Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Certainly the Middle East has changed forever. We are looking
Speaker 2: at a very different world, not just because of the war,
Speaker 2: but because the war has reinforced certain trends that were
Speaker 2: already in play.
Speaker 1: Mali Ha Lothi, who's been one of Pakistan's top diplomats,
Speaker 1: on power shifts and the role her country's playing.
Speaker 2: It shows the advent and the importance of middle parts
Speaker 2: that are now able to shape geopolitics.
Speaker 3: So Pakistan, by playing this role of mediation, has established
Speaker 3: itself as a middle par which has the capacity to influence,
Speaker 3: if not shape, international politics.
Speaker 1: From Blue Weekend, This is the Michelle Hussein Show. I'm
Speaker 1: Michelle Hussein. After nearly six weeks of war, these last
Speaker 1: few days have brought a moment of pivot, or at
Speaker 1: least a potential one, as the United States and Iran
Speaker 1: agreed to talk. The diplomacy that made it possible was
Speaker 1: not led by one of the big powers or the
Speaker 1: UN or Oman which mediated before, but by Pakistan. How
Speaker 1: and why did that happen? What's the background to the
Speaker 1: Islamabad summit and is there a reshaping of relationships under
Speaker 1: way that we should all pay attention to As I
Speaker 1: thought about these questions in recent days, the person I
Speaker 1: wanted to hear answering them is a woman who was
Speaker 1: Pakistan's ambassador to Washing twice and who also served her
Speaker 1: country as ambassador in London and at the UN Before that.
Speaker 1: Malihlothi was a newspaper editor, and as it happens, I
Speaker 1: once interned for her way back as my very first
Speaker 1: taste of journalism. At that time, I would barely have
Speaker 1: had the courage to speak directly to her. She was
Speaker 1: not Anna Winter, but she was exacting. In this conversation,
Speaker 1: you'll hear her look beyond this crisis and beyond the
Speaker 1: Middle East and South Asia, with observations on the United
Speaker 1: States and also on where she differs with her own
Speaker 1: country's leadership. Our starting point was how Pakistan's role as
Speaker 1: a peace broker came about.
Speaker 2: I think Pakistan's military and civilian leaders were both working
Speaker 2: the fams. Pakistan's army chief in particular, was on the
Speaker 2: line to Washington at all times from what I hear,
Speaker 2: especially in the last couple of days just before the
Speaker 2: agreement was forged, and of course Pakistan's prime ministers on
Speaker 2: the phone to the Iranian leadership constantly, and I think
Speaker 2: the main thing that I understood was they never really
Speaker 2: gave up, even when the situation looked very bleak, especially
Speaker 2: when President Trump began to say what he said, and
Speaker 2: I don't want to repeat all the things he said,
Speaker 2: but at that time it wasn't clear whether you know,
Speaker 2: that was just bluster or that was you know, statements
Speaker 2: that would so offend the Iranians that they were just
Speaker 2: call off everything.
Speaker 1: You mean, the words about ending a civilization, Yes, this
Speaker 1: kind of rhetoric. And did you in that period also
Speaker 1: think how is this going to bear fruit? That this
Speaker 1: situation is so extreme?
Speaker 2: Well, yes, I think there was a point at which
Speaker 2: it seemed that even the progress that we were learning
Speaker 2: from Pakistani officials that was being made seemed to be
Speaker 2: in jeopardy. So I thought that, you know, when President
Speaker 2: Trump began to sound so frustrated and angry, actually I thought,
Speaker 2: this is it, and the US will never agree to
Speaker 2: the terms that the Iranians conveyed at the end. You know,
Speaker 2: the famous ten points, the famous now because everybody knows
Speaker 2: about them, because you know, initially the Americans rejected them
Speaker 2: and said we don't accept them. But then as we've seen,
Speaker 2: both sides actually walked back from their maximilist positions. Iran
Speaker 2: did and so did the US.
Speaker 1: And before we get to those points, I still want
Speaker 1: to explore the relationships that Pakistan has both with the
Speaker 1: United States, which you've seen in your own career over
Speaker 1: multiple cycles, and with Iran. So, first of all, on
Speaker 1: the US is the key to this personal relationship between
Speaker 1: Phil Marshal Arsimonir and President Trump And how on earth
Speaker 1: was that bond formed?
