 Welcome everybody. Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Lindborg. I'm the president here at the U.S. Institute of Peace. And I'm delighted to welcome everybody here for a very timely and a very important conversation with Ambassador Zalme Khalidzad on the prospects for peace in Afghanistan. I'd like to welcome everyone who's here with us today as well as many of you who are watching online. And I'd like to invite you to follow us on social media with at USIP and use the hashtag hashtag AFG piece. That's hashtag AFG piece. And I also encourage you to check out USIP's new podcast network at usip.org slash podcast. It will include this event along with many other programs featuring leading voices on issues of peace and conflict. USIP was founded in 1984 by the U.S. Congress as an independent nonpartisan national institute focused on preventing, mitigating and resolving violent conflict around the world. And we work globally with partners on the ground working both from the bottom up and the top down with local, regional and national actors. We have been deeply involved with Afghanistan since 2002 and we've had an office in Kabul since 2008. And with the very capable leadership of our Vice President Andrew Wilder and a wonderful Afghanistan team, the Afghanistan program works very closely with both U.S. and government partners with civil society organizations to address the underlining causes of stability and violence including improving the rule of law and elections. And we seek to connect this policy with action on the ground. Support to the Afghan peace process is a big priority for us and we've mobilized to support both Afghan and U.S. actors to seize what is a very critical moment. I think as many, many people in this room know the long running Afghanistan conflict is extremely complicated with many, many stakeholders internally and externally with conflicting interests and priorities. So inclusivity will be key and especially including women, youth and the many political factions will be vital to a sustained peace. So we're entering a pivotal time in Afghanistan's history, one that I think all of us hope could end many, many decades of war and violence. The United States themselves are war weary but they're also very nervous at losing the gains that they've realized since 2001. Ambassador Halizad's recent efforts have opened new opportunities and created opportunities for moving ahead on a peace process. On January 29th Ambassador Halizad announced that U.S. officials and the Taliban had made progress towards a draft framework of peace after days of extensive negotiations. So today is a wonderful and important opportunity to hear directly about the process, where it stands and the challenges ahead. I think Ambassador Halizad needs little introduction to most of you here in the room. He was appointed Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation by Secretary of State Pompeo in September 2018. He comes to this challenge with extraordinary experience in the region, knowledge of the actors and of the issues. Previously he served as the U.S. perm rep to the United Nations from 2007 to 2009 and he was also ambassador to Iraq and to Afghanistan. So he's exceptionally well qualified. We're delighted to host him for his first public remarks since becoming the Special Representative and following his remarks he'll be joined on stage by USIP Board Chair and former National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, who will moderate a conversation with Ambassador Halizad. So both the presentation and the moderated discussion will focus on the latest developments, the challenges and the opportunities in a very complicated yet very hopeful Afghan peace process. Please join me in welcoming Ambassador Halizad to the stage. Good afternoon. It's a pleasure to be here. I appreciate the help that I have received from USIP since I've taken on this new responsibility. I will ask your forgiveness for my voice today. This is what 42 hours of talking with a Taliban can do to you. I took this job a few months ago to explore the possibility of peace in Afghanistan. This was done with the aim of protecting our national security objectives in Afghanistan, particularly the threat of terrorism but also to preserve the gains that Afghanistan has made with the requirement of the US which is to reduce the burden of Afghanistan on the United States as well. The opportunity we thought was there because the Taliban were indicating that they don't see a military solution to the Afghan problem. The Afghan government declared an unconditional offer to the Taliban for peace talks. Afghan groups around the country were demanding peace from civil society, from women's group, from regional groups, and President Trump had made it clear during his campaign that he wanted to try to end the Afghan war. To explore the potential opportunity to see if a peace that can satisfy those conditions that I said at the beginning, I started engaging the various forces in Afghanistan and to deal with a complex conflict that has lasted 40 years. To see what role we can play in the service of our national interests and in the service of ending the war in Afghanistan. My overall goal is the direction of the President of the Secretary of State not to seek a withdrawal agreement but a peace agreement because a peace agreement can allow withdrawal but it is not just a withdrawal agreement that we are seeking. To achieve a peace agreement quite a number of issues have to be dealt with. We have tried to develop a long agenda of issues that must be addressed. Initially we have focused on two issues. One on the issue of counterterrorism and the other the issue of U.S. force withdrawal. After many conversations we have reached an agreement in principle with the Taliban