tv Charlie Rose PBS January 15, 2013 12:00pm-1:00pm PST
process many times here in the obama presidenciment looks like another round as well. >> rose: and for most of this hour conversation with the foreign minister of pakistan hina rabbani khar. >> i think pakistan today presents a country which is very clear notice head how it operate with its neighbors and that is to try and build on the trust and then build that trust enough to be able to build an environment in i we can take care of the disputes we have on the dialogue table rather than through military statements and through military actions. >> rose: the president's last press conference of his first term, and the foreign minister of pakistan when we continue. funding for charlie rose was provided by the following:.
captioning sponsored by rose communications >> from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: tonight we begin with news from the white house, president obama held the last press conference of his first term this morning. most focus was on the battle over the nation's debt limit. the president warned in his opening are remarks that the failure to raise the debt sealing would threaten the u.s. economy. >> so we got to pay our bills. and republicans in congress
have two choices here. they can act responsibly and pay america's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put america through another economic crisis. but they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the american economy. the financial well-being of the american people is not leveraged to be used. the full faith and credit of the united states of america is not a bargaining chip. and they better choose quickly because time is running short. >> rose: other topics included the ongoing debate on gun control, and the lack of diversity in the second term appointees. joining me from washington al hunt of bloomberg news and from the white house major garrett of cbs news. thank you. al better i start with you. characterize for me the president in temperament and in words on the debt ceiling. >> charlie, i think he realizes he has a winning
hand substantively on this and there will be caveats in just a moment. i was struck, however that what this really, his last press conference his first term showed he should have had a lot more than he did. because he's rusty. if was almost analogy can be made to that first debate. he went on too long for a while. he stepped on his narrative some. and if you read t i think reads better than it looked. the reason i say i think he believes he has the upper hand on the debt sealing is because republicans have a losing hand. they don't want to hold the full faith and credit of the united states hostage to cutting entitlements. that's just not a winning hand but there are other games they can play in the middle on that and i think that obama did at best a fairly good job today in countering that. >> rose: major? >> well, the president uses press conference primarily, charlie, to tell the republicans in the countries that's watching and the bond markets and financial markets all over the world that he is in an
uncompromising mood as far as negotiating with republicans directly about whether the debt ceiling will or will not be raised. the president's position is a congressional obligation f congress wants to hand that authority over to him he will be glad to take it but congress needs to send him a debt ceiling increase. remember the debt sealing acording to the treasury department is due to run out to laps and we would approach a default position sometime in the middle of february, just next month. there is not a lot of time. now republicans have said and i asked the president about this you know, historically the debt ceiling because it oftentimes difficult to get votes in congress to pass a debt ceiling, has often been accompanied by fiscal or deficit reduction measures. back in the '80s, the '90s and even in president's presidency himself he has signed four laws raising debt ceiling. three were tied to some sort of fiscal management, legislation itself. but the president now says i'm tired of negotiating all those things, raised the debt ceiling and then i will get on with other conversations with you about dealing with the sequester, the across-the-board
spending cuts and other budget related issues. but not until you take care of the debt ceiling and get that off the table. that was the president's principal message today and he got a lot of conversation about why not negotiate. he said he's to the going to. we'll leave it there at least for the time being. >> rose: what will the republicans do, will they shut down the government. >> no, not over the debt ceiling. they may over the continuing resolution this is not their best vehicle. my guess is what they will probably have to do is give him a short-term extension. and then see if the senate will go along. they being of course the house republicans and just try to prolong this fight for a while. they don't want to have-- not shutting down the government is really spooking the credit markets and everything that major talked about a moment ago. and how the president would handle short-term extension is another matter. i think that would back him into a corner. he also ran into a problem because both in response to major and in response to julianna goldman he said i'm not going to negotiate over this. if they want to have a conversation, i'll be happy
to have a conversation. i'm not quite clear sure how i distinguish between conversations and negotiations here. so i think this is only one of a number of pieces that are going to be played out in the next couple months. in many ways the continuing resolution and so-called sequester, the automatic spending cuts may prove to be the bigger battles. >> rose: what should we expect next, major? >> well, i asked the president directly because several republicans on the house side at the leadership level said maybe the best we can do is a one or two or three month extension of borrowing authority to avoid default so i said to the president would you accept and therefore sign a short-term extension of borrowing authority to avoid default? if that is the principal threat to the u.s. economy right now would you be willing to do that? would you accept that. he said i'm not interested in that. to pick up on al's point, that sort of puts the president in a kind of precarious position because if he's not going to negotiate and he won't accept what congress can pass, then aren't we heading to a default situation? i don't think we are. i think the president is
laying out some rather tough negotiating territory or maybe nonnegotiating territory right now to see where republicans in congress are willing to do, and if they will budge a little bit. right now it seems like we are both testing whether each side intends to budge. we've been through that process many times in the obama presidency. looks like another round as well. >> is the president missing something here al that he could or should do on behalf of the common good? >> it's pretty hard on this one, charlie because he's right on the debt ceiling. major history absolutely dead on. but the debt sealing is a fraud. a total fraud. shouldn't exist. people from alan greenspan to tim geithner to anyone who has looked at it, to paul krugman say it is a total fraud. it's a political device. so on that he's right. and on the substance, right now i think that obama, he may not have articulated as well as quo have but i think he has clearly indicated that if you are looking for more deficit reduction, a bigger deal, not a big deal,
he's willing to go pretty far for a democrat on entitlements. right now republicans... >> rose: how do you know that? >> well, i think he said he's willing to do that. he has put on the table in private conversations that they had in december, he was perfectly willing to go along with the change in the change for social security, he indicated strongly that he would look at some kind of means testing for affluent medicare recipients. those aren't little things. they are not as much as some people want. but the republicans have said in the last couple of weeks we're drawing a line in the sand no more tax increases, none. well that's starting from a position of not negotiating. because you can't have entitlement changes without more tax changes. >> rose: yeah. let me turn to gun control watch. dow expect vice president bidetone suggest to the president tomorrow, majer? >> well, several things, charlie. i think he's going to say what the president has already said. he wants to reinstate the assault weapons ban, first put into law in 1994, set on a ten year sunset, was not renewed when it expired.
