0:01 Namaskar, Jai Hind, Jai Bharat and welcome to Dev Talks. I have with me Ambassador Kamal Sibal. Sir, firstly thank you so much. I know you're traveling and you still taken out time. Honor to have you on the platform once again. >> My my pleasure, my pleasure. >> I want to start with of course, you know, at your level I should not be asking you about Pakistan, but I was still want to start with it. So, humor me a little bit if you don't mind. Uh Pakistan suddenly decided that it's the child of the Indus and let me quote the information minister here. Indus water civilization, not the Chinese civilization. He said the water civilization. That's just a joke at the end of it, but uh I don't want to know why, what, this, that, who's behind this, sir. Is it the British or is the Americans? >> I think Pakistan feels that it is on a good wicket
0:48 uh because uh they have had this mediatory role in Iran which has given them a certain amount of recognition and respectability. It's no longer being looked upon. And I I don't think we should negate that view. It's not It's not now being looked upon simply as India would want it to be looked upon as a terrorist promoting state and stuff like that. Uh other countries know the reality of Pakistan. It's not as if they are blind to it. But the Pakistan is serving a useful purpose. And before that, it is Trump uh who has uh uh helped Pakistan acquire this
1:33 positive profile by praising constantly his favorite field marshal and the prime minister of uh Pakistan. They're great guys. They have this, they have that. To what extent their business interests involving [clears throat] Trump's larger entourage is something that uh it is being talked about. Uh and then as you know, uh the Americans uh certainly had a hand in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signing this defense agreement. Which has given Pakistan a visible regional profile which it which had which it had a little bit earlier but much more now, much more openly.
2:20 Now what is the calculation of Trump in doing this? I'm very I'm very puzzled because in the process he's unnecessarily >> [clears throat] >> alienating India. There's no need for him to to do this constant eulogy of Munir and Shahbaz Sharif and keep keep saying and he said that now 60 times that he was responsible for the ceasefire. He threatened both India and Pakistan and told them I'm going to slap you with a massive tariff if you don't agree and they buckled and they said yes, sir, we'll do it and all that kind of nonsense. And moment Sharif sort of pampered his ego by
3:06 saying you saved millions of people's lives because of the nuclear dimension of the conflict between India and Pakistan. He made He mentioned this in the board of peace meeting in the Middle East quoted Nawaz Sharif and since then he's been saying it constantly. What I mean is that uh Pakistan feels that the time is ripe that it can raise the Indus water issue and it'll have some uh uh echo favorable echo because water is a very sensitive subject. Everybody is concerned about future being water wars and the impact of climate change on water shortages all over the
3:52 Pakistan is an agricultural economy heavily dependent on the waters of the Indus river system. And if they exaggerate the whole thing by saying that India is now going to withdraw all water from Pakistan. So, they are now And it's it's interesting in this conference that they held recently in Pakistan, which was well attended. I don't know how well attended, but there were people there. Um they raised the issue to to the nuclear level with Bilawal Bhutto uh talking about uh um you know, existential threat to Pakistan, which would require Pakistan to use all its military capacity, etc., etc. And there is a chap called Shahzad the Chaudhary, former
4:39 uh Air Force officer of Pakistan. I saw his clip yesterday, where he actually doesn't mince words at all. For 2-3 minutes, he talked about uh the Pakistani using weapons against India. So, two things they want to achieve through this. Or three things. One, that they are diplomatically now relatively well positioned to agitate this issue. They are at the moment at the UN Security Council. Also, they see that there are now issues between Pakistan between India and the United States. And China is becoming a little more open in terms of supporting them. Uh on on these issues. Uh Number two, that the world will be sensitive to
5:24 this argument about India >> [clears throat] >> uh wanting to stop the flow of water in to Pakistan. Uh And third, by agitating the nuclear issue so openly, they want to tap into those uh concerns in the West that both India and Pakistan are nuclear countries and there is a nuclear flash point in in South Asia. So, they want to capitalize on this on that sentiment. Uh so, this is the reason that they are doing it. And I think behind that what you just said that we are creatures of the Indus waters or whatever else. The whole idea is to
6:10 uh amalgamate amalgamate the >> amalgamate Pakistan into the Indus River system. That Pakistan and Indus rivers are are joined together historically and contemporary and in contemporary ways uh where the survival of Pakistan is at stake. So, they're playing on this. That by if they want to agitate the Indus waters issue and India's high-handedness and in holding the treaty in abeyance the one answer to this uh which would which they think might help them is to present themselves as inheritors of the Indus Valley Valley civilization as an Indus Valley
