Diplomacy Special Report: Can MAGA make Pakistan Great Again?

Summary

Highlights

• The discussion kicked off by exploring whether MAGA could contribute to Pakistan's development, pondering its global integration with such principles. 🤔
• Experts highlighted Pakistan's vast mineral resources as a crucial asset for improving bilateral relations with the US. 💼
• The core of MAGA diplomacy was discussed, emphasizing direct benefits to the US as paramount in foreign policy. 🇺🇸
• Questions emerged about Pakistan's political stability and the role of its military in shaping its domestic and international policies. 🛡️
• The panel addressed the importance of shifting diplomatic pitches towards tangible assets like minerals and technology. 📈

Key Takeaways

• Pakistan's potential transformation through MAGA principles sparks debate on diplomatic and strategic fronts. 🇵🇰
• Experts underline the significance of Pakistan's rich mineral resources in fostering stronger US relations. 💎
• MAGA diplomacy emphasizes transactional relationships over strategic partnerships, impacting global diplomatic tactics. 🌐
• Concerns about Pakistan's internal politics intertwine with its global strategic roles, notably in counterterrorism and regional stability. 🔍
• Complications in US-Pakistan relations highlight the need for clear, mutual interests amid diverse domestic and international pressures. 🔄

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The introduction seems to involve a segment related to Pakistan, with some portions presumably being musical interludes or soundtracks.
• 00:30 - 01:00: Stakeholder Discussion This chapter titled 'Stakeholder Discussion' provides a review of stakeholder interactions and communications. It may delve into the roles and influences of various stakeholders within a specific context, reflecting on how dialogues with stakeholders are managed and what impacts these conversations have on decision-making and organizational strategies. The repetitive mention of 'stakeholders' hints at the emphasis on their importance in the discourse. However, the transcript lacks detail, necessitating a more comprehensive input to generate an in-depth summary.
• 01:00 - 02:30: Democracy and Investments in Pakistan The chapter explores the relationship between democracy and investments in Pakistan, focusing on how sponsors influence democratic processes.
• 02:30 - 06:00: Discussion on Foreign Policy and Diplomacy with Ambassadors The chapter titled 'Discussion on Foreign Policy and Diplomacy with Ambassadors' focuses on the intricacies of how nations interact with one another through formal communication and negotiation processes. It delves into the roles ambassadors play in shaping foreign relations and strategies. The chapter likely examines case studies and provides insights into how diplomatic discussions are structured, highlighting key principles of effective diplomacy. However, the transcript 'table basically for bank account investments' doesn't seem to match the title and might be out of context or incorrectly transcribed.
• 06:00 - 08:00: MAGA Diplomacy Explained The chapter 'MAGA Diplomacy Explained' seems to be focused on discussing diplomacy in the context of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) philosophy or movement. However, the actual transcript provided is extremely limited, containing only the words 'literally anyways Minerals,' which are insufficient for a meaningful summary. The chapter likely contains more detailed discourse on diplomacy and its relationship with the MAGA mindset, examining how this approach impacts international relations and policy-making.
• 08:00 - 13:00: Panel Discussion with Ambassadors The chapter titled 'Panel Discussion with Ambassadors' suggests a focus on a dialogue involving diplomats, potentially on topics such as international relations, trade, or global politics. The mention of 'specifically minerals' indicates that the discussion touches on the mining sector or mineral trade. Unfortunately, without further details from the transcript, the complete scope and insights from this panel discussion remain limited.

Diplomacy Special Report: Can MAGA make Pakistan Great Again? Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 pakistan getprupal [Music] [Music]
• 00:30 - 01:00 stakeholders obviously stakeholders
• 01:00 - 01:30 sponsors maneuver democracy
• 01:30 - 02:00 table basically for bank account investments
• 02:00 - 02:30 literally anyways Minerals
• 02:30 - 03:00 specifically minerals minerals [Music]
• 03:00 - 03:30 Chineseure Believe very important
• 03:30 - 04:00 unpopular or illegitimate position pakistan
• 04:00 - 04:30 democracy lawyers activists doctors advocates Congress brief [Music] First Pakistan Global Community Alliance for Just
• 04:30 - 05:00 society advocacy groups just foreign policy strategy democracy
• 05:00 - 05:30 democracy us Congress Definitely threaten Bergmani or Jackson
• 05:30 - 06:00 topic
• 06:00 - 06:30 pda diplomat level Yale University [Music] town hall governance or diplomacy ambassador Ali
• 06:30 - 07:00 ambassador he was the the brains behind that visit i graduate IV future of Pakistan conference town hall speaker
• 07:00 - 07:30 dictatorship dictatorship rental ambassador drone
• 07:30 - 08:00 Mikey think
• 08:00 - 08:30 [Music] Pakistan foreign policy manipulate statement
• 08:30 - 09:00 imran Highest
• 09:00 - 09:30 minerals there's a lot going on in Pakistan by the
• 09:30 - 10:00 [Music] way for a corporate Ultimately all doors lead to understanding the question right now
• 10:00 - 10:30 of Pakistani stakes [Music] back [Music]
• 10:30 - 11:00 Washington students experts town hall future of conference best and brightest and
• 11:00 - 11:30 brightest supply chain respectable universities
• 11:30 - 12:00 share like subscribe comment university talk to you soon pakistan [Music] zindabad heat heat [Music]
• 12:00 - 12:30 n heat [Music] heat heat heat [Music] n heat heat [Music]
• 12:30 - 13:00 [Music] [Music] [Music]
• 13:00 - 13:30 [Applause] [Music] so the format of the town hall will be ambassador will provide an opening a closing keynote and then it will be moderated by Oj Khan and then afterwards we'll invite Ambassador Anne Patterson and Michael Cugleman uh to engage in a
• 13:30 - 14:00 moderated discussion we'll have a Q&A session as well and afterwards um I guess the floor is open we'll conclude with a closing keynote thank you thank you Alina thank you Alina Gold the president of Thank you all right so let's uh let's uh let's do this alphabetically so is is Brown in the house is Brown in the house yes you are okay is uh is Cornell in the house
• 14:00 - 14:30 okay total representation for you ambassador okay i'm sorry i messed up my alphabus that's why I didn't do undergrad here is is Colombia in the house oh finally thank God thank God okay uh what about Harvard well done good job wrong school right people though okay what about Doctor though i mean are they still an IV oh the one the one the one but thank you thank
• 14:30 - 15:00 you representing that was on purpose i can count my ABCDs um you Okay and finally Yale [Applause] okay so I'm sorry what forgot about oh oh you guys you guys the Tigers i'm sorry you have a school somewhere in Jersey is that even in the Is that even a state new York is speaking princeton my friends from Princeton
• 15:00 - 15:30 okay so uh this was a uh not just uh an elite IV congregation the idea was of course to get the impetus from these different schools these fantastic schools the best schools in the world but we're joined by people from all sorts of schools all sorts of institutions uh across the country i know people have flown in from as far as LA and Seattle i know our panelists have uh have come in from as far as Texas and
• 15:30 - 16:00 uh the Upper West Side um and I know for a fact that the ambassador has specifically made this trip to Than with his uh usual visits to America um this is what we're going to do u we're going to close this baby down um governance and diplomacy is a is a tough question these are tough times uh so we're going to be firstly very respectful about what we're about to debate pakistan is a is a