a new ban on the large capacity ammunition clips, those magazines that hold more than ten bullets, sometimes up to a hundred. and some type of beefing up of the mental health and criminal background check system. currently it applies only to federally licensed firearms dealers. some gun shows don't have all those dealers there and private sales aren't covered. that is a very difficult thing to do from a gun registry and absolute data sealed off sort of way to approach that. the nra has some very strong objections and members of congress might be skeptical rather to a complete requirement for every firearms transaction in america to be covered by a criminal and mental health background check. the vice president is also going to look for more money to increase the efficiency of that database itself. on mental health and criminal background chex. there might be some voluntary moves by the entertainment and video game activity to provide more information about what violent video imgas are and what they show and depict. some things like that i would say that is the broad outlines of what the vice president will put forward and what the president is
likely to accept. >> rose: al, do you think the president will go forward with assault weapon ban but, in fact, will you not get it from this congress? >> i think both are probables, charlie. will go forward it with it. it will be very difficult to get. but there ought to be a big fight over it. because first it is a canard that it didn't work in '94 to 2004 t wasn't a panacea at all. but actually violent crimes went down for the first five years up until columbine and then they rose a great deal when at sought weapons ban was repealed in 2004, wasn't extended., wasn't extended. it. it is always a safe bet to say gun control speaks the day of a terrible moment of violence and the passion subside. i think there may be a counter to the nra this time that didn't exist before. gabby giffords and her husband have started an effort. the principal owner of bloomberg lp michael wloomberg cares passionately about
this and will spend a lot of money. and i see earlier indications that that could have some success. i would bet against any assault weapons ban, but i think there really could be a real struggle over that. >> rose: when you look at these issues of nominee for secretary of defense, nominee for secretary of the treasury, and these criticisms on diversity, what did he say about that, major? >> well, the president said just hold on a minute. wait until i have made my appointments but for at point. s made so far on the national security side, all white males, treasury secretary, jack lew, an insider, chief of staff now moving over there, there are those who look at this administration and say not only is he not diverse as diverse tas was the first term, but it doesn't have any sort of that low level rivalry contingent that the first term cabinet did. all these people are dyed in
the wool obama loyalists from the tightest elemental elements of the inner circle for president obama. and that is not a diversity it might be a sort of well what kind of outside opinions and perspectives are you getting at all, diverse or otherwise, and there are those who are criticizing the president's current approach to his cabinet on those basis as well as diverse knit a more traditional sense. >> health care in the% first term clearly was a historic item. what could be historic beyond foreign policy considerations we do not know that might occur about a second obama administration? >> immigration reform, something on gun violence but also if you put tax reform in there in its sense of not only providing a new simpler tax code, one that has a growth component to it but you can't get the tax reform without having some kind of lengthy, i'm not saying five or six years but at least lengthy cease-fire on debt ceilings and all these itinerant fiscal dramas. if the president were able
to move in those directions, get all three of those on the board, because that is about the window he has, second term presidency really begins to expire after two and a half years, maybe sometime sooner, that would be historic. >> rose: do you agree with that, al? >> i do. i'm very skeptical that it ain't going to happen in tax reform. i saw the '85, '86 tax act. almost none of the ingredients that existed then for that very difficult task exists today. i think there was people on both sides who like to see it. i am very dubious. i think immigration is going to happen. and guns is a toss up right now. but major is absolutely right. that window is those first two years and i think the president knows that. the last part of his first, secretary term will be probably foreign policy essentially. >> rose: al hunt, major garrett, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> rose: we'll be right back with the foreign minister of pakistan. stay with us. hina rabbani qhar is here,
