Assalam-o-Alaikum,

Welcome to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Assalam-o-Alaikum,

 

I welcome you all to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif will undertake an official visit to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from 6–8 August 2026. He will be accompanied by a high-level delegation comprising the Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister, the Chief of Army Staff & the Chief of Defence Forces, and other Ministers.

 

DPM/FM will join the delegation from Madina Munawwara where he made a brief stopover after concluding his visit to Jordan for the Ministerial Meeting on Jerusalem.

 

During the visit to Saudi Arabia, the Prime Minister will meet with His Royal Highness Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia. Discussions would focus on consolidating the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia bilateral relations as well as exchange of views on regional and international developments of mutual interest.

 

The visit marks Pakistan’s longstanding partnership with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia anchored in decades of mutual trust, cooperation and brotherhood.

 

Although taking place against the backdrop of heightened tensions in the Gulf, the visit carries significance beyond the immediate crises and short-term considerations. It will further strengthen bilateral relations, deepen strategic cooperation, enhance coordination on regional and international issues of mutual interest, and also reinforce multilateral cooperation.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

Pakistan remains engaged alongside other brotherly states in sincere efforts to resolve the crisis in the Gulf and the Middle East, especially with respect to the standoff in Strait of Hormuz.

As a littoral state overlooking the Strait of Hormuz and the Gulf, Oman has consistently played a constructive role in promoting regional peace and stability. Pakistan acknowledges and deeply appreciates Oman's valuable contributions and its steadfast efforts to foster de-escalation, and peaceful coexistence.

Pakistan will continue to actively pursue diplomatic engagement and support all sincere efforts aimed at achieving a comprehensive, just, and lasting resolution to this conflict.

In the context of our ongoing efforts for regional peace, on 30 July 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister held a telephone conversation with the Foreign Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Faisal bin Farhan. They exchanged views on regional developments, including the situation in the Red Sea, Bab al-Mandeb and as well as in Palestine.

 

On 3 August 2026, the Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister held a telephone conversation with the Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyyed Abbas Araghchi. The two leaders discussed regional and international developments, including the deteriorating situation in Occupied East Jerusalem. The DPM also invited the Foreign Minister of Iran to visit Pakistan. 

 

Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister’s Visit to Jordan

 

At the invitation of Jordan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Ayman Safadi, Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar visited Amman, Jordan, on 5 August 2026 to participate in the Ministerial Meeting on Jerusalem. The meeting brought together Arab League member states and selected Islamic countries to coordinate a unified response to the deteriorating situation in the Occupied Jerusalem.

 

Pakistan’s participation reaffirmed our steadfast support for the Palestinian people and its commitment to the establishment of an independent, sovereign and contiguous State of Palestine, based on the pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as its capital.

 

On the sidelines of the meeting, the Deputy Prime Minister/Foreign Minister held bilateral meetings with the Foreign Ministers of Jordan, Turkiye, Egypt, Algeria, Iraq and Somalia.

The Foreign Ministers of the R-4 Group; comprising the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Turkiye also met for fifth time in Amman on 05 August 2026. The Ministers reaffirmed their unwavering support for the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including their right to self-determination and the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian State.

They stressed that a just, comprehensive, and lasting resolution of the Palestinian question remains essential for achieving durable peace and stability in the Middle East.

The Ministers also reviewed the regional situation and underscored the importance of continued consultation, close coordination, and diplomacy to promote regional peace, security, stability, and de-escalation.

Fourth Round of Pakistan–U.S. Counterterrorism Dialogue

 

Another important development, this week on 5 August 2026, Pakistan and the United States convened the Fourth Round of the Pakistan–U.S. Counterterrorism Dialogue in Washington, D.C. Our Special Secretary Amb. Nabeel Munir led the delegation.

 

The dialogue underscored shared interests in the U.S.-Pakistan counterterrorism partnership and the two countries’ determination to confront terrorism.  Delegations exchanged views on the current threat environment, explored avenues to enhance collaboration, and discussed steps to strengthen border security and disrupt terrorist facilitation networks across the region.

The United States and Pakistan affirmed their joint resolve to confront terrorist organizations that endanger the safety of their citizens and the stability of the region, including ISIS-Khorasan (ISIS-K), al-Qa'ida (AQ), the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). 

