Connect with us

Latest News

Full Transcript: Khalilzad’s Exclusive Interview After UAE Meeting

Published

on

Last Updated on: October 24, 2022

The U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad has told Ariana News’ Sharif Hassanyar that they have talked about a three-month ceasefire for addressing the issues through joint intra-Afghans dialogues in the meeting with Taliban officials in UAE.

He said the ceasefire proposal was suggested by Saudi Arabia and UAE officials at Abu Dhabi meeting.

Here is the full transcript of the exclusive interview:

Q: Thank you! For the first question, could you please tell us the latest details on your Abu Dhabi visit and peace talks?

ZK: Well, the meeting in Abu Dhabi was a good meeting. Pakistan, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia in cooperation with each other are trying to bring the Taliban and the Afghan government to the negotiating table, and to agree among themselves on the next steps needed for peace. Separate talks took place between these countries and the Afghan government delegation, and these countries and the Taliban. Unfortunately, the Taliban did not agree to meet with the Afghan government delegation, which I think was a mistake on their part, and left a negative impression on the participating countries, including the United States.

Q: You had some meetings with the Taliban. What were their red-lines at the meetings?

ZK: The Taliban have red-lines. They want to reach an agreement on the existence of foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Q: What was your answer and what is the red-line for the U.S.?

ZK: The United States’ red-line is that international terrorists like Al-Qaida and ISIS must not be able to use Afghan territory against the U.S. and the international community. To reach this goal, it is necessary to reach an intra-Afghan peace agreement.

Q: If your meetings with the Taliban achieve a positive result, what type of government will the people of Afghanistan get? An Islamic Emirate or an Islamic Republic?

ZK: The formation of the future government system is a decision for Afghans, which they must make for themselves. We are not in favor of an Islamic Emirate in Afghanistan and the Taliban said that they do not want to go back to the situation before 9/11. They said that they want to meet their fellow Afghans and reach an agreement on the political situation of Afghanistan. They prefer to discuss and solve security issues first.  Our position is that if they really want peace… if they intend to solve the problem through political negotiation, and do not want a return to the past forty year history of Afghanistan when one group forced others to accept their political will, that was a failed policy and caused the war to continue. The solution is that they should sit together and reach an agreement on the future political situation with mutual respect and acceptance.    

Q: During your negotiations with the Taliban, did you discuss an interim government or postponing the elections?

ZK: No. I understand there are many discussions going on about this issue in the media, but a plan for the political future of Afghanistan is an issue Afghans must decide together. We did not talk about an interim government or postponement of the elections, not even a single sentence or two.  Some want to create tension between the U.S. and Afghanistan. Nothing was said on these topics.

Q: Were a ceasefire and prisoner release discussed in the two-day meetings in Abu Dhabi?

ZK: We talked about a ceasefire.

Q: Was it yours or the Taliban’s demand?

ZK: It was the UAE and Saudi Arabia’s suggestion. They proposed that a three-month ceasefire would provide an opportunity so that all issues could be addressed through joint intra-Afghans dialogues. The Taliban replied that they are not able to decide or agree with the complete proposal and asked for more time to go back and consult with their leadership. We will see what the result will be. We told them, if they want peace or if they are serious about peace, they should sit with the Afghans and respond as soon as possible to the Emirati and Saudi suggestion. If they want to fight or continue fighting, we assured them that the United States will stand with the government and the people of Afghanistan.

Q: You had meetings with GNU leaders last night. What were the details of the meeting and what was the demand of the Afghan government?

ZK: My aim was to update them on my recent trips after I was in Afghanistan, including Russia, Central Asia, Brussels, and the meetings I had in Pakistan and Abu Dhabi. It was a good meeting. Dr. Ghani and Dr. Abdullah were both present in the meeting and it was a good meeting.

Q: To compare both sides, the Afghan government and the Taliban, which side places more emphasis on and is being more honest about the peace process?