6:56 country. The sense there also is that uh uh it has always been ours. I mean, we may be Muslims, we may be we may have been separated from India etc. etc. but we've always lived here. Even when we were Hindus, we've always lived there lived here. Uh and therefore we have claims on this land, on this waters, and on this civilization. That is the line I think that they are taking. >> But so, my question here is how does it help their cause? >> They think diplomatically it helps them to bring India a bad name, to put India on the defensive. Uh and put pressure on India through United States and uh
7:43 and I don't know to what extent China can put pressure, but you've seen that Victor Gao. I don't know why our TV channels invite him. I mean, [clears throat] I comment I commented on that also. The man is an ignoramus. He was openly threatening India. That if you stop the waters of the Indus to Pakistan, we can stop your waters. >> Let them look at the maps of this. >> And I in fact uh And then the idiot said that the Ganga He also threatened that we'll stop the flow of Ganga because the Ganga flows from Tibet. I mean, he doesn't have his geography right either. But anyway, the Chinese are becoming more vocal. And it even if he's not officially a Chinese representative, but nevertheless, the China
8:28 sends sends the messages wants to people like him. And he's all over. Whenever any discussion on RT in Russia or in Indian TV and now in Pakistan, this Victor Gao is there. >> He's like that guy from Iran, another professor, Mardani or something like that. He's the only chap He's that You know that only guy who's there [laughter] everywhere? This guy's there. >> Everywhere. So, to answer your question, how does it help them? I have answered it. But I think they are playing a diplomatic game and also drawing attention away from India's discourse. That >> [clears throat] >> Pakistan is terrorist done and uh and blunting
9:13 India's diplomacy on this account. Trying to isolate Pakistan, so they want to shift the narrative. And in this they certainly are being helped by the Americans. And one can assume that they are certainly being helped by the British because the British they have for India treaty. was pretty? >> I don't see the Americans, to be honest with you. They might might have the overarching help, yes, but the more hand that I see helping Pakistan in all this stuff is the British. It's the BBC, it's the Guardian, it's the Financial Times, it's the you know, that that that legacy British media which is which is basically focusing on on on these guys. And to me that somewhere down the line seems connected to the whole rape gang
9:59 issue which is there in UK. >> Well, you know, the British media, yes, it is influential. It can create narratives, it can influence public opinion to that extent. You are right. But the solid political support that Pakistan needs and gets now is from the United States of America. I mean, Britain can say whatever at the political level, it has very little meaning. Uh and in any case, there's a bit of a problem now in the UK because of the manner in which the Pakistani occupied Jammu and Kashmir people have been treated. So, there are there's a lot of agitation, political agitation amongst the Mirpuri community and everything else in in the UK. So,
10:45 there's a bit of a pressure on that account. But the main uh uh damage that has been done from our point of view um is from Mr. Trump and the United States of America. >> Of course. Of course. >> I mean, even if you JD Vance, what's the point and he goes to Islamabad and then he says, "I love Pakistan." What [clears throat] what's the point in saying that? And then he goes on to say that, you know, I have both Pakistan and India in my family. I have my wife who's Indian. And there's Pakistan and stuff like that. General Munir or whatever it is. I mean, where is the equivalence? So, but this, you know, this shapes narratives. These things may be said carelessly, thoughtlessly,
11:31 without giving attention to how it might be seen in India and how it will stay in the minds of analysts and this and that and it will bring this up even 2 3 4 years from now. But they don't care about this. They go ahead and say things casually which are which ought not to be said if you are if you're sensitive to the geopolitics of the region. >> The see the one of the biggest things that the Americans today I mean if you look at we were talking offline about Sergio Gore and everything like that. He looks like a guy who's trying to put a band-aid on a bullet wound at best. You know the whole praise of Modi and this and that well fair enough Modi is a
12:18 great guy. You know people praise him but people praise him because he's done real stuff. It's not empty praises that Modi gets swayed by. So the whole praise of Modi seems to be like a ploy. Somebody asked him how do how do I impress Modi? Oh praise him. He gets impressed. >> I can share with you from from my own experience when I was in service. >> Sir. >> The Americans believe that Indians are are are can be flattered. They are open to flattery as a diplomatic tool. So they use that consciously. When they think that this is the way to handle India so they're very liberal
13:05 when it comes to some of these things. So this is a diplomatic ploy and shouldn't be taken seriously. That's one. The other thing is very patronizing. Now can you imagine just take a situation where Modi says I love Trump? >> [laughter] >> I mean the Indian public opinion and our media and then intellectual we are aghast. Why is he saying this? What's the purpose? But Trump can say that and he gets away with it. It's very patronizing. It's actually looking down upon a person when you are saying something which you don't mean. And where your actual actions belie what you are saying. I mean, if you love Modi, then why are you slapping these 50% tariffs, which