Pakistan–Australia Senior Official Talks and Trade Talks

 

Pakistan and Australia held the Ninth Round of Senior Official Talks and the Joint Trade Committee Meeting in Canberra on 4 August 2026. The two sides reviewed the full spectrum of bilateral relations and discussed ways to enhance cooperation in the political, economic, trade, security and regional domains. Both countries reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening the bilateral partnership.

 

Youm-e-Istehsal

 

And finally Pakistan commemorated Youm-e-Istehsal on 5 August 2026, marking the seventh anniversary of India’s illegal and unilateral actions of 5 August 2019 in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK). Pakistan reaffirmed its unwavering support for the Kashmiri people’s inalienable right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

 

I conclude my opening statement and open the floor for questions.

 

***

 

(Muhammad Saleh Zafir, The News): Sir, you have seen the reaction by the Indian MEA Spokesperson on the ongoing process of elections in Azad Kashmir. I need your reaction to this.

 

Spokesperson: Yes, we have seen those statements. Pakistan categorically rejects the baseless and politically motivated remarks by the Indian Ministry of External Affairs regarding the ongoing Legislative Assembly elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. It is unsurprising that India has chosen to issue such remarks on the eve of the seventh anniversary of its illegal and unilateral actions of 5^th August, through which it seeks to alter the internationally recognized disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir.

 

These statements, and those actions, were a flagrant violation of the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, international law, and India’s own international commitments.

 

The elections to the 13^th Legislative Assembly of Azad Jammu and Kashmir are being conducted in a peaceful, transparent, and orderly manner in accordance with the constitutional and legal framework governing AJK. They reflect the democratic aspirations and political will of the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

 

India has neither the legal standing nor the moral authority to comment on the democratic process in AJK while it continues to deny the people of Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir their fundamental political rights and democratic freedoms.

 

Let me add that no amount of misinformation or propaganda can alter the legal and historical reality that Jammu and Kashmir remains an internationally recognized disputed territory, and its final disposition is to be determined in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions, as well as the freely expressed will of the Kashmiri people through a UN-administered plebiscite.

 

India’s attempt to invoke misleading casualty figures cannot obscure its own well-documented record of serious and systematic human rights violations in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir. These include, and are well documented, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, collective punishment, restrictions on fundamental freedoms, and, more significantly, altering the demographic composition of the occupied territory in contravention of international law.

 

Such statements are clearly intended to deflect international attention from India’s continued violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, as well as its persistent failure to fulfill its international obligations. Pakistan would therefore reiterate its call on India to reverse its illegal actions and create an environment conducive to the peaceful settlement of the issue of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

 

(Shiza Hashmi, PTV Digital): I wanted to ask if Pakistan has had any official contact or engagement with Bangladesh since yesterday’s address by the exiled Sheikh Hasina and her son. There were some comments made about Pakistan. Have we had any engagement on that, or are we still considering it an internal issue for Bangladesh?

 

Spokesperson: Well, of course, our diplomatic engagement with Bangladesh continues. It is not bound or constrained by a single event. I am sure that diplomatic engagement between the two sides through the normal diplomatic channels in Dhaka and Islamabad is continuing.

 

We are also aware of the developments, particularly with reference to yesterday’s event. We do not interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, and as such, we do not have any comment to offer. The fact that this statement was made from India is a matter between those two countries, Bangladesh and India.

 

Let me add that the people of Bangladesh are fully capable of resolving their issues independently without external interference. We respect their sovereign choices and will continue to cooperate with them in their journey towards progress and prosperity.

 

(Muhammad Anas Ahsan Mallick, Asia One News): The Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson has rejected the comments made by the Pakistani Foreign Minister on Youm-e-Istehsal yesterday, calling them, quote, “political absurdity,” unquote. Your comments on the statement issued by the Indian MEA.

 

Spokesperson: Yes, we saw the statement issued this morning by the Indian MEA. We categorically reject the statement and the self-serving eulogy of India’s illegal actions of 5th August 2019. The Indian leadership has consistently expressed this self-serving eulogy of India’s actions.

