- Share your favorite videos with friends
- Comment on videos and join the conversation
- Get personalized recommendations
- Enjoy exclusive offers
Purchased a FORA.tv video on another website? Login here with the temporary account credentials included in your receipt.
Sign up today to receive our weekly newsletter and special announcements.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Welcome to the Transatlantic Institute. I hope you all by now had a chance to have a meal off camera so that we can we can begin our afternoon discussion and it's a great pleasure to have Ambassador Dennis Kux with us today for a briefing on Pakistan. Ambassador Kux is a very qualified expert to be here discussing the topic of Pakistan, he is a former state department specialist on South Asia, he has served in the region many times, he has written on the subject extensively, he is now so affiliated as a scholar of the Woodrow Wilson international center in Washington D Because, so he is literally as well as, I guess physically in the proximity of power and decision making in Washington, he has year of policy makers I hope so. And he is here to indeed discuss a subject that perhaps is sometimes a bit of the rater in a town that is so focused on European matters but that is of crucial importance for NATO which is here in Russell and for Europe and the Transatlantic relations as it pursues a difficult and complicated war in Afghanistan and Pakistan of course is a crucial ally in that war but it's also been very difficult companion to take along on that road and recent developments within Pakistan do not necessarily board very well and so we are all very much looking forward to your comments on Pakistan that cloud the future - just a reminder discussion today is on the record thank you. The floor is yours. Well, I am very happy to be here and to meet all of you and to have this chance to talk with you a little bit about Pakistan. I first went to Karachi as the third secretary, I was there as the fourth secretary. The third secretary that will be 50 years ago this November. So it's and I had dealt with Pakistan often on ever since that and it was my first foreign service post and you know there, you often feel a great affinity about it usually I mean things go well, and things went well for me in Pakistan. So I always had a great affinity for Pakistan, it's almost like your first love and therefore, it is with the great deal of sadness that I look back at Pakistan and how it has in contrast to India next door. Essentially, I wouldn't say it's failed as a state, buts it's a float state. It has had lots of troubles, unfortunately, it hasn't got over these troubles, unfortunately also it has nuclear weapons and unfortunately it orders on Afghanistan where we were trying to win the first battle on the war. On Terrorism and more Pakistan is technically, and I used the word technically, our ally it's at the what are the clichÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â© as it's part of the solution but it's also part of the problem. So let me just briefly and I will stop I will run tend to run on at the matter sometimes. I will stop it in half an hour, I will get poked well let's look at the basics about Pakistan why was it founded, where is it, what's happened since it was established who are they etcetera. Okay. It was founded with the partition of British India, when the British left India in 1947 and it was founded because the minority, the largest minority the Muslims of India and they were about a quarter of British India felt that when the British left, they would not get a square deal or fair deal under a government likely to be dominated by the largely Hindu Indian National Congress. That was Gandhi and Nehru's party. They were not founded for religious reasons, they were found really for straight political reasons. Okay, where is that located? Well, at the time it had this very strange structure, there were two parts of Pakistan and it was a thousand miles of India in between sort of unique where they lost the one part to the eastern part in '71 , they missed on mismanagement, really political mismanagement and the west Pakistan of that day is Pakistan of today and it's - as countries go, it's not too bad in terms of the the size, the boarders it essentially is the Indus river valley and it has got a natural boarder on the west with Iran and Afghanistan and the north you have the Himalayas and around the east you have India and in the north the Punjab that's which has a fair amount of water, relative amount of water and its just you know, it's like the boarder between France and Belgium or what have you just just cut across. Further their south, there is a desert and so there is very small population along the southern parts okay, 1947 Pakistan had 35 five million people, that's today's Pakistan, now what do you think it has today? A hundred and sixty so its population has - probably one or more - almost more rapidly than any country in the world and of course that has enormous impact. The economy has - most of the time the Pakistan economy did a bit better than Indian because it was a more open economy, there was less socialism but in the last sixteen years since since 1990 roughly Pakistan has done the worst much worst relatively speaking the Indian economy in 1990 opened up with economic reforms Pakistan went through a decade of stagnation under Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sheriff, it's picked up in the last six years under Musharraf but it's running India did nine percent last year duty pay, Pakistan did six and Pakistan faces crime problems because of instability that don't have enough investment and they also lagged you know they have done a bad job on what you might call human infrastructure, their educations achievements are poor, the health achievements are poor and even they haven't spent enough funds or why haven't they because right from the beginning defense bloomed large in their mind, they were frightened of India I think for some justification and then they got in war right away