♪ c1 >> this is al jazeera and these are the top stories. the united states has recorded 2000 800 deaths from the coronavirus. the highest daily numbers since the pandemic started. joe biden says he will ask americans to commit to mask wearing for the first 100 days of his administration. a special pandemic session of the united nations, the secretary-general called for a unified global response. >> for the first time since 1935, the entire world is confronted -- regardless of

nationality. the organization provided factual information and scientific guidance. this is where a global response. fortunately, many of these accommodations were not followed. in some situations, there was a rejection and an agreement of the united states. when countries go in their own direction, the virus goes in every direction. >> famine like conditions have reappeared in yemen. the population is experience in high levels of food insecurity. time is running out. the outlook is worse. famine has never been officially declared in yemen. the former president can't stand

for election. they did not satisfy the good rowdy requirement for candidates. the former leader was accused of murder, torture and supporting groups guilty of war crimes. thousands of refugees are being coerced to a remote island off and litter school. -- off bangladesh. they are refusing to return without guarantees further safety and rights. the news continues on al jazeera after inside story, that is coming up next.

quick they will present had with talks about a clinical roadmap and a cease-fire. the conflict has killed tens of thousands of people. what are the chances there of lasting peace? this is inside story. hello, welcome to the program. after months of discussion in qatar's capital, the afghan government and the taliban are finally taking up an opportunity for peace. the two sides have begun -- agreed on a set of rules that would allow extensive negotiations to start. the breakthrough aims to put an end to almost two decades of

conflict. not many details have been given on the political agenda. the afghan government has repeatedly demanded that the afghan -- taliban fighters stop their attacks. the group has refused a cease-fire. the president's spokesman tweeted that the agreement is a step forward toward beginning the negotiations on the main issues, including a conference of cease-fire as the key demand of the afghan people. three main sticking points halted progress during direct talks during the warring sides in september. some of those differences appear to have been resolved. the taliban has insisted that they should form the legal basis of talks. the two sides have differed on

whether the u.s. taliban deal reached in february would be the basis of negotiations. the deal between the u.s. and the taliban has paved the way for the so-called intra-afghan talks. foreign troops would be pulled up by may. that is in exchange for security guarantees by taliban fighters. nato has about 11,000 troops in afghanistan. it secretary-general welcomes breakthrough. -- welcomed the breakthrough. >> we can discuss whether it is a big or small step but it is the first step. it is the first time the telemann and the afghan government are a green on the modalities for negotiations addressing a long-term, peaceful solution, hard-to-reach peace in afghanistan. >> this comes as the u.s. is set to count down its troop levels

in afghanistan -- cut down its troop levels in afghanistan to 2000. joe biden is expected to take office. they will review a piece deal with the taliban. let's bring in our guest. in washington dc, we have the nonresident senior fellow of the atlantic council. he is also a former spokesman for the afghan ministry of foreign affairs. from kabul, we are joined by the founding member of afghanistan affairs unit think tank and also , in washington dc, the director of the justice security 2020 program and a former u.s. state apartment advisor on afghanistan. welcome to you all. if i could begin with you, this

seems like something of an early victory for the taliban. they kept up the violence, they avoided u.s. and nato troops but not afghan civilians. they have a small deal with the afghan government. >> i think it is a relatively positive success step for all sides. most important, it is good for the afghan people who are victims of violence from all sides. remember that violence is carried out by taliban who use it tactically against certain targets. sometimes, still, international forces when it is needed. it is a step, it opens the door

for the next stage. that is to talk about what items we can discuss down the road. it is to set the agenda. this is going to be another difficult stage in my opinion. i think both sides have gotten to know each other. they are well-versed in some of the issues. it is going to take a bit of time and effort. it is important that the environment around them, outside of the room also be conducive to helping peace process move forward. >> it has taken since september and lots of painstaking talks to get to where we are. is that something positive to see out of the first agreement between the two sides in 19 years? >> not in 19 years but let's say

in the last four decades. they are sitting across the table from each other. that is progress. as we all know, that is the first step and a very tiny step considering the size of the issues that are in front of the negotiating teams. they will be discussing the issues related to the future makeup of the system. the way the government issues will be discussed, how will the constitution uphold? it is a very good first step. a positive step. there were concerns that after the trump administration successfully sounded the agreement, since they went out of the office, a new administration was coming. there were skeptics around the issue. now that we have seen progress in these talks, there are hopes that the process will move

forward and we are giving an opportunity for the peace process to succeed. >> they have also managed to negotiate some sort of preliminary deal with the bus -- the afghan government. >> this does fit with the strategy of the taliban over the previous year. running out the clock -- running down the clock. i would say that it is an important step forward. it is not the end of the process , not even the beginning of the end but the beginning of the beginning of the formal negotiations. let's not overstate that these were ysidro agreements.

