巴基斯坦與IMF的分歧至少有一部分與稅收有關，巴基斯坦的征稅力度出了名的薄弱。外界很擔心巴基斯坦能否匯集政治意愿，實行嚴厲的改革，部分原因在于政治階層中只顧一己私利的精英群體，正是他們把這個國家帶到了破產的邊緣。

????我不贊同這種觀點。巴基斯坦是個越有1.8億人口的大國，但它的運轉很正常。除了讓我們付出沉重代價的安全問題，它還面臨著很多其他的挑戰，比如治理、透明度和管理問題。盡管如此，這個國家仍正在正常運轉。顯然它可以做得更好，但它還不至于停滯不前。生活還在繼續。

????顯然，巴基斯坦面臨著財政上的挑戰，稅改一直是個問題。沒錯，巴基斯坦的依法納稅度低，但必須考慮稅收的政治影響，而不只是僅僅考慮經濟影響。稅收體系已存在很長時間。當然，必須改革目前的稅收體系；正由于此，銷售稅和關稅等間接稅已經出現了相當幅度的增長。所得稅也在增長，但主要來自大公司的利潤。

????關鍵問題是我們如何實現經濟增長？必須先把蛋糕做大，才能提高稅收。從一個干癟的檸檬里是榨不出檸檬汁來的。

現在我們再把目光轉向阿富汗。美國對阿富汗的轉型計劃越來越趨向于實際，奧巴馬政府似乎決意要結束這一切。你對此怎么看？

????我認為這才是正確的做法。海外駐軍會產生不良后果，越早撤軍越好。但撤軍策略須周密籌劃。

????我們需要一個類似馬歇爾計劃那樣的大規模重建方案。方案必須要有世界銀行（The World Bank）、亞洲開發銀行（Asian Development Bank）、主權銀行和一大批國家共同參與。最近，土耳其、巴基斯坦和阿富汗等國在伊斯坦布爾舉行的會談非常成功。人們需要看到未來，相信明天會比昨天更好。阿富汗人民必須靠自身的努力，好好利用這個機會。美國和塔利班的對話是件好事——所有利益相關方都必須參與進來。我相信如果有充足的資金，就能化不利為有利，我對此持謹慎樂觀的態度。

????美巴關系復雜總體來說是阿富汗復雜形勢的折射，但同時也是因為巴基斯坦的核大國地位。

????我相信美巴關系對兩國而言都存在機會。但我認為美國目前追求的巴基斯坦政策是接觸和遏制并舉。我們既是朋友，也是對手。這是美巴關系的內在沖突。雙方存在信任赤字，一旦涉及到核事務，就會出現根本性問題。

????既然印度已經被接納為核供應國集團（Nuclear Suppliers Group，一個防止核擴散的多邊集團）集團，巴基斯坦也早該獲得成員資格。美國必須做出決定：我們到底是屬于這個陣營的一員，還是相反？這是一個大好機會，但卻錯失了。納入核供應國集團意味著更多的責任和義務。接觸會變得更加正式，為所有關鍵方提供一個論壇，讓大家能夠坐下來討論問題，解決問題。我們已經是一個核大國，這一點沒有討價還價的余地。否認這一點對誰都沒有好處。目前糾正這一點還為時未晚。它將有利于整個南亞的政治氛圍。如果一直把人拒之門外，形勢可能突然向著相反的方向發展。

The disagreement with the IMF is at least in part related to tax collection, which has been notoriously weak in Pakistan. There is a lot of concern whether Pakistan can muster the political will to make tough reforms, partly because of self-serving elites among the political class that have brought the country to the point of being nearly a failed state.

????No, I think that's not true. The country is large -- roughly 180 million people -- and it's functioning. It has many challenges -- governance issues, transparency and management issues -- on top of the security issues that have cost us dearly. But the country is functioning. Obviously it could function better, but it's not come to a grinding halt. Life is going on.

????Clearly, the country is facing a challenging situation financially, and tax reform has been an issue. It's true there is low tax compliance, but you have to look at the political impact -- not just the economic impact -- of taxes. The tax system has been around for a long time. Trade-offs have to be made; indirect taxes -- sales tax and customs duties -- have grown because of that, quite handsomely. Income tax is also up, but that is mostly out of big corporations' profits.

????The key question is: How do we get growth? The pie has to get bigger for you to collect more taxes. You can't squeeze the lemon if there's no juice in it.

Moving on to Afghanistan, the U.S. is being more realistic about its transformative agenda and the Obama administration seems to be determined to wind things down. How do you see this playing out?

????I think this is the right way to go. The presence of foreign troops generates ill effects and the sooner they are gone, the better. But the exit strategy has to be very carefully choreographed.

????We need a Marshall Plan-like approach, a massive program for reconstruction. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the sovereign banks, and many individual countries, have to be involved. There was a very successful meeting recently of Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and others in Istanbul. People need to see a future, that tomorrow will be better than yesterday. The people of Afghanistan will have to work hard themselves to leverage this opportunity. It's a good thing that the U.S. and the Taliban are talking -- all stakeholders have to be included. I'm cautiously optimistic that adversity can be changed into an opportunity if it is funded well.

????U.S.-Pakistan relations are generally refracted through the prism of Afghanistan but also through the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

????I think certainly the relationship is opportunistic on both sides. But I think the U.S. is pursuing a policy of both engagement and containment of Pakistan at the same time. We are both a friend and an adversary. Therein lies the conflict in the relationship. There is a trust deficit and when it comes to the nuclear issue there is a fundamental problem.

????When India was drawn into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (a multilateral anti-proliferation organization) Pakistan should have been included too. The United States has to decide: are we in the tent or outside? That was a major missed opportunity. Inclusion in the NSG comes with a lot of responsibility and obligations. Engagement becomes more formalized, providing a forum for all key players to be around the table to discuss and solve issues. We are a nuclear power – there is no such thing as a halfway house here - and to deny it doesn't help anybody. It's not too late to rectify this. It would help the whole atmosphere in South Asia. If you keep people out of the tent, things can suddenly move the other way.