on a framework that would provide guarantees an enforcement mechanism that no terrorist group, international terrorist group or individuals would be able to use Afghanistan the areas that they control and should they be part of a future government against the United States to mobilize and others. We will engage the Taliban further to flush out these commitments that they have made. Similarly we have agreed in principle on a framework for possible U.S. withdrawal as part of a package deal. We have a similar engagement with the Afghan government. Our hope is that once inter-Afghan dialogue begins which is our key objective that these parallel discussions will be brought together. But even if we achieve success on these two issues we make further progress a peace agreement would not be immediately or shortly or achieved in the foreseeable future without a comprehensive agreement on other issues. And as I've said publicly in my tweets before nothing is agreed to until everything has been agreed to. And the other issues that must be dealt with are issues of a roadmap for Afghanistan's political future to end the Afghan war the Afghans must sit across the table with each other and come to an agreement about their future of their country. All sides tell me that I have talked to that they have lessons from the past that previous governments that whether it was the Taliban government or others that dominated Afghanistan and imposed a unique vision by force on others have been a failure so the time has come they say for an inclusive dialogue leading to an inclusive peace. Now that will not be easy and we have offered to do what we can to be helpful if our help is needed but it's for the Afghans to decide it's for the Afghans to have the conversations with each other it's for the Afghans to accept each other and I hope what I hear from them would be actually delivered on I have been a witness to the tragedy of Afghanistan for a long time and I share the aspiration that they have to overcome the tragedy of the last 40 years and on behalf of the United States I'm going through everything I can to be helpful to them but we cannot be a substitute for decisions that they must make. We will speak loudly and clearly for the values that we have the values of human rights, value of freedom of the press women's rights, all that we stand for and we'll make sure that they understand that for having positive relations in the future with the United States those values must be respected. Those values must be responded to and I know that the Afghanistan of today is very different than the Afghanistan of 19 years ago it's a different country and it will take time for the Taliban perhaps to appreciate that but the message that they have given me is that they understand that they cannot go back we do not trust the words of any of the protagonists as such anywhere but we will do what we can to facilitate it and be helpful and be watchful. Now, Afghanistan also has complexities besides the domestic situation and the time of the elections where rather than coming together it tends to polarize them. There are lessons to be learned from other conflicts where protagonists who have refused to meet with each other have come together in a broader gathering involving the various forces that shape the future of that country. There are lessons that could be learned from that because at present the biggest challenge that we face is for the Talibs and the Afghan government the reluctance is on the side of the Talib to sit with the government to negotiate the future. I'm hopeful and I'm dedicated to do what I can in the coming period to help overcome that challenge besides me or the United States the region has a big role to play in Afghanistan. The roots of the conflict in Afghanistan is not only in Afghanistan but also in the broader region. I have said to the regional players that we seek their cooperation their participation, their facilitation to assist the Afghans to come to the peace table and to make an honorable just peace with each other. I have talked to all the neighbors of Afghanistan, perhaps the exception of one or two that you can guess, but we have not yet agreed on a formal framework for regional participation. There is a number of regional initiatives that are out there. We look forward to coming to some understanding on the shape of regional gathering that could facilitate and participate in the finalization of the peace agreement but we don't have to wait until then for regional players to play a positive role. They can already play a positive role. Similarly the timing of a peace settlement from our point of view is the sooner the better. I have said that although there is an election I know that makes the reaching a peace agreement particularly complicated, but it would be better for Afghanistan if we could get a peace agreement before the election which is scheduled in July. At the same time while we would prefer to see an agreement before July a peace agreement to bring the Taliban also into the process so that that peace agreement would facilitate a peaceful election or a framework for proceeding with regard to the future of Afghanistan, but that if there is no progress on the peace strike elections will take place and we are doing what we can to support the preparations for credible elections. Let me conclude because I look forward to the questions that Steve will ask me that we are in our early stages of a protected process to end the long suffering of the Afghan people to protect our national security interests with regard to terrorism from Afghanistan at much lower cost to contribute through peace in Afghanistan to a change in the regional equation of South Central Asia where our relations could improve with Pakistan and other neighboring states as