The UN Security Council has urged the Taliban to go ahead with the peace process with the Afghan government without any preconditions and threat of violence, as it welcomed Kabul&#39;s offer to the terror group to engage in direct talks.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on February 28 unveiled a plan to open peace talks with the Taliban, including eventually recognising them as a political party, days after the militants called for direct negotiations with the US.

Welcoming the offer for the peace talks, Security Council President Karel Jan Gustaaf van Oosterom of Netherlands, in a statement said the UNSC members commended the convening of the second meeting of the Kabul Process for Peace and Security Cooperation in Afghanistan last month and the declaration agreed to by its participants.

&quot;The members of the Security Council also welcomed the offer made by the Afghan Government to the Taliban to engage in direct peace talks, and called upon the Taliban to accept this offer without any preconditions and without the threat of violence, with the aim of an ultimate political settlement that leads to sustainable peace for the people of Afghanistan, the statement said yesterday.

The 15-nation Council underlined the importance of an inclusive Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process for the long-term prosperity and stability of Afghanistan and expressed their full support for the Afghan government&#39;s commitment to developing a practical plan for reconciliation.

They welcomed that the participants of the meeting recognised the Kabul Process as a forum and vehicle under the leadership of the Afghan government to lead peace efforts to end violence in Afghanistan.

&quot;The Kabul Process must lead to the renunciation of violence and breaking of all ties to international terrorism, as well as the respect for the equal rights of all Afghans, including women, under the Afghan Constitution, the Council said in the statement.

The members of the Security Council also welcomed ongoing international efforts to advance peace and stability in Afghanistan.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on February 28 unveiled a plan to open peace talks with the Taliban, including eventually recognising them as a political party, days after the militants called for direct negotiations with the US

The UN Security Council has urged the Taliban to go ahead with the peace process with the Afghan government without any preconditions and threat of violence, as it welcomed Kabul's offer to the terror group to engage in direct talks. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani on February 28 unveiled a plan to open peace talks with the Taliban, including eventually recognising them as a political party, days after the militants called for direct negotiations with the US. Welcoming the offer for the peace talks, Security Council President Karel Jan Gustaaf van Oosterom of Netherlands, in a statement said the UNSC members commended the convening of the second meeting of the Kabul Process for Peace and Security Cooperation in Afghanistan last month and the declaration agreed to by its participants. "The members of the Security Council also welcomed the offer made by the Afghan Government to the Taliban to engage in direct peace talks, and called upon the Taliban to accept this offer without any preconditions and without the threat of violence, with the aim of an ultimate political settlement that leads to sustainable peace for the people of Afghanistan, the statement said yesterday. The 15-nation Council underlined the importance of an inclusive Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process for the long-term prosperity and stability of Afghanistan and expressed their full support for the Afghan government's commitment to developing a practical plan for reconciliation. They welcomed that the participants of the meeting recognised the Kabul Process as a forum and vehicle under the leadership of the Afghan government to lead peace efforts to end violence in Afghanistan. "The Kabul Process must lead to the renunciation of violence and breaking of all ties to international terrorism, as well as the respect for the equal rights of all Afghans, including women, under the Afghan Constitution, the Council said in the statement. The members of the Security Council also welcomed ongoing international efforts to advance peace and stability in Afghanistan.

UNSC calls upon Taliban to go ahead with peace talks without any preconditions

The United Nations envoy to Afghanistan on Thursday urged the Taliban to take up an offer by the Afghan government of direct talks on peace.

&quot;The offer of negotiation is on the table,&quot; said Tadamichi Yamamoto at a Security Council meeting to mark the annual renewal of the UN mission to the war-torn country.

&quot;It is now incumbent upon the Taliban to come forward with an offer of their own, and start direct talks with the government to put an end to the suffering of the Afghan people,&quot; he said.

&quot;Making peace and reaching out to opponents requires resolve, courage and above all national unity,&quot; he added. &quot;Political leaders need to place the national interest above partisan agenda.&quot;

He said he hoped that parliamentary elections could be held in 2018 and a presidential vote in 2019.

He also expressed concern about the growing number of civilian casualties at the hands of the Islamic State group in Khorasan province.

The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) was launched in March 2002 to help Afghans build a more stable and peaceful society, although 16 years later the country is still racked by violence and instability.&nbsp;

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently unveiled a plan to open talks with the Taliban, including eventually recognizing them as a political party.

