 Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, depending on where you're viewing this live stream. My name is Nancy Lindborg and I am the President and CEO of the US Institute of Peace. And I know there are viewers joining us from all around the world. We're delighted to have all of you here with us today for a very timely and important discussion. We're honored to have with us his Excellency, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah who has taken time at this very critical moment in the Afghan peace process to share how he and the High Council for National Reconciliation are preparing for talks with the Taliban. After the keynote address, we'll have a Q and A session moderated by USIP's Vice President for Asia, Dr. Andrew Wilder. And we invite you to take part in this event by asking a question through the YouTube live stream in the comments section. And you can also engage with us and with each other on Twitter with today's hashtag Afghan peace. At USIP, supporting a sustainable peace process in Afghanistan has been a core priority. And I'm encouraged that in recent months there has been progress towards direct inter-Afghan negotiations. At the same time, violence is rising to unprecedented levels including increasing and quite disturbing numbers of civilian capacities. And there are other challenges COVID-19 has exacerbated the struggles that Afghans face including contributing to increased food insecurity and extreme poverty. But despite these challenges, developments over the past few weeks have created momentum to get the peace process to the essential next phase of inter-Afghan talks. This was facilitated in part by the signing of a political agreement between President Ashraf Ghani and Chairman Abdullah resolving disputes over the 2019 presidential election. So as part of the agreement, Chairman Abdullah has been appointed chair of the newly established High Council for National Reconciliation which will oversee the talks with the Taliban as well as Afghanistan's collective efforts on peace. And with reports indicating that preliminary talks between the Islamic Republic in Afghanistan and the Taliban could begin during the coming weeks, today's discussion could not come at a better time. We look forward to hearing Chairman Abdullah share with us how he, the High Council for National Reconciliation and the Afghan negotiating team are preparing for a truly historic moment. Chairman Abdullah served as the chief executive of Afghanistan from September, 2014 until March, 2020. He also served as the first minister of foreign affairs of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan from 2001 to 2005, prior to the formation of the Islamic Republic, Chairman Abdullah served in many capacities in the government of the Islamic State of Afghanistan, including as foreign minister. And he also served as an advisor to the Mujahdeen commander, Ahmad Shah Massoud. So obviously many, many years of experience. And so with that, we are delighted to welcome you to this program this morning, this evening. And I'm delighted to invite his excellency, Chairman Abdullah Abdullah, to provide his keynote address. Thank you so much, Chairman Abdullah. Thank you, President Lenberg and USIP for providing this opportunity. Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim. I appreciate the efforts by USIP and all our friends across the globe for joining us, this new age webinar to share some thoughts about the opportunities and challenges for negotiations with the Taliban. I cannot emphasize more on the significance of the opportunity today and now, 40 years after the start of the war in conflict in Afghanistan. Allow me first of to acknowledge the millions of Afghans who yearn for peace and who deserve to live in peace with honor and with their citizens' rights guaranteed under the law after more than 40 years of conflict and to remember and salute the tens of thousands who have fallen or continue to be victims of anti-peace entities and terror groups. I also want to pay tribute to the men and women from across the world, Americans in particular, who paid the ultimate price, either served or currently serving to their nations with honor as part of post-911 mission. 20 years later, there are many lessons to be drawn from the past. Afghans and Americans share a unique history but our bonds during the last chapter of the Cold War when Afghans resisted a devastating invasion and then again in our fight against international terrorism which continues to this day became stronger. Today, we are taking stock of good and bad of the past 40 years or four decades and look at the road ahead. We are at the threshold between a unique opportunity for peace that is being defined as we speak or continuing the war, the cost of war, the agony of war with less clarity into the future and giving our geography an existing threat assessment. It's not just about Afghanistan, it's also about stability, connectivity, security from far east to Europe and beyond. The threat of terrorism has receded in some ways but has taken on new forms in other ways. As far as preparations for the talks are concerned, we decided in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan together with President Ghani that we put no conditions for the start of negotiations and our negotiating team is well prepared to start negotiations at any time. With so much negative news around lately, let me start with some positive news that I hope is a sign for more to come. A few hours ago, Gandaharan News Service reported that in interviews across the country with recently freed Taliban prisoners and Afghan government soldiers, most have expressed desire to live peacefully with their families. My message to the Taliban is, a few may decide to join other fighters but that's not the right decision. The collective call of the Afghan people, the majority of the Afghans for peace, should be embraced by all of us. In both sides now have to remove the remaining obstacles, and move towards talks in an intra-Afghan outcome that takes all our realities into account. The current