13:51 they never removed themselves? >> Yeah. >> It's the Supreme Court that forced them to back off. And now uh the center or somebody else said the other day that we'll use all other means uh to come back to the old tariff regime. Beginning with section 301. So, they have now imposed 12.5% tariffs. But on what? On labor and stuff like that. They're going back to their old ways, pre-WTO ways. So, [snorts] I I don't this Sergio Gor saying that oh I met Trump but his office is just few 20 yards away. He was telling some journalists this or that and he asked me when am I going to India? And we will come to India this and that. But what does it mean? I mean
14:37 whatever he says or Trump says that I like to go to India, whatever it is, I love Modi or whatever. The point is it has to be matched by actions. Now, if there are some positive actions on the ground, real positive actions, then this kind of messaging by the American ambassador uh would not look totally disconnected with the reality. It would not be looked on purely as a PR game. I can understand his compulsion. He's the ambassador there. He realizes that the facts on the ground are pretty difficult. Uh so, how does he change the narrative? So, he changes the narrative through these kind of statements without saying anything concrete positive and addressing the real issues in war. I
15:23 mean, he's been here several months, 6 months or whatever, but the trade deal has still not been signed. After Prime Minister met the Modi, after Modi met the Trump at the G7 in Biarritz hm? Uh it had already been announced that Greer would be coming uh to India subsequently, which he did. And our commerce minister said openly that uh unless we get a comparative advantage vis-à-vis our competitors, uh we will not sign the deal. So, how has Sergio guard, despite his rhetoric and his best intentions, actually help move forward an issue which is stuck? Which is stuck. A- And and and uh and not merely that, i- i- during his watch,
16:09 the Indo from the Indo-Pacific has been excluded, and this was done the day before uh Trump was to meet uh Modi. Now, whether it's coincidental, whether there was lack of coordination on the American side, one can all one can speculate, but common sense demands that uh when you are having this very, very important meeting, even if you're taking an internal decision to change the name, just delay it. And uh don't do it in a way which sends the Indians a message that uh the Indo is no longer terribly relevant when we want to deal with the maritime security in the in the larger region.
16:55 Uh and not only that, uh they have they virtually don't mention quad. And they have virtually abandoned the Indo-Pacific uh concept. Now, what would I like to ask the American ambassador? Uh I mean, it's it's no good saying that, you know, uh there's been a name change, but the reality on the ground hasn't changed. But then, if the reality on the ground doesn't change, then why change the name? So, again I will say that as an ambassador he's playing his role, which is legitimate. He has to make the best out of the situation. And that's what he's doing. >> It's a pile of you know what and he's trying to make a cake out of it. >> No, you see the other thing is that uh he is also
17:40 playing domestic US politics in India. Yeah, and trying to cozy up to Trump and also to show to all of us how close he is to Trump and and of course flatter him. Now he's got the road named after him in Telangana, in Hyderabad. Uh which is which is a which is you know when you honor a foreign leader it is a significant foreign policy issue. Especially when it comes to the president of the United States. I don't think any any American president has ever got a name a road named after him. Uh and here when Trump is kicking us left and [snorts] right and our shins are bruised uh you know, he gets honored. A road being named after him without
18:25 consulting, I assume, the Ministry of External Affairs. Because foreign relations is the domain of the central government. But he Gore gains personal standing vis-a-vis Trump. Uh Trump has uh also known as to social and this fact that the road has been named and he is the only president who's been so honored. So, I mean PR games are all right, fine. I mean all ambassadors do that, it's legitimate. But a vital relationship like India and the United States has to be based on solid ground, not PR. >> Yeah. I think India's India's created that that I would say a global paradigm that
19:11 listen, you this this nonsense is not going to work. I think India was one of the first countries who stood up and said, "No, not going to work." And that to me is is quite interesting and that's one of the reasons why the ire of Trump is pretty harsh on India because I guess he sees us as as the instigators of this whole whole chaos that nobody's listening to him anymore. >> And you mean you mean the trade deal or what? >> Trade deal, sir. Because the Europeans backed off right after India said, "Get lost." Uh a lot of other countries who signed and if you look at the trade deals that he's actually signed is with Pakistan. I don't know. Countries like this, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and no significant country has actually signed. European signed it, they backed off right after the mother of all deals