In return, Ghani said the militants should officially recognize the Afghan government and constitution, a perennial sticking point in past attempts to open talks.

'The offer of negotiation is on the table,' said Tadamichi Yamamoto at a Security Council meeting to mark the annual renewal of the UN mission to the war-torn country

The United Nations envoy to Afghanistan on Thursday urged the Taliban to take up an offer by the Afghan government of direct talks on peace. "The offer of negotiation is on the table," said Tadamichi Yamamoto at a Security Council meeting to mark the annual renewal of the UN mission to the war-torn country. "It is now incumbent upon the Taliban to come forward with an offer of their own, and start direct talks with the government to put an end to the suffering of the Afghan people," he said. "Making peace and reaching out to opponents requires resolve, courage and above all national unity," he added. "Political leaders need to place the national interest above partisan agenda." He said he hoped that parliamentary elections could be held in 2018 and a presidential vote in 2019. He also expressed concern about the growing number of civilian casualties at the hands of the Islamic State group in Khorasan province. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) was launched in March 2002 to help Afghans build a more stable and peaceful society, although 16 years later the country is still racked by violence and instability. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani recently unveiled a plan to open talks with the Taliban, including eventually recognizing them as a political party. In return, Ghani said the militants should officially recognize the Afghan government and constitution, a perennial sticking point in past attempts to open talks.

United Nations calls on Taliban to take up offer of direct talks

The Taliban in Afghanistan does not seem to be ready for peace talks, the Trump administration said today, asserting that any such talks have to be &quot;Afghan-led and Afghan-owned&quot;.

In a way, the Trump administration, ruled out direct talks with the Taliban, which was being sought by the terrorist outfit <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-want-to-end-war-through-dialogue-33026" target="_blank">in a letter</a> to the US.

&quot;We certainly saw this letter and are aware of this letter. Any peace talks with Afghanistan have to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. That has long been our policy,&quot; State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters.

She said the Taliban, &quot;unfortunately&quot;, does not seem ready at this point to sit down and have conversations about peace talks.

&quot;We hope eventually they will, because that is the best way to be able to have peace in Afghanistan,&quot; Nauert said responding to a question on the letter released by the Taliban.

&quot;Ultimately, we don&#39;t see there being a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it has to be a political situation,&quot; she said.

&quot;That can best be done,&quot; she said if the Taliban was willing to sit down and have talks.

&quot;Certainly the United States could have a role in that. But that&#39;s really up to Afghanistan, but it has to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned,&quot; Nauert asserted. PTI&nbsp;

The Taliban has said, in a letter to the US, that it would like to discuss peace

The Taliban in Afghanistan does not seem to be ready for peace talks, the Trump administration said today, asserting that any such talks have to be "Afghan-led and Afghan-owned". In a way, the Trump administration, ruled out direct talks with the Taliban, which was being sought by the terrorist outfit in a letter to the US. "We certainly saw this letter and are aware of this letter. Any peace talks with Afghanistan have to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned. That has long been our policy," State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters. She said the Taliban, "unfortunately", does not seem ready at this point to sit down and have conversations about peace talks. "We hope eventually they will, because that is the best way to be able to have peace in Afghanistan," Nauert said responding to a question on the letter released by the Taliban. "Ultimately, we don't see there being a military solution to the situation in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it has to be a political situation," she said. "That can best be done," she said if the Taliban was willing to sit down and have talks. "Certainly the United States could have a role in that. But that's really up to Afghanistan, but it has to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned," Nauert asserted. PTI

Taliban doesn't seem ready for peace talks: US

The United Nations will host a new round of peace talks on Syria next week in Vienna, a UN statement said Wednesday, just days before Russia opens a conference on ending the war.

The January 25-26 talks will be followed by a peace congress in Russia&#39;s Black Sea resort of Sochi on January 29 and 30 aimed at finding a settlement to the nearly seven-year war.

The UN said that special envoy Staffan de Mistura &quot;expects that delegations will be coming to Vienna prepared for substantive engagement with him.&quot;

It added that &quot;any political initiative by international actors should be assessed by its ability to contribute to and support the United Nations-facilitated Geneva political process and the full implementation of resolution 2254,&quot; a roadmap for ending the conflict set out in 2015.

Syria&#39;s six-year war has claimed more than 340,000 lives, forced millions to flee their homes and left Syria in ruins.

