 and point to progress in the future. We have, if I may put it, four leading figures from individual countries in the region that are having to deal with peace and reconciliation, and one very experienced minister who has both worked in the field dealing with peace and reconciliation, but is also somebody who is highly knowledgeable about the conflicts taking place in this region themselves. And they are. And I think you've all got it on your agenda, so you can go into any detail. But Abdullah Abdullah, the chief executive of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, we have Sigrid Khaag, the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development from the Netherlands. We have Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman Al-Tani, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Qatar. We have Gibran Basil, the Foreign Minister of Lebanon, and Abdul Khadir Mesaher, the Foreign Minister of Algeria. So a great amount of experience around this table for this conversation. And what I want to do, have a bit of a conversation amongst the group for 30, 40 minutes. But I do want to leave time for this audience that is here, many of whom know the region as well very well, to have an opportunity to ask questions and engage in a conversation in this forum style room that we have here. And in particular then, let me kick off, if I may, with you, Chief Executive, a little bit on the issue of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan. Here we are, some 17 years, 18 years, after the overthrow of the Taliban. And yet it would feel to many that Afghanistan is still living through many of the same internal contradictions and conflicts internally that were present then, despite at least a series, two series of elections. What is it that you feel has changed? What is it that you've learned over the last years, and certainly your time in government, about the requirements internally for peace and reconciliation? What would be some of the key principles that you would put on the table from your experience in Afghanistan that we should be working with? Bismillah al-Akhman al-Rahim. Thank you for the opportunity. In Afghanistan, apart from the impact of multi-polar world getting into the internal dimensions, perhaps in the past 18 years, we missed some opportunities. But apart from that, it is 40 years, four decades since the war is going on in Afghanistan. It's four decades since the Soviet invasion of the country. And the impact of some of the events of the past cannot be ruled out, for example, when the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, then the whole world withdrew from Afghanistan, because there was another situation in Europe and elsewhere, the Cold War had ended. That in itself had an impact. In the space, the vacuum was filled with ambitious goals of our neighborhood. But in the past 18 years, the main imperative inside the country had our own system worked better, the democratic process, issues of governance, and people's participation in the process, issue of justice, the rights of the people. We would have been in a different position in situation. So the internal dynamics is critical. The other thing is the commitment of the leadership, whether there is genuine commitment for peace and reconciliation, because in Afghanistan, successive governments have tried with the process. And lots of apps and downs in the process itself. But talking about multi-conceptual world, what is not being talked about in Afghanistan or in the context of Afghanistan is the fact that Taliban are asking for Islamic Emirate, which is a different type of ruling, like the religious scholars are getting together and appointing an emir. So everybody could be obedient to that type of system while we embark upon a different system. So in terms of the concept, this is. But will you need to reconcile those two concepts? Are they reconcilable? Or is that a fundamental obstacle? The fundamental obstacle has been that Taliban have refused at times, most recently as well, to sit together directly with the Afghan government and talk and discuss these issues, including the concept of governments, including the issue of withdrawal of the troops, the American troops of NATO. But what they say is that we talk to the Americans about the troop withdrawal, and we will try to be more inclusive when we rule again. And so I think that's the main obstacle. But I think by sitting around the table, one can find ways because they also have a stake in peace. Though it's a little bit, if I look at other side of it, for example, narcotics, the source of funding for the fight in Afghanistan, the emergence of Daesh, which is a new phenomenon, the remnants of al-Qaeda from the old days, these are other aspects. But do you have, just a last point, do you have certain red lines within your government beyond which you think peace and reconciliation must not compromise? In other words, are there certain red lines where you feel you absolutely stick to, because otherwise the kind of society, the kind of country with us on the rights of women, education, this is the type of country Afghanistan would become, would be one that it is not worth reconciling for? The point is that are there any conditions for the start of the talks? No. So for getting to the table, we have not put any conditions. Let's sort of visualize it in a different situation. Taliban have certain ideas. We have the people. A lot has changed in Afghanistan in the past 18 years. And this is a misconception that these changes were imposed upon the people of Afghanistan. Yes, the support from the international community in the space that it created, it helped these changes. But people will not go back on their rights. But let's sit together around the table and see what could we do. If the people opt it, if there is a mechanism that the people of Afghanistan, majority of the people, opts for the way of Taliban life, let's discuss it, how we can find out. Because it's that idea that they think that it's good for the people. Do the people think that it's