• 16:00 - 16:30 charged country uh but uh we're not only going to be talking about Pakistan today uh the ambassador has his own thoughts his own worldview we're going to start very big very broad about where he thinks the world is going and what's Pakistan's place in it we're going to start percolating that down through the induction of my friends Anne Patterson and Mike Kougman just in ways of introduction I've known Ali Siki since I was about 10 years old um he used to
• 16:30 - 17:00 kick my ass as a senior and more fit athlete in school um and continues to do so to a certain extent today but I have gotten to know Ambassador Anne Patterson through the years of covering her fantastic tenure at some of the most during some of the most tenuous moments in Pakistan's recent political history uh she was there when Pakistan was going through a a critical phase a critical transition from a a military dictatorship to democracy and then of course through the years who better than
• 17:00 - 17:30 Mike who does a weekly show with me on my channel Mahaz which he completely takes over his utu is better than mine when he gets going but not on the streets of Washington is a better think tanker better analyst with a more nuanced worldview than Mike Googleman when it comes to watching South Asia i'm very very proud about having these three wonderful people uh from friendships uh to being colleagues i respect them greatly and I hope you do too now uh the
• 17:30 - 18:00 town hall format is very simple the ambassador is going to open things up uh he and I are going to have a quick followup i'm going to try to challenge him about the things he said because he doesn't get a free right because he's clearly the wrong school he's by the way corn so so that's so yeah so we're going to give him a little Yale push back because that's what we do around here and then we're going to open up the debate and and Mike will join us uh and we'll start
• 18:00 - 18:30 opening it up for you you're going to ask them questions i'm going to try to translate those questions in case you are not as articulate as I am and then we will wrap this up after that we are going to party all night there's there's a there's a students dinner as well as a panelist dinner feel free to crash either one okay Ambassador the floor is yours ambassador Ali thank you is my voice clear
• 18:30 - 19:00 okay so I noted that there are lots of people here from Cornell could we have a go Big Red [Applause] for For those of you who did not go to Cornell and ended up at another Ivy League school no one's perfect there's still grad school so just think about that but um it's a pleasure to be here Vijay and the team from Yale and I'm delighted that you know you've organized this wonderful conference i have uh 10 or 15 minutes to run you through the big picture as Vijah
• 19:00 - 19:30 had said uh so I'm going to run you through a journey of what diplomacy is today and what it will look like in the next few years and our journey starts here in the US in 2016 president Trump is running for office and he takes two old ideas and reimagines them the first one uh you're familiar with both the first one is America first uh this was popularized earlier a long time prior by
• 19:30 - 20:00 President Woodro Wilson but it's an even older idea and President Trump reinterpreted this in its best form because this idea has been through some difficult reinterpretations in the past but in its best form to say that every policy must benefit the United States and the people of the United States the second idea is again an old idea that he took which was I think President Reagan used it but again it's an older idea uh which was to make America great
• 20:00 - 20:30 and because it was a campaign run it wouldn't be fine to say make America great because that that that sounds like it was not great previously so the again was added so we had MAGA and those two ideas in the first Trump administration as far as foreign policy is related went on to mean a few different things one the US became more inward-looking two the administration shied away from multilateralism
• 20:30 - 21:00 and then three and to me perhaps most importantly the administration became non-interventionist which you know in my lifetime I really had not seen uh I had always imagined the US going to other countries using force where US objectives were threatened but but that administration that idea of America first and MAGA led to the US thinking hey we should not be spending our money
• 21:00 - 21:30 overseas we should be using it for either tax cuts or paying down our bills etc etc uh and that led to a few different things uh uh President Trump tried to uh have some reconciliation with North Korea uh he tried in Afghanistan to end the war which that was successful so in in those four years a lot of steps were taken to follow this ideal uh the ideal was not about ending wars per se the ideal was that actions of the government from a
• 21:30 - 22:00 foreign policy perspective should benefit the US and now we are in 2025 president Trump is back maga is back and all the steps one sees whether it's tariffs or it's um Europe picking up its defense costs that actually also is the legacy of the first Trump administration where the administration said well if our policy is America first
• 22:00 - 22:30 or later MAGA then should the US provide a subsidy to Europe for its collective defense because the Europeans in one sense in a fiscal sense were receiving a subsidy theense costs were higher because the presumption was this is a shared cost and America has more means and America has more gains but the moment MAGA meant that the US looks at itself in isolation that thesis did not hold true so Europe was forced in the
• 22:30 - 23:00 first Trump administration to commit to spending more in defense and relying less on the US taxpayer well now we are in the second Trump presidency and we see the effects of MAGA again and I would argue that today from this point going forward MAGA is diplomacy every country in the world today has to try and achieve their foreign policy
• 23:00 - 23:30 goals not on the basis of the idea that this is there's a mutual benefit here but instead on the basis that can they provide to the United States while achieve while trying to achieve their own goals can they provide to the United States three things who knows what the three core fundamentals of MAGA are safety i'm drawing a blank can't believe
• 23:30 - 24:00 this uh it's uh safety i think the word is security but I may be uh drawing a blank there and then prosperity for the US and uh if you were to read uh Secretary Rubio's statement I think it was uh Jan 22nd of this year of 2025 from the State Department it's on the website you will see that the foreign policy of the US effectively now becomes driven by those tenants of MAGA and that's the struggle we see in
• 24:00 - 24:30 the rest of the world so we'll pause on the US for a moment and we'll come back to it when you have questions let's go to Europe uh Europe is seeing two uh big distortions things that has not experienced before one is the US policy of NAGA becoming diplomacy and to the rise of the far right and many farright parties in Europe emulate some elements of uh President Trump's ethos and that is threatening the European order the
• 24:30 - 25:00 European Union anyway is fragile and we've seen Brexit there are lots of uh lots of lots of issues on which European countries don't agree hungary siding with Russia for example so it already is a weak union and then they have these two forces germany is arming up post uh the Russian invasion of Ukraine and uh so are other countries and I think there was a tweet that went viral by a German citizen who said I'm
• 25:00 - 25:30 paraphrasing the citizen said so we are being asked as Germans to arm up march through Poland to fight the Russians is the world sure about this and really Germany is going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars buying weapons and building rebuilding its armed forces uh the far right rising means there'll be pressure on immigration germany is also a country that has a massively aging population