a result of peace where Afghanistan rather being an impediment to regional integration could be a place where the region comes together that facilitates regional integration that transforms this region particularly Central Asia. But while we are hopeful that there may be a moment of opportunity and we'll give it all that we can, we have a long way to go. What we've achieved so far is significant but these are small, two or three small steps in a long journey. So thank you for coming here today. I look forward to the questions. All the best to you. I want to thank you all for being with us today. Zal, thank you for being here. Thank you for and your very informative and enlightening words and thank you for undertaking this difficult assignment. I think you are the best possible position to person to undertake this difficult task and we're thankful that you've taken it on. Well thank you Steve. I appreciate that. I want to begin with the issue of U.S. troop presence. The State of the Union address appeared to link our troop presence to the peace process. The President said as we make progress in these negotiations we will be able to reduce our troop presence and focus on counter-terrorism. That suggests in some sense process first, withdrawal later and yet at the same time your discussions have begun with the issue of the prospects for withdrawal. Can you explain why it was important to start where you did in terms of these issues of troop presence and the terrorism issue? Well thank you Steve. The reason for starting where we started has been that for us from a national security perspective although we have quite a few other interests involved in Afghanistan. That from a national security perspective terrorism and making sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a platform for terrorists to attack the United States to have a repetition of 9-11. That's why we went to Afghanistan. That we wanted to explore that whether we could have assurances, arrangements that would be assured as a result of a comprehensive peace agreement. We emphasize from our perspective that point of view. From the perspective of the Taliban a perspective or a view with regard to the troops was their most important issue. Recognizing that there are a lot of other issues that must be discussed. The reason for starting with those two were the reason that I just described. But it has been clear from the beginning that we will start there but there are other issues that must be dealt with and nothing is agreed until everything is agreed to and that now that we have made progress on those two issues and we will flush these the framework agreement that I mentioned on. Those we are going to move to the other issues. Any judgment that the agreement is only made up of those two issues would be incorrect. I think the President's point of view, this statement obviously is extremely important. It helps us gain the kind of leverage that is needed to make progress on the issues of concern to us because some in Afghanistan and particularly among the Taliban believe that they cannot leave anyway. This was a misunderstanding of the President's point of view. I think the State of the Union address has clarified that. Good. I want to press you a little bit on that because that is something that is on a lot of people's minds. You said nothing is agreed to everything is agreed but many perceive that the United States in general is weary of the Afghan project and that at some point we will leave with or without a political settlement. How do you answer that critique and what assurance can you give that we are really, as you said, in it for the peace agreement which facilitates the withdrawal, not the withdrawal and peace agreement if possible? That the President has stated clearly during the campaign that he wants to end these what he calls endless wars. I think the American people know that. I think people around the world know that. But I think the President also would like Afghanistan to not to become a threat to the United States again for it not to be a platform for terror and that he's determined to protect the U.S. national security interests regardless whether there is an agreement or if the Talibs do not agree and if they decide to go an alternative route. At this point the policy is quite clear which is that we prefer a peace agreement. The Talibs say they prefer that too. They're willing to give us the assurances on terrorism as a first step encouraging but that is, as I said, a long way to go to get to a peace agreement. So that's where we are at the present time. Let me ask you a related question. There's been a lot of discussion about ceasefire and you have talked about the issue of ceasefire and intra-Afghan discussion about peace are the next items on the agenda or certainly important items on your agenda. Clearly the United States and the Afghan governments are pressing for a ceasefire at the front end of the process. The Taliban seem to envision this happening much later. At this point what's realistic to expect given these divergent views and perspectives? Well I think that we would like both of those issues, the issue of inter-Afghan dialogue and the ceasefire to happen ASAP. For ceasefire we believe that given that the Talibs say there is no military solution and the Afghan government once is supporting peace talks and achieving an honorable peace unconditionally sitting with the Taliban without preconditions the United States also is supportive of peace then why should the killing go on? And we've said a permanent ceasefire is desirable as soon as possible. The Talibs resist this idea leaving that permanent ceasefire would take away from them the only instrument they have to get concessions from the other side. So they are saying that the ceasefire, a