i'm pleased to have her here at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you. >> rose: you have had for a young woman an extensive experience in government, both in the finance ministry as well as foreign ministry. you are here for what purpose? >> i am here as you know pakistan recently hast year got elect as a peferm nent member of the security council so this month apac stand's-- and i'm here to chair an open session, open debate on counterterrorism and approach towards that. >> rose: i want to talk about all of that. are you meeting with american officials? >> i will be meeting with susan rice, but pretty much in new york, not in washington. >> what is the state of the relations. >> i think they have come a long way. if you asked me six months back that we would come this long i would say no, i would doubt it but i think it came along with a and it always takes two to tango. i think both countries have treaded very carefully,
accepted each other requirements, been more aware of sensitive to each other's sort of interests opinion the within the region so i think we have come a long way. >> rose: you had experience in the united states you went to the university of massachusetts. >> yes. >> you are also a businessperson. >> what brought knew politics. your father? >> yes and i think life presents opportunities and it is up to you how to utilize that opportunity. >> rose: take me back to a time before at bin laden raid that lead to the killing of osama bin laden. how would you describe the status of the relationship at that moment? >> uh-huh. >> before the raid. >> i think i have been infry catly involved with pakistan u.s. relations from the foreign policy point of view after or during the raid because i really, is with appointed in april i think
or may 2011 as minister of state and then july 2011. as foreign minister, but i think things had started to become a bit bad between the two countries. and you know it's not very difficult to see what was happening. what was happening was a classic case of blame game. now we have a very complex situation on the ground. a complex city which is not the product of the last two or three years. a complex situation which is the product of the last 20 to 30 years. a lot of unintended consequences of decisions and policy that we, you know, decisions that we made together. when i say together i mean the united states and pakistan. what is happening in afghanistan or soviet era, et cetera. now if you have a situation that's complex as that, then of course you know i think nobody will disagree today that the last ten years for the international forces in the united states and forth entire objectives of international forces has not been an easy one. there have been many setbacks, many, many
challenges. so i think it was a classic case of everybody turning to, in some ways looking for easy answers and saying oh we're not winning, are we not doing well because pakistan was not cooperating. i think we have come at least half a circumstance fell not full circle. i would like to say full circle, i'm an optimist to a point where today all the points of divergence were considered to be a point of divergence but about stability in afghanistan, whether i.e.d.s, whether it is usage of tools of counterterrorism which we might feel counterproductive, i think we beginning to very much more intensive discussions, all of these are fast emerging to be points of convergence now. >> your references to drones. >> of course. >> and civilian casualties coming from drones. >> yes. >> let me go back to the osama bin laden raid. one of the principal conflicts with the united states and pakistan at that time was the united states felt like that pakistan was not doing enough.
with respect to the haqqani network in north wazirstan. and therefore people had a sanctuary from supporting the taliban in afghanistan. and they go back across the border. and that therefore americans were being killed by people who had a safe refuge and the pakistani army was not vigorous enough in going into north wazirstan even though it was difficult. >> uh-huh. charlie that is very interesting. i find this to be the most fascinating blame on pakistan or allegation on pakistan ever. because you know pakistan is a country which forth last ten years has gone through enormous, has had to, a not of our own choice but we have had to make enormous sacrifices. we lost 40,000 civilians in the last ten years. we lost 6,000 para military, military, law enforcement forces in the last ten years. we have had multiplicity of bomb attacks inside our colleges, schools, school buses, bazaars, villages, et cetera.