 

No unilateral action by India, nor any amount of rhetoric, can alter the internationally recognized disputed status of Jammu and Kashmir or deny the people of Jammu and Kashmir their inalienable rights under international law and the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

 

The reality in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir is that a prolonged and heavy military presence, coupled with draconian laws, continues to facilitate demographic change aimed at altering the territory’s Muslim-majority character. At the same time, systemic efforts persist to suppress the voices of the Kashmiri people and erase their distinct identity.

 

Claims of so-called development cannot substitute for the inalienable right of the people of Jammu and Kashmir to determine their own future through a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

 

We remain unwavering in our support for the just struggle of the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and we call upon India to reverse its illegal and unilateral measures, end its human rights violations, and engage in the peaceful resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.

 

(Mateen Haider): This is back to Jammu and Kashmir. Yesterday, at a news briefing at the United Nations Headquarters, the UN Deputy Spokesperson endorsed Pakistan’s narrative and Pakistan’s position on 5th August 2019; unilateral actions taken by the Government of India and said that these actions cannot change the status of the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir. My question is: After this endorsement, what diplomatic options are available to Pakistan so that more pressure can be built on India to reverse all these actions? The UN is saying this, but it is not taking any action.

 

Second, regarding the emergence of the initial agreement between Oman and Iran, it has reportedly been said that the Americans were also present during the talks. What are your views on this agreement regarding the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and do you think it will ultimately lead to the revival of the Islamabad MoU and that hostilities will definitely come down?

 

Spokesperson: There are two parts to your question.

 

First on the statement by the spokesperson for the United Nations: The United Nations is expressing its opinion on the international legal status of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a well-established position, in accordance with international law. It is in accordance with the relevant international resolutions. In fact, the statement by the Spokesperson for the United Nations is not only a validation of Pakistan’s position, but also a reiteration of the international legal position on the status of Jammu and Kashmir. It is based on facts, legal grounds, and the political status of the territory.

 

No unilateral measure by India, or any so-called assembly or government in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, can alter the status of the territory under international law, and that position is well established.

 

India, of course, agitates on this position, but its agitation and position are quite meaningless. Therefore, it is important for India to change its position and make it in accordance with international law on Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir, which is that the final disposition of the territory be determined through a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant resolutions.

 

On the second part of your question regarding the Strait of Hormuz: Pakistan, as I said, supports all efforts to resolve this crisis. The standoff in the Strait of Hormuz has been complicating the sustainable settlement of the wider crisis engulfing the Middle East and the Gulf region between Iran and the United States.

 

Any effort to resolve the Strait of Hormuz standoff, in fact, complements and catalyzes the peaceful resolution of this wider question on the Gulf and Middle East and between Iran and the United States.

 

The resolution of the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz will obviously create a conducive environment for the parties to return to the Islamabad MoU and the framework of talks as envisaged in the Pakistan-Qatar Joint Statement. We therefore, hope that the agreement on the Strait of Hormuz will pave the way for continued dialogue, particularly the resumption of technical-level talks between Iran and the United States.

 

(Waseem Abbasi, Arab News): President Trump, a few days ago, while talking to the media, praised the Gulf countries for their role in ensuring peace between the U.S. and Iran. Surprisingly, he did not mention Pakistan this time. So, is Pakistan still playing mediatory role between the U.S. and Iran, and what are Pakistan’s hopes from this role?

 

Spokesperson: Pakistan is playing the role. We remain engaged with the parties. Obviously, on certain issues, there are countries that take the lead, and on certain other issues, there are other countries that take the lead.

 

Overall – if you look at the comprehensive efforts undertaken by Pakistan, Qatar, and other brotherly countries, you will see a very coordinated and concerted facilitation process. This was particularly on the Strait of Hormuz. You need to understand that the Strait of Hormuz was a standoff, and in such a standoff, dialogue was essentially the paradigm of facilitating a settlement.

 

Mediation is a more long-term process. The question of mediation comes when you are addressing issues that require persistent deliberations over a period of time, as, for example, the events leading up to the Islamabad MoU, the Pakistan-Qatar Joint Statement, and the technical-level talks that it envisages, the framework for which is laid out therein. So, on those issues, you can say that we have a mediatory role. Standoffs and acute crises need more of a facilitative role and some mediation as well.

 

Pakistan remains engaged, and, as I said, this is a concerted teamwork and coordinated effort from the brotherly countries, including Pakistan. We value the partnership of our brotherly countries in this regard. In my opening remarks, I appreciated and acknowledged the role of Oman, for example, in this issue. Oman is a littoral state on the Strait and in the Gulf, so its role has been very positive and commendable.

