Spokesman Briefings

Date: 01/10/2007

Record of Press Briefing on 01 October, 2007

Opening Statement

There was no opening statement.

Question/Answer Session

In response to comments that use of force against journalists and lawyers yesterday projected an extremely negative image of Pakistan to the world through the television screens, the Spokesperson said:

What happened yesterday was an unfortunate event. When we talk about Pakistan 's image abroad, we all have to think about it. Of course, it is the responsibility of the government to think about the image of the country. It is also the responsibility of civil society, the ordinary people because in our individual capacities we are all contributing to that image. Yes, I agree with you that the image that went out yesterday was not good. It was unfortunate; this is not what Pakistan is all about. I believe we are a far more tolerant people and it was an aberration I hope.

In a related question asked, if the “so called democratic Governments” of the world who professed to believe in the freedom of expression had raised any concerns about the incident with the Government of Pakistan, the Spokesperson said:

Not to my knowledge. No, I am not aware of any concern expressed by anyone.

Asked, how Pakistan viewed the Taliban refusal to talk with President Karzai and their demand that they would do so only after foreign troops had withdrawn from Afghanistan , and also if Pakistan held the view that withdrawal of foreign troops would bring peace to Afghanistan , the Spokesperson said:

We believe that Afghanistan requires national reconciliation, Afghanistan requires reconstruction and Afghanistan requires peace just like other countries of the world. How that is to be done, who should talk to whom, that is something which is entirely up to the Afghans to handle. As regards the demand that foreign troops be withdrawn first, well our objective is to see peace, stability and prosperity in Afghanistan because it would benefit Pakistan as well. When there is instability in Afghanistan , when there is violence in Afghanistan , it has an adverse impact on Pakistan . We all know that from a long term view, the foreign troops would have to withdraw from Afghanistan . At what stage and how the Afghan nation wants to prepare for that, that is up to them but what we would like to see is a stable Afghanistan .

Asked, for details of a meeting with regards to Afghanistan , held at the residence of the Pakistan 's Ambassador to Japan two days back, the Spokesperson said:

It was not exactly about Afghanistan . You know Pakistan is part of the maritime operations of Operation Enduring Freedom along with Japan . Lately there have been some moves in Japan to withdraw from this maritime operation and of course as a partner and I , believe we have the command of this operation, we would like to see a strong maritime force and it was for this that the meeting was held.

Asked, for comments about the recent interview of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee where he acknowledged that the US policy regarding Afghanistan in the 80's was faulty and whether in view of this Pakistan needed to review its own tribal policy, the Spokesperson said:

Yes, everyone including the Americans acknowledge that their policy towards Afghanistan in the 80's was flawed and they made many mistakes. This is a historical fact and not a revelation in that sense.

Regarding your second query, policies always evolve. They are under continuous scrutiny. If a policy is flawed it is changed, it is modified, and loopholes are removed. In Waziristan or in FATA area or generally where there is violence and terrorism, we have a comprehensive strategy. If one aspect of the policy is not working, may be there would be emphasis on the other, but it is not uni-focal. Let me repeat that we do not believe that military action alone can resolve these problems. We have to have a comprehensive strategy and even at present the government is involved with the tribal elders and peace jirgas are continuing on. It is a comprehensive strategy which has many aspects and elements.

Asked, to clarify the recent statement of the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in an interview where he alleged that there was interference from Afghanistan and also Indian interference in the tribal areas of Pakistan , and reiteration by the IG Police of the same, the Spokesperson said:

I do not know what the Minister of State said but we have indications of Indian involvement with anti state elements in Pakistan and yes, this is an issue we would take up at the forthcoming meeting of the Anti Terrorism Mechanism.

Asked, what Pakistan had achieved for playing a front line role in the War on Terror for the last seven years, the Spokesperson said:

Well, I do not have a balance sheet to show you. But we should not look at this cooperation as if it's something we did in order to get some thing from others. As we have been saying, we are part of the international campaign against terrorism first and foremost in our own national interest. We are a victim of terrorism; we have been a victim of terrorism for a long time. This is a menace which is threatening our society, our people and our efforts to develop and that is something we cannot tolerate. If we are part of the international effort to fight terrorism, we are doing it for ourselves. This is not something for sale.

Asked, if Pakistan had ruled out any military option concerning illegal occupation of Siachen by India , and if not, whether Pakistan reserved the right to take action to liberate the occupied territory, the Spokesperson said:

If I recall correctly, you asked this question last time also. As we know that the Kashmir dispute and Siachen is related to that, cannot be resolved by force. We have had wars in the past and they have not helped us resolve this issue. The only way we can make progress and find a solution to these disputes is through dialogue which we are pursuing.

