VOA has “leaked” the code of conduct for the intra Afghan talks. They have shared 1 page on their website but there 3. Offering details here from the 3 pages that I have seen, knowing that this is not in any way sabotaging the peace process that many of us wish to succeed.
A. The Doha agreement signed on 29 Feb 2020.
B. The desire of the people of Afghanistan for establishing sustainable peace.
C. The commitment of both sides of the negotiators to establishing sustainable/durable peace.
Parties to the negotiations agree on the following principles:
1. The first session will begin with the recitation of verses from the Holy Quran.
2. the other sessions will begin and end with prayer.
4. The negotiations will take place with the intention and faith of succeeding, with honesty and in good faith by both parties in a good/amicable atmosphere.
6. Both sides will listen to speakers carefully and will avoid unnecessary remarks.
7. In case during the negotiations sides don’t reach to a conclusion, a committee should be created from both
8. If during the talks issues around interpretation of Sharia arise, both sides will resolve it together.
9. On important issues parties should seek to balance btwn speed & the time needed for further elaborations.
11.The clerks will take notes from the proceedings & at the end of every session will compare notes. Final reports will be certified by designated delegations chosen by both sides.
https://t.co/rdifHkeKEz the end of every session both sides will agree on a press release so that confusions are prevented. Both sides must refrain from irresponsible remarks.
15.There will be five breaks for prayers.
16.The facilitator and host only will have the role of a host and facilitator and will not be allowed to sit in the meetings.
18.Confidentially is key & leaks that can sabotage the process must be prevented (except agreed press releases by both parties).
https://t.co/d2vbyvBsEX who want to enter the premise of talks under disguise must be kept away.
In principle a very well crafted code of conduct. Sides have overcome major hurdles. Let peace prevail!
VOA report here.
https://t.co/kq68eX0EMz
More from Internet
Well, this should be a depressing read -- notably because the UK and the US are both terrible when it comes to data protection, but the UK appears to be getting a pass. So much for 'adequacy'.
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4
At least we have a draft of the adequacy decision. I haven't read it yet, mostly because I'm afraid I'll be disappointed that it doesn't address the UK's penchant for surveillance. https://t.co/puJiVET2SJ
— Don Edwards (@DMEdwards) February 20, 2021
A few initial thoughts on the Draft Decision on UK Adequacy: https://t.co/ncAqc93UFm
The decision goes into great detail about the state of the UK surveillance system, and notably, "bulk acquisition" of data, and I think I get their argument. /1
For one, while the UK allows similar "bulk powers," it differs from the US regime both in terms of proportionality, oversight, and even notice. Some of this came about after the Privacy International case in 2019 (Privacy International) v Investigatory
Powers Tribunal [2019]) /2
Whereas, other bits were already baked in by virtue of the fact that the Human Rights Act is a thing (This concept doesn't exist in the US; rather we hand-wave about the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then selectively apply it) /3
For example, UK bulk surveillance (I'm keeping this broad, but the draft policy breaksk it down), substantially limits collection to three agencies: MI5, MI6, and GHCQ). By contrast, it's a bit of a free-for-all in the US, where varying policies /4