permanent ceasefire would reduce the incentive of the government to give them concessions and that if they do it for a while for a long time then getting their troops back into the field if there is no agreement it will be hard for them. So there are people who are thinking about permutations of that but we are still waiting to hear from them when I talk with them the last time the Talibs were saying they don't have the authorization to engage on that perhaps they will down the road but they have these concerns. On the inter-Afghan dialogue I mentioned before that this is election time and the Talib preference is not to sit with the government alone because they think that would give the government legitimacy and be favorable to the one of the candidate, the president, in his re-election campaign. And there are indications that they would be willing to sit with the government in a multi-party arrangement. We would like the inter-Afghan dialogue to start right away because many issues of concern to the Afghans to begin with but also to the rest of the world can only be dealt with in an inter-Afghan dialogue. The issues such as women's rights, the issues such as human rights, the issues such as freedom of the press, the gains that have been made are all issues that roadmap for the political future, for the future of Afghanistan would have to deal with. And the Afghan society has very changed compared to 30 years ago and it has to be an inclusive conversation with an inclusive outcome that satisfies Afghans in their entirety and the great diversity that is now Afghanistan. You mentioned the election and for those who may not know, the election is now it's a presidential election scheduled for July 20th I think. There are about 18 candidates who have registered many of the major political figures who have a stake in this peace process, some of whom went to Moscow for the dialogues with the Taliban. On the one hand, some of us have thought that the prospects of the election could be a trigger or an incentive for reaching a peace agreement prior to the election so the Taliban might be able to participate in those elections. On the other hand election periods are pretty divisive, especially when you have 18 candidates or so, all vying for an opportunity to claim the mantle of peace candidate. How do you manage these and how realistic is it to expect that the kind of complicated agreement you talked about could actually be concluded before July 20 or is there a possibility that there could be a down payment on that agreement in advance of July 20? How are you going to balance this? This is one of the most complicated issues in the complexity that's Afghanistan. I have thought myself and we have as a United States have been pressing that the peace agreement or at least the peace negotiations among Afghans, inter-Afghan dialogue should start as soon as possible. It would be very good, very positive in terms of the prospects if there could be an agreement or lots of progress toward an agreement before the election. And that agreement or the prospects progress on the agreement could affect how the Afghans decide what to do about the future. If there was a roadmap, that roadmap meaning peace agreement which has a political roadmap as a component of it, that would be dominant then, what is agreed to. And but I understand that peace processes are not a straight line, there could be setbacks and maybe there wouldn't be, perhaps I hope to avoid that, but if there is a stalemate in the peace process then you can't hold back elections in Afghanistan, so preparations for that election can go on. But I believe that if we could, and that's what I'm going to work hard to achieve, makes an agreement will be the best. And between now and July there is sufficient time, I believe, where we could reach an agreement. But at least if we have significant progress that will have a good impact with regard to the future including the elections. There are many concerns among, that have been expressed from Afghan women in civil society, that this unfolding process has to them been a little exclusive and lacking some transparency. And what would you say to those who anticipate that in some sense the casualties of a peace agreement with the Taliban might be the progress that you talked about earlier, the progress of the expanded role for women in civil society, the expansion of human and civil rights in Afghanistan. What do you say to them and how can you address that concern of these groups with the process that's unfolding? First I have to assure them that as far as the United States is concerned we hear them loud and clear. We strongly believe in our own values. We strongly believe in standing up for those values which we believe are universal values and we will advocate for them. Now as far as Afghanistan and Afghans are concerned they need to sit around the table and when I sit around the table I mean it has to be an inclusive round table and that this new diversity of Afghanistan has to be reflected and that they need to accept each other based on equality and mutual accommodation. The most important factor among all the factors is ending the violence. Afghan children should be able to go to school without fearing their moms and dads that I might not see my son or daughter again. Afghans I've interacted with them for a long time and not surprisingly they yearned for peace 40 years of war for a long time and that's the number one as I understand and together they have to find a formula to preserve the achievements of the past and if we are asked to be in the room while they talk with each other and seek our help we would be more than happy to do that to participate or others if they request to participate would participate to help them to come to an agreement where they