hello. welcome to hardtalk, i'm stephen sackur. as 2021 nears its end pakistan's leaders may be reflecting on the wisdom of that old adage about being careful what you wish for. islamabad has long aided and abetted the afghan taliban and now they are back in power. america's regional power is diminished, china, pakistan's close ally is still making massive investments. so does this all add up to good news for pakistan? well, not necessarily. my guest is national security advisor moeed yusuf. just how secure is pakistan? moeed yusuf in islamabad, welcome to hardtalk. thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to have you on the show. it's fair to say it's been a tumultuous year in your neighbourhood. obviously, the big headline is the taliban back in power in afghanistan. do you think that has enhanced or diminished pakistan's security? frankly, depends on how responsibly international community plays in the future. we have a situation in afghanistan and sorry to object to your opening, you're presenting this as if pakistan was behind this and it's pakistan's doing. we did not aid and abet anybody. there was a policy employed by the us and others in afghanistan. there was always a failing policy. we are the only country that kept saying you will not find solution to this problem was pakistan. advice was not heated too. we kept saying we negotiate from a position of strength. we won't listen to, we were blamed and we were scapegoated. and the result is in front of you. so first of all, i want to be clear the facts should be what they are. thank you for that facts are important. when i said aided and abetted i was really alluding to the fact that senior taliban leaders live quite openly and in their in pakistan we know that taliban fighters cross into afghanistan over many years from pakistan. we know that actually wounded taliban fighters were treated in medical centres inside pakistan. if that doesn't represent long—term assistance, i'm not sure what does. stephen, ijust hope your day the west interest doesn't or any country doesn't begin and end up in the same cycle again. pakistan was not the one that brought the war to afghanistan. pakistan is the principal victim of this war. since 9/11 over 80,000 casualties in pakistanis which the west just likes to wish away. over a lost in the economy. three and a half million internally displaced people. millions of afghan refugees, do you think we are a mad? that we would be abetting something that is creating this kind of disaster to my country? i think we got to be real. yes, these accusations came and we kept explaining to the world that the reason the kabul government keep saying this is that they are corrupt, in compton and western taxpayers money is being misused. nobody listen to us. that narrative was blocked by the west was up and today there is embarrassment where western taxpayers are asking their government are where the money went. we had no interest in the way this war went on, the disaster and the casualties that we faced and the way it ended. we are the country, we have a country that has been recognised by the us or uk and others for facilitating the governments process, the end point of which should have been a generally inclusive government. it was because the afghan president decided to up and leave his country, because the army that was trained never fought that the end result was what it was. so please stop blaming pakistan because of you to tell you, you... you're reading a lot to my questions here. on a blaming anybody but i am seeking to find out what your strategic analysis is right now. your prime minister said after the taliban took over in kabul he said," we must stabilise the new government, that is the new taliban government for the sake of afghanistan. i wonder if you still feel that same way now that you seen the taliban in power for four or five months, does that sentiment still hold good? stephen, i have got a 1,600 mile border with the fence down for the other four years of experience, we have 4,000,000 refugees still in pakistan after a0 years. compare this to the european reaction in the british reaction, the american reaction one refugees that shows up to your shores. i have experienced that it is needed the moment afghanistan is unstable, my country will be unstable. it's been a border pod for centuries. refugees go over, terrorism flow drug all over for that what the prime minister of pakistan said was any government, we want afghanistan to be stable because of afghanistan heads towards instability and collapse pakistan will be harmed and hurt the very next day. pakistan's national subvert security adviser is my feet feel that way for the as pakistan's prime minister is right to tell the world the way that international community is facing of a class. if it does we are going to hurt him pakistan. so it's my right to explain this. i am telling you that... i hear the message loud and clear. the reality on the ground is this, if i mayjust quite quickly paint you a picture, we have a country that is slipping very fast into massive humanitarian economic crisis was that we have a government which law firm promises to be inclusive, is very much not inclusive. not in terms of ethnicity but still less than alluding any women for that we have a government that promise to let girls go to school but in many, many parts of afghanistan secondary school age girls are not able to get in education. finally, we have a government which includes within its senior ministries at least one individual who is wanted by the united states as a terrorist with up and you if you don't like the people, measure 30,000,000 die. this is what you're saying. understand the connotation of what you're saying. i'm not here to defend the taliban. the world you go and have a conversation with them. our issue with the taliban is identical to what the world is saying. more inclusivity, human rights for all, no terrorism from afghans all this is what we want. why would i want anything else for people of afghanistan than what i want for my own people in pakistan? that's not up for debate. the issue is something different. you talk about facts on the ground for that let me tell you the facts. the un head in afghanistan says this is the worst economic crisis and humanitarian disaster we have ever witnessed. quote,". 