We are flabbergasted at the confusion, that has been confounded by the suggestion of the AL General Secretary, that the dialogue may be started at the residence of the US Ambassador in Bangladesh because that, according to the party leaders, is a neutral venue -- an even more perplexing argument, the rationale of which is beyond the common man's comprehension. We are sorry to note that the AL does not consider any other place in Bangladesh fit enough to hold a dialogue, other than a foreign territory, which technically the residence of the US Ambassador is. Not unexpectedly, the BNP has declined the US Ambassador's invitation.

What is beyond our comprehension too is the fact that the idea of the US Ambassador's residence as the venue to start the talks has been endorsed by the AL presidium. And that compels us to ask whether there was no one present at the presidium meeting with enough acumen to foresee the unmitigated blunder that the AL was committing, going for that option.

The stark reality that the US is the lone superpower is not lost on us, and we do appreciate its support for the democratic process in Bangladesh over the years. We also acknowledge the current US Ambassador's efforts to reduce the political hiatus between the two major political parties.

But notwithstanding the above, we feel forced to reject the suggestion that a dialogue to remove the political impasse be started at the residence of a foreign ambassador. However well meaning the effort might have been, the suggestion was injudicious and the timing disastrous.

We strongly criticise the AL for postponing the dialogue and creating fresh complicacy. We are relieved that Jatiya Sangsad has now emerged as the consensus meeting place. So we see no hindrance for starting the dialogue immediately.