Speaker 2: Well, very wet. So I think this personal relationship between
Speaker 2: the two which really came about very early in President
Speaker 2: Trump's second term, and it really started with the first
Speaker 2: sort of early win that in a way Pakistan handed
Speaker 2: it to him when it arrested and then extradited the
Speaker 2: terrorist who was responsible for the bombing in Kabul during
Speaker 2: the American evacuation from Afghanistan. I mean, I think President
Speaker 2: Trump was so taken in by this gesture, by this action,
Speaker 2: that he chose to mention this in his first address
Speaker 2: to Congress, and then during the conflict between India and
Speaker 2: Pakistan once that conflict was over and Trump played a
Speaker 2: role in diffusing it. Pakistan, of course, you know by
Speaker 2: a sidari leaders I should say, you know, kept saying
Speaker 2: how grateful they were to President Trump, and then of
Speaker 2: course announcing Nobel Peace Prize for him, which I personally
Speaker 2: was a critic of. I wrote against it, I tweated
Speaker 2: against him, and I said, why are we giving a
Speaker 2: Nobel Peace prize to a man who has not exactly
Speaker 2: been promoting peace around the world. But it seemed to
Speaker 2: do the trick, and Trump became even closer to the
Speaker 2: Pakistani leadership, particularly of course to Field Marshall, aarsimonyir.
Speaker 1: That level of flattery, even of sequousness, some would say,
Speaker 1: made many Pakistanis uncomfortable.
Speaker 2: Well, yes, absolutely, because remember President Trump he'd attacked Iran
Speaker 2: along with Israel around that time, on a little later
Speaker 2: than that time, so clearly there was questioning about that decision.
Speaker 2: But I think beyond that announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize,
Speaker 2: there were also these sweetheart business deals that Pakistani leaders
Speaker 2: were offering Trump. And in addition to that, Pakistan's offer
Speaker 2: to open up the country for mining for critical minerals,
Speaker 2: which they knew was really very high up on Trump's
Speaker 2: agenda given the fact that the US had fallen behind China.
Speaker 2: So I mean, I think if you put all of
Speaker 2: that together, that went into the relationship that you know,
Speaker 2: then helped Pakistan emerge as the mediator.
Speaker 1: And let's talk about the other side of them, the
Speaker 1: relationship between Pakistan and Iran, which has also been complex
Speaker 1: at times, including relatively recently in twenty twenty four, when
Speaker 1: the two countries were striking each other towards Iran's east
Speaker 1: and Pakistan's west and saying that there were terrorists hideouts
Speaker 1: on each other's soil.
Speaker 2: Yes, Michelle, you're absolutely right. The relationship with Iran has
Speaker 2: been you know, up and down for the last couple
Speaker 2: of decades, but also because of what you mentioned, the
Speaker 2: exchange of missile strikes, with both countries accusing the other
Speaker 2: of giving a safe haven, albeit unintentionally, to militants that
Speaker 2: had threatened their security. So it really was after these
Speaker 2: missile strikes when the two countries decided to mend fences
Speaker 2: that I think the new relationship began to take shape.
Speaker 2: And that's when we saw the two engaging very closely,
Speaker 2: visitors coming to Pakistan from Iran, and then I think,
Speaker 2: even more significantly, the way Pakistan stood in solidarity with
Speaker 2: Iran last year when there was a joint Israeli American
Speaker 2: attack actually to Israeli attack, and then the Americans joined
Speaker 2: in the bombing. You would recall at that time, Pakistan,
Speaker 2: I think, amongst all the Muslim countries, are probably the
Speaker 2: most outspoken in expressing its solidarity with Iran, for which
Speaker 2: Iranian leaders were very, very publicly grateful. And then that
Speaker 2: was followed by a stream of Iranian visitors to Pakistan,
Speaker 2: including mister Larajani, who was of course later assassinated. He
Speaker 2: came to Pakistan, others came to Pakistan, so you could
Speaker 2: see that the relationship was, you know, being strengthened by
Speaker 2: all these visits and interactions, and you know, ultimately I
Speaker 2: think the search for a mediator whom both countries could
Speaker 2: have confidence in there really wasn't any other country. I mean,
Speaker 2: the Arab country were ruled out. Oman had had their
Speaker 2: fingers burnt, so Oman couldn't re emerge or didn't want to,
Speaker 2: and then there was only really Pakistan and Turkey left.