now if we had the ability or the capacity to stop it in afghanistan, than would it not be in our national interest to at least be able to stop it in pakistan first. or is this some perception of strategic depth we have that we want chaos in pakistan also. now you are point, i want to come directly to the haqqani net, woman. let me first make a very, very simple statement. any entity, be it haqqani network or any entity which uses violence to prove themselves or their strength is an entity which is destabilizing for pakistan >> rose: so therefore haqqani network is destabling. >> any network, including haqqani network. >> rose: you consider them a destabilizing network. >> absolutely, we do. each one of them, ddp, haqqani network, any of them. and interestingly all of these entities are interlinked. what you call the-- taliban, ddp, haqqani, they are all
interlinked, allegiance to the same person. they all have a destructive mind-set which they propagate and they think violence is justified means, killing children, killing people is a justified means to achieve a political or any other objective. we condemn each one of them. all these entities and that is the reason that when the united states for instance wanted to declare the haqqani network as an fto on you are guest, they are foreign nationals, if you want to-- it would be the foreign government to be consulted. so it is preposterous t is preposterous to me that these allegations would be made on pakistan. that is why i said in the beginning of the interview, not knowing that you would be asking this question, that the genesis of all of this lies in oversimplifying a rather complicated and complex situation on the ground. because you know, interestingly, you might find it interesting but if we feel that we have made
afghanistan more stable than before, why are we having more afghan refugees coming into pakistan than in 2007. >> rose: obviously the answer i assume is that the taliban are making advances, but what else? >> no, the fact of the mat certificate that afghanistan today is not what we want it to be. and therefore we-- . >> rose: it's destabilized by the success of the taliban or not. >> it is destabilized because of many, many factors. this is obviously one of them. but there are many factors there. obviously severe government issues there is the fact that we, i think on the military, on the balancing of the military strategy with the political strategy, we could have maybe done better. and we consider ourselves to be part of the international coalition which is assisting afghanistan in its way. >> rose: in fact when the united states was looking for support after 9/11 they went to pakistan and musharraf supported the united states. it was a difficult choice i assume but he made that choice. >> uh-huh. and interestingly if you speak to american administration, many of them will let know that as far as derooting al qaeda and going
after its people is concerned, operatives is concerned, pakistan alone has probably done more than what the rest of the world has done. >> rose: yet at the same time americans are conscious of the fact that a number of people who were part of al qaeda and were principals in the assault on 9/11 and the events of 9/11 were uncovered in pakistan. >> uh-huh. >> rose: including in the end a bin ladin living not very far from your west point. >> people say how you could not know. >> and as infuriating tas was for you or your congressman, it was as infuriating for us and for our congress or parliamentarians and everybody else. this was a huge intelligence failure t was and we admit it and accept it we say that was maybe not only our intelligence failure and everybody else but it was a huge intelligence failure. you know that obviously is something in which we have a commission which was set up, an independent commission, they have just reported their report to the prime
minister. the report is yet to be made public. >> rose: what do you think it will say. >> i think it will point fingers on entities or people who were not doing their job. i'm not saying there was complicity. >> rose: you're not. >> i'm not. it was a certain-- certified case of incompetence. whether the commission report or not, that we already know. but absolutely no complicity. and i think american intelligence, you know, for its own and from what i have seen, from what i hear from them, are clearly points to that direction that there is no evidence of any complicity whatsoever. >> rose: not only that bob gates and everybody that i have talked to, former secretary of defense and i asked a number of high level americans say i know of no evidence of complicity at the highest level. but they suspect there may be some complicity at the lower levels, in the middle levels. >> there has to be people on the ground who were supporting his presence. >> rose: exactly. >> right. >> rose: he could not have done that. >> were those people in any way connected at the lower
level also then any entities is are what needed to be found and that is the job the commission was given. >> rose: when that raid came, and that invasion of pakistani sovereignty. >> yes. >> rose: there was an immediate, and you can characterize it, response which was -- >> which was-- . >> rose: what was the response. i mean everybody in pakistan, all the leadership in pakistan, you know, principle culted-- insulted, embarrassed, what else, angry. >> uh-huh, you see, and why not, okay. this is a country which has been a partner against international terrorism for the last ten years. this is a country which has destabilized itself at the cost of trying to bring stability within the region and afghanistan. charlie i can share with you that pre9/11, pre200 -- you know what was the number of suicide bombers died inside pakistan territory. >> no. >> one. >> why. >> you number the number in the last two, three years.
>> maybe running to 200 every year 335 i think. >> rose: so the point is that after 9/11 pakistan became a more unsafe place for suicide and terrorist activities. >> pakistan became a center of attraction for these entities to come and play around with. and have their activities. and just take on the forces of pakistan. now why would they consider to take the forces of pakistan if pakistan was complicity in supporting them. >> rose: how many billions of dollars of aid have come to pakistan since 2001 billions of dollars of aid. >> i wouldn't be able to put a number on it but i know that the camp david package, for instance, in economic assistance was about 300 million, because i used to be in the ministry of finance. and now we are talking about 1.5 million klb but then it comes in businesses and pieces. and it comes in various different ways, sometimes directly, very small portion comes directly to the government as most of it goes around it and then of course the payments which are the majority of the payments.
now the cf-- csf payments are not aid. >> rose: you look at them as what. >> they are not classified within your system as aid also. i look at them as assist a prowess by which its u.s. government assists the pakistani government to be able to foot the bill 6 having more than 150,000 soldiers on the western front. and do you know pre9/11 how many did we have? >> rose: 20. >> less, less. >> rose: because you were worried, because your primary preoccupation was-- india. >> at that time was india. >> at that time was india. this obviously shows the focus of our attention this shows that we know where the danger lies and shows that we are moving very fast. >> rose: so there was this real sense of embarrassment, everything else that lead to a dramatic drop in the relationship between pakistan and the united states after the osama bin laden raid. and then you had the nato corridor that you were allowing supplies go in.