accept each other and agree on a roadmap but also do it based on the kind of achievements of the past. The Afghans have to understand the Talibs and I've tried to explain this in my interactions with them which I said 40 plus hours but it's actually much longer because only the last meeting alone for that long is that they say they want legitimacy, they have learned from their mistakes of the past, that they want to be not isolated on, be a pariah state they say they need help, they will need economic help they will need to assistance and there are many ways to stand on their own feet to address the money problems that the areas, particularly at the Oran suffer from and that would not happen if Afghanistan went backwards rather than go forward so we have to be very, we can't trust anything that anyone says that is protagonist so we will have to have assurance guarantees but that's the way I think about it at least there was a meeting in Moscow earlier this week in which representatives or individuals from Afghanistan met with the Taliban, the Afghan government was not present and some of the statements that came that were at least reported in the press were not particularly helpful or consistent with some of the things that had been reported coming out of your talks the Taliban spokesman said that Afghanistan needed a new Islamic constitution, another spokesman said that the US withdrawal has to come first before they are willing to talk about an intra-Afghan dialogue or a ceasefire, how should we read how do you read these kinds of the stray voltage that seems to have come out of Moscow? Well if there were no differences there wouldn't be a war I mean we wouldn't have a peace process so if they all agreed on everything then we wouldn't have the problems that they have the tragedy of the last 40 years for Afghanistan has been that groups with different ideologies about what the future should be like have sought to use military power either by carrying out the coup, taking the army over and using the government powers to enforce its vision on the society and that has been the tragedy and that has led to a resistance, a rebellion armed resistance by others against that imposition by one group of its vision on the rest. Well Afghanistan needed a common vision that can have the buy in and to get from money to one as we say here is going to be a challenge but I am hopeful because I think the suffering of the last 40 years has brought with it a degree of wisdom in the leadership of various groups and I'm hopeful that they will while the pre-peace posturing in terms of emphases that different groups have there are groups in Afghanistan that would never want us to leave or at least not for the future there are groups who say we have to leave immediately and there are groups who want more kind of sharia there are groups who want even they thought there was too much sharia in this constitution if I remember we were being criticized as I had the honor of working on the current constitution in Afghanistan but yeah that's understandable that there will be different perspective the question is how do you resolve differences or understand how do you resolve it if they can do agree to do through a political process through dialogue through mutual accommodation learning the lessons of the past that would put Afghanistan on a better path and that's what this process is about so I think we're getting out of national interest about one more question and then we're going to go to the audience for questions between what time is left until 3 o'clock there are microphones on the side should you want people to come to the microphones or are you going to bring the microphones to the people great so we thinking of your questions we will have microphones will pass to you once you get a microphone please state your name any affiliation Pakistan released Mula Berater a very revered leader of the Taliban he has now been announced that he will join in some sense be your counterpart in the Doha discussions where do you think Pakistan is on this peace process issue and indeed I would say to you even where are some of the countries in the region more generally is Pakistan going to be a help here and are there others that you think have indicated so far that they're prepared to support you in this effort right well this is a sensitive question I believe Pakistan has historically not played a positive role with regard to peace process but I believe there is a positive change in recent times the release of Mula Berater which was my request they accommodated that because reputation of being more pro-peace President Karzai during his administration and President Ghani during his period mentioned that Raider would be a force for peace Pakistan has tried to facilitate talks between the Taliban and the United States and also favors inter-Afghan dialogue including between the Taliban and the government that's the that and I think that's positive we always would like Pakistan like other countries to do more but we appreciate what they have done so far and I have indicated and the Secretary Pompeo and the President that you know we want to have good relations with Pakistan better relations with Pakistan and that what they do on Afghanistan to facilitate peace and reconciliation which has been a burden on the relationship that will be removed and in Pakistan is an important country with which we want to have better relations questions we have a few sir right here Salam alaikum good afternoon thank you sir for coming here I'm Siddiq from Afghanistan working for the government I had a question in regards to the Moscow efforts on peace process do you think sir it's a compliment to your process or they are pursuing a strategy based on their terms to bring peace in Afghanistan and of course