opportunity, why I call it an opportunity because majority of the Afghans are supportive of the peace efforts and also all our partners, led by the United States, but other partners as well, are supportive of the peace process. The current opportunity for us starting a peace process is historically unique. It's not perfect, nor will it be an easy exercise. We need to be realistic about our means, the deep divides, the anger and hurt that needs healing, the political growth blocks, the opportunistic and the spoiler behaviors, as well as expectations and shared interests. A key challenge will be to keep the process inclusive, representative and focused, yet flexible and always seeking solutions and compromises at each step, leading to realistic outcomes that all Afghans can own. The peace dividend also has to be worked out in discussed with all international, internal and international stakeholders, while we need to make sure that our country is no longer going to be a hub or a staging ground for international terrorism. At this stage, we are working on an integrated roadmap that can energize the process and keep us on track by addressing the prerequisite conditions agreed to by various stakeholders. They include the more obvious goal of releasing the prisoners, which has taken place in the past few days and weeks, and hopefully it will be completed soon. Getting the technicalities sorted out to have negotiating ready for talks, as I mentioned, our team is ready. Maximizing the impact of violence reduction measures and addressing COVID-19 needs through healthcare services, key demands of the Afghan public across front lines, keeping the region constructively engaged and preventing spoilers from derailing or stalling the momentum that has been created. Since we all agree that there is no military solution, when the current mutually hurting stalemate is unsustainable, given the number of factors that play inside Afghanistan, in the region, and with other global priorities like the pandemic or the upcoming American elections, we have no option but to aim for talks leading to a political settlement that can be owned and embraced by Afghans across the social and political spectrum. Let me clearly say that there is no justification, religious or political, for the staggering loss of Afghan lives across the battlefields, in our villages, towns, cities, in the valleys, in deserts, in road checkpoints, on and on our masks, or even hospitals. Some food for thought from somebody who has been intimately involved with Afghan affairs since its young ages, since my youth. And I'm reminded constantly that just Kabul or downtown Kabul, or a small elite with the specific priorities with whom foreign and government officials usually interact, this is not the whole Afghanistan. That's why I always try to detach myself from any bubble and try to understand the vast and complex reality, the demographic facts, the role of youth, the women, women, but also large and small communities in the villages across our diverse landscape. If you are to come up with an inclusive and comprehensive peace settlement, we need to talk, listen, negotiate, compromise, and come up with a common implementable and acceptable end state that involves different layers that represent all key sites, including women, youths and victims of war and is not seen as a threat to any external powers. We have a choice either to make this process easy and less painful for our people and others or more complicated than it is by dragging it and adding to the pain, loss of lives, poverty and cost. It's also an economic and security choice. We can reduce the costs while reducing the level of violence, displacement, migration, and managing the threat of terrorism and illicit activities or keep the fire burning and cope with the fallout of more war at a time when there is resource scarcity, a pandemic and other preoccupations on the global radar screen. This is a process with many variables and layers. It is tied to the U.S. Taliban deal, which means political decisions in several capitals as well as the situation on the ground where people die in territories are contested. It has historic Afghan roots, but it's also connected to our region in geopolitical and economic interests. It has important humanitarian and stability component. Finally, there are values, ideas and rights involved that meet a deep discussion within a traditional Afghan in scholarly Islamic context. This is why it is not and cannot be a one man or one faction endeavor. It requires broad political well, engagement, consultation, coordination and action. The process, I think the microphone was not on for a second. I go through the paragraph. This is why it is not and cannot be a one man or one faction endeavor. It requires political well, engagement, consultation, coordination and action. The process will also need to go through phases and each phase has its own give and take to facilitate transitions and forward mobility that can be verifiable and implementable. Following the political agreement signed in May with President Rani, I have been busy taking practical steps to open lines of communications, consulting with key stakeholders and strengthening the consensus that is needed and coordinating with internal and external actors. However, not everything is in our hand, even though it has been agreed that the High Council for National Reconciliation is the vehicle to which we are going to bring all the elements together and define the policy lines for implementation. Failing to do so will further weaken the hands of those who believe in an inclusive, united, pluralistic and value-based instate. Within the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, we have come to a conclusion that we should present a unified voice in support of peace and also preserving the values which our people have made sacrifices for it. Ready to start talks, ready to make compromises, ready to move forward for an instate which works for all, a country which lives in peace within and without unified, democratic and respects the rights of