• 25:30 - 26:00 and immigration is essential for Germany because they need people to run their factories to provide healthcare to run their nursing homes uh to to be teachers and and all these pressures on each of these countries sometimes pushing them away from each other I think you know put the European Union in a very difficult position so so that's going on in Europe um and there are some other pressures again I can come to that in the Q&A and then once we go to Asia I think that is still the one place where the traditional thinking of diplomacy of
• 26:00 - 26:30 long-term polial relationships of mutual benefits still stand strong but again from a defense perspective again in Asia what's happening is um that South Korea and Japan feel that the US may not be there for them and they are arming up japan of course has some constitutional limitations on what it can do and for the first time since the second world war they are speaking about hey do we need to change this which is a
• 26:30 - 27:00 remarkable idea to change their constitution to arm up independent of the US but I think both for South Korea and for Japan I think the traditional forms of diplomacy again based on mutual cooperation economic diplomacy investment led that diplomacy those things still hold true let's talk about what this means for Pakistan for the US as far as the US is concerned can Pakistan make the US
• 27:00 - 27:30 safer and if we think about it and if you saw the state of the union President Trump thanked Pakistan for the arrest and extradition of Muhammad Sharifah who was accused of masterminding a bombing in Afghanistan during the US patrol where 13 US servicemen and countless other u people of guns lost their lives and that was the result of uh intelligence cooperation between Pakistan and the U within the US and
• 27:30 - 28:00 Pakistan and Pakistan's arrest of this individual and Pakistan certainly can work towards making America safer i'm sorry the world was safer stronger and more prosperous and can we make America stronger well Pakistan has enormous amounts of mineral wealth and as you may have read we are working actively to uh give the US access to a significant part of that wealth to make America stronger and more prosperous and I and every
• 28:00 - 28:30 country in the world as I said needs to think in exactly those terms achieve your own foreign policy objectives while making America safer stronger and more prosperous in Europe I'm not clear because Europe is not clear about where it stands with its goals because all of this is new so we'll see European policy forming over the next months uh or during this year and then countries can figure out how they can respond and in Asia I would say that Pakistan has a
• 28:30 - 29:00 close relationship with China that we are all well aware of but there are opportunities to grow the relationships with Japan and South Korea where we have plenty of investment and continuous investment from those countries but to bring them in to deeper partnerships so so that I hope sets the stage for the panel but before I conclude I'm on a college campus i think no discussion on a college campus is complete without speaking about diversity and when I was invited to speak here I
• 29:00 - 29:30 spoke with Vijad and I said "Vijhat listen it's great that you guys are creating this conference you know eight elite Ivy League universities coming together to host this conference but doesn't seem very diverse and um I have good news for everyone vhat assured me that he recognizes the problem the Yale team recognizes the problem and next year they will be inviting MIT and Stanford to attend so so with that back to you this guy thank you thank you
• 29:30 - 30:00 [Applause] okay so we have a hard out at seven so we're going to be super super efficient okay so I'm going to push back one hard question and then we're going to take it forward to a Patterson Mikeman and then the rest of us ambassador that was all very good uh I like the big picture approach starting with MAGA uh down to Europe uh and then to the rest of Asia and what Pakistan can do but I'm curious and I
• 30:00 - 30:30 think I speak for so many in this room um is the current Pakistani regime legitimately capable of representing the world's fifth largest country to work with this country bilaterally do you think that considering the state of human rights in
• 30:30 - 31:00 that country our country your country their country for the most part do you think that the people running that country are a capable and b legitimately representative of the aims and aspirations of the world's fifth largest population 200 plus nuclear weapons two and a half insurgencies the longest running in South Asia the worst
• 31:00 - 31:30 human rights crackdown against journalists uh freeth thinkers i would even say middle class professionals considering the tax bracket do you think that the people running that country and I'm not going to take names we know who they are do you think that they can do the job do you you you just said they should be doing the options at their disposal thank you Ambassador sure is it working yeah so I think I was uh I was speaking
• 31:30 - 32:00 in Islamabad at a think tank on USPakistan relations and the questions around that were you know big picture and strategy and you know what what are the big moves Pakistan and its government needs to need to make in order to uh respond to what the US wants and my response to that was let's not make big moves it's actually quite hard to be predictive of large moves but there are a large number of small issues some are
• 32:00 - 32:30 irritants um I remember when I was uh when I was serving in Washington in 2018 there was an issue of illegal migrants from many countries who had committed a crime a violent crime but had not been taken back to their home countries which is a requirement of agreements between countries and that was an irritant and sometimes it's and we dealt with the issue successfully but sometimes um removing irritants is the single most important thing so I would argue first
• 32:30 - 33:00 of all that we don't have to solve the really big issues we have to solve a series of small issues and in fact if you look at the history of Pakistan US relations not today not this government but through decades the only large macro moves have been things like cooperating in Afghanistan against the Soviets or cooperating on the war on terror which was a you know long period of time 20 years um etc etc the the rest of it has been small changes because in the end we
• 33:00 - 33:30 are a major non-NATO ally we have a lot of cooperation on a number of fronts the US is now a second largest investor after China but for you know decades was the largest investor in the country we we've received enormous amounts of aid and support from the US so in general the relationship actually is fine so I would say if you look at the history of governments in Pakistan all governments going back to five seven eight governments they've all been able to successfully solve the small issues we don't see an issue with you
• 33:30 - 34:00 know major changes we accept as Pakistan that India is a much larger partner for the US we accept that position uh our position as we we all know is is that Pakistan should not be viewed in that light but we accept that India has an economy much larger and that that there's no competitive pressure so I would say the job is not hard uh it was just it was just an understanding that Pakistan had to achieve of what the US wants out of it
• 34:00 - 34:30 now that is a diplomatic answer to a very difficult question um it is not a non-answer you will have your chance to to to push back but now let me welcome Ambassador Anne Paris and Mike Googleman to the fridge it's an enormous pleasure to be here i want to congratulate the organizers of this conference and I want to thank Yale where I was a fellow for a couple years
• 34:30 - 35:00 so you all are really the ambassadors of the improved relationship between Pakistan and the United States so let me start with that uh so I I think uh ambassador Sadiki got it exactly right and I think a lot of people in this audience don't want to hear this but I want to talk about more as he did from the US standpoint and I want to get to specific of what I see as the issues upcoming because I think they are they are going to be difficult to manage in
