'Trust Deficit'

" My Secretary Clinton. Which -- to another while the controversies here is the -- from the United States and we we have enormous goal. To help them for self -- anything humanitarian reasons and that's also important to keeping you save a stable economy. And a stable government but of course we have self interest because of the home grown terrorism that gets sent over to the United States. Out but they don't like it will we give them aid and we tell them we have strings attached to it this is what we need -- do with it that's a problem. What we had a lot of discussion about that because this really became a very big issue here Pakistan. And I don't think most of us in America really understood. What's the beef you know we're trying to. Demonstrate a long term commitment to the development of Pakistan to your energy sector to education infrastructure -- the kinds of things that. Will provide a greater level of stability for the people of Pakistan because their incomes will be rising in their futures will look better. But in the here three days have been here. We could've phrased some things differently we could have been a little more sensitive to Howell. We are perceived. I've been very clear said look you guys don't want the eight you don't have to take it I mean we think it's that your interest -- our interest that we have this relationship. But they've come back and say no wait a minute we we just you know we didn't understand some of what you -- talking about there are so. No there's enough room for misunderstanding. We need it clear the air and we need to do it on an ongoing basis there's there's some suspicion on the part of India that aid from the United States to Pakistan. Was being used to -- these terrorist groups with them would in inflict terror in India -- suspicious of the -- of the cycle where the -- goes. Do that Pakistan is not understand why would we Americans would really wanna know where the money is spent and how it's been and why we put the strings on -- I think that they do understand that but I think that what bear. Concern was is that some of the way we. Worded. What is the accountability that we have to be accountable to the American taxpayer -- said that over and over again in my meetings. They didn't you know that that it it was taken the wrong way you like what because now I've to have the misunderstanding. Of their misunderstanding this."

" I'm telling -- I'm thinking you know we're giving you money and you're complaining about you know the -- isn't -- what don't I guess. Well."

" I'd give me an example -- of one of the one of the features in. The bill was to say United States has -- you know verify that there's their civilian control over the military. Well I could see why the government and the people would say we just got. Rid of up military government because we wanted to democracy and the democracy is now in place. And we are in charge and why would you question that I -- you see what I mean so we just have to be aware. The the point is that what that bill was intended to do was to demonstrate a long term commitment to Pakistan which I think is absolutely right. What it did not do was impose micromanaging. An all the rest of it but what is absolutely clear is that when we give -- anywhere. We have accountability measures and I've explained that this is not unique to Pakistan this is something that. You know we expect and so I think we could have registry cleaner and simpler and say no we need to make sure that whatever -- we give. Goes for the intend objective -- there will be measurements of accountability to ensure that that happens you know I think that's exactly the kind of you know straightforward. Expectation that they should have about what it is we're doing are you confident."

" That the nuclear -- nuclear weapons here in this country are secure because. If I know of at least I've read that if we don't help them off financially -- government's gonna. Crumble so I assume that we need to financially help them so that government doesn't crumble so that weapons continue -- safe. -- do have confidence in the security of their nuclear arsenal and and I'm not sure that this democratic government. You know is is. Under that kind of threat. But we want to strengthen democratic institutions of Pakistan we want to know create the conditions where the people Pakistan have a stake in that. Future that there try to build together we want to you know eliminate any kind of feel safe. You know haven or any kind of support for these terrorist groups. Because it's in our interest but it's also evident in the Pakistani interest so. That's you know what we're what we're challenged by and that's what you know I get up every day and -- America. And even strategy in military strategy in Afghanistan. Bleeds over into this country needed to cancer so I guess look at the back when the president makes that decision. It's gonna bleed into this country whatever the decision it's. Absolutely mean when we first. Did -- review upon taking office we concluded that you had a look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together in in in light of the war on terror. That we had to wage. And we are well aware that you know the stronger. The partnership we have with -- done. The stronger their efforts to root out terrorists and their own country. The better the situation is across the border in Afghanistan. So what you'd like this job I mean yeah it is it why do you like this -- it is so complicated. Is. It's really complicated is very -- because. First of -- I believe that the United States has. An essential role to play in the world and there's not probably can walk away from that we have to prioritize -- we can't be all things to all people but. We have to be out there trying and working to solve problems and convincing people to come to our side and understand. How we see the world. I and I believe it's actually critically important probably more complicated today than it's -- In the past but even more important today."