone fires and kills, people complain. That is why we have been talking with the administration about transfer of technology. When you give us the ownership, we will face the consequences, as well.

What do you say to those who say that you are taking off the battlefield certain commanders who might be more willing to enter talks and leaving alone those who are more hardline?
People can look at it in different ways. You can also look at the positive things. For example, we have this delegation of civilians and military and it is the first time that you have seen such coordination between the civilian and the military leadership of Pakistan. That is a positive thing. But some can say, "Well, the civilians are still not in charge." It is up to you the way you look at it.

Do you have a timeline for the silent surge?
You can't have a clear timeline. But we are encouraged by the fact that we have performed better than our expectations. How many in the West could have predicted that Pakistani troops would go into Swat and clear the valley in six weeks? Timelines have to be adjusted to ground realities.

For many Americans, the low-water mark of the fight was when the Taliban offensive came within 50 miles of Islamabad. Where is the front now?
You cannot clearly identify the front. They can operate in small pockets, a group of three or four can slip into a big town and carry out a terrorist activity and run away. Will you call it a front or a hit-and-run operation?

In what sense does the Army have ownership of the fight now that they didn't have before?
People's ownership. Initially it was felt that "It is not our war, why are we being sucked into it?" But we said, "This is a war that has a direct impact on Pakistan. Do we want Taliban to succeed in Kabul and target Islamabad with their ideological agenda and try to impose their agenda on us?" We don't. So if we don't, we have to stand up and fight them.

Did that change something in poll results?
Absolutely. Yesterday, the 22nd of March, in a place called Di-Khan, which has been a hub of activities of militancy, there was a by-election. A political party which had sympathies and was affiliated with the [coalition of religious parties Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal] was defeated by my party's candidate in free elections.

How did President Obama's announcement of the drawdown of the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan affect the way regional actors are behaving now?
The initial interpretation was "If they are leaving in July 2011, then just dig in, wait, create no problem, and once they leave come out of the woods." But that interpretation has been dispelled.

Why does the perception that the Pakistani Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) continues to play a double game persist and what is the reality of it?
It has changed because ISI has performed significantly against the militants. In the last 18 months, we have lost something like 300 people and had at least 600 injured. Look at how many times their headquarters have been attacked: in Peshawar, Lahore, Multan. If ISI is helping them, why are they being attacked and killed?