it could also make it hard for your process to actually see and get more concession so the Taliban will not easily concede if they see that there's another country a powerful country they are supporting them or they are dragging the process that was my question sir thank you very much we are distinguished member of the Ministry of Interior of Afghanistan he doesn't introduce himself properly you've been outed well do you want me to respond let's take a couple here yes ma'am my question is that you are doing all this meeting and conversation with all parties is the government involved with it and all do you get any help from them or do you explain to them what's going on or it's behind the back door and the other question is one of the agreement the Taliban that the girls can go to school what do they mean by that there's going to be madrasah again that the girls can go just study what they want because they want Islamic government we'll take one more Zalif that's alright and then you can answer those three and we'll try to do them yes sir back there I was struck in the President's speech he talked about the reduction of American troops you're talking that your discussions about withdrawal is the term reduction used do you think because there's some hope that there might be and remain a residual American force in Afghanistan as part of this deal well first on Moscow we will have to wait and see what impact it has if it leads to Afghans coming together including the government to a meeting next in Doha they've agreed then the Moscow meeting as a step in that direction would have been positive but on the other hand if it arises the Afghans further then the judgment would have to be different so at this point I'm in a wait and see mode on the Moscow meeting with regard to interactions with the Afghan government closed doors yes I do brief the Afghan government on my discussions they are also behind closed doors but I do brief them I generally tend to go to have Kabul first to tell the President and the leadership what I'm going to do on the rest of my trip and then I try to go back at the end of the consultations to Kabul to brief what it is that we have achieved I'd like the inter-Afghan dialogue to begin quickly as soon as possible that will be the best way because many issues that are really Afghan issues I'm not dealing with them I'm not discussing the future negotiating the future government of Afghanistan Afghans must agree with each other our role is going to decline the role of Afghans will increase they need to take more ownership they are better prepared I have to say then they were after 9-11 when we went there to take more responsibility and leadership themselves similarly the role of the region would increase the region needs to rise to the occasion to play a positive role because they will benefit from a peace agreement in Afghanistan in my view and the opposite will be the case in case that doesn't happen question with regard to withdrawal versus reduction well you can't have withdrawal without a reduction so I think this is we this is something we have to in the middle of the negotiations as I said some Afghans would like us never to leave some Afghans and to have a large presence some Afghans would not not like to stay there at all I have said it's our policy we're not seeking permanent basis in Afghanistan that our presence is condition based our withdrawal is condition based and our vision long term is for an Afghanistan that's entirely sovereign independent and that and if they decide that they don't want to have foreign troops we don't want to stay where we're not wanted provided and that there is no threat to our national security from Afghanistan that you know there are no terrorist threats to from Afghanistan to the United States that is a red line and I think that's a policy of the president as well let's take three more questions yes ma'am right there my name is Sita Kuhi and I'm with the School of International Services at AU my question is during the peace process or the peace negotiation or there any talks about drug issues with the Taliban what issues? Drug issues okay thank you thank you so much my name is Abdul I'm graduating student at the George Washington University I'm working with non rise to peace nonprofit organization my question is regarding Taliban commitment to prevent Afghanistan from becoming safe haven by any other transnational terrorist group so I speaking in particular like ISIS, Khorasan province branch they burned on Afghanistan on 2015 they had many attacks they claimed unfortunately that they had those attacks had massive casualties but their technology is much different than Taliban especially their attack on particular sectarian group like Shia group so being practical how much Taliban can be influential even working with Afghan government to prevent these other transnational terrorist groups thank you so much thank you did you have a question right here yes ma'am hi Amy McKinnon from foreign policy do you have any concerns about Moscow's apparent desire to self in the peace process and any role that they may play in a peace agreement Afghanistan well on drugs not yet we have and that will be part of the discussions once the inter-Afghan dialogue begins on ISIS terrorism we will not just rely on people's words there would have to be enforcement mechanism for the United States to be able to to have confidence that the commitments that are made which it's a good step that these commitments are made commitments with regard to groups that in the past those commitments have not been made I regard that as positive but words are not enough when it comes to the national security of the American people so therefore there will have to be enforcement mechanisms agreed to in which we would have