Speaker 2: And I think Pakistan, because of the personal factor, Turkey
Speaker 2: didn't enjoy that sort of closeness with the Trump administration
Speaker 2: that in Marshall, we needed it.
Speaker 1: There's also been a bit of tighter walking hasn't there
Speaker 1: for Pakistan in this period, in that it you know,
Speaker 1: condoled over the killing of the Supreme Leader and also
Speaker 1: said to Iran that its attacks on the Gulf were regrettable.
Speaker 1: I do also want to ask you about Pakistan's self
Speaker 1: interest in this because in this last month, how badly
Speaker 1: has the country been affected by the energy disruption? What
Speaker 1: have you seen play out around you in Islamabad.
Speaker 2: Look, this was very high stakes for Pakistan because of
Speaker 2: the economic pain that Pakistan had begun to feel already
Speaker 2: and could see that a protracted conflict would bring even
Speaker 2: more economic pain. So although Pakistan didn't get into rationing
Speaker 2: of oil, you didn't see cues at petrol pumps in
Speaker 2: the capital or elsewhere, but you did see the spike
Speaker 2: in the oil price. The government had to raise the
Speaker 2: price of oil, and of course the government announced a
Speaker 2: series of austerity measures because it wanted to conserve fuel.
Speaker 2: Remember that Pakistan imports almost ninety percent of its oil
Speaker 2: requirements from the Gulf countries. So again, if the conflict
Speaker 2: had prolonged, the economic damage at a time, and when
Speaker 2: Pakistani economy in any case, it's very fragile, very weak
Speaker 2: within an IMF program. I mean it would have blown
Speaker 2: our economy. Of course, if the war had continued.
Speaker 1: And schools have been closed. It has been too expensive
Speaker 1: for some people to get to work, so they've been
Speaker 1: all kinds of hardships of that kind. What it means
Speaker 1: for people's incomes. Let's talk then about this ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen point plan. Iran is going into these talks with
Speaker 1: very ambitious, some would say outlandish demands, and at the
Speaker 1: same time President Trump is saying the military objectives have
Speaker 1: been met. Well.
Speaker 2: Right now, both sides have a narrative which says that
Speaker 2: they've achieved their objectives, that they are they've been victorious.
Speaker 2: Both sides are saying that. But I think both sides
Speaker 2: know that their demands or conditions or terms for these
Speaker 2: negotiations are maximalist. So the question, and I think it's
Speaker 2: hard to answer that question right now, is whether they
Speaker 2: can find sufficient common ground. Because you know, Michelle, they
Speaker 2: did find common ground when Oman was mediating, as the
Speaker 2: Omani's foreign minister has said so many times, they were
Speaker 2: close to a deal at that time, and then suddenly,
Speaker 2: in the midst of negotiations, America decided to join Israel
Speaker 2: and attacking Iran, so that part perhaps can be sort
Speaker 2: of in a way, you know, they can go back
Speaker 2: to that kind of an agreement. But the additionality is
Speaker 2: provided by the Strait of Hormus because that now becomes
Speaker 2: central to the negotiations. And there you can see the
Speaker 2: positions are very far apart the Americans. I mean, President
Speaker 2: President keeps changing his mind every few hours. If I
Speaker 2: say it, he said this last time, it may change
Speaker 2: in the next two days. I mean, I can't guarantee that,
Speaker 2: but you know, he's saying he'd like to work with
Speaker 2: it on to regulate or operate the Strait of hormones.
Speaker 2: The Iranians are probably aghast at having to work with anybody,
Speaker 2: but they're prepared to work with Alan. But they're saying,
Speaker 2: we're going to charge fees now. I mean, this has
Speaker 2: been a free ride, and we're going to charge fees
Speaker 2: for whatever maritime traffic takes place through the strait. So
Speaker 2: I think, you know, again maximilist positions. We don't know
Speaker 2: the kind of agreement they'll reach because this now will
Speaker 2: become very central to a comprehensive settlement.