 

We will continue these peace efforts in concert with our brotherly countries and partner countries.

 

(Shaukat Piracha, AAJ TV): I have three questions.

 

Number one, regarding the Strait of Hormuz, the United States has also held a blockade when Oman and Iran they agree on something. How would Pakistan manage the agreement of the U.S., in its capacity as a mediator, to end the U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz?

 

My second question is: Certain reports have suggested that the Speaker of the National Assembly has invited the Speaker of the Parliament, His Excellency Ghalibaf, and the Foreign Minister, His Excellency Dr. Seyed Abbas Araghchi, to Pakistan, probably on the 10th of August. Since these invitations are extended through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or our Embassy, what is the latest update on this?

 

My third question is that Pakistan also welcomed the arrangement arrived at the Board of Peace between Hamas and Israel, wherein Hamas is voluntarily disarming itself. Pakistan had a problem that if it goes there, it would not be part of the disarmament of Hamas. Now that this is being done, what is the possibility or thinking in Islamabad and Rawalpindi about dispatching our troops, not for peacemaking, but for peacekeeping?

 

Spokesperson: Let me respond to your questions.

 

First on the Strait of Hormuz: you mentioned about the blockade. We are more engaged with the settlement and less so with terms of the crises. The blockade is one facet or symptoms of the crisis. Once the agreement is reached and implemented, these symptoms of the crisis, either blockade or accidental/voluntary attacks on maritime traffic, will obviously take care of themselves. So, therefore, the agreement is important, and this is where our focus is. It is in this context that we appreciate the efforts of our brotherly countries, particularly Oman, and the parties to the conflict, the United States and Iran, who actually have to come to terms and agree on this deal. Therefore, any agreement on this issue needs to be welcomed not only from the perspective of the mediators and facilitators but also from that of the main parties involved.

 

On the second question regarding the invitation: the Deputy Prime Minister is competent to invite the Speaker as well. I think the invitation has gone to the Foreign Minister and probably to the Speaker as well. I am not particularly aware, but I understand that the invitation was extended to both the Foreign Minister and the Speaker (of the Parliament) Iranian. The Speaker of our Parliament may also have invited him. I am not aware of that. I think that needs to be checked from our National Assembly Secretariat. However, the Deputy Prime Minister is fully competent, in his diplomatic capacity, to invite the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament as well.

 

Secondly, you asked about the arrangements under the Board of Peace and the disarmament and demobilization of Hamas: This I understand is a twin obligation. It is not only that Hamas has to disarm, but Israel also has to vacate the occupied Gaza territory and restore the status quo ante in Gaza. I think Israel’s responsibility, in this regard needs to be closely watched because it is a state, and the responsibility of a state is to implement its obligations. We look forward to the earnest implementation of this decision, particularly by Israel. As regards future peacekeeping, peace-enforcement, or peacemaking forces in Gaza, I think that question is a bit premature. When a proposal or a proposition to that effect is presented before us, a decision will be taken accordingly.

 

On dates (of Iranian Speaker/FM’s visit) – I am not aware of the dates. Obviously, the dates will be worked out through diplomatic channels. When an invitation is extended through diplomatic channels, the understanding is that the visit will take place on mutually convenient dates. This is unlike a marriage invitation, where specific dates are mentioned. So, that is the minor difference (between diplomatic invite and marriage invite).

 

(Khalid Mehmood, Express News): Sir, we have two defence agreements with Saudi Arabia. The recent one is the maritime security agreement, which was signed by 13 countries, while 43 countries participated. Are more countries expected to join this agreement? Secondly, will any of the P-5 countries join this agreement? Lastly, is the Field Marshal accompanying the Prime Minister on the visit to Saudi Arabia?

 

Spokesperson: Regarding this maritime security arrangement (announced by Saudi Arabia): the process is evolving. We are seeing what the terms of reference (TORs) will be and how this security arrangement will function. We are in touch with our Naval Headquarters and the military authorities on this issue, and we will update you in due course. I do not have any specific information at the moment on how these modalities will work out. Again, whether any member of the P-5 joins or not is a decision for those countries to make. The same applies to any other country that may wish to join or not join. Therefore, I do not have clear visibility at this stage on exactly how many countries have joined or have decided to join. I think this subject may come up in subsequent briefings. As matters further evolve, I will have better visibility to answer this question.