good for them? OK, thank you very much. Let me turn after that example of a very live dilemma in reconciliation to you from Mr. Misahil. Because I think Algeria is a very interesting experience. You had what some 20 years ago now, I mean one of the most brutal periods of internal violence, instability, which has not risen again despite some considerable instability in the region all around you. Could you share your thoughts of the drivers of reconciliation, the drivers of stability? What were some of the key elements and the key lessons from Algeria? I should just say, sorry, the Foreign Minister will be speaking in French. Although I am asking him, I'm giving you the time now to pick up those of you who don't speak French, your headphones, to say that he will be giving his answers in French, although I'll be asking my questions in English, which is through people. So I'm just giving people a chance, please. Over to you, Foreign Minister. Thank you. Could I preface my remarks by thanking you for having chosen this topic? I think it is a world of great turbulence that we now face and where the actual idea of peace and reconciliation are very important to our people and they're very important to the future of the planet. Now you want me to talk about the experience of my country and perhaps I could start by a question that has been raised. The President, in fact, asked me to go to the Gulf countries and it was in August 2016, no, rather 2017, in fact, that I went there. And what we were looking at was the following. By which miracle you, the Algerians, is in 1997 you were about to fail as a country. And this was in August 2017. So those years on, so by what miracle had that come about? A study was done by the Institute in Washington and it said that Algeria was amongst the Soviet countries in the world and it was in line with Switzerland. So how do we go from this situation of war, of a breakdown with all those deaths and how do we get from there to where we are today to be one of the safest countries in the world? And I said, well, simply this. We're just talking about the gift of people, really. It was under President Bouteflika that we did this. And we did it in the three stages. First, we had a civil agreement and the policy was national reconciliation and we actually then experienced peace by doing that. And this meant that we then created the Algeria that we have today, which is now a very safe country and indeed I have seen what happened in Scandinavia and in there were situation was that this was a strategy that we really put in place and it was a long-term strategy. So the first thing you need is a will to change and you need a will of the part of the people, of course. And also you need to have a real legal basis to this and also you need to have popular support and it is vital that you have that when going for reconciliation and development. And it is important to do that. Not only when fighting against terrorism and indeed we actually did that using our army. The army had an important role to play and also there was a popular support for that. But it's not just that though, it's not that simple. You also have to look at the strategy that was where we were trying to anchor democracy. Now here, there is a manual, the role of democracy in fighting against terrorism and the thing is that democracy was a choice that was made. It was a strategic choice and we didn't do it just because it was in vogue. Democracy is really the antidote to extremist discourse because if you're not careful, it is just one discourse that will be heard and it is also what works against exclusion to say, if you're not with me, you're against me. And therefore it is democracy that is the very basis for peace and it is through democracy that this comes about. And also, we've also had a broad-based de-radicalisation policy and this is very important indeed when going for peace and stability because what we tried to do is to take us away from the sphere of extremism. We worked in the mosques and also we worked culturally as well and we went back to our religious tenets really. We wanted to show solidarity. We trained imams and it is very important because an imam is very important and these are graduates who actually work their religion. These aren't charlatans we're talking about and you also have to make sure that schools really actually teach real politics and civics and we also have to free up the press as well to make sure that people can express themselves and all of this has to be done lawfully of course. So national reconciliation can only happen if we actually take ownership of it and this is based on non-interference. So one should not interfere in other countries is based on that and also ownership that's to say if we have a problem it is up to us Algerians to sort it out and also we have to take a certain distance here. Now you spoke about Algeria and Mal. Now it is based on these principles. These are three principles. We have now become a stable country. We've become a safer country and it's thanks to that reconciliation policy that that's happened and it's also thanks to this support of the citizens and also we've managed to do it. We have managed to live together. We've managed to live in peace. There is this peaceful coexistence that we have now introduced into the country. And on the 16th of May and this is a resolution of the United Nations which is the day of peaceful coexistence. You've laid out and I must bring other speakers in as well. I think the question we'll want to come back to later on but not for right now is is this period of peace in Algeria sustainable? Hopefully it is. And as I think you've put in, you've said you've put in place a number of structures there that should be able to sustain it. But I'd like to come back to that issue later on because in a way there will have to be some type of transition certainly in the presidency at some point democratically in Algeria. And it would be interesting to hear how you deal with transitions as well as this period that we've had. But I do want to bring