The January 25-26 talks will be followed by a peace congress in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi on January 29 and 30 aimed at finding a settlement to the nearly seven-year war

The United Nations will host a new round of peace talks on Syria next week in Vienna, a UN statement said Wednesday, just days before Russia opens a conference on ending the war. The January 25-26 talks will be followed by a peace congress in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi on January 29 and 30 aimed at finding a settlement to the nearly seven-year war. The UN said that special envoy Staffan de Mistura "expects that delegations will be coming to Vienna prepared for substantive engagement with him." It added that "any political initiative by international actors should be assessed by its ability to contribute to and support the United Nations-facilitated Geneva political process and the full implementation of resolution 2254," a roadmap for ending the conflict set out in 2015. Syria's six-year war has claimed more than 340,000 lives, forced millions to flee their homes and left Syria in ruins.

UN to host new round of peace talks on Syria next week

With tension on the Korean Peninsula higher than it&rsquo;s been for years and fears are surging on all sides that a full-blown conflict is nearer than ever. But as the war of words between Washington and Pyongyang gets ever more lurid, with missile and warhead tests on one side and military exercises and flypasts on the other, it&rsquo;s easy to forget that North and South Korea have made serious efforts to defrost their relationship before.

On July 7 1988, with the Cold War coming to an end, South Korean President Rho Tae-woo announced his plan to &ldquo;actively promote exchanges of visits between the people of South and North Korea, including politicians, businessmen, journalists, religious leaders, cultural leaders, artists, academics and students&rdquo;. This South Korean policy, called Nordpolitik, was modelled on West Germany&rsquo;s Ostpolitik. But it took more than ten years to begin these exchanges.

In 2000, the two leaders of South and North Korea met in Pyongyang for the first time since the division of the Korean peninsula. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung reassured North Korean Leader Kim Jong-il, who was worried that North Korea would meet a fate similar to East Germany, that the South Korean proposal for a peacebuilding process was not to absorb North Korea, but to promote peaceful coexistence.

After their first summit, the South and North Korean governments expanded several cross-border peacebuilding activities, such as humanitarian, development, and economic cooperation, business, and socio-cultural exchanges. Within a few years, as part of these activities, more than half a million people crossed the border between North and South Korea. Almost 2m South Korean tourists visited North Korea.

And yet today, the inter-Korean peacebuilding of the 2000s looks like a long-lost dream. What went wrong?

Pushed to the limit

Some say the breaking point was the hardline changes in US and South Korean policy toward North Korea after 9/11, epitomised by George W. Bush&rsquo;s &ldquo;Axis of Evil&rdquo; speech. Others say the north is to blame because of its nuclear ambitions. But what both arguments have in common is North Korea&rsquo;s deep sense of insecurity, which goes back more than 60 years.

When Japan was defeated in World War II, the Korean independence movement and its provisional government, who had long fought Japanese colonial rule, were not recognised as victors. Instead, the northern half of Korea was put under Soviet control and the south was occupied by the US, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula in two.

The first North Korean leader, Kim Il-sung, seemed convinced he could resolve this division by force, but his attack on South Korea in 1950 and the ensuing Korean War almost cost North Korea its existence. Only Chinese intervention saved it, and the war was suspended (though not ended) by the Armistice Treaty of 1953.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NTFreay3bOA?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440"></iframe></figure>

&nbsp;

But North Korean memories of how US bombers destroyed their country and how close the US came to using the atomic bomb on North Korea, are still very much alive, and may be stronger after the end of the Cold War.

North Korean leaders have for decades used the spectre of an American attack to justify their authoritarian rule. The continuous economic sanctions and displays of military power by the US and South Korea did not deter North Korean plans to develop nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival, and instead seem to have given the North Korean dictatorship fodder for its rhetoric.

Not backing down

As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force.

Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not &ldquo;to pose any threat to any country&rdquo;, but to defend North Korea from the US threat.

Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible.

Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire &ndash; or is it perhaps a better option than &ldquo;smart sanctions&rdquo; and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people.

After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume.

As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force.

Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not &ldquo;to pose any threat to any country&rdquo;, but to defend North Korea from the US threat.

Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible.

Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire &ndash; or is it perhaps a better option than &ldquo;smart sanctions&rdquo; and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people.

After all, it is about coming up with a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2015.1022586?scroll=top&amp;needAccess=true">more effective strategy</a> for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-two-koreas-have-tried-to-make-peace-before-and-they-could-do-so-again-86809" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

For South Korean civil society, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Koreans.