and what happened there? >> that happened after salada. that happened after 24 soldiers were-- . >> rose: did you get the sufficient apology that you needed nor to restore that route. >> we did. and for that we appreciate the role that many, many people in the united states played, particularly i think in most crucial to that and white house was also towards the ends supportive of that. but i just wanted to say that because as my colleague, i think is important fought on record all the good things. the new colleague who is coming in, senator john kerry is a person who has been proverbially good as far as pakistan-u.s. relations are concerned. so yes, i think it was barring, because the parliament, and this is interesting because this shows you the new pakistan, as at salada incident happened and we had 24 soldiers who were debt,-- dead, we did not officially through the government pores sgu but the parliament requested for a full apology from the united states so we
had kept an apology as the lowest minimum sort of bar which was required for us to be able to pov back into doing business normally. and it took us a few months, unfortunately. but it did come and we did move on. >> rose: you also made a trip to moscow during this period. >> yeah but really i think we see too much of these interconnections all of these relations. >> rose: i notice you smiled before you answered. >> that says something, doesn't it but it not an either/or game, at all. i think none of these relations, our relations with china, our relations with the u.s., our relations with moss cow. i think moskow we have come a long way and that is exceptionally healthy. because you see what we believe n and this is what president zardari emphasized is a regional approach to be able to solve many of the problems. when it comes to afghanistan russia is important, moskow is important. >> rose: absolutely. >> and the other republics
tajik stan, and kyrg stan is also important so a regional approach. typically if you ask me what did we do wrong in afghanistan and what i fear we will be doing wrong again. >> rose: i'm asking that now. >> okay okay so, the answer to that question is that what we did wrong was to think that we can all solve the problem for him. and if we go down that route again we will be repeating the same mistake and i think the last thing you want to do, you can make real mistakes but let's not repeat the same mistakes again. >> one of the things xz there is now debate as to whether they should leave after 2014, any american troops. tell me what you fear from that might happen in afghanistan, what are your big worries? >> okay, first of all let me say at the very outset in the eventual long-term, in the very long-term as i say,
i think was-- that we are all dead so in the very long term but in the long-term, in the long-term clearly the presence of the united states forces in afghanistan will not be a source of stability within the region. and that is why just what we talked about before about the regional approach. every country within the region has expressed its concern about the long-term presence of u.s. troops in afghanistan, right. however the u.s. troops in afghanistan came for a purpose. they came for a job. therefore what we ask, what we expect of nato and the u.s. and everyone else is what we call a responsible transition, if not a responsible exit. >> rose: who will oversee that. >> i think as nations z as countries which all responsible and all interested in the same common good of stability in afghanistan, we all have to be guaran tofers and overlook that we can't have one entity or the other which is overlooking it but
the united nation kos have a role to play. when we say responsible exit watch. do we mean? for any, when are you pulling out or when you consider a job done i think the first thing to go back to is what was the purpose of your coming in for the first place. so what were they called and look at the situation. >> to destroy al qaeda. >> it was to destroy al qaeda but also to bring stability in afghanistan. >> and not make it a safe haven nor a, you know, a state that offered a place for al qaeda and related groups to have sanctuary. >> then or to regroup there later on. >> a so-called failed state. >> sure and also to build institutions that are strong enough to persevere an remain so we have to really match those entry goals with what the situation is over here and where we want to be in 2014. it is still not too late. i think we're moving maybe in the right direction. >> rose: do you think afghanistan is prepared to be able by 2014 to offer stability to the afghan people and prevent a takeover by the taliban?
>> charlie what is mover important than what i believe is what afghans believe and to me what is not a very confidence inspiring sign is the fact that more refugees instead of going back to of a began starntion you know we have been housing 3 million afghan reg gees for the last three decades it is not very confidence inspiring for me that back in 2007 there was a small trickle of these refugees going back to afghanistan. they were finding afghanistan to offer opportunities that it did not before, maybe. now since 2007, the flow of refugees has reversed and now there are refresh refugees coming into pakistan which means the perception of stability in afghanistan is not as highs as yours than mine. and we hope that as we move toward its 2014 this will change. because for does is extremely important to find a lasts solution to the refugee problem, so we don't want any fresh allegations coming in. >> rose: a destabilizing afghanistan would produce more refugees. >> and instability and of course unmanageable borders, et cetera, et cetera.