other speakers in from Mr. Basile and we've heard here the importance of democracy. And yet when people look at Lebanon for resolving problems it looks like democracy prevents violence but seems to lead to a gridlock in the capacity at times to govern and to bring about change in terms of the economy in terms of infrastructure. So what is different or what is working at the moment? What are the experiences of Lebanon in terms of peace and reconciliation when it is a country that is potentially so divided internally and is reflected that way in its democratic parties? Our model, thank you for the opportunity. Lebanon is very unique. Maybe you cannot find another country where you have such an equity between religions and a co-partnering in ruling the country. So maybe here in Europe you have Bosnia and Zegovino, which is newly formed. We are a bit similar. But again, our democracy is particularly that it's consensual, very hard to reach among confessions, 18 confessions living and sharing the power and the government and the parliament and the presidencies. And this consensus, once you reach it, gives you stability, but difficult to reach in every process in informing a government and adopting an electoral law. And there's always this anxiety that we are living internal because the system is based on religions. So everyone has to preserve its prerogatives and its role, especially in the region where the Christians still having their stronghold in Lebanon, and they believe that this is how they keep on spreading their message of tolerance. And so, and on top of this, we have our external problems coming from the fact that Lebanon has witnessed all the controversial, historical conflicts since ever. We had first the Ottoman Empire with the Turks, so we have the Arab-Turkish conflict. Then we passed to the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is still existing fiercely. And now we are moving to the Arab-Persian conflict. And all the three are converging in Lebanon. On top of it, the clash of civilizations between Christians and Muslims, between Sunnis and Shi'as. So having all this together, Lebanon is still able to absorb being a bumper. Lebanon has been called the laboratory of civilizations, of diversity. But again now, it's a bumper of all the clashes that we are witnessing in the region. We have reached our internal reconciliation, but you have to keep on maintaining it. Because it's a dynamic that never ends. Let me bring Ciri Khakhin. I'm conscious of time. I want to make sure we get as well to the issue of the geopolitics that are affecting the region. But you know Syria, I think, particularly well. You've traveled and worked in there, especially in your UN roles. And when you listen, especially with your former UN hat on, as well as your current role in the Netherlands government, and you listen to these three very different experiences, what do you take away as some of the key elements for reconciliation that allow success versus those that are limited? I think there's one strand of observations that are in the realm of the obvious. The first one, of course, is you one has to address the root causes that led to conflict or unresolved conflict. So it's usually social exclusion, political exclusion, marginalization. The toxic mix then with regional influences and militarization of a conflict, if you look at Syria, the early days, the militarization was still absent from the oppression, the answer, reaction regime. That quickly spun out of control and it became a regional conflict. But there are many other such situations. I think Lebanon has always suffered as well. Sometimes, with all due respect, the Lebanese love to import also regional influences. So there's a give and take in influence, money, arms, political control. Of the export. You also export. And clientelism. And we could come to that. But so there's always a balance there. Now, but I think the basics, of course, remains root causes of unaddressed grievances. And they're often around economics. They're about power. And they're about status of minorities, be they yes or no. In today's world, unfortunately, identity also in Europe has come to be a very toxic new element into the equation. What could change is, I think, in the way we approach peace processes as one of the elements to arrive at the highest level of reconciliation, which ultimately is amongst the people that are at home here, is to look at local situations, local dynamics and be powerful there, build, invest, look at national processes. And I think never hijack it through the old templated version we have now. And I think we don't see success in many ways. We take it outside of the country. We run a UN process. Some of them have run for decades without result. And we are too afraid, too afraid to pull the plug and say, let's take a step back. What did the data tell us? How is the power dynamic shifting? I think President Trump's decision, as much as from European perspective, we were both taken by surprise. We don't agree to the same problem analysis, let alone the solution. It's interesting because it forces everybody to rethink, take stock, and come up with a better approach to unaddressed conflict situations, including the question of Syria. I think I would always like to also pay homeruns and I'll finish there in the interest of time to Lachda Ibrahimi, who after one and a half years concluded that what his effort and engagement was around the Syria process at the time, it wasn't working. Absence of political will, still made security counsel. All those elements are still there in many other conflict situations. The Security Council's agenda is full most of the year with protracted crisis, unresolved issues, at best a peacekeeping operation that doesn't have a peace to keep, but is present and is there. And that should be telling us something that our old formula as are not suited to new conflict situations. The numbers have increased over the last decade. The nature of conflict has altered and changed, but we're going after sort of a new disease with aspirin. And