With tension on the Korean Peninsula higher than it’s been for years and fears are surging on all sides that a full-blown conflict is nearer than ever. But as the war of words between Washington and Pyongyang gets ever more lurid, with missile and warhead tests on one side and military exercises and flypasts on the other, it’s easy to forget that North and South Korea have made serious efforts to defrost their relationship before. On July 7 1988, with the Cold War coming to an end, South Korean President Rho Tae-woo announced his plan to “actively promote exchanges of visits between the people of South and North Korea, including politicians, businessmen, journalists, religious leaders, cultural leaders, artists, academics and students”. This South Korean policy, called Nordpolitik, was modelled on West Germany’s Ostpolitik. But it took more than ten years to begin these exchanges. In 2000, the two leaders of South and North Korea met in Pyongyang for the first time since the division of the Korean peninsula. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung reassured North Korean Leader Kim Jong-il, who was worried that North Korea would meet a fate similar to East Germany, that the South Korean proposal for a peacebuilding process was not to absorb North Korea, but to promote peaceful coexistence. After their first summit, the South and North Korean governments expanded several cross-border peacebuilding activities, such as humanitarian, development, and economic cooperation, business, and socio-cultural exchanges. Within a few years, as part of these activities, more than half a million people crossed the border between North and South Korea. Almost 2m South Korean tourists visited North Korea. And yet today, the inter-Korean peacebuilding of the 2000s looks like a long-lost dream. What went wrong? Pushed to the limit Some say the breaking point was the hardline changes in US and South Korean policy toward North Korea after 9/11, epitomised by George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. Others say the north is to blame because of its nuclear ambitions. But what both arguments have in common is North Korea’s deep sense of insecurity, which goes back more than 60 years. When Japan was defeated in World War II, the Korean independence movement and its provisional government, who had long fought Japanese colonial rule, were not recognised as victors. Instead, the northern half of Korea was put under Soviet control and the south was occupied by the US, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula in two. The first North Korean leader, Kim Il-sung, seemed convinced he could resolve this division by force, but his attack on South Korea in 1950 and the ensuing Korean War almost cost North Korea its existence. Only Chinese intervention saved it, and the war was suspended (though not ended) by the Armistice Treaty of 1953. But North Korean memories of how US bombers destroyed their country and how close the US came to using the atomic bomb on North Korea, are still very much alive, and may be stronger after the end of the Cold War. North Korean leaders have for decades used the spectre of an American attack to justify their authoritarian rule. The continuous economic sanctions and displays of military power by the US and South Korea did not deter North Korean plans to develop nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival, and instead seem to have given the North Korean dictatorship fodder for its rhetoric. Not backing down As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force. Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not “to pose any threat to any country”, but to defend North Korea from the US threat. Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible. Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire – or is it perhaps a better option than “smart sanctions” and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people. After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume. As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force. Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not “to pose any threat to any country”, but to defend North Korea from the US threat. Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible. Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire – or is it perhaps a better option than “smart sanctions” and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people. After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Opinion: Are two Koreas serious in defrosting the relationship?

For the first time, Pakistan has linked peace in war-torn Afghanistan to the resolution of the Kashmir issue, saying a solution to both is required for peace and they cannot be &#39;compartmentalised&#39;.

&quot;Road to peace in Kabul lies in Kashmir in the sense that when you talk of peace, you cannot compartmentalise peace, you can&#39;t segregate a section... ok you can have peace in Kabul and let Kashmir burn. That is not going to happen,&quot; Pakistan Prime Minister&#39;s special envoy on Kashmir senator Mushahid Hussain Syed said.

&quot;So you (US) talk of a comprehensive peace settlement, so let the people of South Asia not be hostage to the hostility of the past. Let them move forward,&quot; said Syed, chairman of the Pakistan Senate&#39;s Defence and Defence Production Committee said during an interaction at Washington-based think-tank Stimson Centre.

He is accompanied by Shezra Mansab, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, as Special Envoys of Pakistan Prime Minister on Kashmir.

&quot;Our core issue this time is Kashmir and no peace can prevail in the region, if this issue is not solved. It is an international dispute. It is not an internal problem. The stakes are very high now, we are nuclear neighbours so we need to have peace on the issue of Kashmir and then rest of the things can be solved,&quot; Mansab said.

She added that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has offered peace talks &quot;without any preconditions&quot; but it has been consistently rejected by India.