 

Secondly, regarding the visit to Saudi Arabia: yes, the Chief of Army Staff & Chief of Defence Forces is part of the Prime Minister’s delegation.

 

(Kiran Butt, The Khorasan Diary): I wanted to ask a supplementary question, but I couldn’t.

 

Bangladesh’s former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s son, Sajeeb Wazed, during an online event hosted by India’s Foreign Correspondents’ Club yesterday, said that Pakistan’s ISI has an open hand in Bangladesh. He also claimed that hundreds of militants whom Hasina’s government had arrested have now been released. This was the same event that also featured Sheikh Hasina’s speech. How do you respond to these remarks?

 

My second question is that, during our background briefing, U.S. Embassy officials said that the Trump administration had been focusing on critical mineral supply chains around the world, particularly in Pakistan, through multilateral agencies, including the Development Finance Corporation. You may refer this question to the Ministry of Finance, but my question to you is: With both the United States and China showing interest in Pakistan’s mineral resources, how does Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry intend to balance these relationships while ensuring Pakistan’s autonomy and national interests?

 

Spokesperson: On your first question regarding the statement by this individual from Bangladesh, I have not seen the statement. Is it a video link from India? (Yes, on video link from India – Kiran Butt!).

 

Firstly, on this issue, we do not interfere in the internal affairs of Bangladesh. The two political parties, or other domestic political actors in Bangladesh, have been issuing statements (about this political issues) – we do not have any position on this matter.

 

We, of course, categorically reject any insinuation regarding the so-called role of the ISI in Bangladesh. India is paranoid about the ISI – this infection is contagious in India and may be has caught the individual. Maybe that is the reason.

 

But we have no comment on the substance of anything between the former Prime Minister of Bangladesh and the present government. We will restrict ourselves from offering any comment.

 

On your second question about mineral sector, I am not aware of the specific statement to which you are referring. However, with regard to Pakistan’s mineral resources, we have a very level playing field for attracting foreign investment and foreign expertise in engaging in our mineral sectors. So, I am sure there is no question of any balancing required. It (tapping mineral resources) is a transparent and essentially a business proposition to which international actors can participate. As regards the financial underpinning of this, you very rightly pointed out that I need to refer you to the Ministry of Finance.

 

(Zeeshan Yousafzai, Dunya News): Since 20^th July, when the Houthis announced a blockade in Bab-el-Mandeb, two Pakistani vessels have sailed through Bab-el-Mandeb. On the other hand, Saudi vessels are being attacked or forced to reroute.

 

Saudi Arabia is Pakistan’s strategic ally, and the Foreign Office has recently issued a statement on this matter. Are there any plans to escort Saudi vessels through Bab-el-Mandeb?

 

My second question is: During this phase of diplomacy, we have seen that Iranian Foreign Minister Dr. Abbas Araghchi spoke twice with the Field Marshal in less than 24 hours. After that, he spoke with the Foreign Minister. So, who is leading this diplomacy: Pakistan’s military side or Pakistan’s Foreign Office?

 

(Anwer Abbas, 24 News): Regarding the Saudi-led naval coalition formed for Bab-el-Mandeb, there are about six or seven countries involved that do not even have a navy. Some others have one that is practically non-existent. Among them, the top-tier countries are Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, which possess strong and capable navies.

 

As a member of this alliance, in the event of any retaliation against any member, what would be the level of our response? Would we deploy ground troops there? At what level would we respond?

 

Spokesperson: On Bab-el-Mandeb, we have already expressed our position. We have condemned attacks on vessels belonging either to Saudi Arabia or to any other country because these are essentially commercial vessels. Attacks on them are obviously a flagrant violation of international law and also go against the safety and security of commercial seafarers. Therefore, we would oppose any such attacks.

 

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia cooperation in the defence sector continues. I am not particularly aware of any plans to escort Saudi vessels. That is an operational detail of which I am not aware.

 

This also relates to your question, Anwer Sahib, about the composition of the forces. You see, in alliances and cooperative frameworks in the defence sector, capabilities are not judged solely in the context of having assets on the ground. There are a variety of ways in which nation-states can contribute. If certain members of this coalition do not have a navy, I am sure they have other means of contributing to this coalition. Therefore, it should not come as a surprise to you.