-- procedural agreements. this sets the basis for the serious work to begin. as my colleagues have noted, just getting a cease-fire, it will be intermittent cease-fires. this is where the real work begins. there are huge disagreements between the taliban and the afghan government. >> richard mentioned this running down of the clock. there is going to be -- the main demand will be for the telemann to cease-fire considering the taliban have been unwilling to do that. is that a realistic prospect? >> all sides have their own clock, let's be realistic. kabul has one clock. other afghan politicians have there's. they are worried.

people want things to happen as soon as possible because they are under pressure. washington has its clock that will be handed on over to another team. and the region, the countries around afghanistan have there's. they are obvious they watching very carefully. this all depends on how the wind blows. it is a very complex situation. as far as the cease-fire is concerned, for the taliban, this permanent cease-fire is very much tied to the end state or the certain stage that deals with a future government. i think they realize it is sort of a give-and-take. not that they should be using that against afghan civilians. not by any means. it is a leverage that is tied to

something substantive on the political front. that opens the door to maybe a transitional system or a transitional administration later on. we don't know at what stage. we don't even know how to cooperate with that. who will spoil, who will enable? there are a lot of questions ahead. i think what we should expect at this point is to put pressure on the taliban for reduction of violence. we need to make sure that civilians are protected. that there is some type of agreement, protocol on reducing violence that aims and targets civilians mainly in hoping for further cease-fire issues. >> it sounds like we are talking about something that is not exactly a cease-fire but a reduction in governance. is the government going to get

that? the taliban has continued his attacks. what are we going to see? >> they will have to try to see concessions and collect leverage on the negotiation table. the afghan government will continue to push for a cease-fire. they will maintain this. none of the issues will be exempted. particularly, the issue of cease-fire. the taliban cannot go into the cease-fire.

the reason is that the taliban experience this for three days, either during the holidays or three years back where they lost control of the fighters on the ground and demanded a peaceful settlement. they are using as a bargaining trip -- bargaining chip. this is what they will achieve, ultimately. >> we know that the afghan government is very nervous about this rapid drawdown of u.s. troops. with the afghan government be wise to try to stall or delay the talks advancing any further until president joe biden is in the white house? would he continue the drawdown? >> the reason we saw the progress is precisely because of the outcome of u.s. election

results, the taliban knowing they will not have the same relationship with the united states as they have currently with the trump administration. many in washington and elsewhere, certainly the european capitals are worried that the u.s. is abandoning conditions seen in this violence. it is a clear violation from february. another violation by the taliban has been their commitment to counterterrorism commitments. the connections to al qaeda continue. they have been attacking isis. there is common cau but these two violations -- the u.s. has been withdrawing.

the key point is that the taliban needs to live up to its part of the agreement that if the u.s. is going to follow through on his deal, at the same time, the u.s. is going to note to the afghan government that it is not going to have military presence forever. it needs to put positive pressure on both sides to make progress toward a political solution. >> the taliban violations of the february agreement in the last year would not have worked out. would it slow down the drawdown of troops that the afghan government is so worried about? >> we don't know what divided administration is going to do. they have a very full plate domestically and internationally.

i'm sure they would like to not have to deal with afghanistan at this point. there is an opportunity to put an end to this work but this whole war has to be put to an end responsibly. this does not just mean the taliban has to do this or this country has to do this. that means that all sides have to be responsible. that includes people in kabul, people in the region. people in washington. there are those in washington calling for an immediate reduction. that is somewhat insane. we have to find the right formula. realizing that the war has in some ways ended.