I think this calls for a totally new approach, a little bit more risk embracing, which countries, let's say from the European Union, I can't say we're the most risk embracing in terms of politics. We don't like to talk to people we shouldn't be talking to that are on sanctions list. And I accept that, I respect that, but then empower others to do so to get to a result because we overpromise to most people in conflict situations and we truly under deliver. Well, I think your comment about risk embracing actually gives me a good segue if you don't mind to deputy prime minister, Al Tani, because Qatar is known for having taken some pretty risky foreign policies in recent years, certainly stepping forward. And I think Qatar is certainly a country that believes it has an approach regionally to reconciliation that is quite activist, is quite involved. Could you just share from your perspective more the less about the internet change but the dynamics externally? In other words, to what extent can a country like Qatar play a constructive role in peace and reconciliation regionally today? It's in an awkward position with some countries allied to it, others confronting it quite severely. But with the United States in a way pulling back, taking a more transactional approach, it would seem that countries in the region, and I think this is what Secretary Karg was saying as well, are going to have to step up and play more of a role. How much scope is there? How difficult is it to play that role today? Well, thank you. Thank you, Robin, first for having me today. And I would like just to commend all the participants here on their comments, which are touching really the heart of the reality. As you have just mentioned, we are living in a very complicated situation right now in the region. And Qatar has been taking a different approach in the foreign policy, yes, and has been very successful in the past decade. And it's proven in different areas of conflict. One of the examples is Darfur, where Qatar brought peace over there. Lebanon was one of the examples when they had the disagreement about the president, and they agreed to elect the president at that time when they had Doha agreement. Other conflicts are, Qatar is progressing in. One is Afghanistan. And Qatar had this unique position because of its size, its ability to move and to talk to all the parties in the conflicts. And we tried to utilize these resources and these capabilities for the good, for bringing peace and reconciliation for those countries. But if the countries themselves, they are not entering and engaging these peace processes with good intentions, you cannot impose peace. We are just acting as a facilitator and as a mediator. But the main players are the parties of the conflicts. What you are going to get from the facilitator, whether it's a country or an organization, regional or sub-regional organization, or international organization, is just a support. It's just a facilitation. And the main process should be driven from inside. Here what happened in Lebanon when you talk about a success story, because the process was driven from inside and facilitated by other friends and allies. Now, looking at it also from another perspective when you look at those domestic conflicts, it all has a regional dimension and has a geopolitical dimension. My country has this geopolitical conflict right now with three of the Gulf countries, which really paralyze the ability of the GCC to contribute for the peace and to be a force of stability as everybody expects. Because the GCC in itself, it's a strength with its block. But if you have each country are acting separately, it has no power. It has nothing to do. And the GCC itself, as an organization, as a regional organization, which proved that it was the only successful model in the Arab region, unfortunately, now it appeared that it wasn't successful to solve its own conflict. So also we need to look at those regional mechanisms which should support peace and reconciliation in other countries, but also should make sure that these regions staying together have a clear understanding on the means of cooperation and the means of dispute resolutions. Right now, it's more than almost 20 months since the blockade of Qatar. And nothing has been progress, nothing has been achieved by the GCC as an organization. So it's becoming very complicated. And we need, as a region, we need to have an ownership, yes. But we need to act with good intention and good faith at the beginning. One of the criticisms that I think has been made by your GCC partners has been that openness in a way to test the limits of democracy in other parts of the Middle East. In a way, the fear is that particular parties may get into power that then end up having one man, one vote, one time, if you see what I'm saying. And yet democracy is not something that, at least in the terms that I understand it, is practiced in Qatar. So to what extent is there going to have to be different courses for different courses, different options? And what credibility, though, can a country like Qatar bring to the table when, in a way, it is recommending a form of reconciliation that is highly different to the one that it applies domestically? Is that element of contradiction just we're going to have to live with the diversity? And maybe diversity is what we need across the region. Does it limit your capacity to carry out this foreign policy? Well, it's not. First of all, Qatar has never promoted that Qatar is a force of change by imposing democracy or others. What we are promoting, what the people want in those countries, that Qatar supports. And Qatar in itself is not a democratic country, yes. But it's progressing toward a people participation in the power. And it's not like standing still. And for me, if I want to apply a democracy, it doesn't mean that I have to apply specifically the democracy model in the West that will work in our countries and with our culture. Each country has its own culture and has its own way that democratic means can be adopted. And Qatar, this