Speaker 1: We don't know how what kind of agreement they'll reach
Speaker 1: or its chances of being anything lasting. I mean one thing,
Speaker 1: for example, where we know there's a difference is on Lebanon.
Speaker 1: Pakistan's Prime Minister Shabastarif saying Lebanon, the Israeli war in
Speaker 1: Lebanon is part of this, and Israel saying very clearly that.
Speaker 2: It is not well. I think the bigger question is
Speaker 2: whether Israel will sabotage the agreement, this ceasefire, So Lebanon
Speaker 2: is only part of it. I mean, the major part
Speaker 2: is it concerns the cease fire between the United States
Speaker 2: and Iran. So if they were to sabotage it and
Speaker 2: place spoiler in that by continuing attacks on Iran and
Speaker 2: then sort of exposing Trump's inability if he's unable, that is,
Speaker 2: or unwilling to constrain and restrain Israel, then we're looking
Speaker 2: at a very complex and challenging situation. So I think
Speaker 2: the key lies in Trump showing that he can restrain
Speaker 2: it and yahoo he can control and contain Israel. That
Speaker 2: is the big sort of question, I think, and we
Speaker 2: don't have an answer to that yet.
Speaker 1: So even though there are many unknowns in this, what
Speaker 1: does your gut instinct tell you about the chances of
Speaker 1: this process in Islamabad leading to something that averts a
Speaker 1: return to war, or even just bring some stuff ability
Speaker 1: to the global economy.
Speaker 2: But I'd like to be optimistic, and my optimism, I
Speaker 2: think rests on firm ground because both sides know that
Speaker 2: there is more economic pain for everyone, including themselves, if
Speaker 2: there was a relapse into fighting. Both sides are in
Speaker 2: a position right now to sort of proclaim that we've
Speaker 2: achieved our objectives. They may not be able to do
Speaker 2: that if there is again a recurrence of war. So
Speaker 2: you know, that provides a strong incentive to both sides
Speaker 2: to try to hammer out a deal. So, you know,
Speaker 2: I hope my optimism pays off in the sense that,
Speaker 2: you know, I hope they're able to arrive at a
Speaker 2: settlement because they can't keep going to war every seven months.
Speaker 2: I mean, they can, but I think the costs of
Speaker 2: piling up have been piling up.
Speaker 1: But also, Iran has really discovered its power, hasn't it.
Speaker 1: Perhaps it always knew that its powers there and it's
Speaker 1: everyone else who discovered it. But that dimension, the Strait
Speaker 1: of Hormus, this uniquely placed part of the world, appears
Speaker 1: to have been a dimension that the Americans did not fullesee,
Speaker 1: did not think through at all.
Speaker 2: Yes, absolutely, I think the Americans made several miscalculations, and
Speaker 2: this was one of them. The other big mess calculation,
Speaker 2: as you know, was the thought that the Iranians would simply,
Speaker 2: you know, once their leaders had been decapitated or assassinated,
Speaker 2: that the Iranian regime would just collapse. Didn't happen. So,
Speaker 2: I mean there were a series of miscalculations, including the
Speaker 2: fact that the Iranians would get so much leverage by
Speaker 2: controlling the strait of hormones. So you know. But ultimately
Speaker 2: and fundamentally, and I've written about this, the US historically
Speaker 2: underestimates the power of nationalism. It's done that throughout history.
Speaker 2: Did that in Vietnam, did that in Afghanistan, did that
Speaker 2: in Iraq, and now did this in Iran. They really
Speaker 2: thought that by attacking Iran, the people of Iran, the dissidents,
Speaker 2: those who opposed the regime, will rise. You know, war
Speaker 2: has the opposite effect. People close ranks, they forget the
Speaker 2: internal differences. They come together because the strong force of
Speaker 2: nationalism is what motivates them to become a more unified nation.
Speaker 2: And that's exactly what happened. I mean even in Afhanistan.
Speaker 2: I mean, Taliban weren't exactly the most popular people in
Speaker 2: that country, and yet twenty years they managed to well,
Speaker 2: if not defeat the United States, but prevent them from winning.