&quot;The way to move forward is negotiations. We are ready to talk on any subject. It is India which says that it is willing to talk about only one subject. We are ready to talk on that subject as well as other subjects,&quot; she said.

Referring to the lacklustre response that they received during their visit to Washington DC, Michael Krepon of the Stimson Centre asked as to why the US should interfere in this.

&quot;Why, when it is so hard for the US to my embarrassment to get involved in more helpful way in Syria, why should the US listen to the argument to be more involvement in Kashmir,&quot; Krepon said, adding that the situation in Kashmir is much better than many other conflict-prone areas of the world, including Syria.

The two Pakistani envoys had no clear explanation to it. &quot;We request the US to intervene, because it has leverage with India to allow negotiations to start, to end human rights violations in Kashmir, to make sure that the UN resolutions are implemented,&quot; Syed said.

Pakistan, which has been hosting several million refugees for the past three decades, does not push people in war zone, he said.

&quot;We are facing the consequences of bad decisions made in London, Brussels or Washington,&quot; he said.

Responding to a question, Syed said Pakistan is willing to &quot;do anything&quot; what India asks for confidence-building measure so as to start negotiations.

He, however, had no justifiable explanation on India seeking actions against terrorist groups, including Hafeez Saeed. Syed argued that India has not provided enough evidence to take concrete action against the 26/11 mastermind.

&quot;Regarding Jaish-e-Mohammad thing, it takes two to tango.

If India is now planning to host separatists from Pakistan who have also been involved in killing of people. And India is naming the province of Balochistan at the level of the Prime Minister. What would happen if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif starts talking of Khalistan, Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, Sikkim or the Maoist insurgency... we do not want to do that because that is interference in the internal affairs of a neighboring country. You are changing the rules of the game It becomes tit for tat,&quot; he said.

&quot;We would say give us all the evidence that you have about Masood Azhar,&quot; he said.

&quot;Pakistan&#39;s legal process (on Mumbai attack) is already moving. We are waiting for some evidence, which was not provided by the Indian side. We are moving on that,&quot; Syed said.

(PTI)

We are ready to talk on any subject, Shezra Mansab, a member of Pak's National Assembly said

For the first time, Pakistan has linked peace in war-torn Afghanistan to the resolution of the Kashmir issue, saying a solution to both is required for peace and they cannot be 'compartmentalised'. "Road to peace in Kabul lies in Kashmir in the sense that when you talk of peace, you cannot compartmentalise peace, you can't segregate a section... ok you can have peace in Kabul and let Kashmir burn. That is not going to happen," Pakistan Prime Minister's special envoy on Kashmir senator Mushahid Hussain Syed said. "So you (US) talk of a comprehensive peace settlement, so let the people of South Asia not be hostage to the hostility of the past. Let them move forward," said Syed, chairman of the Pakistan Senate's Defence and Defence Production Committee said during an interaction at Washington-based think-tank Stimson Centre. He is accompanied by Shezra Mansab, a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, as Special Envoys of Pakistan Prime Minister on Kashmir. "Our core issue this time is Kashmir and no peace can prevail in the region, if this issue is not solved. It is an international dispute. It is not an internal problem. The stakes are very high now, we are nuclear neighbours so we need to have peace on the issue of Kashmir and then rest of the things can be solved," Mansab said. She added that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has offered peace talks "without any preconditions" but it has been consistently rejected by India. "The way to move forward is negotiations. We are ready to talk on any subject. It is India which says that it is willing to talk about only one subject. We are ready to talk on that subject as well as other subjects," she said. Referring to the lacklustre response that they received during their visit to Washington DC, Michael Krepon of the Stimson Centre asked as to why the US should interfere in this. "Why, when it is so hard for the US to my embarrassment to get involved in more helpful way in Syria, why should the US listen to the argument to be more involvement in Kashmir," Krepon said, adding that the situation in Kashmir is much better than many other conflict-prone areas of the world, including Syria. The two Pakistani envoys had no clear explanation to it. "We request the US to intervene, because it has leverage with India to allow negotiations to start, to end human rights violations in Kashmir, to make sure that the UN resolutions are implemented," Syed said. Pakistan, which has been hosting several million refugees for the past three decades, does not push people in war zone, he said. "We are facing the consequences of bad decisions made in London, Brussels or Washington," he said. Responding to a question, Syed said Pakistan is willing to "do anything" what India asks for confidence-building measure so as to start negotiations. He, however, had no justifiable explanation on India seeking actions against terrorist groups, including Hafeez Saeed. Syed argued that India has not provided enough evidence to take concrete action against the 26/11 mastermind. "Regarding Jaish-e-Mohammad thing, it takes two to tango. If India is now planning to host separatists from Pakistan who have also been involved in killing of people. And India is naming the province of Balochistan at the level of the Prime Minister. What would happen if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif starts talking of Khalistan, Nagaland, Tripura, Assam, Sikkim or the Maoist insurgency... we do not want to do that because that is interference in the internal affairs of a neighboring country. You are changing the rules of the game It becomes tit for tat," he said. "We would say give us all the evidence that you have about Masood Azhar," he said. "Pakistan's legal process (on Mumbai attack) is already moving. We are waiting for some evidence, which was not provided by the Indian side. We are moving on that," Syed said. (PTI)