• 35:00 - 35:30 many respects particularly for those of you in this room who are dual nationals the first is migration uh there's a leaked uh list which you probably saw on the front page of the New York Times which would put Pakistani citizens on the so-called orange list and it would hook up Pakistan with such countries as Haiti Bellarus South Sudan basically fail states and dramatically I think if it if it is put into effect uh reduce
• 35:30 - 36:00 migration to Pakistan in all its forms that's an issue that will have farreaching effects and dramatically reduce US investment in Pakistan as well it'll affect everybody in this room and I think it's something diaspora people should mobilize on the second issue goes to what Ally said about safety and that's an issue I don't think we've discussed today but it was a huge issue in the Biden administration and I think it can appear again under the Trump administration and that's Pakistan's
• 36:00 - 36:30 modernization of ballistic missiles and the Biden administration made much of an attempt of the ability of Pakistan to attack the United States or Israel every Pakistani I've talked to says is astonished at that statement that Pakistan would attack the US but the real strategic issue for the US is China's second strike capability based in Pakistan and that I predict will become an issue at some point as our uh
• 36:30 - 37:00 interests in the Pacific become more pronounced cooperation on counterterrorism uh there's that's sort of risen in the US it's certainly not at levels of 911 uh but but the attack crossber attacks in Pakistan the ISIS K people entering through Mexico that's brought that back and then of course there are lots of areas of promise but I think alli mentioned at least one the critical minerals I've already talked to a few people today I know that's very controversial within this audience but I
• 37:00 - 37:30 think it's something the Trump administration will be really interested in so I'll stop there with some specifics and turn it over to Michael uh well thank you it's it's an honor to be here with Ambassador Sadiki and Ambassador Patterson and my friend uh Wahad um so you know the good the bad and ugly um you know I think what's what's good is that there's no ugly right now quite frankly I mean there's no major crisis in USPakistan relations
• 37:30 - 38:00 right now if you look at all of the serious crises that have pervaded this relationship so many times in the past uh whether you're talking about uh you know Pakistan support for for terrorists that are targeting uh US forces in Afghanistan or whether you're talking about the CIA operative killing several people in Pakistan these are really serious crises that have played out in the past and there have been many others you don't have anything like that playing out now i mean I do think and this gets to something that Ambassador Patterson said folks in Washington continue to be
• 38:00 - 38:30 concerned about Pakistan's ballistic missiles program his longrange missiles program that we saw at the end of the the Biden administration with those multiple rounds of sanctions that the concern is there and I think that I'm quite confident that that concern remains with the current administration so that issue will sort of hover there it'll be there but it's not a full-blown crisis i would say it's not even uh much of a crisis at all at this point another thing that's good about the relationship right now is that Pakistan is I would argue doing a pretty good job of getting
• 38:30 - 39:00 Washington's attention and many people including myself thought that that would it would be very difficult for Islamabad to do that um but uh you know we've already discussed the CT issue who would have thought that if there was one country that President Trump would thank in his joint address to Congress it would be Pakistan i I don't think one might have expected that he was quite critical in his comments about other countries during that address including India um but he he complimented Pakistan which was quite striking you know we mentioned you know the critical minerals issue i mean I've heard for so many
• 39:00 - 39:30 years Pakistani officials playing up the minerals thing and it seems like the the the estimated worth of the minerals keeps going up every year uh it's now I think$8 trillion that's what I've heard 8 trillion to me that seems a bit high but um but this is not a new but this is an administration that we know is very serious about engaging on critical and mineral critical and emerging critical minerals and so I think the timing is good crypto is this going to be next
• 39:30 - 40:00 right a few weeks ago it was a few months ago Pakistan formed a uh a council a new crypto council the plan is to legalize crypto understanding that this administration is very interested in crypto issues so this is good um my view is that all three of those issues I mentioned counterterrorism critical minerals crypto I'm not optimistic that there's actually going to be much headway at all on any of those issues the critical minerals perhaps because there there clearly is that that um that determination from the part of the Trump administration to explore this and let's
• 40:00 - 40:30 be clear the fact that there was a senior US official at this um big critical minerals forum in Pakistan last week I think that says something about how much how seriously the administration takes this issue but you can get into this later if you like i think given security uh concerns in Pakistan I find it hard to believe that we actually could see forward movement um on that on that front um but again my main point here my main takeaway is that Islamabad is successfully getting this
• 40:30 - 41:00 administration's attention i think that's worth uh recognizing um but there's going to be challenges and this gets to the bad there's old bad and there's new bad in terms of the old bad you know these legacy geopolitical issues i mean we know that when it comes to the USPakistan relationship each country has very strong relations with the other's biggest rival right Pakistan and China the US and India both of those relationships have grown a little bit shaky uh in recent months particularly Pakistan China but not so much that you have to think that they could actually falter so that's going to that's going
• 41:00 - 41:30 to continue to be the case and also you know we know since US since the US forces left Afghanistan the US strategic approach to Pakistan has changed in a big way this is because Unfortunately in my view for many years uh when the US the US lens on Pakistan was always shaped through Afghanistan not always but often I think that's not a good thing but that's how it was and so it's very difficult for Washington to maintain that strategic focus on Pakistan in the post Afghanistan era in terms of the new bad you know I think we
• 41:30 - 42:00 know that some of the personalities in the new administration are uh are very sharp critics of Pakistan including the national security adviser um uh another thing I'd highlight is that some of the key areas that emerge as new anchors for cooperation in the Biden administration are not going to be issues this time around you know climate change uh clean energy things like that and you know at a moment when the relationship has really struggled to find a new identity in this post Afghanistan era that's
• 42:00 - 42:30 going to make things more more difficult um and of course you know the foreign aid cuts the end of US aid and all of that that is clearly going to impact this relationship i think for the worse in the sense that development cooperation and all was a big part of the relationship for quite some years speaking of uh new bad and old bad how about all bad um and I think now I must start representing some of my audiences as well there is and this is all for all three of you so we're going to rapidly assess this and then move on to general
• 42:30 - 43:00 questions there are two uh red storms rising one is uh the Pakistan Democracy Act which has uh been taking slow shape in this uh Congress it might go places it might not let's see but uh it is unprecedented because Pakistan's most powerful man
• 43:00 - 43:30 left Lieutenant General I'm sorry General Sayyad Aimun Sha uh has been particularly named in it that means for the first time in living memory if the PDA goes through the most powerful man in Pakistan will be sanctioned or part of the sanctions under the Magnitzky act etc by this country i want your opinion