because the British did a sloppy job in leaving you know, war over Kashmir which both of them, well India had -- had most of it and Pakistan wanted it and anyway that led right away to very heavy defense expenditures and that has continued continued up to today. It's you might call it, they has an India phobia may be it's changing, hopefully it is but it's you could call Pakistan as one scholar did "an insecurity state" so but and then there is another thing that's important about Pakistan it's the ethnic mix. The population, there are four major ethnic groups they are the Punjabi's, the Sindi's, the Pashtun's or the Pattan's and the Baloch where the problem is in terms of a stable state is that the Punjab makes up about 62 - 63 percent of the population, send this down and here I may have the figures slightly wrong say about 25 percent the Pattan's are 15 percent and the Baloch are may be five percent, so you have an imbalance and they haven't - for reasons they were not fully cleared to me, they have not broken this up so you have a structural unbalance that the Punjab is just blooms over the others and this leads to a lot of internal tensions so, and the Punjab also leads the army that that the soldiers and the army come from just as in the British, the Muslims in the British Indian army from a certain part of the Punjab, four or five districts and that the that was the source 50 years ago 100 years ago it's may be a 100 but 70 or 80 years ago when it's the same group today, not much has changed there. Well, the biggest problem to me is none of the above it's the fact that, they haven't been able to establish stable political institutions, and things are always uncertain, and you have had four periods of rule by the army, three periods of rule by civilian governments, and the year ago back at fourth and may be we are coming to the end of the an army period now. The result is that you don't have you don't have this continuity, which is so important for economic development or just so important for a nation, it has not happened in Pakistan, which is too bad, because they are not all that different than the Indians and so you ask yourself the question, why? And it isn't because they are Muslims, it's I think the following reasons, I mean you have to go back in history for this. The Indian National Congress was founded in 1885, it became a mass movement in the 1920s, under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, and so as a mass movement, it was around for generation before it got Independence. In that time, in that period there also developed a political platform and a social platform, so that the congress was able to make the transition, being agitating for you know, for Independence Nationalist movement, to being a political party. And it was a umbrella political party, and it also - the Congress had a goal of establishing a democracy, and it was Britain was always the model, and they have basically followed the British model, and they had the good luck that, they had continuity in Leadership at the beginning, when Gandhi was assassinated in January 1948, he was by then really out of the picture, but the leader of the congress, Jawaharlal Nehru, stayed around for 17 years, and so they had this continuity of leadership and he dominated the political scene fortunately for India, he was a real democrat. And what he could have been, you know he could have been a dictator, he wasn't and they followed he insisted that they follow democratic forms and during that period, they established institutions and practices that had helped India, you know remain a democracy, they got a constitution longest in the world, I think, in 1950, they had regular elections and general elections in Nehru's time, you had three, they established an independent election commission, so the elections were fair, and the whole process started moving - the state governments were formed and various traditions were established, and it took not because India the Indians are more honest or more stable or what have you learnt from the Pakistanis. What happened in Pakistan? The first place the congress was around for - what it was say 60 odd years before Independence, the Muslim league well it was formed in 1906, in part with the help of the British, sort of divide and rule, it wasn't a league group, open till 1937 1938, when in response to prudential elections, and the congress did well, the league did very badly, there was concern among the Muslims that the there was a great deal of Hinduisation at the time, I felt and so the league then under the leadership the remarkable leader Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who also was a democrat and so he was one of the major parliamentarians of pre-independence India, he established that well he became the head of the league and very quickly, that they moved in a couple of years, to - it was always demanding minority rights, etcetera, they had in 1940, they adopted the Pakistan resolution and which they got Pakistan only seven years later, and they got Pakistan, I think because well the congress very stupidly decided to mount the Quit India movement in 1942, just at the when the allied calls was at its low point and so they ended up - the congress ended up spending the rest of the war in jail, and the Muslim league, adopted the because they were not a mass party, they were in a league group, they adopted the slogan of not minority rights, but they said Islam and danger, and so the way of what Americans would say the bloody flag, and that got the mass the masses of Indian Muslims on their side and when you had elections, they did very poorly in 1937, but when there after the war, there were elections, British had elections that had little suffrage, then 45 46 they swept all Muslims, virtually all the Muslims needs and so they became the - you know that the voice of Muslim India, but they had only one issue Pakistan, and so when they got Pakistan, the league fell apart, and also they lost their two key leaders, very early on, Jinnah dies in September, 1948 and he was out of action