its own people. We need to be nimble by responsibly moving the process forward while we need to be focused and prepared to defend the values that matter the most to the plurality of our people. Now that peace process has been initiated, we need to remind ourselves that there is no going back. We need to work together, Afghans with Americans, our partners, our neighbors to fight for a just peace and durable stability. I will stop here to engage in discussions and I thank you again for the opportunity. Excellency Chairman Abdullah, thank you very much for your informative remarks and for taking the time to join us today. I wish we could be hosting you in person at USIP but the silver lining of these virtual events is that we have a much larger global audience. I'm gonna start off with a few questions and then we'll open it up and take questions from the hundreds of individuals watching online today. As Nancy Lindborg mentioned, we invite all our viewers to take part in this discussion by asking questions for the YouTube comment section and you can also join the discussion and with us as well as with each other on Twitter with using the hashtag, Afghan peace. As Nancy mentioned, and as you also mentioned, this discussion comes at a critical time for Afghanistan. Given the reports of shockingly high increases in violence even in the last week, a devastating pandemic, adding further misery and hardship for millions of Afghanistan but also the uncertainty about the timeframe for US troop presence or withdrawal. But at the same time, as you mentioned, it's a time of opportunity. I think it sounds like we might be closer to intra-Afghan talks than ever before and with it to hope that there would be at least a reduction of violence in the start of difficult negotiations to end the four decades of conflict in Afghanistan. So Chairman Abdullah, you have long, as Nancy mentioned in her introduction, been involved in Afghan war politics and diplomacy from a young age as an advisor to Ahmad Shah Massoud during the resistance of the Soviet occupation during the 1980s, during the civil war of the 1990s. And then as the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan first foreign minister and then most recently for six years as the chief executive. You have seen many ups and downs and given Afghanistan's history maybe more downs than ups but I'm wondering if you could just look back over the last four decades in which you were an active participant in Afghanistan's history. And again, how would you characterize this moment? You touched a bit on it in your remarks just now but again, if you could give us a little bit more information on how you would characterize this specific moment in Afghanistan's history. Well, you mentioned yourself about the challenges that the country is faced with. At the same time, we are faced with an opportunity. The opportunity is that I'm here as a citizen and also as a chairman and I've worked in the government in the past and working together with the government today for pursuit of peace process. I see that there is an opportunity at the people of Afghanistan the absolute majority of the people of Afghanistan want peaceful settlement. For decades of war does not mean that we cannot solve it. It should compel all of us to look back and to come to a conclusion that there is no military solution for the war. And that takes more than one side. At the same time, I do have concerns while I'm optimistic and I think that once as Afghans, we get across the table and raise the issues, very difficult issues which we have fought over for many years now and also look at the suffering of our people and the continued suffering of our people. I see an opportunity there. But if there is a thinking in the other side and hopefully that's not the case that the US troops may withdraw and we may not have to come to a settlement we might overcome by force, that will be a mistake, a great mistake. That will be another missed opportunity for the Afghans in the same way that in 90, we could not make peace within the country. There were a lot of factors but at the same time, we missed an opportunity and then we will witness to another two and a half decades of war. So I hope that nobody will make that mistake but there is no doubt that extremely challenging time, lots of hopes for the people, lots of concerns as well. Not only in terms of the continuation of the war but the people are also concerned what happens to their rights, what happens to their liberties and so on and so forth. But meanwhile, there is a lot of support for the peace process and inclusivity right from the beginning up to the end is important and critical. Thank you, I wanted to, my next question come back to the issue of violence and you talked about quite rightly there's no excuse for violence now. And yet despite the initial hopes that reduce levels of violence would you be sustained following the ceasefire over Eid in late May? It appears that violence is ramped up dramatically across the country even just during the last week as we approach talks. The Afghan National Security Council spokesperson announced last week was the deadliest for Afghan security forces in 19 years with 422 Taliban attacks in 32 provinces killing 291 and DSF members and wounding 550 others. I mean, those are shocking statistics. I don't know if you can say a bit about how can talks proceed at such high levels of violence and what can be done to ensure that the current spike of violence doesn't derail the talks. That's a serious challenge. The continuation of the level of violence that we have been witness to especially in the past few weeks we have communicated through different channels to the Taliban, to our partners different countries which have leverages that while we are serious in pursuit of talks and also preparing the ground for negotiations and also expediting the exchange of prisoners in spite of the challenges which were involved in it at the same time the continuation of the current level of violence which is not justified at all it makes the people worry in extremely