Asked, for comments when her attention was drawn to the fact that Pakistan had protested against the illegal occupation of Siachen at the start and the Indian government had retorted by saying it was their territory, and now despite protests there was no reaction from the two countries, the Spokesperson said:

I do not know what kind of comments you want? If the Indian government says it is an integral part of India and it is Indian territory, then India is the only country in the world to believe that. Jammu and Kashmir is an internationally recognized disputed territory as supported by UN resolutions. Any action the Indian Government takes in Siachen where it is an illegal occupying force, will be illegal and we have said this very clearly. We are going to raise this during the Composite Dialogue. We would discuss this and seek a clarification from India . We are trying to find a solution to this problem. This is being discussed in the Composite Dialogue. We want to make it a zone of disengagement. A number of proposals have been made especially from our side. We have given some very workable proposals to India . The hopes of people of both countries were raised when Indian prime minister also said that the solution to the Siachen issue was imminent and it should be made a mountain of peace. You may have seen the report that came out two or three days ago about the disastrous consequences of military activity on the glacier. These are issues which concern all of us. These are issues which touch the common people in both countries. We are very disappointed that India went ahead with a decision that can only vitiate the climate.

Asked, for comments about reports from one of the US think tanks which stated that Pakistan and Russia were the two most likely countries from where nuclear technology could move to terrorists, the Spokesperson said:

These are motivated reports coming out by the dozen. I do not think we need to lose any sleep over them. They are malicious and orchestrated. They are churned out or sponsored by people who are still not comfortable with Pakistan being a nuclear weapon state which is a reality. Pakistan is going to stay a nuclear weapon state. Our fissile material and our strategic assets are in safe hands. They are under multi layered, institutional command and control structures. There have been incidents in other countries. We saw one recently when six nuclear warheads took off in the US and were missing for I don't know how many hours raising concern in the US as well about the collapse of the command and control structure. Such incidents can happen any where. As far as Pakistan is concerned we have very robust controls and any misgivings about the safety and security of our strategic assets are totally unnecessary.

Asked, as to when Pakistan would take command of the marine operations to counter terrorism and also that Japan was supposed to fuel the operation in the Indian ocean but according to the tentative program discussion when the Japanese Defense Minister was in Pakistan their command ended soon, whether that implied the operation would be discontinued if Japan failed to do so, the Spokesperson said:

I do not think they have discontinued. As regards Pakistan 's command I do not recall exactly when we are supposed to take it. Yes, PTV confirms we have already done it.

Asked, for the updates and reaction of the UN at a recent meeting between the UN Secretary General and the Foreign Secretary when a query was raised that there has to be more international cooperation for assuring that the Afghan refugees leave Pakistan , the Spokesperson said:

The UN Secretary General is on board, the international community agrees and the Afghan Government has accepted that these refugees should go back to their homeland. The problem as we see it is that the UNHCR and the international community have been unable to mobilize sufficient funds for the resettlement of the refugees inside Afghanistan . With the approach of winter, the UNHCR appealed to Pakistan and the Afghan Government requested us that we should delay the repatriation.

It is a complicated issue. We have kept these refugees for close to three decades. They have been treated as our brothers and sisters. They are our brothers and sisters. We don't want to throw these people out in the wilderness. What we wanted and which was agreed between Pakistan , the Afghan Government and the UNHCR was that we would close the four camps which are close to the border and which have been a source of complaints about militant activity across the border. We started the process and also emphasized to the international community and to the UN that the minimum amount paid to these refugees to return to Afghanistan should be enhanced and it should be minimum US $100 per person and to start that we contributed US$ 5 million.

We also offered to provide tents and other amenities which would be required for their resettlement. Unfortunately, not much has been done by the other partners including the international community and now what we are being told is that it would be difficult to accommodate these people in Afghanistan during the winter months. The process has slowed but everyone understands that for our own security and for our own safety and for stopping the undesirable cross border activity we have to close down these camps.

Asked, if India had opted out of the IPI and what the message was from the Indian side as it was absent from the talks held in Tehran, and also what the response of the Government of the Pakistan was to the Common Wealth Ministerial Action Group's reiteration of its demand for separation of the two offices of the President at its last meeting, the Spokesperson said:

I won't put it that way. India has not conveyed to us that it is out of the project. Discussions with India are continuing and they would continue. As we have said already, we have very acute energy requirements and we are determined to go ahead with the project whether India joins or not.

As regards CMAG statement, the President of Pakistan has repeatedly said that he would follow the constitution and these matters would be settled in accordance with the constitution and Pakistani law.

Asked, with reference to the British authorities having called PTI chief Imran Khan in connection with the charges he filed against the MQM chief, if the British authorities had approached the Government of Pakistan, and also how Pakistan viewed the recent US Senate proposal to divide Iraq along ethnic and sectarian lines, the Spokesperson said:

The answer to your first question is no, not to my knowledge.

Regarding your second question, our position is very clear. We have stated all along even when this conflict in Iraq was starting that we strongly support the territorial integrity of Iraq , we strongly support the sovereignty of Iraqi people over their regions and resources.