22.8 million people are facing food shortage, 70% are proportioning food, 1,000,000 children are acutely malnourished. that's the reality i have to deal with in pakistan. if this goes on any further i am going to have a refugee problem, i'm going to have a situation with international terrorist organisations and want to get more space. leave this aside. just let me ask you a very simple ethical and moral question, there is a government that many don't like, it's not recognise, it's fought a war against many countries but there are 35 to 110,000,000 afghans who have nothing to do with this. so let's at least agree that they need to be fed immediately. and there is where i must tell you very candidly that i am increasingly reaching the conclusion that the world probably doesn't care. because at this point it's not a problem of money, it's not a problem of pledges, everybody�*s pledged money for that wise of the money getting their? because the banking channels are not being allowed to function. the un can't get money end, the icr cannot get money and, when you can get money and how are you going to feed people? pakistan is the country that helped more than anybody else 40,000... 119,000 people evacuated from pakistan of 75 countries was that we have created a land in the air bridge asking the world to channel what ever they want from us free of cost. but no money can be brought. the un is crying, the icrc is complaining, why are we doing this to our people? used to very powerfully about the humanitarian crisis in afghanistan. i don't want to turn to the is strategic implications of what's happening in afghanistan for pakistan. it is very interesting to me that the taliban afghan foreign minister said recently that he and his government have been mediating between your government and the ptt, the pakistani taliban. do you think it is wise to get the afghan taliban to become the middleman broker in negotiations between you and your insurgentjihadist taliban force within pakistan's borders? is not an issue. they are losing the country and the relationship is all in afghanistan. this is a group that is killing thousands of pakistanis, we know that. no pakistani has been unaffected by terrorism indirectly or directly. this is a group that was supported by our archrival india and the afghan intelligence unfortunately to perpetrate terrorism in pakistan. so if there's anybody that should be worried about visits pakistan was up if i venture, many pakistanis are very worried. indeed we heard the worries voice within the supreme court when they were actually grilling your prime minister about what was going on in terms of these negotiations. i think one of the justices alluded to the 2014 terrible atrocity where the ptt launched an attack on an army school and killed more than 130 children. and the justice said this to mister con, they said it was the government get assigned a document of defeat with those who killed the children? are we going to surrender once again? what is the answer to that? the first answer is usually recognise a state of democracy in this country. that thejudge because the prime minister and now has the opportunity to ask her. that's the democracy, i'm proud of that. to your question of gdp, you are absolutely right. so there appears a lot of children, brothers laws sisters, sons lost fathers, there are tribes who have a problem because tribes are wiped out. all of these people will have to be taken into confidence. we have a consistent policy is a state to say that negotiations must end conflicts and must and from one possession of strength. this is what we told the americans and the uk and others for 20 years in afghanistan for so i wish they would've listened. what the situation out? ttp is a lifeline was a support they were getting from india and the afghan intelligence with up to that lifeline is gone. they coexisted with the afghan taliban in afghanistan, they have contact. we are in a position of strength because we know that they are reeling at this moment. so it was an? if they are apologising, if they are willing to go through the due process of the law in pakistan, live under the constitution of pakistan, get punished for whatever crimes have taken place, renounce violence for ever, we want to hear what they say. but hang on, such as a question of your in the pakistani media bids reported you've already taken prisoners including to some reports and senior of the pakistani taliban have been released as part of the short—term ceasefire deal. is that true? first of all, that is not true. are there prisoners? know. if you allow me to finish the answer, please. what i'm explaining to you is we are hearing them out on whether they are serious about this or not. because there are families, their kids, their wives and children, thousands of pakistanis who may be linked with them a one—way is the other foot up at a job is not to kill another pakistani. we are going to try our level best to ensure that pakistani citizens are safe without any more blood being spilled on either side. if that doesn't work the state has all the options open. but it is every stage right, in fact