concerned that where are we leading if there are steps taken in order to build confidence and to facilitate for the start of the negotiations while the level of violence is increased increasingly that makes the political environment very difficult. I hope that everybody gets that message and that puts our seriousness in pursuit of peace process into tests and the aim is that we should achieve peace and security for all Afghans and should live in peace within and without. We should show signs of seriousness right from the beginning and this is the time for it. Thank you. I wanted to move on to getting to intra-Afghan negotiations I mean a few weeks ago there were reports that intra-Afghan talks may start by the end of June with less than a week left in June that now seems maybe unlikely but could you tell us what you think when you think intra-Afghan talks might begin what is delaying them and how specific obstacles in the intra-Afghan talks and the path of the intra-Afghan talks will be resolved and I think in particular to address you talked about the prisoner issue which we know is one of the real significant obstacles in getting to talks if you can give us a status update on the release of Taliban prisoners but also whether the Taliban are holding up on their end of the bargain to release ANDSF prisoners and then secondly more specifically what is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability of negotiating teams to travel and negotiate in person? The as far as prisoners release is concerned 75% of the from the list with Taliban have provided to us have been released and also a few hundred from the list that we have provided to the Taliban of our own security forces those also have been released we have Taliban team, technical team which is working on the issue of prisoners are in Kabul currently and working together with our own team in order to expedite the process and then comes the there are no other conditions or preconditions this was one of the things that Taliban were emphasizing that the up to 5,000 Taliban prisoners needs to be released before the start of negotiations and we are very close to that at the same time the technical issues of getting there sending teams there the Taliban team are in Doha the requirements of having the people tested here the negotiating team they are continuing as we get closer to the date the negotiating team have been tested and that will be repeated before their departure towards Doha as well should it happen at the same time as I mentioned earlier to detection and violence where does it get us if the current level of violence continues in the same way as it is and then the people leave Kabul in order to start talks but with the news of hundreds of people being killed recently as a result of violence including civilians that will not be a good environment for the start of negotiations while we have not put preconditions for the start of the talks but we think that it's also for the other side to look at it as it is if we are to solve this issue permanently forever and reach a peaceful settlement we all need to take steps that shows and proves that we are serious so the technical issues will be there COVID-19 it will not be like normal when people leave here for two or three first days they need to communicate virtually before their test is negative again in Doha so there are all those sorts of technical issues which are involved but we can use the time either virtually and later on face to face talks with the Taliban and when we are prepared for that conditions and our team is prepared at the moment. Thank you. I think we're all learning that we can do much more virtually than we thought before so let's hope including with negotiations. I wanted that you had mentioned in your talk also that the importance of keeping the process inclusive, representative, open and flexible and I want to just come back to the issue of inclusion because as you know studies have shown that peace processes that are not inclusive are more likely to fail and I know that many Afghans and in particularly women and minority groups are concerned that the gains that have been achieved over the past 20 years will end up as concessions in a political agreement with the Taliban. So what will you and the negotiating team and the High Council for National Reconciliation do to ensure that women and minority groups will be an integral part of the process and to protect the rights and gains since 2002? First of all, they will be a part of the negotiating team while talking about the common values for the majority of the people of Afghanistan. Men and women of the country are for those values for the rights of the people, women's rights and values which we have made sacrifices for and also in the leadership committee for the High Council for National Reconciliation and also in the General Assembly we make sure that the women groups are it's inclusive of all sections of the society, including women and youth and minorities and also in the negotiating table. While I'm not in favor of like putting red lines right from the beginning, but when we go there Taliban will have their own issues which they will be very tough on negotiating on them. We will have issues which is part of the rights of our people and nobody will be, and we cannot achieve peace with sacrificing the basic and fundamental rights of our people. But at the same time, if you could get to a situation that while we have different views and very different views, when I say different views it's not like a difference between nine and 10. It's on certain issues we are far apart but we should be able to maintain the different views amongst ourselves, fight for it politically not through violence, but at the same time agree to live together within a country and make peace and rebuild our country. At the same time, I can assure you that the civil society is very active while they are asking as anybody any other group in the society in order to achieve peace but at the same time in working together with us which we are working with them with different