ZK: Well, I do not have doubts about the government, as I know Dr. Ghani and Dr. Abdullah. The people of Afghanistan, first of all, want peace. The war lasted for forty years; people have the right, anywhere in the world, to have peace, but in Afghanistan, especially… this war has endured for forty years there. The leadership of Afghanistan is in close contact with the people and they have experienced their own problems with their own people, and believe that they want peace. It does not mean peace is an easy task, there are no problems, there are no challenges…there are other issues, elections, for example. But I do not doubt that the people of Afghanistan are demanding peace as a whole. Regarding the Taliban, I have one question. Are they serious or not? They claim that they are serious, so let’s see what steps they take in practice, such as meeting with other Afghans, accepting and tolerating each other, mutual respect… This is still questionable… their disagreement in Abu Dhabi, which I think was a mistake… that will end against their favor. There is one question, how serious they are about peace.

Q: Do you think we will reach a peace agreement before the presidential elections, or if elections are held, will Afghanistan experience more five years of war?  Or will there be a possibility for a peace agreement after elections?

ZK: I think it would be great if we could reach a peace deal before the elections. But it doesn’t only depend on Afghanistan’s government. It depends on the Taliban too.  The Taliban can get ready for peace and elections at the same time. It would be great if a peace deal occurs before the elections.

Q: Do you think it will happen before the elections?

ZK: Yes, why not? I already mentioned the Emirati and Saudi proposal for a three-month ceasefire before the elections. The Afghan government, the Taliban, and other parties shared their opinions on a ceasefire and it will be good if they work and implement it. If this war ends, the sooner the better, as well as ending the killing. We know there are many complexities and challenges, and this war has deep roots. There are not only domestic factors but regional factors as well. That is why, when I say that efforts should be made, it does not mean it will happen immediately. But my personal effort and the United States’ efforts are aimed at bringing peace as soon as possible.

Q: After your meeting with the President and CEO, the National Security Advisor wrote on his Twitter account that no country can form a government system for Afghanistan and that the Afghan government is based on the constitution. Apparently, his tweet indicated his concern after your meetings.  What do you say in response?

ZK: Well, I understand that there are some concerned people and that there are some concerns. Some concerns are right, and some others are due to lack of correct and sufficient information…

Q: Didn’t you meet last night with president Ghani and CEO Abdullah?

ZK: …I don’t know, based on my conversation with Dr. Ghani and Dr. Abdullah, they didn’t think that we want to form a different system for Afghanistan. The time for that is already past and Afghanistan is in a different place compared to the past. As I mentioned earlier, there was no discussion of any political issues, including elections, the Afghan government system, or changes in the constitution. We did not talk about these issues. Those who do not have information may have concerns, and sometimes there are some comments, but those who have information and are involved have no reason for concerns that the U.S government wants to represent Afghanistan… First, I am not a representative of Afghanistan. I am representative of the United States government and the United States does not want, it is not its program, it is not its policy, to replace Afghans in the internal affairs that belong to them.

Q: To what extent do you think that the Taliban negotiators are able to make independent decisions in peace talks?  In the past, the Taliban could not decide about peace without Pakistan.

ZK: Well, let’s see what happens. During the last few months, I started a direct effort with Pakistan and regional partners to encourage Pakistan to cooperate in the Afghan peace process, to support the negotiations between the Afghan government and Taliban, and to take practical steps in this regard.  I can say that in the Abu Dhabi meetings, Pakistan’s stance was that the Taliban should meet with the Afghan government and talk about their issues. Like the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and UAE, Pakistan can also play a role in peace talks with the Afghan government while the war continues. Let’s see what practical steps Pakistan takes in the coming days and weeks.

Q: For my last question, in your meetings with the Taliban, to what extent were issues such as the field I am working in, freedom of press, and also women’s rights and human rights, considered? Are these issues a red-line for the United States?

ZK: Well, we did not talk about these issues with the Taliban because they are Afghanistan’s internal issues. We discussed security and they wanted to talk about terrorism, and the presence of foreign forces in Afghanistan.  I would like to assure the people of Afghanistan that as far as the United States is concerned, the United States is in favor of a democratic system where every Afghan’s rights are respected, where everyone has equal rights and responsibilities under the law. Countries are successful when there is respect for freedom of speech and press, and these are the essential elements for a successful Afghanistan. Without a doubt, the United States supports these issues.

Sharif Hassanyar: Thank you very much for your time and this opportunity.

Zalmay Khalilzad: Thank you too. Stay safe!  

Advertisement

Latest News

Omari and Iranian ambassador meet to strengthen Afghan migrant labor ties

Published

on

Continue Reading

Latest News

Pakistan’s actions target militants, not religious sites: Khawaja Asif

He rejected claims equating these operations with India’s alleged strikes on mosques and religious seminaries in Bahawalpur and Muridke, stressing that Pakistan does not target religious or civilian sites.