frankly, it's rational and it's smart to and conflicts through the law from a position of strength. that's what the pakistani state is always stood for. the media reporting on this is very high, there at this point. if there is, trust me you will know and the entire world will know what we have to tell them. let's talk other strategic challenges and decisions that you and i may pakistan government faced with a view of the united states very well, you worked there for many years in different think tank. you yourjob advisedly have to consider where pakistan, us relations are going. i would put it to you that right now they are more damage than at any time in the last few decades. infact, am i right in saying thatjoe biden has not yet bothered to make a direct phone call to your boss? he's been in office for almost a year now. yes, that's correct, he has not called. if he wants to he we will consider the call, it's up to him. that's it would not a reflection of the entire relationship. let me explain, us, pakistan relationship has always had his ups and down. we come together when unfortunately when whatever the us it forces fail pakistan has been basically sidelined and actually in the �*90s, sanctioned. the us acknowledge was a big blunder and should not happen again. at this point a good bilateral dialogue. but... the mistrust over afghanistan still remains. so... trust, 22 republican senators want to see pakistan actively punished for its relationship with the taliban. we saw donald trump cutting military aid, we now see the prospect that pakistan may see other forms of assistant and aid cut from the united states. when your economy is in a state. you can't really afford this current toxic relationship with washington, can you? no was up a good relations with the us was of its hard to say, we got millions of pakistanis there, we are in this relationship and that's a conversation we have in the usf. yes, there was mistrust and the 22 republicans or whatever you're talking about is a part of domestic policies that lead back at this time. the administration with the us is engaged with us is engaged with us. i wanted ministration relationship to move faster, we are engaged, we are talking, both sides understand they can't do without the other. the biggest problems of the relationship with the us,... as a strategic thinker with real influence and power down pakistan is it your intention that pakistan does need to continue to shift its priority away from the relationship with the united states toward the very close relationship, particularly economic relationship you have forged with china, is that the future for pakistan? not at all for the living expense to you, pakistan is made a major transition and it's all approaching thinking from a strategic paradigm to an economic paradigm. we look at ourselves as a melting pot of global economic interest now. one of the key pillars for that is connectivity. the other one is development partnership. we want the entire world to come and coexist in pakistan in terms of economics. we are no longer in the business of offering military bases but economic bases are open for all. in the us is included china is included. if i may say so, you are offering bases to china, there is a court of qatar which frankly in terms of china's strategic interests in the long run is a massive infrastructure strategic commitment that you've made to china. you get something like $60,000,000,000 worth of investment because of your infrastructure deal with the chinese. i just wonder whether you are happy to sacrifice certain principles in pursuit of this relationship with china? i'm thinking in particular of your governments refusal to condemn china for what it's doing to the muslim uighur minority. your ambassador to beijing in the summer went to chinjang and said he was impressed by the social harmony and preservation at the local culture including a focus on religious harmony and freedom. what happened to pakistan's standing up for muslims around the world? first of all, let mejust explain, yes, $60,000,000 and that's what friends are for. we have a very critical relationship with china, always had it in our relationship is going from strength to strength. but that is not the cost of any other country. that's what economic paradigm is. let me just clear the neck clarify this, there you talking military bases, yes there are economic bases we've offered the same to the us, same to the middle east, same to russia anybody wants to come in and invest in pakistan, we are open. yes, absolutely we want economic investment, china is a great friend and has done that. there's no question about it. but this is not close to anybody else was up in china, pakistan economic corridor is what? energy, infrastructure and road infrastructure. anybody can benefit from that. and invest in pakistan. as far as the other part of your question is concerned, i'm amazed at how many, this conversation comes up but there's never a thought about all the human rights issues with muslims and others that pakistan keeps raising. if you have an issue... believe me, very aware that you raise the rights of kashmiri people all the time, of course you do in your difficult relationship with india, that's topic number one, i get that. i'm just wondering what does it look like a double standard do you let alone the rest of the world when you insist on human rights in kashmir but you do not raise human rights with the chinese when it comes to the muslim minority injan, what is going on? i will tell you what's going on. and the answer number one, when i talk about kashmir i'm talking about my people, not foreign people. i'm talking about in illegally occupied territory recognised as a dispute by the un and