 

As a footnote to your question, let me tell you that one of the world’s largest commercial shipping companies is based in Geneva, Switzerland, and Switzerland is a landlocked country. So, having or not having a navy is not, in itself, such an important factor.

 

(Azaz Syed, Geo News): There is a man named Rukhsar Ahmed who recently contested the elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Coincidentally, he is accused of raping young girls in the UK.

 

We know that the UK and Pakistan have some differences regarding the acceptance of individuals who were actually born and raised there. The UK Government wants to send them back. In this particular case, this man is out on bail and has contested the elections, that too on the ruling PML-N’s ticket.

 

So, is this not a duality to what we have been saying that we would not accept those who are their nationals and who were born and raised there and have lived their lives there?

 

Spokesperson: I am not aware of this particular case. It is really not our domain to comment on the elections in AJK, the internal processes, the vetting of candidates, or how the Election Commission deems a candidate qualified to contest elections. I am sure that if these charges are genuine and were brought to the attention of the independent Election Commission, appropriate remedial measures would have been taken.

 

Let me add that the question concerning this individual, notwithstanding the fact that I do not know about these charges, is separate from the question of the individuals involved i.e. the grooming gang. Those individuals committed offences on British soil and were duly punished by the British courts, and British law took its course. So, that is obviously a separate matter.

 

However, if this individual, having committed a crime in the UK, has come to Pakistan and is liable to legal process as per the law. If the parties press their charges for the crime committed on the UK soil by an individual who is now in Pakistan, then the relevant laws and our agreements with the UK can take care of the case and see how that individual can be prosecuted and penalized for the crimes.

 

(Naveed Siddiqui, Business Recorder): Sir, there are increasing reports of intensified resistance against the Taliban and growing insecurity in some parts of Afghanistan. How does Pakistan assess this situation, and is Islamabad concerned that this conflict could have cross-border security implications for Pakistan?

 

Spokesperson: We have seen reports of some clashes between the Afghan Taliban regime and opposing forces in Badakhshan and elsewhere. This is an internal matter of Afghanistan and does not merit any comment from our side.

 

(Sonia Malik, Koh-i-Noor News): Sir, two days ago, the American President gave an interview to Fox News in which he said that they were engaged in direct talks with Iran and also discussed the Strait of Hormuz. He said that it was possible that things would be sorted out in one or two days. He also said that, hopefully, this agreement would be finalized.

 

As Pakistan has been playing a mediatory role from the start, have Iran or the United States contacted Pakistan in this regard?

 

Spokesperson: I think I have answered this question before. We remain engaged with the parties on all issues, particularly including the issue of the Strait of Hormuz.

 

(Zahid Farooq Malik, Daily Metro Watch): Sir, if we look at it, since Marka-e-Haq, defence officials from many countries have visited Pakistan, such as Somalia recently, and Kuwait and Azerbaijan before that. When we engage in defence deals with them, or when we sell the JF-17 Thunder to various countries, does the money received go into our foreign exchange reserves, or what is the procedure for handling funds from these defence deals? Because we observe that we receive payments from the IMF, while the amount received for even a single Thunder jet is said to be double that amount.

 

Spokesperson: I think it is a serious question. Defence exports are part of the country’s national exports. So, obviously, it (financial proceed) is remitted and become part of the economy and the national exchequer. For example, if there is a private vendor manufacturing a particular defence item, then, obviously, that vendor gets to keep the money from the sale, while the state receives the taxes or duties, whatever is applicable. Similarly, whether the foreign exchange is received by an individual vendor or by a state entity, such as the Ministry of Defence Production, the foreign exchange ultimately comes into the State Bank of Pakistan. It is a very transparent process.

 

(Asghar Ali Mubarak, The Daily Mail International/AAM News): Sir, there is no doubt that the basic document, the Islamabad MoU between Iran and the USA, also bears the signatures of the Pakistani side. Regarding any new agreement that might be in the works, the third point of this document also states that if any obstacles arise, such as the current situation, then the mediator may facilitate an extension. So, is Pakistan playing a key role in this? Because the other countries that we see involved so far are also those that have been acting as mediators.