you know the list goes on is so that is one sign which is not very confidence inspiring. secondly in the last few months we have had at least the last two months, an exponential increase on incursions from afghanistan's territory into pakistan territory and typically what happens is that 100, 200300 people would come in, you know, in september we had an incident where the slaughtered 17 soldiers. and then were in active combat within those villeance, within the pakistani villages, military before they went back so the safe havens are not very confidence inspiring. now we know that the political solution for afghanistan, we believe that the guarantee, we together with i think now the rest of the world believe that only guarantee for long term stability and prosperity and just you know being able to sustain the modicum of stability that you have today is that there is a political process whereby all of these violent extremist groups turn to a
political sort of way of demonstrating their willing or their strength or-- . >> rose: what dow foe about negotiations might be under way now between the taliban and say the karzai regime because he's got another year in power. >> sure. i think there has been quite a bit of effort. there was effort by the americans and i think that effort continues in some ways on the qatar process. >> and there is a designated interlukitier, which is not the case in the other bits and pieces. we have done whatever we can to assist. because we believe it has to be afghan lead. we have released prisoners. ed. wltions you know, they came with a full list, and we have literally gone ahead on each one of them so we hope that all of them will prope propel-- propel the momentum for that to happen but eventually i think this is where my, let the afghans decide their future rather
than you and i come in that eventually it would have to be a very strong extensive, intensive intraafghan dialogue which will deliver the piece on the stable it is not going to be -- >> all the u.s. role or anyone else's, eventually it will have to be an intensive dialogue. >> do you fear what india's intentions are in afghanistan. do you worry about them? >> well, i hope not. and you know, today after the comments by the army chief i am taken back a few 230 years. and -- >> what de say-- 20 years. >> just very hostile comments. >> the army chief in india. >> and of course, we were not very pleasantly surprised by the commentses that we heard from many political leaders. i think this is what has changed in pakistan where india need to its catch up. i think pakistan today presents a country which is very clear in its head as to how it wants to operate with its neighbors. and the way we want to
operate with our neighbors is to try to build on the trust to take care of and then build that trust enough to build an environment in which we can take care of the disputes we have on the dialogue table rather than through military statements and actions. >> go ahead. >> so you yeah, coming back to afghanistan, you know, i hope that we can all realize that it is counterproductive to have instability in the region. i know today. >> rose: especially with nuclear weapons. >> without a doubt, especially with nuclear weapons. i know today if india is delabel -- destabilized it is within my region. i have a board we are it, that instable would permeate not border. >> but is kazmir getting better or worse, the conflict over kashmir. >> i think the last two weeks have been rather discomforting an to be quite honest as you know, the he is qechbs events, there were two soldiers who were injured by fighting 400 meters inside pakistan's territory. one of them did not, could not sustain those injuries
and passed away. we of course created a concern, raised our concern that the indians and asked for the normal mechanisms which in place, now two days or three days after that we had an allegation which was made that two indian soldiers were killed by pakistani fighting. which we looked into and could find no evidence that pakistani troops had done that. and then there were extremely conflicting statements that the heads were decapitated. some said the northern commanders spokesperson who is the person on the ground said they weren't. others said they were so all of be this, and if lead unfortunately not domestic politics. right after that. >> there are those who believe that pakistan is trying to have it both ways. if 9 taliban succeed beyond the 23e's imaginations or consideration they want to make sure that they have real contacts with the pakistanies. and so the isi, you know, with the av gans and so the ifi maintains a relationship
with the taliban. that's part of the argument. >> uh-huh. >> you want to play it both ways. >> okay. >> in case it goes against the present interest. >> they maintain relationship not only with the taliban but groups every where. and that's the job of an intelligence agency anywhere. we let me just say also that whether there is a taliban government or any other government in afghanistan we are a country which believes in having strong state to state relations, we're a country which might have suffered from having any favorites in afghanistan. we want to move away from that. therefore a strong reach out to northern front, the alliance, the northerners which are typically considered hostile to pakistani. currently please bear in mind that we consider any grup which is extremist, okay, which they are, any group which believes in insurgency which still today they do and i hope they will move out of that, as i said
we do not espouse ourselves to any such groups. now imagine so the fear of pakistan wanting a taliban government in afghanistan, how would that be in our interest. >> i'm not saying wanting a taliban government but having a relationship so if things go that way are you not in the cold as they say in spiland. >> if you do not have contact you cannot be able to maybe positively use those contacts. it's not having the contact which se bad thing t is how you are using those contacts so if we are using any contacts to positively incline them towards negotiation and dialogue with afghan government that say good contact. >> rose: all right. which are they doing is the question. >> of course they are doing. did you hear president karzai, who often says many interesting things. i think there is a clear recognition within the afghan system that pakistanies are doing whatever they can. i think many statements coming in the u.s. side are also recognizing that the