is the policy has taken from the beginning. We have started a reform process where people participated, first of all, on voting on the Constitution, then introducing the democratic practice by municipality councils elections and women participation from the first election, then preparation for parliamentarian election, free media. A lot of other means of democracy are there in Qatar and practiced every day. But it's not called a democracy, yes. But what Qatar adopted as a policy from the beginning when it comes to the region, we stood against leaders who oppressed their people. That's what Qatar did. During the Arab Spring, Qatar taken a position that's supportive of the people. And this position wasn't taken like when the presidents or the head of those states or those authoritarians are not taking any action or not conducting any violence against their own people. We didn't start until those leaders has conducted violence against their own people. Thank you. Points taken. Let me come back and just switch the conversation now just with a few questions about the change in geopolitical environment in which you're operating. Because here we have Qatar hosting, I think, as of yesterday, again, the next series of meetings between the Taliban and the United States. I think it's underway already. Still underway today as well, I think so. And I just wanted to get your impression from your position at the heart of government in Afghanistan. Is there a different group of players now having to play a role? Are you seeing the Gulf as more important partners or equally important partners to the United States? Is there a more competitive environment? Is Iran playing a more active role in Afghanistan at the moment of the past? How is the change in geopolitics changing the prospects for peace in Afghanistan? Quickly, just a quick, your nutshell of your points on this. A big nutshell. Yeah, a big nutshell. The Afghanistan has gone through different phases, in the bipolar world, Cold War, then sort of unipolar world, and now multipolar. And to, of course, because of this multipolar world, we cannot do away with the things that we need to do inside the country. We're not just poverty and employment and certain other things. The things will not come from outside. And the other reality is that as long as the powers in the region, they play a zero-sum game. It's only an opportunity for those who do not believe in peace and pursue their own extremist terrorist agendas. We have also been witness to that. And the other issue is the presence of sanctuaries. In our case, in one particular country. And so it's a unique situation. When we started in 2001, there was a lot of convergence of interest, the way that it was perceived and dealt with by countries of the regions, powers, world powers, and all together. That situation has changed. And that is, and there is another reality as well. For example, Russia has a different position today. Iran has slightly different from Russia, but still different position. Pakistan has made sure that things will continue. The Taliban making headways enough understand if it happens. Then, of course, it will hurt Central Asian republics. And it will directly hurt the interests of Russia. But because of other issues that they have in Europe and other places, so that's not such a superiority. But it will come to us. So they could almost live with a balance of power inside of Pakistan. Balance of power in power politics. Which doesn't help with the reconciliation. It doesn't help with the reconciliation. It's the opposite. And also when it comes to the United States and its policy towards Afghanistan, the consistency and coherence of that policy is important. If it is one day that we don't talk to the Taliban and we shouldn't talk to the Taliban, nobody should talk to the Taliban. And one day is the only way for us to talk to the Taliban. Let's withdraw. These are the conditions that a country like Afghanistan, which I mentioned at the beginning, has gone through 40 years of how much more we can take. And of course, it looks like a wishful thinking to bring back countries on the basis of the realities that at least in the midterm and long term, terrorism, extremism is not in their interest. So that will be the key. If I may turn to Ms. Ahal, former Ms. Ahal. Algeria had the luxury, one could argue, of not having that external interference as it went through its process of, as you said, getting over 200,000 dead. I mean, a really brutal period. In a way, do you think that you were uniquely lucky in not having that external interference or was, I don't know, support with the fact that you had a good economic relationship then with European Union, with your neighbor to the north, was being different and what lessons have you had that can then be applied to others? Or is it that Algeria was in a unique situation? Lukaku, do you have any? I think what is particularly characteristic of our situation is, well, our history, the history that we had gone through over the centuries. We had something which was very fundamental to us and I think this has been proven throughout history. So we are very allergic to external interference. We don't like people interfering in our affairs and we would never interfere in anyone else's and we would never agree to anyone coming in. Okay, I'll get to that, I'll get to that. Now, we don't like people interfering in our affairs and this is an underlying principle for us. And as I said, the basis of our diplomacy is basically a three-pronged approach. First, this non-interference and we would not accept this and we would not do it to others. The second is that we keep our distance. We are very careful. Now, I spoke to Russian, I'm gonna be in Washington next week. Basically, I have a good relationship with Europe. So basically, we don't come down on any particular side and we see this equidistance, as we call it, as something of fundamental importance as well. And it is part of the independence of decision-making and it's not always easy in this world. And also, now, we have