groups. They want to make sure that they negotiating team is not inclusive in terms of its composition but at the same time in terms of pluralistic society that we have and diversity and represent the diverse views of our people at the same time work for the interests of all Afghans. So those concerns are real. We hear it days in and out and at the same time we are engaging these groups within the country as well. And COVID-19 has made life easier for us. Otherwise, part of my initial thinking was that should we start with my work as the chairman in the council, we need to travel around the country and listen to the people, then talk to the people, assure them and also learn from them, see how keen they are in their understanding ideas for peace in peaceful country and at the same time assure them that their fundamental rights will not be compromised. Thank you, I have one follow up question to that and then I'll turn it over to, I'll start transitioning to questions from our audience. But you rightly pointed out, I mean, I think the pluralism that on your side, I think the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan's negotiating team has the advantage of being more pluralistic, inclusive and politically diverse representing the diversity of Afghanistan and its members. Whereas the Taliban pretty much have an old male negotiating team that doesn't seem very necessary, inclusive and representative. So, but with this diversity nearly by definition comes a much wider range of perspectives and issues. And I'm wondering how you and the High Council for National Reconciliation and the negotiating team will achieve consensus and maintain unity in talks with the Taliban. So just that tension between the advantages of being much more diverse and representative of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic side, but also the challenges that brings in terms of in a negotiating context. We have a common goal. The team have a shared interest in pursuit of the peace process. That's one. And next to that is that there are, while the team represent different political entities, civil society, different walks of life, different ethnic groups in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, but they represent the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in the values shared there. So it will be also an opportunity for the Taliban to see that people which had different points of views at different times, different political stance, sometimes they are fought against one another, but at the same time, they represent shared values for the country and they have come together and they talk to us and they want to become friends and also a citizens working together in a peaceful Afghanistan. So it will be an experience, a new experience for the Taliban as well, but nevertheless, I have no doubt in my mind that being diverse still they shared those core values and they were represented around the table. Thank you. And now I'd like to start off with questions from the audience and maybe starting with two questions from the media, which I got a lump together as they're both sort of regarding US troop actions and the possibility of withdrawal. So Courtney QB from NBC asks, is the US military doing enough to protect the Afghan security forces that continue to come under attack from the Taliban? Do you think they should be doing more? And if they're holding back, is it to salvage the peace process? So that's the first question. And then the second one is from BBC's Pakistan-Afghanistan correspondent, Secunder Karmani, who asks, the US Taliban deal makes clear a full withdrawal next year is contingent on the intra-Afghan talks beginning, but not concluding. Given those talks are likely to last a long time, are you concerned about the possibility of US forces pulling out before you have reached an agreement with the Taliban? Wouldn't that severely damage your position in the negotiations? In terms of US presence in Afghanistan and also US command, General Mehta, which is working with our security institutions, defense and security institutions, they are working very closely together. They are mindful of the agreement signed between the United States and Taliban in terms of the engagement of the US troops in Afghanistan and the conditions that it sets for it. At the same time, the cooperation continues. There are also international partners who are also concerned about the increased level of violence. And we all understand that it puts under question sustainability of hoping for getting to the negotiating table. So the level of cooperation is there. There are some restrictions currently, but if those, those conditions are not observed by all sides, especially Taliban, they will have to revisit what could be done in that under those circumstances. But currently we all jointly of the view of a common view that the level of violence is increased and it's not good. But the cooperation between the US troops in Afghanistan and our defense and security forces continues. In terms of use withdrawal, withdrawal date, it is condition based. There are other conditions as well, including the presence of al-Qaeda, ISIS and other troops and the way to deal with it. And also Afghanistan not being a base for terrorist groups, which poses a threat for our citizens, as well as our international partners. So the presence of US troops in Afghanistan are condition based and hopefully we all look at it as an opportunity rather than taking advantage of it when the US signed an agreement and also expressed its willing to withdraw from Afghanistan when those conditions are met. We need to look at it as an opportunity for all Afghans rather than trying to take advantage of it for the sake of one group. Hopefully that's not the thinking with the Taliban. And also the people of Afghanistan are also watching in their meeting judgments about our commitment. As a whole, if we take the example of the prisoners exchange, as a whole, there were no protests against it. As such, there were concerns expressed about it. But if the same thing continues with the