recent press conference that president obama and karzai had i think talked about t you know, that we have every intention of playing a positive role in a one state because we want it for ourselves more than for the afghans. it is not very generous t is a very, very selfish desire not to have an extremist group take pog we are in afghanistan because that would inspire extremists within pakistan also, because it would inspire extremists in pakistan also and pakistan interestingly, despite whatever images pakistan may send, pakistan is a country of 180 million people which has always, always elected mainstream political parties, which has always elected secularly oriented political parties. pakistan's father of the nation, was a secular man. he taught to us allow people to go to their churches, to their-- so we have to see what went wrong and what went wrong was really a series of disrupting the
democratic process and disrupting the political maturity and the institution building et cetera. and we hope that as a first transition of democratic regime to another takes place in just two months. that's when the election process starts. we hope that this will be, that the rebuilding of pakistan as many achievements that you had in the last four years, despite the monumental challenges that you have had to face, we hope that brick by brick we will start rebuilding. >> rose: let me just stay with this. dow believe that halfi said was a mastermind of the mumbai attack and if so why is he walking around in freedom in islamabad. >> first of all neither my political party nor i nor the government has any love lost for this gentleman. because-- . >> rose: that's not my question. >> absolutely. i just wanted to say that to be able to-- now i have repeatedly said this to my counterpart and to everyone in india. that the indian judician
system and the pakistani judician system is pretty much as identical as any two judicial systems anywhere in the world, pretty much. we are both from the colonial, pretty of the same. i have said this repeatedly. i say this again in your presence also that any evidence that he was a mastermind are he was a propagater or party, which we, you know, i have no reason to deny, okay. >> rose: you have seen any yourself. >> any evidence which will hold in the court of law, apparently evidence was presented in the court of law which did not hold so they know very well, what can hold in the court of law and what cannot. so we are interested as the state of pakistan, we are interested in closing the chapter on mumbai asap, as soon as possible. >> rose: if you found evidence that incriminated him we be prosecuted. >> certainly, absolutely. why not. absolutely. 100%. >> rose: but he's free now. >> he's free now because the courts let him go because the evidence that was presented against him wasn't good enough, it seemed. >> rose: there does seem to be this, i mean it seems
that pakistan with respect you know, they're just a lot of people who have, who have somehow connected to terroris found themselves in pakistan, why is that? >> is it because of the neighborhood you live in, is it because-- s with you he know that say good question and i think we're finding our observe answer force that as a nation and learning our own lessons for that from that. because i think pakistan typically is a country which has shown a great deal of tolerance towards, you know, entities who will just operate through pakistan. so as we did the operation and the swat operation which was forceful to military operations within pakistan i think that shows a national willing to move against these people, whether militarily or anywhere. >> and a assume that when they are captured there is some cooperation between pakistanies and whofer did the capturing. >> sorry? >> in other words, i assume that it was because of cooperation between the ci and whofer else might have been involved in the capturing of terrorists and
al qaeda members and others. that pakistan cooperated in detecting them and bringing them to justice. >> sure. but answering your question about how to say in other people and why people go free. now because there is, of course, many gaps which remain within the judicial system, within the system of being able to prosecute people we are just passing through what are going to be monumental laws. one law which will be much more strict on them and the other one which will allow evidence which is technology oriented. to be used as evidence so we are changing all of that. now these are fault lines which exist and we are trying very fast to fill those fault lines. >> you would be surprised, for instance, i'm talking about the judicial system for instance that the number of prisoners who were taken in after the swat operation where the military was operating, and the military lost os soldiers, and you know, its fight t if the numbers who were apprehended were about 2,000, i think
less than 10 or maybe in 20 were prosecuted, were you know, enough evidence was seen to be available within the courts that they prex cuted in so you can imagine how big the gap is and therefore we are changing the laws. >> rose: nor do i forget the fact that the movement that sort of tlofer through musharraf in the beginning was about judges and the independence of judges, am i right or wrong. >> rose: . >> yes, we call it the lawyer's movement. >> rose: exactly right, yeah. >> but the political parties had a role to play, you know that. >> rose: of course, president bhutto's son was here, he going to run for president in. >> right now there is a bar, an age limit. >> rose: he is not old enough. >> will not be running. >> rose: are you old enough? >> i am old enough to run for parliament, which i have. i don't know about-- . >> rose: if his mother had not been assassinated. >> uh-huh. >> rose: would pakistan be a different place today? >> you know there is absolutely no doubt, charlie, as you know as an
international observer that benn a zir bhutto was larger-than-life in some ways. she was larger-than-life naturally but certainly larger-than-life in pakistan also am and she inspoored a lot of people and she had the char is ma and the characteristics and personality to be able to lead very, very effectively and successfully. so you know, that gap will always remain. and many people in pakistan believe that had she been there we would have been able to manage the situation better. >> rose: and she was committed to democracy at the same time. >> of course. which of course-- . >> rose: at the same time to a secular. >> an all of those ideas. the current president of pakistan, president zardari are more than committed to, her husband of course is more than committed to democratic process. i think this government has done rather well in being able to sort of move today now hopefully towards a transition. >> the nuclear weapons stable, i mean are they protected and are you confidence. >> without any doubt. >> rose: there is to-- group that can get hold of one of