Road to peace in Kabul lies in Kashmir: Pakistan tells US amid growing Indo-Pak tensions

Yemeni government negotiators said they were leaving peace talks in Kuwait on Monday after Houthi militia foes rejected a United Nations proposal aimed to ending their country&#39;s war. 
 
Foreign Minister Abdel-Malek al-Mekhlafi insisted the government was not abandoning the peace process, but suggested it would only return if the Houthis and a powerful local ally lifted their objections to the UN plan. 
 
&quot;We&#39;ve agreed to the initiative ... we are now leaving the territory of the brotherly state of Kuwait but we&#39;re not leaving the talks,&quot; Mekhlafi said while announcing the move. 
 
&quot;We&#39;ll return at any moment, even an hour after our departure, if the other side agrees to sign this document which the (U.N.) envoy presented.&quot; 
 
UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed proposed that the government&#39;s foes in the armed Houthi movement quit three main cities they hold, including the capital Sanaa. Under this plan, new talks would then be convened on forming a government that would include the Houthis, delegates said. 
 
The envoy said in a statement the talks would continue. &quot;The departure of the Government of Yemen delegation from Kuwait is not a departure from the Peace Talks,&quot; Ould Cheikh Ahmed said. 
 
&quot;We agreed with the parties to keep the talks ongoing until we agree on next steps in the coming days which shall be dedicated to intensive meetings&quot; with the government&#39;s foes as well as international diplomats, he said. 
 
The Houthis dismissed the UN proposal as a non-starter on Sunday, saying in a statement that any agreement would need to be comprehensive and not postpone a resolution on major issues. 
 
They said they would stay in Kuwait for the talks. 
 
The negotiations started in April have slowed the nationwide fighting that has killed at least 6,400 people and caused one of the world&#39;s worst humanitarian crises. 
 
(Reuters)

The United Nations proposed that government's foes in the armed Houthi movement quit three main cities they hold, including capital Sanaa

Yemeni government negotiators said they were leaving peace talks in Kuwait on Monday after Houthi militia foes rejected a United Nations proposal aimed to ending their country's war. Foreign Minister Abdel-Malek al-Mekhlafi insisted the government was not abandoning the peace process, but suggested it would only return if the Houthis and a powerful local ally lifted their objections to the UN plan. "We've agreed to the initiative ... we are now leaving the territory of the brotherly state of Kuwait but we're not leaving the talks," Mekhlafi said while announcing the move. "We'll return at any moment, even an hour after our departure, if the other side agrees to sign this document which the (U.N.) envoy presented." UN envoy Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed proposed that the government's foes in the armed Houthi movement quit three main cities they hold, including the capital Sanaa. Under this plan, new talks would then be convened on forming a government that would include the Houthis, delegates said. The envoy said in a statement the talks would continue. "The departure of the Government of Yemen delegation from Kuwait is not a departure from the Peace Talks," Ould Cheikh Ahmed said. "We agreed with the parties to keep the talks ongoing until we agree on next steps in the coming days which shall be dedicated to intensive meetings" with the government's foes as well as international diplomats, he said. The Houthis dismissed the UN proposal as a non-starter on Sunday, saying in a statement that any agreement would need to be comprehensive and not postpone a resolution on major issues. They said they would stay in Kuwait for the talks. The negotiations started in April have slowed the nationwide fighting that has killed at least 6,400 people and caused one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. (Reuters)

Yemen government leaves Kuwait talks after Houthis reject UN plan

peace-talks

Peace Talks, News on Peace Talks, stories on Peace Talks, articles on Peace Talks, Peace Talks stories at Wion, Peace Talks news, Peace Talks latest news