• 43:30 - 44:00 on that that's one thing which is developing that's one wave which is developing at the congressional level i'd love to know what all three of you think of that the implications of that are you for it are you against it where do you stand the second is actually of more concern to me u ironically this is the perfect place to talk about it there are at least six Indian-American administration officials in this current
• 44:00 - 44:30 dispensation there are at least eight members of Congress of Indian American heritage nothing wrong with that but there is a lot of analysis uh on the street that that may affect the way the administration and the beltway starts thinking about Pakistan meanwhile of course President Trump surprising everyone a month ago by praising
• 44:30 - 45:00 Pakistan in the joint session of Congress was a pleasant surprise for Rol but it was very tactical short-term uh very small victory for the Pakistanis so those are two storms uh at two different levels which are operating one triggered by the diaspora the other triggered by well a demographic fact that not enough of us are in positions of power ambassador ambassador and then Mike please weigh in sure
• 45:00 - 45:30 um so so uh on the on the democracy act uh I think you said uh triggered by the diaspora uh that's certainly a piece of it but I think we should shy away from making presumptions as to who gains when Pakistan is hurt because it's not about one person visa sanctions are a pretty serious matter i I mentioned in my opening remarks that um Pakistan was one of the countries where we had uh im immigrants who had
• 45:30 - 46:00 committed violent crimes who were in prison and were completing their terms and had to be returned to their home country in this case Pakistan and again there were many countries in this position the consequence of not taking those people on time which was the case we were in at that time which we rectified was there would be visa sanctions this doesn't require an act this is the administration saying well you know you're not abiding by what uh you have committed
• 46:00 - 46:30 to and the visa sanctions would have begun with the immigration of our doctors to the United States those would have been followed by visa sanctions on F1 and J1 visas for students and then on H1Bs that affects everyone so opening up visa sanctions has a lot of risk of worms and once you look at that you have to think about really who gains because there's
• 46:30 - 47:00 there's lots of people that gain out of that not just Pakistan and I can't I leave it there for now um your second question was about people in the administration of Indian origin or Indian heritage and why we are not represented and how it could change the way we are being looked at right now it's already beginning to change the way we are being looked at i uh I don't really agree with the fact with the position that because someone's of Indian heritage they would have a bias i
• 47:00 - 47:30 see them as American officials they've sworn an oath to this country it's a responsibility of duty so I don't I don't think there's a bias because of that reason i think the bigger bigger issue is we are not represented that's a choice we make every day and I'm not one of those people i'm not a US citizen but that's a choice Pakistani Americans make every day whether they want to pursue political science or careers in government or you know run for office
• 47:30 - 48:00 and they've there's been some real change in the last 10 years right uh there have been mayors uh in lots of towns that are now of Pakistani origin there are people in state senate in in a few places that are of Pakistani origin so there are certainly moves in that direction but I think we have to really make that an important priority for Pakistani Americans and that priority doesn't benefit us as Pakistanis from Pakistan it's for US citizens Pakistanis of US citizens of Pakistani heritage to
• 48:00 - 48:30 represent themselves in their government because everyday decisions are taken that affect you so I think that's what I would say that is the priority i like that i like that thank you thank you there are by the way I must add there is at least uh one state uh official and one former city elected city official in this room you'll be happy to know very good ambassador Paris uh thank you very much uh let me be clear that uh American citizens by the first amendment have the right to
• 48:30 - 49:00 petition their government for whatever they want but I think this act is a mistake first I don't think it'll go anywhere so I think it's some wasted effort and secondly I think the Trump administration in particular will feel it doesn't promote its other interests which is counterterrorism which is critical minerals they know or at least they I think they would suspect that you can't uh reach those goals if you're sanctioning uh Pakistan's leaders on the second issue
• 49:00 - 49:30 uh Ambassador Sadiki has phrased this well these are American citizens uh you might however go read some of the stuff they've written uh because I think Michael and I have and some of them I'm I might say have have um this is not unique to Indian Americans by any means as Michael mentioned in his opening statement there are certainly Americans in this administration who have had I think experience in Afghanistan that has
• 49:30 - 50:00 has made them suspicious if not hostile to Pakistan and and I think all of us who have a great affection for Pakistan are going to have to work through that but I want some of these new appointees read what they've written about Pakistan uh because some of us you all have your work cut out for you but I want to raise Alli's point you've got to get busy and get into government and and you know it's the NYSE it's the State Department
• 50:00 - 50:30 it's the CIA it's the defense it's the national security agencies where most of these decisions are going to be made and they're eager for people like you take my word for it thank you Ambassador thank you Mr yeah thanks you described these two issues as as red storms i'm not sure if you that was a reference to St john's University i have a reference to Tom Glansancy actually oh even better okay i don't actually think these are red storms or storms at all uh quite frankly
• 50:30 - 51:00 um you know the Pakistan Democracy Act absolutely the symbolic significance of it cannot be overstated enough just because you know as was noted before this is the first time that we've had a bill like this um in in the US Congress so I think that's very significant but I agree with uh Ambassador Patterson i don't think it's going to pass this is very different from how HR was at 901 96 901 the one that came out last year this is very different um and what I would say I'll be very brief in saying this is
• 51:00 - 51:30 that on one side of the political spectrum on Capitol Hill you have those that would be very uncomfortable um with any type of bill that involves sanctions with the risk that that could entail people that should not be getting sanction getting sanctioned and there is some language in the bill i would argue not the part about General Maner but other parts of it that in my view is relatively vague and open and I think for some uh on on one side of the political spectrum on the Hill would be uncomfortable with that and on the other side of the political spectrum you know
• 51:30 - 52:00 the counterterrorism hawks I think would be very hesitant to sign on to a bill that would sanction someone that would be viewed as a critical partner uh quite frankly in what limited count in what limited I mean I shouldn't say the the the counterterrorism focused interest that the US will have with Pakistan particularly relevant to to is to ISK um and again I mean the the whole Sheroula thing the timing I think was very significant in that sense because