really, from March, 1948 on I mean he was off from the mountains and he died of TB, and he had been quite sick before he was he almost was a skeleton actually, and so then he was the total boss in every thing and he was, every thing put together, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, I mean he was Pakistan, and so he dies and then his lieutenant who was a friendlier fellow and a good politician, quite likeable, Jinnah was not very likeable, he was very oyster and demanding and only Liakat Ali khan is assassinated in 1951, and they never solved it - what happened why, but their loss really deprive the league of the leadership and the party of it's cause and then what happened was that the the senior civil servants, and the British have left behind a good administrative of politics, the ICS and Pakistan got the Muslim - most of the Muslim members went to Pakistan, called the CSP, Civil Service of Pakistan and they together with the senior officers of the military, formed really the establishment in Pakistan along with big landlords in the Punjab, and they had not been supporters of Pakistan at all. They have been pro British and they were not populous in any way, they became the the establishment and they did not believe that Pakistan was ready for democracy, and they believed in guided democracy and when this the civilian governments who really very bad in the 1950s, the army took over in 1958, and as I said this has been back and forth since, then we are now probably coming to a, may be the end of the current military face, it's interesting to see how they got in the object ahead to, how did Musharraf become not a not a dictator really autocrat really how did he take over, it was a little bit like which you might call the shoot out on the ok corale and the civilian Prime minister shot for- anybody of you know the story and then we follow that you know - the Musharraf is out of the country and gets fired, and this is all announced, while he was traveling on an airplane, civilian airline coming back from SriLanka, and then it is announced in Pakistan, that he has been fired in a general access in charge of the army and the tower tells the air - that the Karachi tower, air tower tells the airplane do not land in Pakistan, and this is this is you know Musharraf and a 150 other people including among others the swimming team of the American embassy, and oh, the American school, not the American embassy, so they said well all right we will land in India, and they said no, you cannot land in India, and they said go to the Gulf and the pilot says we don't have enough fuel to get to the Gulf, and they say well that's your problem, and so finally this goes back and forth and Musharraf was taking a nap and rap on them and say sir, there is a problem, and so then he gets brought into the picture, he goes up to the cockpit, and finally they decide, definitely they are going to land in an airport in Sindh. I think it was in Yorkshire which is a couple of 100 miles north of Karachi and we will have six minutes left, you know to make it, and the tower on that, the tower said that you - you will not, we are going to block the runway and so forth and so on well well this is all happening this takes a half hour 40 minutes, the army becomes aware of what had happened and they that point they decided the deputy, whoever hadn't been fired that we are going to implant the cool plan. The Pakistan all I mean always has a cool plan. May be even the American army does I don't know, not a cool way you know, a take over so they do and Nawaz gets arrested right away and most important, they take over the air tower, the control tower in Karachi airport and they say come on into land if you can and so they do and there is Musharaff gets out of the airplane he still doesn't know quite what is happening, they said, Sir you are now in charge of the country and so may be they talk about it as the you know, military cool and this and that yes but, you know, Nawaz was pretty bad and so was Benazir but what's he done since he has been there and where are we today the economy is much better that was really in pretty bad shape they were they were -- they basically went bankrupt after they have the nuclear test in 1998 and Nawaz Sherif the Prime Minister blocked taking money out of hard money out of Pakistan, that was one of things before you could take your profits out lets say block that - everything dried up and then also we put all sorts of sanctions on Pakistan minority work sanctions that we put even more and then India got sanctions so there are economy well they they follow the rules, they have been the moral people of the IMF and they even got through for the first time wherever they got through on IMF program ahead of time and at the macro level things look pretty good they now have or they had like two weeks foreign exchange, they now have well they have I think they had less than a billion dollars, now they got 12 or 13 billion they they have run roughly six percent, they have carried out whole out of privatizations and reforms, financial sectors etc and they have done - they had to get a pretty good market A minus B plus on the economic side but not everything has been done well and for example, one of Musharaff's sketch mentioned in the papers but I suspect it's it's really very important one of the problems the summer in Pakistan is the power shortage you know, that shouldn't be with the exact you know, after 10 years after the army running a place what what's gone wrong you know when that hits that's one of those things that hit everybody in the gut if you will I mean they always have they they have what you call it not Black outs or the Load Shedding where here it's really bad this year. One of the biggest problems that Pakistan had and it was widely recognized was this fairly to improve human infrastructure. They even in the 80's when they had a lot of money they didn't do very much. He has announced and the government has has moved ahead with a lot of reforms but I mean a part of this is of course is to address the problem