we realize that one side -- we don't want to call it a loss. we have to make sure the afghans come together and reform the government of their choosing. we can't impose things on afghanistan anymore. the region has to play an important role balancing. we have to balance the region, we have to balance afghan politics and the different interests and we have to balance external great power politics as well. all of that requires good diplomacy. we need to focus more on diplomacy and active and constructive diplomacy. >> they need to give the afghan people a government of their choosing. the joint chiefs of staff said the most common way is urgencies

and is through a power-sharing negotiated settlement. is this where you see this ultimately ending up? >> ideally, yes. any sort of insurgency will end up giving a share to the warring parties, allowing them to join but the problem is the taliban have been quite clear about their demand to reestablish the regime that was toppled by the u.s. intervention in the first 9/11 action. that was in limited by the united states. that is the sticking point. otherwise, the power-sharing is something, that is going to resolve. they have been able to call the shots as far as the negotiation

is concerned. they have been dominating, they have a lot of leverage. then the taliban will have to show flux ability. particularly learning from the history. back in the late 80's when the same sort of arrangements were being struck. this did not come to any sort of power-sharing. that is the worry, that is the concern. there has to be flex ability, there has to be concessions. the power-sharing is the solution. the makeup and the outlook has to be worked out. >> richard, i have to say, it might seem to -- incredible to some that there is even a

possibility of power-sharing future given the duration of these talks in september, given the difficulties between the afghan government itself, between the two sides and who won their own presidential -- election. >> it is absolutely essential in some form or another, this is since the beginning of the bond process 19 years ago. it has to include the taliban this time. let's not forget that if it is just a power-sharing agreement among the elites, that will not preserve the gains that the afghan government and its society have overseen for the past two decades. hume and especially women's rights, lots of gains, getting

children back to school, they have to build on that progress. also, it is not just foreign forms of democracy that could be essential, they could still lean on this mechanism that was used to decades ago among the various warring factions. my previous colleague just noted that the geneva process failed. but those parties came around and worked on a prostitution order. it is time that the next phase begins with some sort of interim arrangement parties can agree to . on the final point about diplomacy, there is a critical role, the united states can apply pressure on both sides. it is really a possibility of mediation. the united nations has a

critical peacemaking role. they will need to welcome them in. finally, the other regions can reinforce this process, many of them are undermining peas in afghanistan. >> richard mentioned the lawyer. with the current democratically elected government in kabul agree to something like that? would we see them having to agree to something like that to pave the way? >> i was in this government for many years. i know how much we have had in gains, how much has been wasted, how fragile everything else is. we need to be realistic. the taliban are in control of a lot of places in the country. kabul and many cities surrounded it.

we need a settlement soon. we need to take afghan realities into account and not just pr. it is important to learn lessons from the past. it is important to maintain the gains that the african people -- afghan people subscribed to. geneva -- this was not on the table. this is the first time that this would be intra-afghan. this is the most intra-afghan we have had so far. in geneva, it was about occupation. eventually, they had to do what they had to do. in this case, let's hope that we don't end up with another soviet type withdrawal. let's hope we don't create another vietnam. there are a lot of lessons with history.

i hope we apply the right measures and don't politicize this beyond what is needed. >> one last question. i am afraid it will be a short answer but it is a complicated issue. pakistan, how relevant is pakistan now? the current leadership is not as connected to pakistan as previous taliban leaders might have been. do we have to worry about pakistan as much? >> absolutely, at all times. the reason i can give you is that you have the negotiating team sitting, disconnected from the influence of the pakistanis. don't forget, the people sitting here -- how are they calling the shots? what is the reason? battlefield is dependent on the pakistani side. because of the military outlets operating from there and getting

support from within pakistan, that gives levers the taliban. decide continues to dominate. -- this side continues to dominate. >> so much more to talk about with afghanistan but unfortunately we are out of time. thank you so much. thank you for watching. for further discussion, go to our facebook page. you can also join the conversation on twitter, we are at @ajinsidestory. bye for now.

woman: in the 1960s and the 1970s, there was a loosely affiliated group of artists living in los angeles who grew up working through painting and influenced by abstract expressionism, but by the mid-sixties, they were looking for ever subtler kind of effects, and so you could almost say that light was their medium. man: rather than paint and canvas, you've got something that has 3 dimension and is full of ambiguity and full of mystery. different man: irwin and larry bell and helen pashgian, all of these artists, are at the top of their game now.