• 52:00 - 52:30 President Trump went public with that in his joint address and because he thanked Pakistan I think that might make some on Capitol Hill reluctant to uh to sign on to it i could be wrong i've been wrong a few times before and on social media I'm always told when I'm wrong which is good but um that's that's what I'll say on on that and again if you look at the early the early the HR91 that was it was very different it was it was a resolution it was simply it was critical of Pakistan for sure it was critical of crackdowns on democracy but it was essentially a
• 52:30 - 53:00 call for democracy in Pakistan who would want to oppose a bill that calls for democracy in Pakistan the way it was worded it was just very very different and of course that bill was pretty much everyone uh on Capitol Hill voted for it which was extraordinary voted on it and voted in favor of it but that was just very different on the issue of Indian-American officials in the government I think we have to remember first of all that you know the Indian diaspora in the US is very large it's much larger than the Pakistani one the Pakistani one is is growing in fact uh I think not too long ago the um Pakistani
• 53:00 - 53:30 diaspora was the second fastest growing Asian diaspora in the US so it's growing but it's not nearly as large as the Indian American diaspora so I think that the fact that you're having more and more Indian-Americans serving in very high levels in administrations the current one but also previous ones I think it's also a natural outcome of of the diaspora's growth but I would agree with what was said before i don't think that you know the fact that Indian-American would would determine uh would would have an impact on how you look at Pakistan i do think in some
• 53:30 - 54:00 cases it could impact how you what you think of India um I think it's quite clear that many of these Indian-American officials uh on high levels are big proponents of partnership with with India many of them are are very fervent supporters of Narendra Modi himself and his government but I don't think that would necessarily impact um positions on Pakistan as Ambassador Patterson said there are other reasons why these folks would not necessarily want to pursue a close relationship with Pakistan we've already discussed some the Afghanistan
• 54:00 - 54:30 factor those experiences and others thanks Mike thank you thank you this is why I can't live without Mike once a week coming Mike coming on my show this is why I'm hooked on to him okay so just uh a quick recap on rather my perspective i think if I answer my own question I think it's also the culture of uh the diaspora not just uh uh the size of the diaspora mike I think uh the whole Dr kava doctor an engineer Kava engineer and uh that phenomena your uro
• 54:30 - 55:00 is as good as mine so I think you get it I think that's unfortunately still a thing in large suades of the diaspora I'm glad it's changing I I know there's a couple of lawyers in fact more than a couple right there in the back but are we sending our children and I'm speaking from diaspora's perspective are we sending our children are we encouraging our siblings are we encouraging these young undergrads mentoring them to get into public policy diplomacy um would we
• 55:00 - 55:30 rather send them to the business school here or the Jackson School of Public Policy or the law school for that matter i think that's something we should we should really look into the changing culture of the of of demographics this is when I get up and get you involved now here's the rules that man in that corner with that black sweater is a very dangerous man he's paying for everything these are finance he's very cost effective he's going to give you the mic right you're going to ask a question when he takes the mic from you you're going to stop talking and here's the
• 55:30 - 56:00 best part i need a question that means your sentence should end with a squiggly question mark i know we love to talk keep it brief and I know there's all sorts of questions but we will take three together be respectful there's a code here be precise and end with a question mark that's all I ask all right let's get started with the front right here then we'll get to the uh corner right there the gentleman
• 56:00 - 56:30 in the back and uh we'll come to this corner and just and then the young lady here we do the left side we do the right side left first come on it's you come on okay can you hear me all right so my question is is for Ambassador Siddiki i love how you made three points that we all have to you know give back to the US it really sounded to me like as if we're giving back tributes and it reminded me of the po pre-colonial or independence idea
• 56:30 - 57:00 that we have to you know do the uh all the three things or more than three things for the British and now we have to do that for the American Empire that's my question is that analysis right or do I have to change that keep that keep that that's for you ambassador next one up is the is the gentleman in the back with a lovely blazer do we still expect or would we shall we expect that in future the relationship uh uh dynamic would be based on
• 57:00 - 57:30 transactional relationship or it's going to shift into some kind of a strategic interest in the longer run between two countries thank you and right right under him right there thank you this is for everyone what's the future of MAGA diplomacy i'd like to know that okay thank you we'll do this three three rounds who is for everyone okay Ambassador Sadiki you can take the first round ambassador Patterson you can take the second question and then Mike maybe you can do MAGA diplomacy third
• 57:30 - 58:00 let's go um so I would say the uh I think your analysis um I don't want to say it's not the way I see it but I would say that the US the Trump administration sees that it's been taken advantage of in colonial times the colonizers never thought of that that wasn't a subject they came to take here the US has been the largest giver of aid the
• 58:00 - 58:30 largest giver of defense support um the largest market for a long period of time that has served the US well also in particular giving market access it it benefits both sides and it it helped with the goal of um the US view on the world being propagated but if you think about dollars and cents it was an expensive trade as far as the Trump administration sees so I wouldn't necessarily say this is sort of a tribute from a col canodial colonial
• 58:30 - 59:00 kind of ethos i would say that uh the view is that first of all no more bleeding right cutting off US aid the US was never a colonizing country at least not in our part of the world i mean there was severe influence exercised in near countries that's true in Latin America for example but for us uh and for most of the world the US was not a colonizer in fact the US was colonized right and fought a war of independence
• 59:00 - 59:30 so I don't think there's a um there's an equivalence between those two things the US is not trying to behave I think like a colonial power it's just saying well we have no history of guilt so why should of being a colonizer how should we be giving aid that's that's a that's the thinking i'm not saying it's correct or not i just this is the thinking it's not the same thing as a colonial outlook on the world to ask for tributes what about neoc
• 59:30 - 60:00 colonial that I I would say MAGA is not compatible with neoc colonialism not compat compatible with neoconservatism nag has its own thing and it's that history starts today can I Yeah excuse me no no please i I wanted to say so I was so glad that Ambassador Sadiki started off because he said what needed to be said here as an American and a former official i never could have been that blunt because of
• 60:00 - 60:30 course you're going to see it like that here's a big country pushing around a small country but let's be let's be honest about how the relationship is going to go for the next few years and try and deal with it as it is instead of as we'd like it to be which goes to your question up there the dynamism of the relationship there's lots of things we can do to keep this relationship on track and prosperous and and I think one of the points you make Trump does have personal relations you know and and he