 

Spokesperson: Pakistan is engaged (with peace process), and our role is important. I do not know how one would define “pivotal,” but our role is important. Obviously, with regard to any extension and its duration (of 60 days), we hope that no extension will be required and that the agreement will be implemented within the stipulated time frame.

 

(Mateen Haider): This is again related to your opening statement, in which you spoke about the Pakistan-U.S. Counterterrorism Dialogue. Currently, terrorism in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is linked with Afghanistan, and the joint statement mentions a number of terrorist organizations operating from Afghanistan against Pakistan.

 

So, which of these terrorist organizations poses a direct threat to Pakistan’s security? Also, in the future, do you anticipate more intelligence-to-intelligence cooperation between Pakistan and the United States in combating the current wave of terrorism, which is quite dangerous and lethal for Pakistan’s security? Our security forces are engaged in intelligence-based operations every day, and there are daily reports that terrorists involved in these attacks cross over from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

 

Spokesperson: The Pakistan-U.S. Counterterrorism Dialogue is a regular feature. This was the fourth round. The fifth round will be held next year in Islamabad, as I understand. So these discussions are ongoing.

 

As I said, the parties (Pakistan–US) discussed steps to strengthen border security and disrupt terrorist facilitation networks across the region. It is important to understand that these terrorist networks operate across the region, particularly from Afghanistan, where there is active support and abetment from India as well. All of those issues were discussed.

 

Specifically in this context (of various terrorist organizations), the broader rubric is the terrorist organizations that we classify as Fitna al-Hind or Fitna-e-Hindustan. These comprise an array of terrorist networks that receive active financial and military support from India. The discussions focused on how to neutralize and counter such terrorist outfits. Yes, this issue came under discussion, and, in this context, the statement specifically mentioned the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA). However, I understand that the cooperation extends to many other denominations of terrorist groups. Pakistan and the United States have complete unanimity of views, which is that these terrorist organizations need to be eliminated, including the elimination of their cross-border and regional support networks.

 

(Azaz Syed, Geo News): Sir, during the years of the war on terror, the United States used to cooperate with Pakistan by sharing intelligence. Do they still share similar intelligence, as they did previously, with regard to combating terrorism in Balochistan? We have seen recently that they designated the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) as a banned organization some time ago. So, do they provide us with intelligence, considering that they also have intelligence networks inside Afghanistan and elsewhere?

 

Spokesperson: I understand that we have good intel cooperation with the United States. Whether it is at the same level as it was during a certain period in the past – that is an empirical calculation and I would refer you to the intelligence community to make that judgment as to whether we are at par with any previous level of intelligence cooperation or not. However, we remain satisfied with the level of cooperation that we have with the United States. Obviously, as discussed during the Counterterrorism Dialogue, we will continue to strengthen our efforts to disrupt terrorist facilitation networks. Such disruption takes place through intelligence cooperation and combined actions.

 

(Syeda Qurat ul Ain, Independent Urdu): What is the latest update on the talks involving Iran? Is Pakistan going to be a part of the ongoing talks between Oman and Iran? I know you have spoken about this a little already, but is there any expectation of another round of talks being held in Islamabad soon?

 

My second question is: Several human rights and media organizations have described the recently introduced media regulations as restrictions on press freedom rather than general regulatory measures. How do you respond to these concerns?

 

Spokesperson: On your first question, we remain engaged. Our expectations remain positive, and, obviously, we hope for the best. It is always good to have ambitious expectations. I will not comment on the mode of communication or on the exact substance exchanged through those communications, but our expectations remain positive.

 

As regards the media curbs, I will refer you to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on this matter. There is certainly no curb on asking questions in this briefing. So, you are most welcome to ask any question.

 

(Syed Asif Ali, Din News): Sir, it has been approximately three and a half months since the Pakistani sailors were taken captive by Somali pirates. What is the latest update regarding their health, living conditions, and possible release?

 

Spokesperson: This is, again, a very unfortunate situation, and I feel particularly pained and grieved to tell you that, so far, this release of captive individuals has not been accomplished. We have not yet been able to secure their release.