19:56 so-called as per se uh got signed with India. So, is it that they look at India as one of the antagonists that is not letting Trump kind of maneuver around the world in certain aspects, not of course in his entire geopolitical state, uh but in certain areas. >> See, my understanding is that uh uh our trade deal or the uh negotiations of this interim trade deal that uh uh we were uh we are talking about was uh negotiated very intensively in the sense that the uh the details of the deal and the reciprocity elements and this and that
20:43 were worked out uh very very carefully. Uh and we had made significant uh concessions to uh the United States, which was recognized by the USTR. In fact, in his statement to the Congress he recognized that India has never made such offers to us ever before as they come now. And now that And now the deal is on, Trump's table. Now, what Trump wants wants is that if Greer or anybody everybody else understood that on certain agricultural issues we are not going to budge because they're extremely sensitive and they have very serious political repercussions. So, as professionals, they understand what the limits are. But, when they put it to Trump, he wants
21:30 a win. He He wants to humiliate you. He wants to say that uh I coerced the other side into agreeing what I want. You know, like he said on the Iranian thing, if you recall. He said on You know, they've said that they have they have agreed to They've agreed to the deal or something like that. He said, "No, no, no, 90% or something." He said, "No, no, it's not a question of 90% or 95%. It has to be 100%." This is his method of negotiation and his thinking that he must get 100% of what he wants from me. Yeah. And therefore, he's holding it up. That you you must buy our corn, you must buy our uh you know, agricultural uh products and uh uh whatever else that
22:16 uh uh you know, he wants to uh sell to us. You know, so there there it is. So, I don't think uh the US uh How should I put it? It is Trump and some of the people around him, like the center especially and Lighthizer. And others who are there only to flatter him. Mhm. Mhm. Uh we have sequels and and say all kinds of things uh to support Trump and appeal to his vanity. If you remember, I read it, I don't know if it's true or not, the the Sully rules. Uh
23:02 the chief White House Chief of Staff. She apparently seemed as told the cabinet members that please share with him the reality of the situation. A lot of them wanting him to hear what he wants to hear. So, there is a problem that that nobody in his entourage wants to actually uh counter him or uh uh tell him that what he's doing maybe is not the right thing to do. >> You know, the You know, that's that's a that's a well well well put this thing. So, he's misinformed and he of course kept in a constant state of chaos, which is which suits his personality, I think.
23:48 So, when [clears throat] you look at uh the global order, as we say, it's it's fragmented today. Right? The heft that the American carry Americans carried in terms of their word and in terms of their I don't know, physical being has is not really being recognized as a massive force to be reckoned with today. And that's something that all of us know that there's been a withdrawal. Now, when Trump or the US administration, if I may say Pacific instead of Indo-Pacific. What should India interpret out of it? >> Well, you know, the obvious conclusion that one draws from it
24:34 is that there's a change of strategic thinking. >> And pardon me if I if I may interrupt you with this as well. Could you please also add the Israeli angle where the Israelis are also now kind of saying enough? So, >> Okay. Uh there seem to be a change of strategic thinking because of during Trump's first term uh when he He people around him who were very anti-Chinese. Um and considered China as a major major threat to US supremacy. And therefore uh US had to do everything possible to contain China in some ways. He's the one who changed the name of the US Pacific Command into the Indo-Pacific Command. That means linking the security
25:21 of the Indian Ocean to that of the Pacific Ocean. Now by the moving uh Indo from the Indo-Pacific Command and naming it only as the Pacific Command he is uh he's conveying a strategic message that uh now we're going to focus on the Pacific uh rather than rather than uh pay the kind of attention we were earlier paying uh to the linkages of security between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. Now it is true that uh in some ways uh the Indian Ocean doesn't present the same
26:07 uh security scenario for the Americans that the Pacific does. Uh because they have bases there their military commitments there. Um Taiwan is a very uh big issue. Uh So there is a there is a danger of a of an actual military clash if things go out of hand. So in the Indian Ocean it is a kind of a longer-term strategy where you anticipate at some future date the Chinese will begin to uh increase their presence in the Indian Ocean. And therefore devise certain uh deterrent strategies and monitoring strategies to counter that challenge. But it's a
26:52 it's a it's a longer-term challenge. So, one can uh read it that way, and why I'm saying this also is that if you look at Peter Hexter, the US Defense Secretary's speech the Shangri-La Dialogue where he mentioned Southeast Asian countries uh Philippines, this, that, Southeast Japan, Korea, everything else, and India was mentioned the last very, very briefly. And I think uh either the quarter not mentioned at all or just mentioned once, whatever. So, it's quite clear, therefore, that this is a revision of thinking and uh and uh strategy. Now, uh what you had asked earlier about uh