of the Madrasas which which flourished really only in the last 20 years and we are getting space because of the the public system, the government system was so bad and it's was always bad. Well, most people say yes he he talks about doing a good game but he hasn't really when you get down and look at the implementation and not how where a lot has been done. Even though the budgets the budget is higher I think last year for the first time the budget on development ever the budget on development was more than the budget on defense but people still say not enough is being done and I mean he talks he has this catching, he an attractive guy actually and that catchy phrase and lightened moderation and and he wants to replace sham democracy with real democracy. Well he is what he has done is replace sham democracy with sham democracy and he has enlightened moderation as more has been more in words than in deeds. With one exception that's if he has continue the free press and he opened up television which was previously just had the government television and now you have a relatively free television and the he hasn't one of reasons I think that he hasn't done more that he himself is a secularist and those of you remember when he came in to office, the first official picture was was Musharaff and his wife and a dog which, in the Islamic world is not something that's considered positive you know, very negative and they quickly they dropped that picture but he you know, he drinks etc and he is not he is not like Zia-ul-Haque who was was a very much more developed Muslim but, because and thus it gets very this gets rather complicated the -- Pakistan of course supported Ji-hadi's with out support and Saudi's supports in 1980's in the war against the Russian's, Soviets and Afghanistan and then when the Russian's left they -- then these groups were organized really not organized but they were run by the Pakistani intelligence service the ISI and then in 1989 1990, the Russian's leaded Afghanistan and troubled by southern Kashmir and the ISI simply, they know how to run an assurgency now, they simply turned the capability from west to east and they started running the and rather successfully in assurgency in Kashmir against the Indians so, relations are better with India but they -- in the mind of the Pakistani military which run that country really say well we don't want to -- we want to keep the boys quiet but we don't want to give up the capability because may be we are going to need it again against India and of course you have seen it has been used again in Afghanistan so he doesn't really crack down on the - the extremeness, they are sort of like the the people who are put under house arrest, when they go out, - they are arrested when they come in the front door then they are let out the back door and organization access behind and they form organization wide and and so they they still around and he has been on a number of things like controlling the Madrasas they said they want them all registered and then the Madrasas refused, some of the Madrasas refused and the government didn't really go after them and similarly getting foreign funds which of course is a important thing they refused and the government didn't crack down on them and even in things like the blast money they gets some horrible loss in Pakistan the government talks about doing something and they sort of do it half way. So, so that's - politically he continues the practice of you know, rigged elections and the the army getting involved in politics through the ISI that's the -- sometimes it's military intelligence or the armies arm in intelligence services sort of political arm of the army. Something that it was not the case up until the mid 70's when Bhutto Senior dissatisfied with the information and what he was getting from the intelligence bureau allowed in large get rid of the ISI's so that they could get into the domestic politics and his daughter his daughter to her regret didn't change that when she was empowered she should have and so you have the you do -- you did have a return in 2002 to a parliamentary government and but the elections were thrown out and the results showed, I mean this is by sort of the forcing candidates trying to put your candidates forward preventing the other people the opponents from standing and then and then miscounting the ballots if necessary and what happened in the election that's important is the religious parties the Islamist parties which never had got more than nine percent of the vote and they were always fighting among themselves formed an alliance, the MMA and they got the guidance of the Pakistan over the ISI and they ended up getting 11 percent of the vote and because the vote is concentrated, they have always been strong in this north west frontier area where the Pattan's are they ended up with 20 percent of the seats and they got as many roughly as many as Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party which is the one really large group that's that has maintained itself over the years, they got 28 percent of the vote and I think, they ended up with roughly the same number of seats and the number drop, when the government bought off 10 of them, to join the to switch size and join the government, but well, so much about the domestic scene. On the on foreign affairs, he has played, I think or Pakistan has played, I wont personalize it then, a bit of the double game on Afghanistan, they have they went first to choose that between the Taliban and the United States, the war and terrorism, he wisely and very quickly chose the war and terrorism and they did a 180 on the Taliban, and as you recall, there are only three countries that recognize that Taliban, Pakistan Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and the Taliban was well, it was founded by the Pakistanis, they were god father, and I think the brains in many ways, but in the time, since then it has become relatively clear that while they crack down or try to crack down on Al Qaeda, who tried to tried to assassinate Musharraf, a couple of