a border of 1,000 kilometers with Libya, but there is not a single soldier from Algeria in Libya and not a single bullet has gone into that country. There is no company that's gone in. Now, we talk about solutions that come from the outside and everyone can make a contribution to that. But we would be against ideological, military or economic or political confrontation because there are certain vested interests, of course, and I think we have to face up to that. So, and I think we have to see the situation that country is in. And if you look at Libya, that is something that you see in other regions as well. And now, why are there these problems in Libya sort of against women, for example? And I would, I know the country and I've been to the country and in fact, I've covered the country from east to west. I'm one of the few who's done that. And it was San Salabi who did it. I went to the east and I went to the north and there are even Libyan leaders who can't do the trip that I did. Now, amongst the Libyans, people want to get out of the situation that they're in and they are amazing people. We have trained educated women and they can get through this but I think we have to let them get on with it. We have to allow them to sort out their own problems and that is the basis here. Now, there was a certain amount of slippage during the 1990s because there were Algerian leaders who wanted to try and solve our problems from the outside and that was rejected by the people. So basically, ownership is very important and it is absolutely essential. And the same goes to the Sahel as well in all our regions. Interference has happened and others have become involved. It becomes very difficult to put it back together again. So, if someone has intervened in your country from the outside, it is very difficult to actually make that good again. Algeria didn't have that experience. Well, now interference isn't just military, it can be ideological interference. We had the integrationists, for example. Now, we went off to Afghanistan to fight against communism at the time and they came back through the church in Bosnia and there are a number of who came into Algeria. So, you can have ideological interferences as well and we suffered that and it is by taking ownership of our own Islam that we are able to deal with this and it is a moderate Islam. Now, it's important that we allow people to resolve their own problems. Now, Syria started with a small demonstration in a town and this then became a domestic problem and then it became an international problem and now it's brought in Russia and the United States. And this started with a simple demonstration. So, now I'm saying this, with the Lebanese minister here present. Now, Syria was a great place for coexistence. It was a great... and this had worked well there. Now, it's a coward who was Jewish, it was a deed. So, all of that was part of that culture and what is fragmentation particularly when it becomes from a religious source? They'd resisted the Ottomans, they'd resisted the French, the British, the colonialists and so they'd lived together and then it just broke down. Did you have a nutshell again? We'll see how the nutshells go. What I do want to do is actually get some questions in a second and I'm sure I'm going to call a few questions after from Sebastien and then let you both answer them first because that way I'll give equal amount of time to everyone. But just on Syria specifically, what do you see as the next steps because at the moment certainly I think your government is trying to find a way to think about if President Assad has in essence won the Civil War there has to be a way to find some type of reconciliation. Is that the position at the moment of the Lebanese government? Is that what you're working towards and do you think that's going to work given the amount of external powers that have quite different views on that future? It's again trying to export the model of Lebanon because we exported the alphabet, the commerce and we imported the problems we had our war. We used to talk of the Balkanization of Lebanon. Now after we found our reconciliation we're talking of the Lebanization of the Balkans, the Lebanization of Iraq and now the Lebanization of Syria. Doesn't mean that our model in ruling is successful but our model in the co-living and the coexistence is still holding. Despite that we are on the most challenging for humanity now is the ability to live together. We are having for example the Lebanese model which is the antidote of terrorism and the anti-model of monolithic societies like Israel which is on our side causing other problems. We are having both terrorism, extremism that is reflected in groups like Daesh and Taliban and Nusrah and in states like in our case Israel. So not easy to find stability among all this and it is mainly because of our culture, our ability to absorb, to adapt to bear with such major problems. But again the interferences, Lebanese like to bring interferences. Maybe again in culture because this is how is our society east and west and sure we can absorb everything but again being neutral is not really possible because of the interferences. And trying to spread our tendency towards equilibrium is not easy because it's changing with demography, with rapport de force, demography, economy, military. So that's why it's changing dynamics always and stopping others from interfering into our society is not so easy. So mainly it is our target is to have a stable Syria. Secular again because we believe that secular state is the answer to all our problems in diverse societies but we are faced with what? Attempts always to create division and to have states, monolithic states in our region colliding like steel balls together, colliding each other all the time instead of melting together like the melting pot of Lebanon. Let me get a few questions in. I will give an opportunity to Sigrid and Sultani to come in. Who would like to post some questions first to our audience here? Otherwise we'll certainly be able to carry on our conversation