it is my right to speak about my people. i'm not speaking about any foreign country at that point i was up as number one. as far as the question about china's concern, not only in beijing but there been things from here. we have a relationship across with china being completely open. they give us access, we do not accept the western ascription of zheng xianoting, that said, the west has concerned, you have every right to talk to china. it's a sovereign country, please go ahead and raise your concern. as far as i'm concerned, my position is clear. i don't accept... i'm sorry it is not a double standard. i'm talking about my people you want to talk about that, i'm available. that is very clear. i'm fascinated by your concept of my people. your people also many of them live in the yellow province behind you on the map. you are national security adviser, what are you doing to get transparency countability justice and the truth for the thousands of men and boys who have been forcibly disappeared in recent years. we know it from a whole host of independent and un investigations. you national security adviser, what are you doing about it? every single incident is investigated. the the overwhelming majority have found to be those who are somewhere and unfortunately died. if there is any issue, any incident in which we see in excess of them being committed we will respond as a responsible state does. on top of that, let me also tell you, the biggest development packages by this government have been to provinces and people who are underdeveloped for the end they are number one on the list was up and the highest amount of money ever given for development or the people is under this government. but if there is any kind of axis in the government anywhere we will of course investigate. interesting you said the conditional, air. you're telling me of all of the exhaustive human rights reporting you do not accept that there are grave abuses they are? i do not accept your term grave. what i'm telling you is if there are any issues which we find with the state had anything the person responsible is always investigated and then prosecuted as eddie responsible state would do. and that's what states do, no state is perfect but no, i do not accept the fact that there are grave excesses happening all the time for the overwhelming majority of the cases reported are ones that are fighting the state or somewhere else with the west either. unfortunately when and what they did and... that is reporting in as the investigation we have. lemme tell you stephen, so much of this is discussed automatically the commitment of the television set. if i talk to you economics i have to have — we are committed to that we are working on every single inch of our territory to ensure that the most vulnerable citizen is as secure as it can be. moeed yusuf, i'm sorry to cut you short but we have to end there. i think you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. a pleasure. hello. it looks like we have probably seen the worst of storm barra for now, the worst of the winds along coastal areas, the top gusts in west coast of wales, 86mph. around inland areas it was typically 40 or 50mph. as well as those strong winds, we had a spell of snow, briefly, over the pennines and into the southern uplands before the snowy weather moved into the highlands and grampian region. that now moved away. all the cloud that has been swirling around the centre of the storm that's crossing northern ireland and heading towards the north of england and southern parts of scotland. it's just going to sit around during wednesday. the storm continuing to weaken, the winds lessening all the while with stronger winds means it will be a milder start to wednesday. typical temperatures, 3, 4 or 5. still windy for many on wednesday, just not as windy. the strongest winds likely to be across the west and south of wales, south—west england, around 60mph on the coast for a time, showers and longer spells of rain, the wettest weather with strongest winds will be in wales. maybe cold enough for some snow over the higher parts of scotland, maybe the tops of the pennines, typical temperatures are 6 or 7. by thursday, the storm is no more, continuing to weaken, pressure rising and the wind is dropping, instead we find a weather front nosing from the atlantic. we are left with one or two showers around on thursday, lighter winds by this stage and we find some sunshine but there will be a weather front bringing cloud and rain into northern ireland, parts of wales in the south—west of england. ahead of that, temperatures showing little signs of change. the wetter weather will continue eastwards overnight, there could be more snow over higher parts of scotland, it looks like it will move fairly quickly, out of the way by friday. instead we have a north—westerly wind, probably a stronger wind as well but essentially it is a day of sunshine and showers. many southern and eastern areas are dry with the best of the sunshine, most of the showers in the north and west of the uk, could be wintry over the hills. again, temperatures not changing very much, typically 6 or7. this is bbc news, i'm sally bundock, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. boris johnson faces renewed criticism after a video emerges showing downing street staffjoking about holding a christmas party during last year's lockdown. australia joins the diplomatic boycott of the beijing olympics — prime minister scott morrison says china has failed to respond to concerns about human rights. threats and demands as the russian and us presidents hold talks. president putin is warned not to invade ukraine but insists nato backs off. celebrations as same—sex marriage becomes legal in chile.