Speaker 1: Is that what you hope that the United States learns
Speaker 1: this time? Because you've worked with successive American administrations. You
Speaker 1: were in the United States as Pakistan's ambassad whre nine
Speaker 1: to eleven took place, which meant that you were there
Speaker 1: when the Afghanistan engagement began, and that drew Pakistan into
Speaker 1: the US military and political orbit for many years, and
Speaker 1: you would also have seen the start of what became
Speaker 1: the build up to.
Speaker 2: War in Iraq. Yes, you're right, I was there in Washington,
Speaker 2: and I remember the early days after nine to eleven.
Speaker 2: Of course, it was a tremendously horrific tragedy that befell America,
Speaker 2: no question about that. But what my country's officials privately
Speaker 2: told the Americans at that time in those early days
Speaker 2: was that don't go and occupy Afhanistan. We understand you
Speaker 2: want to take some kind of military action, but it
Speaker 2: should be, in the words of the then president, short
Speaker 2: and surgical. So he even said at that time, don't
Speaker 2: become an army of occupation. Why, because you know, we
Speaker 2: have experience in this region, and we know that people
Speaker 2: will resist an outsider, they will resist foreign occupation, and
Speaker 2: that's exactly what happened. Now, whether the US learns this lesson,
Speaker 2: and it's such a paradox because here is a country
Speaker 2: where I've spent many years as a diplomat, which really
Speaker 2: sort of takes pride in its own country, where people
Speaker 2: are sort of flag waving, patriotic, sort of you know
Speaker 2: what stories put on all of that, and yet they
Speaker 2: don't understand that other countries have people who are equally
Speaker 2: proud of their country and nationalists they want to protect
Speaker 2: their country.
Speaker 1: I do want to ask you to look a bit
Speaker 1: further and whether you think this moment will mark the
Speaker 1: start of a different world order where America has learned
Speaker 1: that it can start wars, but they can spin out
Speaker 1: of control and it can't control the economic fallout, and
Speaker 1: where other regional dynamics and alliances shift as a result.
Speaker 2: I mean hope that the lesson learned would be that
Speaker 2: military supremacy doesn't achieve the outcome that is desired. I
Speaker 2: think the world in any case is moving towards a
Speaker 2: more multipolar world, if I can put it that way,
Speaker 2: and that US dominance is fading, has been fading. I mean,
Speaker 2: the combined military might of the United States and Israel
Speaker 2: took on a country that was militarily much much weaker,
Speaker 2: whose allies in the region had also been weakened, and
Speaker 2: yet that country resisted. Now what does that say. What
Speaker 2: that says is that America's dominance, and the error of
Speaker 2: americans dominance in the region is basically over. It also shows,
Speaker 2: I mean, in the case of my country and the
Speaker 2: role Pakistan played, it shows the advent and the importance
Speaker 2: of middle paths that are now able to shape geopolitics.
Speaker 2: So Pakistan, by playing this role of mediation, has established
Speaker 2: itself as a middle power which has the capacity to influence,
Speaker 2: if not shape, international politics.
Speaker 1: Is a loser in that though perhaps democracy in Pakistan
Speaker 1: in that the key player that we see in all
Speaker 1: of this is an unelected army officer.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Pakistan. That's where we've beamed for a lot
Speaker 2: of our history. And yes, I mean we have in
Speaker 2: place a hybrid government, which means that parer is shared
Speaker 2: between civilians and the military. And in this particular case,
Speaker 2: it was the military that was, you know, conducting much
Speaker 2: of the diplomacy. I mean, you can't say that the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister wasn't involved. Of course he was. So the
Speaker 2: civilians were also, of course involved, but the driving force
Speaker 2: was the Field Marshal and the military. That's the nature
Speaker 2: of politics and government in Pakistan.
Speaker 1: When you say you believe the era of American dominance
Speaker 1: is over, just explain how you see that playing out
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. Because President Trump is saying he
Speaker 1: thinks that this could be the Golden age of the
Speaker 1: Middle East, and America has all these bases in the region,
Speaker 1: what happens do you think in the long run or
Speaker 1: maybe even the medium term to those bases in the Gulf.