• 60:30 - 61:00 had a good relationship at some point with a former prime minister i don't know how that developed in the end but uh there is a possibility I think that that could you could see some some future there too but yes of course you see it like that but you know what you all need is migration here what we need is a prosperous Pakistan uh we gave you know millions and billions of dollars in aid and Trump sees that as a suckers deal and he sees the little tiny surplus
• 61:00 - 61:30 that Pakistan has with the US and trade which is something like3 billion dollars on sheets and towels he sees that as a big loser and and there's nothing that Ambassador Sadiki and I can do to change that it's just the facts right now right and we're just going to quickly pivot to Mike for uh the future of magnet diplomacy real quick yeah and just before that very briefly there was a question about will this relationship be transactional or is it could there be strategic partnership for me the answer
• 61:30 - 62:00 is very simple the answer is no sorry the answer is it's it's not going to be strategic uh the Trump administration doesn't do strategic partnerships including with close partners it everything is transactional and you know what I've said many times before uh in recent months is that you know Pakistan is going to need to change the pitch of wow Pakistan we're strategically important because of our location it's not going to matter uh for for for Washington these days but that's go back to what I said before that Pakistan has has adjusted successfully and pitching
• 62:00 - 62:30 you know crypto and minerals and so on uh but it's it's it's going to be a transactional relationship the transactional relationship is going to work perfectly well for sure um on the issue of MAC diplomacy um you know I would argue that there's so many ways of answering this but I would say that on one level at least it appears to be working and if you look at the tariff you know the whole thing with tariffs recently it's striking how many countries around the world how many governments around the world including strong confident or governments that
• 62:30 - 63:00 project themselves as strong and confident like India's have been making so many concessions um appeasing this administration so much to avoid worseer fates i mean we've seen you know steps to to reduce tariffs uh commitments to take back undocumented uh individuals here and um you know that's that's exactly what the administration wants and it's and it's getting that um and you know many have have wondered if the announcement of the reciprocal tariff
• 63:00 - 63:30 policy was not meant to be an actual policy but it was simply meant to be a pressure tactic to get countries to do things that the administrations wanted them to do and I think to this point there's been some success on that front so I'll just leave it at that thanks Mike all right we're going to pivot to the ranks uh okay so uh we're going to start with uh the gentleman here we will move on to uh the two ladies in the back yeah
• 63:30 - 64:00 hi my name is Hussein uh my question is for both the ambassadors uh I feel the uh the large elephant in the room has not been addressed which is the decades of militarization which has gone out of control now the militization of economy state society everything uh practically the ownership of military in every single domain now from that I will come up with the question which is you have the most popular leader in prison right now there's no political stability
• 64:00 - 64:30 at the moment the is getting hammered in Glojasthan most of Glojasthan is not quite under the control APK is again a problem I'm trying to figure out when you propose or prescribe this you know the new me diplomacy and how we should adjust that I agree with you some on certain points but how do you expect to address or build any relationship strategic long-term even shortterm based on the fact that when your domestic policy isn't intact so I'm trying to
• 64:30 - 65:00 figure out is there something that that is a hidden secret sauce or something that we don't understand how do you really build a relationship with the US or sell them minerals or cryptos or anything at all where you don't have the core foundation set because the militarization project as it is as we know is not sustainable it will improve it is improving so how do you build on top of anything so I would love to hear your opinion thank you that's one how do you build on top of the madness that is the militarization with all these
• 65:00 - 65:30 awesome deliverables like crypto like minerals um we'll come to that um right in the back let's get some women in the mix please um this question is also for the ambassador um going actually on that point which ambassador uh both um sort of like on that question I want to ask this on behalf of not the really Pakistanis also in this room that are all collegiates but those who are our
• 65:30 - 66:00 cab drivers who are at our you know grocery stores the ones that are very patriotic and I want to ask if you genuinely believe that the United States has not been a part of any destabilization efforts in Pakistan and if so how do you plan to convince those groups of Pakistanis who do believe that and can't follow this transactional relationship that you're proposing [Applause]
• 66:00 - 66:30 then um my question is from both ambassadors as But thank you ambassador Sadiki for explaining the three ethos of the method policy steming from that I think I am genuinely curious from diplomacy standpoint what is the difference between countries like Pakistan and India both their neighbors both are sort of too politically sort of in the same location but um one country has the
• 66:30 - 67:00 audacity for lack of better words to stand up to the United States and say we're going to maintain relationships with our show whether you want it or not and when Pakistan does that the entire diplomacy sort of is rooted out so no I I genuinely mean this as a question is like what um is the difference in the US's perspective and at what point does the US start acknowledging countries
• 67:00 - 67:30 like do you have to put your head down for a certain number of years keep you know listening to the US's orders and then again I'm being very frank here but um and then a certain point it's going to be be able to um stand up to it thank you very much all right real quick lightning round ambassadors we'll start with you Ali okay so I think um I'm not saying this is the perfect
• 67:30 - 68:00 um outcome but I think all of those things are disconnected developing crypto or the exchange of crypto and the legal system around that is not necessarily linked to is not linked to counterterrorism problems in Bjasthan or KP uh Pakistan is a very highly successful banking sector regulated by one institution the state bank our central bank that's functioning fine regardless of um counterterrorism operations in other parts of the country
• 68:00 - 68:30 in the same way we speak about minerals uh and the you know Pakistan has had a counterterrorism problem uh on gas pipelines for uh maybe 20 years now but the gas still flows you know uh if you look at minerals Pakistan's still new to minerals although the bar gold project is massive and will come online in 2028 but lots of countries that have some level of instability have very large mineral projects and they're exporting
• 68:30 - 69:00 those minerals and indeed exporting to the United States and to Tesla and so on so I think these things are not connected on a broader governance level pakistan's always needed work it's not one government every government has had its work cut out for itself so I would stop there for now the second question was what was up there from about transaction about convincing the diaspora um so good news is it's not my job to convince the desk for a former government official but um I would say
• 69:00 - 69:30 that um if you are asking for my opinion that's not relevant i mean I I don't want to go into the the the diligence of the event you're mentioning but I just want to say and Ambassador Patterson might want to comment on this uh the State Department is not in the business of announcing that they will do regime change that that's just not how business is done so I'm what I'm saying is it's not up to me to convince them of that they live in this country they have to