Published

on

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has dismissed comparisons between Pakistan’s counterterrorism operations along the disputed Durand Line and what he described as India’s attacks on religious sites, saying such parallels are “entirely wrong and inappropriate.”

In a statement issued Tuesday, Asif said Pakistan’s military actions are strictly aimed at verified camps belonging to Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) militants operating from Afghanistan. He rejected claims equating these operations with India’s alleged strikes on mosques and religious seminaries in Bahawalpur and Muridke, stressing that Pakistan does not target religious or civilian sites.

The defence minister said the international community, including the United Nations, has repeatedly expressed concern over the threat of terrorism they claim is originating from Afghanistan. He said these concerns are reinforced by continued militant infiltration and attacks inside Pakistan, which, according to him, are carried out by armed groups entering from Afghan territory.

Referring to India’s allegations surrounding the Pahalgam incident, Asif said New Delhi has failed to present credible or verifiable evidence to support its claims. He added that Pakistan had offered to cooperate with an independent and impartial investigation, an offer that India declined.

Asif further said a recent United Nations report had described India’s actions as illegal and based on unsubstantiated claims, while affirming that Pakistan’s response was justified under international law. He said Pakistan has already addressed and clarified allegations regarding India, what he termed proxy extremist elements, and their alleged supporters.

Reiterating Pakistan’s stance, the defence minister said the country remains vigilant and determined to protect its sovereignty and national security. He emphasized that Pakistan will continue its counterterrorism efforts and will challenge what he described as baseless accusations and hostile narratives at all international forums.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) has consistently rejected Pakistan’s accusations, maintaining that Afghanistan does not allow any group to operate from its soil. Afghan authorities have repeatedly stated that Pakistan’s security challenges are an internal matter and should be addressed domestically.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Germany conducts first deportation to Syria in a decade

The deportation marks a historic shift in German migration policy and signals the government’s determination to enforce stricter measures against convicted foreign nationals.

Published

on

deportations from germany

Germany has carried out its first deportation to Syria since the outbreak of the country’s civil war in 2011, sending a convicted Syrian national back to Damascus on a scheduled commercial flight.

The 37-year-old man, who had served a prison sentence in North Rhine-Westphalia for aggravated robbery, bodily harm, and extortion, was escorted by federal police to the Syrian capital, where he was handed over to local authorities on Tuesday, December 23.

The Federal Interior Ministry confirmed the deportation, which coincided with another removal of an individual to Afghanistan. The ministry said it had reached agreements with both Damascus and Kabul authorities to facilitate “regular” deportations of serious offenders and individuals considered security risks in the future.

The Afghan national had been imprisoned in Bavaria, including for intentional bodily harm. The ministry said this marked the second deportation of an Afghan criminal within a week.

“Criminals must leave our country. We stand for control, consequence, and zero tolerance towards offenders and threats,” said Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt (CSU), emphasizing that the move reflects Germany’s commitment to law and order.

Dobrindt further justified the policy by highlighting the strain on local municipalities, which have faced challenges accommodating foreign nationals serving prison sentences. “We have reached the breaking point for a long time, and the overload in the municipalities is visible,” he said.

The deportation follows months of diplomatic negotiations after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December 2024, which ended a 14-year civil war. The change prompted Germany to reassess its long-standing ban on returns to Syria.

The current coalition government, formed by CDU/CSU and SPD, explicitly committed in its agreement to resume deportations to Syria and Afghanistan, targeting criminals and “Gefährder” — individuals considered potential security threats. Chancellor Friedrich Merz has been a vocal supporter of the policy, meeting with Syria’s transitional president Ahmed al-Sharaa to discuss mechanisms for further returns.

The move carries symbolic weight amid heightened public concern over migration, with roughly one million Syrians currently residing in Germany, many of whom arrived during the 2015-2016 refugee influx under former Chancellor Angela Merkel.

While the German government asserts that the Syrian conflict is over, human rights organizations continue to caution against deportations, citing lingering instability, ongoing reconstruction challenges, and potential security risks for returnees.

The deportation marks a historic shift in German migration policy and signals the government’s determination to enforce stricter measures against convicted foreign nationals.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Ariana News. All rights reserved!