times, they have been much easier on the Taliban, and so the Taliban has been, you know able to reconstitute command in control etcetera, personally feel that they could do a much better job, if they wanted to, you know and it is said and it was an article, I forgot whether it is "the nation", I think it's the "new republic", this week, Peter Burgan who was just out in Afghanistan, saying we know the American military, the intelligence knows exactly where or not Bin Laden, where Mulla Omer is in Qaeda, and we tell the Pakistanis and nothing happens, so I think that could do more, there there is disagreement obviously in the Pakistan military, but that's a problem, in Afghanistan, now the big plus I think is on India and Kashmir, then Musharraf was a classic hawk, military hawk on India, the source of the - the treacherous Hindu, the source of all evil etcetera etcetera, he has now moved over to become a relative moderate, why? I think the Pakistan army, the leadership decided that they were in the war, they wouldn't win, and that that was hurting Pakistan and I think the example, it's hard to it's hard to under it's hard to overstate, how much the Pakistanis look at India, and India is the bench mark, and India is taking of, I mean really taking of, and Pakistan is you know a splattering along and you know they say hey, it was called Pakistan first, the hell with Kashmir, and so not the hell with it, but lets down play and so Musharraf has been willing, you know to become a doubt on Kashmir, and he has broken crockery in a way one wouldn't have expected in terms of saying what we don't need to plow this site and we can settle it on you know with out changing borders and a variety of things, so they are long away from settling it, but the India Pakistan atmosphere has changed, hopefully in a fundamental way, and they have managed to keep the dialogue going which was started in the beginning of 2004 after nearly going to war in 2001 2002, it's called the composite dialogue and they talk about every thing in a structured way including Kashmir and they are now into their third year, not a hell well lot has happened, actually in concrete terms, but it's it hasn't stopped, when there have been terrorist attacks in India, so we would,, - it's moving ahead, and of any thing of the Indians are moving more slowly, than the Pakistanis on this which is the reverse of what normally happens, okay, well lets come up to the present, we have to have elections this year, 2007 both for the president and he was elected for five years in a strange referendum but for the parliament, because it has got a five year term, the government was getting ready in the normal military rule fashion to see that the elections came out the way they wanted, they for example the lot of key people were changed, the chiefs is of police, or it's called the IG, the Inspector General of the police in the major provinces were all changed, and so and so in order to put in people who are questionable, - questionable loyalty to the cause, the people, who they could rely on. And they turned, and it was three months ago and they turned to the Chief Justice, and the chief justice named Choudhary is some thing that will turned out to be some thing of a maverick, and he he is not never popular fellow, he is a cranky type, and he it caused raised eyebrows in the leadership circles, by a over turning the procatisation of the Pakistan national steel company, because he said it wasn't transparent enough. And they starting to go after the government on cases, on human rights cases, where people had disappeared and people would come into the court, and say we want the government to appear to say what is happened and he then, he press some of these, and so the government and this just opposition said my gosh we have got these elections coming up and they are bound to be court questions, particularly if Musharraf does what he wants to do, that is to get reelected, and keep his uniform on, because he is president and also the head of the army, now that the first, being he also wants to be reelected by the present parliament, he doesn't want that risk, having a new parliament, where the first is you can argue, both sides whether it's constitutional or not? It's not clear but the second is clearly against these non constitutional, not that that's ever troubled people too much, but it clearly is un constitutional, here it states very clearly that you can't the president cannot be some one who is out there in the effective state functionary or some body whose position entitles him, would entitle him to be a salary, so you just you can't get around that, unless you get a pliable court, and this fellow wasn't pliable, they worried that may be it won't be pliable, so rather if - you know who they are out there thinking it through they called him in and Musharraf was in uniform and they had on the way of other generals there and they said, we want you to resign, and here are the charges, you know you misuse your office and the charges were so ridiculous that in effect that his wife would used the car, the company car to go for shopping, that he helped his son get a job, the sort of things that every body does in Pakistan, but nothing you know about stealing money or any thing serious and to every body's surprise there - and they filmed this on TV like that, so the nation saw this well there and then he said no, I am not resigning, and they held him in there, in there with I'm not sure what the folks are he said he was then browbeaten for some hours and he was put under house arrest for a while and then when he got out, there was an explosion in Pakistan, and there was a real public display of anger that you haven't seen, well you have seen it on two other occasions and then when he was let out and he then going around the country drawing enormous crowds, and he obviously this whole incident had, you know tapped into a vain of dis-contempt with Musharraf, with the military government and underscore that it wasn't that, it wasn't as popular as people thought, well, this has happened