Speaker 2: Look, I mean when I say that the era of
Speaker 2: American dominance is over, I think they will be rethinking
Speaker 2: in the US about you know, what is the point
Speaker 2: of having thousands and thousands of US troops based in
Speaker 2: the region when they can't on their own determine what
Speaker 2: happens in the region. They can't shape the Middle East
Speaker 2: the way they wanted to even before. I mean Iraq
Speaker 2: is something that you mentioned before. I mean, what did
Speaker 2: they do there? So I mean, it's been a process.
Speaker 2: It's not as if this war has brought it about.
Speaker 2: A process was already underway that US dominance over the work,
Speaker 2: actually not just the region, was beginning to be replaced
Speaker 2: by the fact that power was being dispersed amongst many
Speaker 2: in different places, not just one country being able to,
Speaker 2: you know, get the outcomes that it wanted. It could
Speaker 2: only get the outcomes that it wanted in cooperation with
Speaker 2: other countries, something that President Trump clearly doesn't believe in.
Speaker 2: So he decided to action ilaterally or I mean, of
Speaker 2: course he had a co partner in Israel, never consulted
Speaker 2: his allies. So I think, you know, we're looking at
Speaker 2: a very different world, not just because of the war,
Speaker 2: but because the war has reinforced certain trends that were
Speaker 2: already in play.
Speaker 1: But if there is one winner in all of this,
Speaker 1: would you say it was China? And to what extent
Speaker 1: do you believe it has been involved in bringing the
Speaker 1: summit about?
Speaker 2: Well, I think, I mean, there are reports that the
Speaker 2: Chinese eventually persuaded Iran, and they also played a role
Speaker 2: visibly communication with the United States. I have no idea
Speaker 2: about the veracity of these reports, but certainly when you
Speaker 2: say China is a beneficiary, yes, I think one could
Speaker 2: say that because what this entire episode has shown and
Speaker 2: highlighted is that America has an unstable leader who conducts
Speaker 2: unilatural policies and acts unilaterally. But China, on the other hand,
Speaker 2: is a force for stability in the world, and that's
Speaker 2: how they project themselves also, but it also happens to
Speaker 2: be true. I mean, more countries have trading agreements now
Speaker 2: with China. China is a bigger trading partner of most
Speaker 2: countries in the world. I mean I say that absolutely,
Speaker 2: It's absolutely accurate. The EU's largest trading partner is China.
Speaker 2: Many Asian countries' largest trading partner is China. India's largest
Speaker 2: trading partner is not the United States, it's China. So
Speaker 2: what does that say. It's what it says is that
Speaker 2: China is a force for peace, cooperation and stability. But
Speaker 2: as the US is being run by a man who
Speaker 2: conducts himself in such a whimsical manner and who has
Speaker 2: disrupted so much in the world global trade, and of
Speaker 2: course has been engaged in this in this war of choice.
Speaker 2: So the contrast is stunning.
Speaker 1: Painter picture then of the Gulf and South Asia. Say
Speaker 1: in three years time, I'm going to pick that timeframe.
Speaker 1: Do you think it is going to be a more
Speaker 1: settled place or do you think what has been unleashed
Speaker 1: this kind of instability is two amense for the situation
Speaker 1: to go back in the box that was in at
Speaker 1: the start of the year.
Speaker 2: Well, certainly the Middle East has changed forever. It will
Speaker 2: not be statusco anti at all. Things are not going
Speaker 2: to go back to what they were before, that's for sure.
Speaker 2: Now what comes in its place, it depends on I
Speaker 2: think real alignments that will take place, reassessments that many
Speaker 2: Gulf countries may have to carry out. I mean, what
Speaker 2: happened to them. So many of them are feeling abandoned
Speaker 2: by the United States. Many feel that this American security umbrella,
Speaker 2: when the push came to show it was of no
Speaker 2: value to them because America didn't defend them. America defended Israel,
Speaker 2: and Israel always has the priority over them. So you know,
Speaker 2: a lot of the dynamics in the years to come
Speaker 2: will be shaped by these kinds of assessments and calculations.
Speaker 2: But certainly we're not going to be in for a
Speaker 2: period of immediate stability. I think that one can conclude,
Speaker 2: but it will be a period where the US will
Speaker 2: increasingly withdraw, which is what Trump had said in the
Speaker 2: first place in his national security strategy. And then who
Speaker 2: fills that power vacuum will depend on the realignments that
Speaker 2: will take shape here.