confidence and with regard to Moscow Russia's role we welcome a positive Russian role that facilitates reconciliation that facilitates peace settlement that facilitates inter-Afghan dialogue I have said repeatedly to counterparts around the world that I'm not seeking to monopolize the diplomacy of peace I represent the United States that we stand for but we want a peace agreement in Afghanistan we want to see the war end we want to see the war end this year let's declare this year the year of peace in Afghanistan anyone that would like to help is welcome will give them all the credit they deserve so I am not looking at it to exclude anyone who wants to play a positive role but will thank everyone who will play a positive role and give them the credit they deserve we have enough time for three more questions if they are brief and if the answers are typically so I'll call it a brief sir thanks so much I was really hoping you would pick me my name is Afar Azam and I'm from George Mason University and for the longest time whether it's from European Union, Indian government, even the Pakistanis what I've heard that they would support an Afghan-owned process but what I'm hearing is the intra-Afghan dialect is to come where are the Afghans in this process because they should be leading it they should be starting it but I feel like this is being imposed on them thank you yes thank you so much my question is regarding about the Omen and Taliban I know it's a big challenge between Taliban and Afghan what do you think about the situation in Omen and Afghanistan because when I heard they gave Omen some limited job what do you think about future and also the second question is what do you think about the result and your hard work and when you did a hard work what do you think about the result thank you so much thank you for the opportunity my name is Nisar and I'm CEO of NGO called Global Peace One Week and my question is specifically regarding Pakistan is Pakistan compensated in any form to bring Taliban to the table I didn't understand the last part Pakistan able to bring the Taliban to the table it's not compensated for bring them to the table oh I see well first with regard to Afghan owned Afghan land we very much would like that but there is a need for a formula for the Afghan owned and Afghan process to really take place we are playing a transitional role to facilitate to the phase which we the decisive phase for peace in Afghanistan which is the Afghan sitting across from each other I'm a catalyst I see myself and others who are trying to do something to get to that because Afghans are not agreeing among themselves at this point to sit across the table and negotiate that to as to my hard work thank you for what you said I think I have a lot more work to do and the other issue with regard to women I think women have made progress in Afghanistan I'm very proud myself of the role that we have played representing the United States when I was in Afghanistan whether it was with the constitution or other steps that were taken that now we see women in all walks of life in Afghanistan you go to offices you see women a lot more education a lot more presence in the media what have you it's a different world than 18-19 years ago and they need to be built on Afghanistan still has a long way to go let's not celebrate as if we have Afghanistan women have achieved where they are the Talibs have a different view on this issue they say they made a mistake and how they dealt with women the last time but nevertheless they are not going to be the government of Afghanistan they are going to be part of the political process of Afghanistan they may be a part of power sharing arrangement in Afghanistan so it also depends not only on us pressing them but all the other Afghans who will talk with them other Afghans who will negotiate with them all the other Afghans that might join forces with them to form the government that they stand up for their values and to come to some mutual respect and mutual accommodation this is largely an Afghan issue we will play our role and we will play our role but what encourages me that there is an understanding that one side imposing its will on others by force is a formula that has led to disaster in Afghanistan and I hope that remains the case compensation for Pakistan well I have said what I said before there is no compensation other than better relations we want to have better relations with Pakistan and some of you who have known me over the years and my views on this issue you might be surprised that Pakistan is an important country we have done big things with Pakistan in the past and we would like to get into a better situation in terms of relations with Pakistan conflict and the fact of the role that Pakistan has played in terms of its relationship with the Taliban and the Kani network and others has been a burden on this relationship they say they want peace we welcome that we want them to play a positive role most of the meetings we have had with the Taliban have not been in Pakistan in many other countries and I think the message that I have here is peace in Afghanistan will help our relations with Pakistan peace in Afghanistan will help Afghanistan relations peace in Afghanistan will help regional connectivity Pakistan will be a beneficiary of that and let's seize this opportunity this moment for the region for Afghanistan especially for the obviously long suffering people of Afghanistan it's an opportunity as the United States as the leading power which has had extensive engagement now with Afghanistan to leave a good legacy behind and to have a good productive relationship with that region for the future we are out of time I want to thank you all for coming and being with us and please join me in thanking Ambassador Kalzak