27:40 America losing its uh its heft and everything else. And now the awkward thing for America is that uh Okay, they have the They have these military commitments in in the in the Western Pacific. Uh but they had military commitments uh also in the Gulf. They have bases in the Gulf. In fact, they have possibly an equal number or more number of bases in in West Asia than in the than in the proper Western Pacific. Uh and in And what has happened They don't have China as an adversary in West Asia. They had Iran sanctioned for
28:26 years. Huh? Deprived of oil revenues, under pressure. Huh? They had Iran as an adversary. And at the end of the what happened? They couldn't protect their bases at all. And they have been subject to a political military defeat. So, I think one was to look at this very carefully. And not only that, it is that the American weaponry doesn't seem to have worked effectively. Now, because of the new method of warfare and everything else Iran with his drone drone capabilities and everything else could handle the American
29:14 American threat. And the Americans ran out of missiles and this and that and that one year. So, this also goes to show that the entire structure of American military and how it visualized fighting wars and and using their military strength to achieve their goals. That entire strategy has to be reworked. And there is China is not Iran. So, so far as Israel is concerned, uh first two three things. One of course this misadventure vis-a-vis Iran has cost a great deal the relationship between the United States and and
30:00 Israel. Uh Trump has been pretty public about Netanyahu. Quite quite humiliating and insulting. And Netanyahu is now saying that we are we are we are our per capita income is $67,000. We are not a poor country. We can rely on ourselves. We don't need America. We can look after our own security and this and that. They they they they suffer severe damage from Iran. Although they also attacked Iran and attacked a lot of their sites and killed their leadership, but they suffered a lot. And they will still suffer a lot. Their Iron know that didn't work as effectively. So, I and generally speaking, uh
30:50 I think generally speaking, Israel now has lost global sympathy. All this while, whatever they did in uh in Gaza and everything else, and the total destruction of Gaza, raising the buildings, depriving them of humanitarian aid, uh this has caused a lot of reaction in the West, in the United States included. And earlier, uh you know, people didn't want to criticize Israel because they were concerned that this may be taken as anti-Semitism. But now, the criticism is the criticism is quite open. So, Israel has lost a lot of sympathy standing, and its uh military dominance
31:36 uh is now also open to question, and its relationship with America uh has got uh disturbed to the point that this lady, uh the big supporter of Trump, I'm forgetting her name, who was there when Trump visited uh Israel and was speaking at the Knesset, and he told her that, "Are you American or are you Israeli?" and this and that. She has now written an open letter to Trump castigating him very severely that you are a total disappointment, etc., etc. >> [laughter] >> So, so the big Jewish financiers, uh I know I'm speculating here. I don't know what their role would be in
32:22 the midterm election because all these fellows, they depend on a lot of money that comes from the American Jewish sources. So whether whether this uh compromises even more the chances of re-election uh the Republicans or getting winning the house again etc. etc. has become I think more questionable. >> Mhm. I mean I I don't know who's there in the in the Democrats is that long-haired what's his name? The the the governor of California. Uh >> Newsom. >> Gavin Newsom. I don't know how much America will actually go for him. I think he's over but I don't know when
33:07 the whole J.D. Vance versus Marco Rubio thing is actually being played out between South America and Iran. J.D. Vance has been made to look like a fool. And Marco Rubio is coming out to be this professional regime changer who can just do stuff without creating much of chaos. And now if you look at it J.D. Vance was put on the back burner. Marco came across, did the deal, and then J.D. Vance was brought again back in the front. And again that thing got screwed up. So I guess somebody's somebody's planning for a fall. You know J.D. Vance needs to be brought brought down for some reason. Whatever. I mean that's their politics. That's just my opinion at the moment. Uh lots and lots of uh hints towards that particular front but let's see. So you you [clears throat] mentioned one
33:53 thing very clearly that uh they are trying to kind of mend themselves back to India by doing these frivolous things which basically don't mean much. Right? So that's one aspect of it that we can actually take out. When you look at the again the geopolitical game the next target after Iran is going to be switching towards the east. And we can see tremblings of something happening towards the east already. Uh Thailand Cambodia is one of the flash points. Uh there are supposedly some deployments which are going to happen in the east now in the future. They are already starting to talk about it and stuff. Pacific, as you said, is is a challenge for the Americans.