them or more. >> without any doubt. >> rose: okay. tell me now about as you said what pakistan is to the about rather than what it is about. we have been talking about the history of pakistan recent history. tell me what it is that you want us to know about pakistan. >> what i want-- what it is about. pakistan is about 180 million people who are resilient and who all want to be able to live peacefully and to be able to follow a tra jeck other of growth and development like one offered to any individual anywhere else in the world, right. and there is so much of death and breadth within pakistan that the topography, the gee og for example the history, the culture, and for a very long time you know pakistan was well on its way to grow like the coreas of the world. back to the 60s and 70s so if you ask me, there can b be-- question name a single event that changes for pakistan, i would say the invasion of afghanistan and
a role after that. and you know, the arms and ammunition which are distributed amongst the majority in pakistan, that has had lasting impression, violence, arms, ammunition, cortex, all this region did not know. >> everybody supporting because they wanted hem to defeat russia and kick them out. >> that is why we are careful of unintended consequence of policymaking or decision-making as we move forward. today pakistan presents a country which has been on its way to you know, to be a stable, democratic country. and has a core of challenges, right. but as i always encourage, i was recently in the human rights commission, whereby the way we won by 171 out of 191 votes, interestingly. and so over there i said that when you look at pakistan and you take a judgement call on it, do not look at the challenges we val. but look at the way we are dealing with those challenges when it comes to women's issues, look at the legislation we have done to protect, to build those
protective walls against women, whether it is harassment at work, domestic violence, et cetera. in the same way look at the fact that political parties today in pakistan have matured to the extent that not one but three constitutional amendments which each require 75% and more votes have been passed within this. so all of this shows signs of a pakistan which is well, you know, which, what was lacking in pakistan was how the institution were not a you laed to build because of constant military intervention. now that, so that is now in his treatment i hope that pakistan will emerge as a country which is able to deal with all of these challenges. and terrorists will have no place to hide. >> people in pakistan must be very proud of malawa the young woman. >> of course, yes. >> rose: she stood up for education. >> absolutely. >> rose: stupd for women, even though she was 13413. >> sure. i think she was more effective than practically any other military operation, even, in how she gathered the sentiments and the
emotions and just all pack stains, almost, unanimously, all pakistanies other than barring one or two sort of fringe elements who like to believe this to be a conspiracy. and she presented it in a very simple wayment she presented, i'm not saying-- when i say presented mi saying considered, presented it in a simple way. >> by her own personal actions. >> absolutely it was the malawa, pakistan, why a 14-year-old had the guts to stand up for her right to education. and the pakistan of the people who attacked her, okay, who felt threatened by a 14-year-old ability to stand up for her right today case so you can imagine what mind-set. so i therefore believe that any political party, any political leader or anyone in pakistan who increasesed ideaological space for these people to be able to operate is not, you know, looking in pakistan's national interest. is not serious about sort of
development and prosperity and just the national interest of pack stand. and the future of our children. >> rose: what dow want from the united states? >> i think what we want from the united states is more than anything else right now in a regional context, a responsible transition in afghanistan which is not leave the area more own stable than the one that they came to. within the context of pakistan, pakistan has had one strong request of the united states and the whole world. we are a country that says we have suffered a gate deal because of extremism and terrorism and being on the front line and the only thing that we ask of the world that we do not request but ask of the world almost as a right is a preferential market access because that is what creates opportunities for people on the ground and that is what ensures that those who will be, you know who have a tendency to go and pick up arms because they have nothing better to do have now the opportunity to instead have a meaningful
livelihood. and jobs and nothing has its transformational effect than market access and we hope with the european union we will be on our way to achieve more of. >> rose: what is the gdp of pakistan today? >> the gdp of pakistan should be about in the ballpark of, i have left finance so i can't make a wrong number. >> rose: i know, i will give you a pass, i don't want to you have a wrong number. >> i know that 9 per capital is about 2,000-- i will not make a wrong number. >> rose: i suspect that. tell me how you feel about women in power. >> hmmmm, okay, first of all i feel very strongly and i know that when malawa was is a tacked i very sort of you know ash tarly and naturally ownedded up saying that she is the real hero. you know because people like myself for instance are presented opportunities, as i told you and then we take on those opportunities and try and make the best of them. i think it is important because it inspires a lot of
women and makes them know what they can do. and for instance i think it was extremely important that today we have about 20 percentage of women's representation in the parliament and that shirns legislation. >> what percent. >> almost 24% i previous close to that. provincial about 23% we hope this number will increase because it insurances that bim issues, issues related to-- and of course in pakistan bim leadership, it is anonymous to benazir bhutto who was, i think it is people like this who are not being a woman under a sleeve who are just being very mainstream yet being i think being a woman leader brings in some sensitivities which are important in leadership. >> rose: thank you for coming. >> thank you. >> rose: pleasure to you have here. >> i enjoyed this interview. i have to say. thank you very much. >> rose: great to see you. foreign minister of pakistan. thank you for joining us. see you next time.
[ theme music plays ] >> yes, "check, please!" people! >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food is just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restturant. >> and everybody, i'm sure, saved room for those desserts.