current level of violence, then the people will question us and put us under question. And also in regards to the question of the US withdrawal while the talks will continue, if we come to an agreement during the talks that we will show our commitment to concluding an agreement for the interests of all Afghans. And then it's part of that agreement between the Afghans that we are both sides are sure that the presence of the international troops will not be needed beyond certain point while the United States will decide for itself, we can express our joint view in that common view. And that will be a good sign in a big progress. But most of these things will be tested as the talks start and we are looking forward to that. Thank you. I'm not gonna ask two more questions lumped together on sort of the issue of trade-offs in a peace negotiation. Muhammad Tahir asks, how do you envision the future of the current Afghan government under a peace agreement as well as the role of the Taliban in the future administration? And then relatedly, Mr. JJ Badger asks, what compromises with regard to the political system is the Afghan delegation ready to make in order to reach a peace agreement? Again, in regards to earlier question, and I also mentioned in my remarks that there is no military solution. There were times that Taliban were in control of 90% of the country, but that didn't mean the end of war. Even if there is a premature US withdrawal from Afghanistan, that does not mean that Taliban can take over the whole country. That's the, if there is one lesson in the past four decades, that should be that lesson. So hopefully no sites are aiming for the continuation of the war. So that's in regard to the earlier question. Coming to the current administration, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the government in the future, in the future of Taliban status in the future settlement, these are all issues that needs to be discussed between both sides. What are the ways to achieve permanent status? What are the things that we need to do in the interim in order to get to a permanent solution? In all these things, rather than taking a firm position about it at this stage, these should be issues discussed around the table between the Afghans, including the type of compromises that both sides needs to be doing. If there is one lesson in the peace processes around the world, no peace process has succeeded with one side making compromises. And if there are compromises, these have to be on both sides for the sake of the common interests of the broader public in the whole nation. And that's what we are looking forward to. Certainly there needs to be compromises if there is a need for changes in the system personally, by myself and my political background. I have, politically I fought for a different system of governments and for amendment of the constitution, but I fought for it peacefully and through peaceful means. So if we could agree on the rules of the game that we will not resort to violence or seek support from terrorist groups in order to achieve political objectives, but rather fight for our ideas. Politically that will be, I think a turning point after four decades of war. But at the same time, I emphasized on inclusivity. When I say inclusive, it doesn't mean it has to be inclusive of us here in Kabul and it's representing Islamic Republic of Afghanistan but not Taliban as a reality in the country. So we believe in engagement and in interactions and working together when we say inclusive, we say all in. We believe that all inclusive. And in Afghanistan, the political elite here and also political forces have shown that in also the recent agreement signed between us in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, we had extreme differences. But at the same time, we didn't take it beyond the certain point. And then eventually for the sake of the interests of the country, we signed an agreement. That's what we need to do together with the Taliban. When we say dignified peace, we said it has to be dignified for the Taliban as well. When we say just peace, it's not just for us here in Kabul but for all those involved. Thank you. And maybe related to that very specific question from Akbar Sauri asks, if the Taliban propose an interim government, is the Afghan government prepared to accept it? It looks hypothetical. Let's get to the negotiating table. Let's talk there, if they say an interim government for the sake of creation of an interim government, that has a different meaning if it is. Let's get there and everybody has to be free to raise any proposal. And we have to be flexible in our thoughts. But nothing should derail us from getting to a durable in achieving lasting acceptable peace. When I say acceptable, again, I mean for all of us, for all Afghans, including Taliban. We have a lot of questions about the region and including Jeff Brass asks, how has the new phase of great power competition affected the peace process? Other viewers have asked about recent discussions with Iran and if you can address the role played by Pakistan regarding the peace process. I mentioned earlier that it's, while the consequences of the continuation of the situation in Afghanistan will affect everybody in the region and beyond, at the same time, we are also being affected by global developments in relations between big powers, countries of the region and so on and so forth. So the, I mentioned in my earlier remarks also to engage the region constructively because every country, you mentioned Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran, both those countries have leverages, some leverages over the Taliban. If those leverages are used in a constructive way, that will be helpful recently. There was a high level delegation from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan led by General Bajwa. They promised their support for achieving a peaceful settlement in Afghanistan. Those will be good messages and the right messages that needs to be given to all sides but also to the Taliban and so to engage the countries of the