and we have a lot more to talk about but I do want to give an opportunity in the last 10 minutes. Anyone want to come in? No, everyone is. That's right. Oh, thank you. First, please. Thanks. I was, the analysis just given about Syria with respect to having survived so long and then now seeing sort of a cleansing or a homogenization. Part of this is global warming. The droughts, is this correct? Is that the right analysis? Is that part of the problem? I'll bring that into question. Gentleman, if you pass the microphone just in front of you I think there's a gentleman there and I'll go to the back there. Thank you very much. In the era of Trump and his tweets and Bolton and Kushner would United States be a true reconciling broker, peace broker that we see what's going on? And specifically actually that's to Sheikh Abrahman and with what's going on, what you said about the Gulf and Qatar and the other countries, I mean the easiest part is, and I know the answer is going to be we are willing to sit, they are not willing to sit but why we're not going the extra mile and really going forward and getting this thing sorted out because the problem in the region is substantial what's going on with that and it could affect other areas, not just what's going on. I mean eventually, eventually we'll have, being from the region the governments will be peaceful together. I have families in Qatar, others have families in Bahrain and elsewhere so we're having as people, we're having a problematic issue in terms of solving this thing out where it could be sad with these guys sitting across the table and sorting it out. Thank you for passing the microphone back there and I'll come down here to Mark. My question is to the minister of Algeria. I understand very well out of the three points the non-interference, the equidistance as a Swiss parliamentarian very obvious. I have more difficulties to see how you organize appropriation. If in a country you have two or three tribes with you have different political opinions or different interests how do you manage to create a national appropriation? Right. Good. I'll have a question, we'll come back to you on. Mark here, microphone here and then one here and that'll be the last one. Sorry, one, two and then we'll finish. All questions. What are your thoughts on the role of cultural heritage and how the shared cultural heritage of the region can help bring people together to find some high level of peace? Great. Hello. My name is Fursan Hussein. I'm a Palestinian citizen of the state of Israel and I have family all over the Arab world. I cannot visit them. My question is I think the time has come for us to do something really drastic. I see a bright Middle East and I think it's important that we integrate and resolve this issue and if we're willing to sit down with terrorists we might as well also willing to be sit down with a country that exists that will never go anywhere. And really what is the right strategy to move this conflict and really address the big elephant in the room? That was a nice easy one to get at the end. So I'm not sure who I'm going to give that particular question to but let me, I want to start if I may, on the issue perhaps you know Syria well if you could say maybe a word on Syrian climate change. I don't know how much you know it that well but you may have a view as to how intrinsic the move to urban cities and away from the rural areas were in that. But I think to all of the questions and to everyone I'd love to hear your view on this as well, this issue whether Trump can be a reconciler as well would be interesting to hear your views on that. Any other points you'd like to pick up on the last round of comments? No, I can do it very briefly. When I was in charge of the elimination of the declared Syrian chemical weapons program I confess I wasn't busy with climate change but I know climate change is one of the root causes of many conflicts. That's why I said exclusion, marginalization access, corruption, a war economy also breeds a whole new so-called elite that often comes to power successively in many countries and conflict situations so I'm very mindful of that. Second part is identity, cultural heritage I think extremely important particularly in reconciliation but given it equal weight and again you can't have a hierarchy of identities look at Europe, presumed to have been so stable, populism are hijacking identity, it's changing it's become a negative instrument or it can be a force for good hence coexistence needs to be nurtured and invested. Third point I'd like to make is youth in this region all countries young people are isolated feel unheard, are not part of any particular process I won't even address the elephant in the room to my mind women at the table but I'm glad I'm here but the women of your countries of course are also not at the table the Syria process, Libya process, Yemen process, Western donors finance their participation where are they in a back room advising the UN envoy 50% of the population transformation out of conflict is recognizing inequality and inequity, it's not rocket science most of the time very much commend the power to having it people led with help from outside where appropriate I think Oman hasn't been mentioned I think partly because they've been so discreet and effective and don't want much out of it other than truly stability and solutions that can be facilitated and I think last but not least civil society as a whole again as the countervailing force new players in many countries there seem to be a sector they are not, they need to be given voice and I'm looking at Angela Cain from the dialogue advisory group but also center for humanitarian dialogue so many of the track 2, track 3 processes that also involve private sector create jobs, create hope perspective to sort of address the issues when you want to have the day after many days after never come because we don't invest from the outset in a political process which a lot of the time is socioeconomic with politics riding over it I think we ignore that to