34:39 How do you think the world is now going to look at you know, actually let's just look at the Indo-Pacific as per se. The Quad. Now, the Americans said no Quad 1 and 1/2 years. Now they say, "Oh, no, no, we want to do another Quad Quad in 2 months." So, three two Quad meetings in 3 months. And first 1 and 1/2 years no no Quad. So, this is a very confused sort of a policy jumping from one place to the other where the rest of the world seems to be very caravaning kind of taking it their own bit. >> Well, >> It is yeah. >> As Quad is concerned, I think from the American point of view, um and makes sense to that uh let's keep it afloat. You know, you pump in some air into the
35:26 into the collapsing balloon so that at least it has some shape. So, they So, they organized this Quad Foreign Ministers meeting uh for which Marco Rubio came. Uh firstly, it didn't produce anything very much in terms of results. And secondly, although I don't know we don't make much song and dance about it. Uh I don't think his decision to visit the Missionaries of Charity in Calcutta before he had the uh Quad meeting was necessarily it was a diplomatic move. Uh in the India in in the India-US context. Mhm. The evangelicals there, the Christians there, the FCRA business,
36:13 uh you know, which they which uh which they were agitated. Um and uh and and the Hindu baiting that is being done by Christian evangelists Maga racist types. Uh so I don't think in that context it was a very wise move because it was sending a certain message to India. Anyway. Uh now after the name of the Indo-Pacific has been changed and the narrative is building up that US is no longer as committed to the Quad because the Chinese always been against it. Uh and that this is one more gesture towards China.
36:59 If you recall when he met he met Xi Trump met Xi in Beijing. Uh he he mentioned the G2. And he mentioned G2 in his meeting with Prime Minister Modi at Davos. Uh so for him he's trying to signal to the Chinese that we are not trying to needlessly contain you or open others to >> That's the worst thing. Then they're saying it they're not doing it that means they're doing it. >> We are we need to have some kind of arrangement with you where as where we compete with you we can be adversary [clears throat] on the on the in certain critical areas but we should have an understanding that we will not enter into military conflict
37:44 and please don't test us on Taiwan because you will force our hand and we don't want our hands to be forced. And therefore the mill-to-mill dialogue is very essential and Americans have been pressing this for a very long time. And the reason is this that there is an inbuilt um situation in this area which can lead to military conflict and therefore in order to prevent that let the two militaries talk each other to each other and have been constant touch so that the matter remains contained. Uh so to that extent they're sacrificing uh, this Quad business and all that. The other is that you know, they haven't treated the Japanese very well either. And the old Quad idea emanated from the
38:31 Japanese. The Japanese from the Prime Minister Kishi's visit as I see, they are they are interested in keeping the Quad alive. And therefore they will have another meeting. uh, of Quad but but the point is that uh, what will that what will be really the message that Quad will send? If fundamentally uh, the Americans have changed their uh, thinking and view uh, with regard to the utility of the Quad. Uh so uh, that is that is one aspect. The other is that uh,
39:19 how much will we now uh, be enthusiastic about the Quad? I mean, we have to be pragmatic and realistic and we can't sort of work on the basis that Quad is absolutely essential to as a deterrent to China and that we can the four countries can cooperate cooperate with each other uh, you know, concretely. Can we really believe that anymore? So, if you can't believe that anymore, then then should also be now get into a mode of lip service that we give to Quad. >> Exactly. >> But understand fully that this is not this is not the same uh, Quad uh, concept that
40:05 existed uh, earlier and now there's a very serious a change in American thinking about No, let me put it in in another context. America Trump has no value, America has no value, American administration even for NATO. With the Russian challenge. Uh, that Europe feels. So, if he can actually Trump can be dismissive of NATO. Which is really it's very powerful transatlantic alliance which has worked together and which is has been the center point of