region in continued engagement. So they do not see peaceful settlement as a threat to themselves but rather an opportunity for working together with a friendly Afghanistan. That is the aim and the focus of our efforts. Nevertheless, in the calculation or in the calculus made by different countries, their relations with the United States is a factor. The relations between different countries of the region are factors which they will consider. But in our role here in Afghanistan, we need the support of everybody. Is everybody ready to support or to render support? What are their concerns? What are their legitimate concerns? What are their ambitions? What are their realistic expectations? What are their unrealistic expectations? So those are the things that we need to take into account while working together with our neighboring countries to assure them that peaceful Afghanistan is in the interest of everybody. Thank you. We have several viewers who are asking about yours and President Ghani's respective roles in the peace process. Mohamed Mohamedi, for example, asks, who has ultimate decision-making authority when it comes to decision-making related to peace? And what happens if the president does not agree with the decision made by the HCNR? The concern will be inclusive. It will not be just myself appointing people. It will be inclusive. It will be diverse and represent all walks of life, including the president of the country, which is currently the president of Afghanistan. And so when I emphasized on the issue of inclusion, that was one of the issues related to that. The ultimate decision will rest with the people of Afghanistan. The council represents the voices of the people of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan altogether. And eventually it will be a collective decision. And I don't think that somebody will be against peace. How we can achieve it? What will be the future of the country? Then we have diverse views. So currently we are working closely together in order to give more credibility to our efforts in the peace process. And our determination is to continue in the same way with the same spirit. And then all of us at one stake will be tested. How serious we are when it comes to our political wealth and individually it will be a collective decision. Thank you. We're only a five minutes left. So I'm gonna try to squeeze in a couple more questions. The next one is many peace negotiations include special arrangements for individuals who have personally suffered in the war. And Humayun Malad asks, how will the families of victims of the war be represented in the peace talks? Just recently I was having discussions and consultations with Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan and one of the points that they were stressing which I was in a full agreement with them that the voices of the victims, victims of the war should also be represented. How we do it? We agree that we will have a technical group working together in order to give to help and contribute with the negotiating team directly as well as indirectly and representing the voices of the victims. And talking about the victims today as we speak we have a few more casualties as a result of the continuation of the war. Of course, the biggest service to the families of those victims to the broader nation will be to find a settlement. But at the same time, as I mentioned, having the technical group working with us to represent the voices of the victims is in our agenda. Thank you and here we have a question from Doug Rindall. I think I wanted to core issues that the peace process will have to confront is that the Taliban reject the idea of an Afghan republic and the government insists on continuing a republic. Will this disagreement derail the talks immediately and is there a compromise possible? Permanent status, how it will be decided? What are the steps beforehand? What is the agenda of the first round? Those are all issues to be discussed around the table as I mentioned. Eventually, one person, one vote, I don't think that Taliban will reject it and that's one of the core values of the republic. And again, I'll be hesitant to draw conditions before the start of the negotiations, but the decisions on those issues will depend on the political well of both sides. I don't think that there is any viable, other viable solution but one person, one vote and this is a universally acceptable way of choosing the destiny, but how to do it, where to get things started, what are the topics that you need to address at the beginning, for example, continuation of the same level of violence? Would it help the continuation of the talks in negotiations, certainly not. So it will be for the team to prioritize issues in the agenda and address it accordingly and this will be a difficult topic, perhaps the most difficult topic. When to address it, how to address it, how to find a solution, acceptable for both sides, these will depend on the ability of the negotiating teams. Thank you very much. I'm afraid we've run out of time, so apologies to all of those of you who have submitted questions that we didn't have time for, but in closing out, again, I'd like to thank His Excellency, Chairman Abdullah, for taking the time to join us today and to thank all of you out in cyberspace for joining for this timely and really important discussion. I think it's been a rich discussion highlighting both the challenges and opportunities to achieving peace in Afghanistan. I can assure you, Chairman Abdullah, that supporting peace efforts in Afghanistan has been one of USIP's top priorities and we're committed to doing whatever we can to support efforts to help achieve an inclusive and sustainable peace in Afghanistan. And I would like to end by wishing you and your team every success in your efforts to bring an end to over four decades of war and suffering in Afghanistan. So with that, thank you once again. Thank you. All your colleagues and the participants from around the world. And I hope that our collective efforts will lead to peaceful, unified Afghanistan. Thank you.