our peril hence climate change is not addressed and we'll see many series of new conflicts and they're not difficult to predict they're happening under our very eyes I think it will be interesting to see the role that Europe which will experience the spillover of all of these effects if we don't deal with them quickly whether Europe as you said earlier could play a slightly more forward role in this or not maybe to you quickly there's a comment about whether you still think the United States Trump can be a reconciler or not at this point just a quick comment I'm looking at how we got 4 minutes for the 4 of us regarding the US role and can it be a reconciler in the region yes they still can be a reconciler in the region because they are partners and ally of most of the countries in our region I'm not talking specifically about the GCC here but I'm talking about the bigger regional conflicts whether it's what's happening in Syria or what's happening in Libya US is a superpower in the world it's a fact over there and with the absence of the enforcing mechanism from the United Nations you have those superpowers need to use their influence in order to impose peace and reconciliation second regarding the GCC conflict and why Qatar doesn't go the extra mile I think our brother Khalid from Bahrain if you will look back since the start of the crisis Qatar has gone twice the extra mile while the other countries were unwilling to sit and Qatar remain with its position despite the hostility which is being subject to and we tried our best to isolate this crisis from the people because we have interconnected families that they are allowed to come to Doha without any procedure they shouldn't apply they are not forced to submit a proof that they have a relative over there in Qatar and there is plenty of GCC citizens among them from the blockading states are entering Qatar back and forth and I won't report their names because I don't want them to be captured in their countries. Thank you very much what would you say at the end to take from this panel from your experience in Afghanistan more engagement externally I'm saying from a more diverse group of actors or is it really up to Afghans themselves in the end to be able to find the reconciliation the end state is to Afghan people but look at the conditions can we do it at this today absolute majority of the people of Afghanistan want peace what are the conditions for the conditions that so how we can reconcile different interests with the very rigid positions of the countries around us and beyond us could there be an economic answer just quickly this took Afghanistan Pakistan India part things like that could that make the difference in spite of all the things that was underway these projects like Kazaw and Tauza and the TAPI past project TAP which is electricity project in Adams and also our active participation in the regional institutions this will help at the same time fundamental decision as to be made by a few countries that in the midterm and long term this is not in their interest in the immediate term the continuation of the conflict might suit some ideas but not in the midterm and long term thank you I'm going to finish with you last on the appropriation because you had a very specific question that unfortunately there's one question that hasn't been answered as well here apart from climate change in Syria which is is it time to be bold on the Arab Israel set of conversations the question that was asked here what would be your position and your answer there's always time for peace but you need to tango culture is the basis of everything I believe that time is now for the return of refugees time is for the reconstruction of Syria Iraq, Yemen, Libya because bidding on the fact that forcing this movement of people is causing the cultural clash which is causing also the western extremism here and you see the rise of it and the reaction of it in our region and the displacement now of fighters using them from a place to another and creating killing zones for them is actually creating more breeding of violent violent people so I believe that we should all be convinced that we cannot have economic globalization having cultural isolation good line I'm sure we'll pick that one up later on for Mr Sahel for you there was a very specific question about appropriation and whether it's possible to do that and whether that was the challenge I think to you for that question if you could finish just one minute on appropriation yes it is both precise but it's also very apposite now this is the basis appropriation what do we mean we mean that there should be dialogue and reconciliation and people have to buy into that so the problems of Algeria have to be sorted out by Algerians without any exclusion that is to say everyone has to sign up to this there has to be a national debate and the future of the country concerns all Algerians both young people women and indeed I'm going to be visiting next month and I'm going to make presentations there in your country so I'll be very happy that I'll be in your country but women in Algeria at the very centre of this ownership and we're talking about a Muslim country 40% of our judges are women and it is women who administer justice in education more than 65% are women in medicine we would say most doctors are women and I was in communication and 60% of journalists are women so women have an extraordinary role to play and this is because of our history and we are now very much involved all of us in building a new Algeria but basically women are the future of man the future of the country President as well now for that I don't think that let me just say I'm not going to try to wrap up such a complex conversation but I do want to thank our five panellists for both looking inside their countries and talking about the external environment as well in a very disciplined way and I hope you picked up some of the gems that came from each of them through the course so a big strong hand for our panel thank you all for coming we'll take them as a think tank