Rawalpindi. A senior security official said that the chief of army staff, Marshal Syed Asim Munir, had no official advisers.
The statement one day after the British Daily Newspaper Financial Times (FT) refer to the so-called “advisers to the army chief, Marshal Asim Munnir” in a report on a proposed port along the Oman Sea.
The official said that “conversations or proposals by individuals or commercial entities are exploratory and should not be interpreted as state initiatives”.
Learn more: The army warns India of “cataclysmic devastation” if it triggers a new series of hostilities
According to the FT report, the plan envisages American investors building and operating a Terminal in Pasni, Balutchistan, designed to facilitate access to critical mineral resources from Pakistan.
The security manager explained that a port concept on the south coast has also surfaced in private discussions with Mota Engil Group. “It has not been submitted through official channels, has not been examined at the strategic or governmental level and remains a commercial idea pending appropriate consideration.”
The FT report follows a high -level meeting in September, during which Marshal Munnir accompanied Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to the White House for interviews with US President Donald Trump.
During the meeting, the Prime Minister invited American companies to invest in the sectors of agriculture, technology, mining and energy in Pakistan.
According to the FT report, the port proposal was launched with certain American officials and was shared with Marshal Munnir before the White House meeting.
Also read: PIA to resume British flights from October 25
The plan excludes the use of the port for American military purposes and aims rather to attract the financing of development for a rail network connecting the terminal offered to the western provinces rich in minerals, added the report.
The security manager said: ” [FT] The play recognizes that it is not an official policy, but implies a link with the chief of the army – which is not correct. »»
With an additional reuters input