twice before in Pakistan's history, in 1969, to Ayoob when suddenly there were the man, the towering figure suddenly there were massive street demonstrations against him, in East Pakistan or West Pakistan, and he eventually thought was toppled and the second time was in 1977, against Bhutto senior for different reasons, this one is situation on election, it wasn't necessary, but he did it and then the opposition, mounted street demonstrations and that continued and continued and finally what happened in both cases? Is the army took over, in Ayoob's case it was done politely, where Ayoob quit and the head of the army became put in marshal law, in Bhutto's case it was the army who was there okay, what next and may be I should censor, my time is running out and I stop at that point, lets say a word about America, okay three things seem likely to me possible, most likely is that the troubles will continue and at some point he will be out, I don't know when and then the question would be, does the army follow the path that followed in 1988 when Zia-ul died in a plane crash and they went to elections and Benazir came in. Or the path they followed in 1969 when they ignored the constitution and which said that the Bengali - chief of the head of parliament should become the head of state. And they the army general took over - Yahya Khan not clear what's going to happen. The second somewhat less likely is that he weathers the storm and that he gets really elected some you know, less more than fair election and here I frankly don't know others succeeds in keeping his uniform on or conceives that. That he takes the uniform off so it's really a lack of showing a lack of self confidence that you can't trust somebody else to be the head of the army. The third and least likely I think is that there will be the sort of thing that most people who follow Pakistan would like and the United States would like and the US government would like although it doesn't say it publicly I think is that he make a deal with Benazir Bhutto and PPP has considered them the largest party and in effect, you know, before more democratic rule one in which they as a lot of plays more role. PPP is very and relatively secure. But, well possible, it's not likely they can't stand each other he has a traditional for politician and she just dislikes it and she dislikes the army after all and they have been declaring for months but they don't get to come closer and I frankly adopt that - so well there we are on uncertain future. What's causing on that As you may know or may know or may not know we are immensely unpopular and so what else is now these days but there are it's not as the usual reasons of Iraq, you know, Islam versus the state Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, they are special Pakistan needs in our relationship. we have some allies Pakistan is considered as typical friend and they claim by thinking, quickly I think for they say we have dumped them and in 65 war against India we haven't come to their help. 98 after the end of war, when we sort of looked away at their nuclear program during most of the 80's because of their nuclear program we cut off we cut off all their economic over 1990. So say the Pakistani view is well you used us and then you needed us like a clean axe and when the war is over in Afghanistan discarded us like that. so there is a and there is a lot of bitterness about that it's peculiar to the Pakistan relationship, I think they are long but that's I mean when you look into the facts, so against that what are we knowing well, and public is been backing we shall have it for 100 percent you know, now we it's not it's and not exactly a legal woman voters democrat. But there is a fear of the unknown. What happens if we go through the next as you are going to be the mullahs, then the next fellow may not be so helpful etc and so you know, we don't want to do that again but it seem to be more than. I think first thing is of the sake, I think that we personally think we should bring back back on not Musharraf as such and it will be pressing harder and we have scenes hopefully we are on this point of election and I think we should be urgent to get intelligence agents on politics and that they had an impend on election commission which people that happened in relatively they don't and above all that they fought was no uniform. It's a little dubious that whether he can be reacted or not isn't so clear in those institutions. And I think then the case of Afghanistan, if they fail to fall short of the expectations, put it that way of don't we think that it can do I though ought to be view a phrase of these days consequence and to me these consequences are very simple. That we used it on I mean it's not having resolutions in the congress or having statements press ball doing criticizing which just gets back up. It's continuing the budget A to succeed mullahs and that is not accounted in and set for in the same way and which is really a this is covering the because of the war in Afghanistan. Adjusting in that and if we feel is much as we think it could be we should reduce the amount of assistance that be by the army that is something off budget its but it's outside the normal and I think I will get their attention. Frankly, the army's attention. But oh I think I owe the recommendation of that 9/11 commission that we should be trying to help Pakistan over a long term of with support because it can flap where it is because if nuclear weapons are at a very important country and we want to have you know, we don't have it causing more troubles, really going to doesn't have. And I think there are other civil society in Pakistan he is in any of the places. One of these demonstrations unless they deserve lot of support over the more and the armies either I mean it's and can be wished away. And so I think lot of working with Pakistanis we ought to do. and trying to find us next settlement, helping them more and more involved in trying to abstract problems that we should walk away. And so in that way I want to conclude. Thank you very much.