 

There is an inter-ministerial process involving the Ministry of Human Rights, the Ministry of Maritime Affairs, and other relevant departments that are closely monitoring the situation. The challenge is that these individuals are being held in an autonomous region of Somalia. The operational challenges involved in securing their release are quite significant, as is the process of dialogue with their captors. All of this is further complicated by the layers of tribal society and the individuals within that society, including the pirates who are holding the crew of this ship.

 

We hope for the best. We remain engaged with the Somali Government, the Somali authorities, and the relevant international organizations. We empathize with the loved ones of those being held, but the issue remains alive on our radar. In conjunction with the relevant line ministries and departments, all efforts are underway continue to secure their early repatriation.

 

(Abdullah Momand): You also responded to Naveed Siddiqui’s question regarding the reports of resistance inside Afghanistan. Does Pakistan have reservations with Kabul regarding terrorist hideouts, as well as the use of Afghan soil for terrorism against Pakistan?

 

There are also reports of human rights violations inside Afghanistan by the Afghan Taliban. In that context, while Pakistan is facing a severe wave of terrorism, should Pakistan morally or strategically support that resistance? Do you believe that the resistance is legitimate and that Pakistan should support it, morally or perhaps strategically?

 

Spokesperson: This matter is an internal affair of Afghanistan. We are in no position to offer a value judgment on the positions of those parties, and we would not offer any comment on that.

 

As regards the use of Afghan soil for terrorism against Pakistan, I think we have communicated quite clearly and forthrightly to Kabul that this support infrastructure for terrorism in Afghanistan must be eliminated.

 

(Faisal Pasha, We News): Regarding the joint statement on the Pakistan-U.S. Counterterrorism Dialogue, the U.S. side has also issued a statement, and it specifically mentions the TTP as a threat to both countries. My question is: The United States is providing financial support to the Afghan Taliban government. Can Pakistan ask the U.S. Government to exert pressure to stop the TTP from carrying out attacks against Pakistan?

 

Spokesperson: As I said, we do not bear a grudge against international support, particularly humanitarian assistance provided to Kabul. We hope that the donors exercise due diligence to ensure that the funds meant for humanitarian assistance or for the economy of Afghanistan are not diverted to support TTP activities. We will continue to call upon the donors to exercise due diligence to ensure that their funds are not siphoned off or utilized to support terrorist infrastructure – that of TTP or any other organization. This remains our position.

 

The larger issue remains that the Afghan side supports the TTP and its affiliates, and this support—whether through its own resources or by utilizing any international donations—must come to an end.

 

(Zeeshan Yousafzai, Dunya News): Sir, I just want a brief comment from you on the Taliban spokesperson’s statement. Zabiullah Mujahid has said that they do not want war with any country, specifically with Pakistan, and that they want to restore their relations with Pakistan. I would like your comment on this.

 

Spokesperson: Yes, I saw that statement. I am not sure how authentic it was or whether he actually made that statement. Of course, we do not want war with Afghanistan. The Afghan people are our brothers and sisters. There is no question of us waging war against them.

 

However, the issue of the Taliban regime’s support for the TTP remains the main stumbling block in our relationship. This needs to end. The Taliban regime in Kabul needs to make a choice as to whether it wants good relations with Pakistan or whether it wants to continue its linkages and support networks with the TTP. As long as it (Taliban regime) does not prioritize the former over the latter, our relations will remain in their present state. We will continue to oppose the Taliban regime’s policies in this regard and maintain our present stated policy because we cannot compromise on the security of our nationals.

 

(Muhammad Saleh Zafir, The News): Pakistan and Iran have decided to keep their borders open round the clock for trade and commercial activities. Does this decision in any manner, it defines U.S. sanctions about having any link against Iran?

 

Spokesperson: The short answer is no, because international or national sanctions against any country are duly taken into account and factored into bilateral trade. The decision to keep the border open takes all international constraints into account. We will continue to pursue our policy of trade with Iran through open borders.

 

(Khalid Mehmood, Express News): A very senior cabinet minister has raised questions about the government’s performance and governance. Any views?

 

Spokesperson: No comments.

 

(Mateen Haider): Your departure to Geneva has been delayed. Who is going to be the new Spokesperson?

 

Spokesperson: ہوئی تاخیر تو کچھ باعث تاخیر بھی تھا (The delay is not without its cause). I think you’ll have to bear with me for a few weeks. I understand your pain and tribulation in having to face me every week, so please bear with me.

 

***