Ashley Jackson

1: The @EuinAfghanistan has been increasingly vocal regarding the US-monopolised talks but this is perhaps the 1st time they espoused a clear alternative framework to rival that of the US. It is a different yet bold vision for intra-AFG talks albeit with little chance of success.

2: Interestingly, the EU uses the word 'principled' to describe its approach, as if to distinguish it from the US approach which could perhaps be contrasted as being too expedient or Machiavellian or realpolitik-based depending on what connotations you want to invoke.

3: In terms of eliciting desired behavior, while the US has focused on the more powerful 'conditions-based' mechanism to influence TB, the EU wields other levers including future aid, sanctions removal and acceptance of future govt by intl community to influence actors' behavior.

4: Substantively, the EU calls on all sides, including TB, to immediately begin the intra-AFG talks. Also states that results of this process must protect the gains of post-2001 era, especially the constitutional order, it's democratic institutions, humans rights & minorities.

5: It calls for participation of women in the peace process by relying on UNSC resolution 1325. Calls on TB to bring violence down to an acceptable level until a full-fledged ceasefire enters into force.

6: Admonishes both sides for continued civilian casualties. It mentioned Dashte Barchi hospital in the context of 'incidents of violence against civilians by both parties'. Does that mean EU holds TB responsible for that massacre?

7: It also states that the AFG govt has initiated prisoner release 'outside it's obligations'. While that it true, it is equally true that the TB consented to intra-AFG talks that would be preceded by prisoner release. So not sure what the EU hopes to achieve with such language.