Speaker 1: You talked about this being a moment for the Middle Powers.
Speaker 1: From the Indian perspective, the strategy has never been for
Speaker 1: Pakistan to be in that category of Middle powers, whereas
Speaker 1: actually in the last few weeks we have seen Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia working on this, We've seen Turkey working on this.
Speaker 1: In Pakistan's Prime Minister as thanked Katar and Egypt as well.
Speaker 1: Where do you think this leaves India.
Speaker 2: I think right now on the wrong side of history.
Speaker 2: They just lined up with the wrong countries. They broke
Speaker 2: from their traditional position of support for the Palestinians. As
Speaker 2: I said, they lined up with Israel and supported Israel,
Speaker 2: whereas they had a good relationship with Itran, they had
Speaker 2: cooperation on trade with it on. All of that went
Speaker 2: for a six when the Indians decided or the ore
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister Modi's government, who came under a lot
Speaker 2: of domestic political fire from the opposition who said, why
Speaker 2: are you India's well known, well established foreign pancy, which
Speaker 2: is what he did. He actually did a tramp on India,
Speaker 2: completely reversed and upended many of India's traditional alignments. So
Speaker 2: I mean they've been sidelined by all this. Now, whether
Speaker 2: that leads to a reassessment by India, I don't know.
Speaker 2: But I think for Pakistan it is very important because
Speaker 2: in a way it helps Pakistan to extricate itself, if
Speaker 2: I could put it that way, not that it physically
Speaker 2: can extricate itself, but at least diplomatically extricate itself from
Speaker 2: South Asia and become a player on a much bigger canvas,
Speaker 2: which is the Middle East. I mean, not that it's new.
Speaker 2: It has played this role before, but it had in
Speaker 2: recent years become rather more focused, let's say, on India
Speaker 2: and its eastern border rather than the western, rather than
Speaker 2: on the western frontier.
Speaker 1: In the complexities of Pakistan in the Middle East, the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister of Farkistan being on the board of peace
Speaker 1: an organization, if one can call it that, which it's
Speaker 1: perfectly clear President Trump would like to be an alternative
Speaker 1: to the UN. How does that square with having principles
Speaker 1: on peace and stability and supporting long established international organizations.
Speaker 2: I was a critic of Pakistan joining the Board of Peace,
Speaker 2: So you know, when you ask me that question, you
Speaker 2: are sort of asking somebody who's already there saying my
Speaker 2: country shouldn't have lined up on that because it was
Speaker 2: so unclear what President Trump really wanted. He wanted to
Speaker 2: legitimize his Middle East plan for Gaza, and I didn't
Speaker 2: think that Pakistan should be a party to that. But
Speaker 2: it seems that President Trump got board of the Board
Speaker 2: of Peace, and I mean it's tragic that the Palestinians
Speaker 2: and their issue has been again, you know, overshadowed, sidelined
Speaker 2: by this war that was imposed on Iran.
Speaker 1: Before we let you go, a final question related to
Speaker 1: your long experience as a diplomat, if you could give
Speaker 1: advice to the people who are presumably going to be
Speaker 1: face to face with each other in a very high
Speaker 1: stakes encounter, what would you say.
Speaker 2: I would say what we used to say a lot
Speaker 2: at the UN, which is you have to think of
Speaker 2: the other's concern as much as you push your own interests,
Speaker 2: and therefore the need to show flexibility so that common
Speaker 2: ground can be found, otherwise we can't have any agreement.
Speaker 1: Willie Hellodi, thank you very much. It's a pleasure, and
Speaker 1: that's where we left the conversation. Thanks as ever to
Speaker 1: the team producers Jessica Beck and Chris Martlu, video producer
Speaker 1: Andy Hayward, executive producer Louisa Lewis. This week Bart Walshaw,
Speaker 1: composer of our music, also did our audio bick. Alex
Speaker 1: Morgan looks after. Social media production assistance is by Jennifer
Speaker 1: Seeley and at Bloomberg Weekend. Thanks to Brendan Francis Newnham
Speaker 1: and our executive editor Catherine Bell. As a reminder to
Speaker 1: you all, our email Michelle Show at Bloomberg dot net
Speaker 1: and you can expect a reply until next time.
Speaker 3: Goodbye,