• 69:30 - 70:00 think about you know what the right answer is here but I I don't think it's for me or even when I was a government official for Pakistan's government to to explain it to them uh people will believe lots of different things uh many things have some evidence many things have you know a lot of evidence and are not believed some things have little evidence and is universally believed but really this is an evidence question so I I think for the India Pakistan question let me start there you're you're asking what the difference is in the US well
• 70:00 - 70:30 there are the obvious differences are size and economic capacity etc etc but the main difference and this is overwhelmingly important that people understand this is the perception that India is going to be a counterweight to China now you can argue and and people that write in foreign policy argue this endlessly about whether will India uh be there and there's a lot of doubt about that but that's not the perception in that and this policy has been consistent across seminations for years it's just
• 70:30 - 71:00 gotten more intense it's a it's a very simple answer in many respects i take your point yes we would all like better civil uh civil government in Pakistan yes I think anyone who follows Pakistan is concerned about this militarization but on the other hand what I've seen at least in the Trump administration is they're going to be closer to the military it was a surprise to me when this F-16 sustainment package went through not long after the Trump administration came in their view I
• 71:00 - 71:30 think on the critical minerals is going to be much like our view when I was there about how you needed the military to ship American equipment to troops in Afghanistan their view on the critical minerals I think is going to be less of a word it's going to be that you're going to need the military to provide security to American firms to operate in these dangerous areas of Pakistan i don't think it's going to be a worry of the Trump administration the militarization in Pakistan they're going
• 71:30 - 72:00 to try and turn that uh as as Alli said into their own interest if I could just quickly uh add in on this um you know the question about different US standards using India and Pakistan um for I mean it is worth noting that many of my Indian interlocators and friends they they complain all the time that US officials let Pakistan get away with so much and hold it to you know essentially give it all kinds of free passes um and I should
• 72:00 - 72:30 also say that uh in the months after the Russian invasion of Ukraine there was a lot of unhappiness in Washington about India's friendship with Russia I think once they recognized that that's essentially the way it's going to be that's a relationship that's not going to change they came around to it grudgingly but I would argue that it was a lingering tension point in the US India relationship uh during the during the Biden uh years so I think it's important just to to inject that um that that nuance there uh in there thank you
• 72:30 - 73:00 so much uh it might sound as a joke but it's a serious question for my end will this administration recognize Afghanistan diplomatically and ambassador the same question to you what's Pakistan thinking right now how is this Taliban administration different from the one before 911 with which Pakistan had diplomatic relations because President Trump wants to bring back a lot of military equipment from Afghanistan so what are the barriers what what are the steps that need to be
• 73:00 - 73:30 taken on the Pakistani perspective on the American perspective for the Taliban to do to be diplomatically recognized thank you surani you get a question just a quick question for both the ambassadors uh ambassador what do you think of uh the uh transnational repression that's happening um for some of the diaspora that's present and from the Pakistani perspective and from the US perspective in terms of you know how the US government should these are such American questions I thought they asked
• 73:30 - 74:00 about Buristan KP but good it's even bigger than that all right go ambassadors this is one so so on Afghanistan that's a really interesting question uh it was impossible for the B the As you well know the Pakistani government has come to the US a number of times and asked for better relations between the US and Afghanistan so so the Afghans the Taliban will control the crossber terrorist attacks it was politically impossible for the Biden administration to touch that the Trump
• 74:00 - 74:30 has me I've seen little tiny hints that the Trump administration may have a different view my personal opinion is it would be long overdue to have an American presence back in Afghanistan but uh but it's hard politically still but I but I think there's a greater possibility on the margins now that that would happen than before and I didn't really understand the second question transnational repression repression it's what the State Department now and uh your your old friends in the State Department actually have a designated
• 74:30 - 75:00 desk to cover transnational repression which is a crime of sorts committed by foreign governments against US citizens their families loved ones businesses or privileges here oh yes yes yes uh it still requires uh you're you're really asking if it's going to apply to Pakistan yes uh and and of course it's taken off in recent years mostly against countries that are
• 75:00 - 75:30 uh that are deemed enimical to US interests do I think it would be applied to Pakistan no right i just don't into the I mean you know you don't like the you may not like the answer but I just don't I think it our other interests would override that okay ali do you want to weigh in mike do you want weigh in real quick on either question before we wrap up very quickly on the Afghanistan question the US has no need to recognize the Taliban just because it's it's engaging very closely with the Taliban it's more comfortable doing so than the Biden administration
• 75:30 - 76:00 was it has narrowly focused interests there but it's I think comfortable willing to pursue those interests by engaging without giving official recognition and when it needs help it turns to cutter who represents American interests in Afghanistan um so yeah I don't think it feels it needs to recognize i don't think any country including the US would want to be the first country to formally recognize Afghanistan though China is pretty close thank you Ambassador no I think it's well covered i think the the the question that Mr dani posed is a US law
• 76:00 - 76:30 question i'm not competent to say what the US government should be doing but I think Ambassador Patterson covered it on Afghanistan i also can't speak to what the US uh view will be to recognize uh I will say that the Afghans as you and I think know as well as I do that have said they're not returning the weapons um and they want their money back and this is a bit of a pickle but I think uh Michael's has completely right view the US can communicate even you know to cut and other countries and u there's an open channel so uh beyond that I can't
• 76:30 - 77:00 speak to the US okay now on that note I must remind you that these people can be easily uh caught upstairs where that you must exercise your privileges and uh uh question the heck out of them i understand how they've touched uh interesting points but we must respect uh the the facilities rules as well i know you have questions they're going to be upstairs i promise he's a very nice guy he's going to answer your question
• 77:00 - 77:30 and I'm hungry but last but not least there is a tradition because of the whole colleate aspect to always present the keynote speaker with a gift and as the inaugural keynote speaker of the inaugural IB future of Pakistan conference we must uh we must be well there we here it is we must unveil in very collegiate and American fashion for Ambassador Siddiki the first football jersey for the Iop conference with with
• 77:30 - 78:00 his number one this is like the American draft there you go i say your official logo this is nice by the way i want one too but but he's taken number one so thank you Ambassador i hope it fits i think it does we We got some intel on your dimensions thank you thank you thank you thank you Mike thanks