by Tahir Khan There is considerable uncertainty in Afghanistan regarding the fate of an intra-Afghan dialogue despite a certain degree of optimism about the long-awaited peace process. Afghan officials familiar with a four-nation initiative told The Express Tribune that negotiations could be a long-drawn-out affair, adding that expecting the talks to start in a few days was an unfair assessment. A source, meanwhile, denied Afghan officials have shared with Pakistan a list of ‘influential’ Taliban leaders that Kabul wants to see at the negotiating table. During its fourth meeting on February 23 in Kabul, the Quadrilateral Coordination Group (QCG) had invited Taliban factions and Hizb-e-Islami, the second largest Afghan resistance group, to join the talks by the first week of March in Islamabad. The QCG is made up of top officials from Afghanistan, China, Pakistan and the United States. Sources in Kabul said on Sunday the QCG members that approached the Taliban’s political office in Qatar had informed the meeting that the militia was ‘not very keen’ on joining the proposed talks. The QCG meeting in Islamabad had agreed on February 6 to approach the main Taliban faction in Qatar and the splinter group under Mullah Rasool’s command for their feedback to the participants of the Kabul meeting. “The US ambassador in Kabul, who represented his country at the fourth QCG meeting, told participants that he had received no briefing from Washington,” a source, who attended the meeting, told The Express Tribune. “The Chinese ambassador to Afghanistan informed the meeting that they had contacted the Taliban representatives in Qatar, but while they seemed unwilling to join the talks, they did not refuse outright to join the process.” He said Pakistan had talked to Taliban’s political representatives “but they are not keen on sitting across the table with Kabul. The Afghan side also confirmed they have sent messages to Taliban groups and Hizb-e-Islami, but they are still awaiting...

Terror can radically change the wave of life. It prevents people from living a normal life. Anything that is divorced from reason is not doable, thus unreasonable policies should be avoided by India & Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan have to abandon policies that don’t stand to reason. We belong to a school that distinguishes itself from others with the belief in democracy.” These were the remarks made by Mr. Vinod Sharma, Political Editor, Hindustan Times while speaking at the Roundtable Forum organized by the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) on “Indo-Pak Relations: Moving Beyond Acrimony and Suspicion”. Underpinning the need for respecting Institutional democracy, Mr. Sharma said that there were certain issues that had to be left to the state institutions rather. Health, education, environment are the issues which may be the direct responsibility of all including media and parliament. “Any prime minister's commitment to his country cannot be questioned. But the political leaders have to take risks to create and expand the constituency of peace. In politics, you have to take risks in order to break out of the gridlock of clichés and acrimony.” Said Mr. Vinod while adding that the civility of dialogue was absolutely essential for continuing talks. The civilly in dialogue - post Pathankot incident - shown by both governments is unprecedented. While Pathankot remains a huge challenge, but it can become an opportunity for mutually reassuring respective commitment on terrorism which is a common enemy. There is a firm resolve on our side to do anything that might help in investigation and taking case to its logical conclusion. He said that both Modi and Sharif must meet and if they had a degree of comfort with each other, they could take the process forward. We must stop demonizing each other’s national heroes. There should be an institutional mechanism for a regular discourse among historians. Purpose should be to get past the acrimonious past. We...

The United States has made little or no progress in explaining how and why it orders lethal drone strikes, even as America’s reliance on the unmanned aircraft soars worldwide, a report found Tuesday. According to a study by the Stimson Center, a Washington-based nonpartisan think tank, President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to provide basic transparency into the drone program that has become a keystone in America’s counterterrorism efforts. “In terms of the justification for the program and all the legal basis – that still remains out of reach of the American public,” study author Rachel Stohl told AFP. Her paper gives American school-style grades in a “report card” to the US government, rating how it has improved its drone accountability since the Stimson Center wrote a damning report on the matter in June 2014. The report card gave the Obama administration an “F” — or a failing grade — in three areas: a lack of progress on releasing information on targeted drone strikes, developing better accountability mechanisms and explaining the US lethal drone program’s legal basis. A seemingly ever-expanding global war against extremist groups means the United States relies heavily on drones to monitor hostile lands and launch missiles at suspected extremists. Obama has drastically expanded the drone program during his tenure, but his administration provides scant information on strikes. Critics say many drone strikes kill civilians, and the aircraft alienate and radicalize local populations on the ground. Since June 2014, the United States has reportedly carried out lethal drone strikes in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, as well as against Islamic State jihadists in Iraq and Syria. The Stimson Center said at least a dozen countries now host US drone bases, including Ethiopia, the Seychelles and Yemen. “The targeted killing program has been the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict,” said Michael...