40:50 security in Europe. Now, if he can really walk away from there more or less, what is the value of the quad? Which is not even an alliance in Trump's eyes. And then if he's reaching out to Russia, and that's the reason he's also partly dismissive of NATO. So, when he reaches out to China then obviously he's also >> [laughter] >> dismissive of quad. I mean, you see the parallel. And I think we should internalize this and devise a strategy where we go along. >> Lip service is the best at the moment, yes. >> Yeah, and we should go along and if there is a meeting, why not? And then at [clears throat] least it brings us
41:36 Japan and Australia and us together. Uh, you know, and we want to strengthen ties with both countries. >> Last you said uh when [clears throat] you see the situation of the subcontinent itself. Uh, there's a battle happening in Bangladesh, there's a battle happening in Pakistan. Pakistan's was given a reality check by former ambassador of Singapore. >> Yes. >> That was amazing. >> I saw that. >> That is the reality actually. This is like, you know, it's it's like a piddle bubble which it blows up. It seems like, oh, I'm a balloon, I can fly. and it's just burst and that's what reality of Pakistan is. Now that the Iran thing is kind of coming towards some sort of a closure, uh Americans have their own direct
42:22 contact with the uh with the Iranians today. Um what what less what leaves of their indulgence if I may in Pakistan and Bangladesh? >> Well, I think Pakistan will always be useful to the Americans, always. Right from the time we gained independence, the United States has backed Pakistan. And I know from inside when I was in off- still in office, how much central it is to US thinking that they should be strategic stability in the subcontinent, which means that Pakistan should not be weakened beyond a point, because then it's it serves no useful purpose.
43:09 And it is now the check on India. Number one. Number two, they are they they see that Pakistan is a nuclear weapon state. They see the uh weakness of uh the Pakistan state structure. Uh and Pakistan is internally adrift and economically economically is not doing well, but it's a nuclear weapon state and the only Islamic country that's a nuclear weapon state. So, they don't want to ignore it. Uh they want to keep the channel uh of uh communication alive and retain some influence. Uh number three, uh the United States has never questioned
43:54 uh Pakistan relationship with China. Even when Pakistan is on IMF dole, the United States has the means to tell Pakistan, for heaven's sake, stop buying all these submarines and all these you know, Russians F versions of F-35, J-35 from China, this and that. It costs money. Where is that money coming from? They tell us, they have been telling us reduce your dependence on Russia. But, they never tell Pakistan reduce your dependence on China. In fact, my concern is that since they themselves have been hesitant to give arms to Pakistan because of the repercussions on the relation with
44:40 India. So, they're quite okay if China supplies Pakistan arms and keeps Pakistan strong. So therefore um and then added to that of course is the new role they want Pakistan to play in West Asia. And now that the Gulf countries uh are beginning to question the value of uh US security ties. Uh so, they want to beef them or to not substitute them but to supplement them uh with uh something more Islamic. And here where Pakistan steps in. So, unfortunately for us uh Pakistan's value in the eyes of America
45:26 uh and uh uh is not going to uh diminish uh beyond a point for the reasons that I have reduced. Um and therefore uh uh we have to live with this live with this reality. >> Interesting. Thank you, sir, for always a pleasure to talk to you and uh learn from you. Thank you so much for the time and of course uh the analysis. It's It's going to be very interesting times going forward. I think geopolitics has been um clashing with the FIFA FIFA World Cup. >> [laughter] >> Well, in the FIFA World Cup, the G7 is is doing pretty badly, you know. >> Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Geopolitics is
46:12 clashing with it and it's uh I think Trump has to raise either bomb someone or create something for the attention to go back onto him. Otherwise, he's going to lose attention from the World Cup and uh you know, probably not be in the media as much. Thank you so much and sorry for that last pun, but uh the audience uh my request to everybody is please like, subscribe, and of course, comment your thoughts and your your questions or your thoughts that I can I could ask so the next time we get him on the platform. Always a pleasure to have sir on the on Def Talks. >> My pleasure. Thank you.
