In this bulletin:

• SKorea hopes US-Afghan summit will help resolve hostage crisis
• Afghan Doctors Hope to Visit Ailing South Korean Hostages
• Kidnap crisis: Head of negotiating team quits
• U.S. Strikes Taliban in Afghanistan
• Musharraf, Karzai to open jirga in Kabul
• Tribesmen get visas for Pak-Afghan jirga
• Pak tells US, UK to plan exit strategy from Afghanistan
• US will not hesitate to hit Qaeda targets in Pak territory: Burns
• Obama's Pak quips stir up storm in US
• German hostage 'brutally killed' in Afghanistan
• Canada says will change Afghan focus to training
• Dump O'Connor from defence role
• No special treatment for Vandoos, general says
• Bush expresses his thanks for Canada's efforts in Afghanistan
• On-the-Record Briefing on Afghanistan

SKorea hopes US-Afghan summit will help resolve hostage crisis

The Associated Press - Friday, August 3, 2007

SEOUL, South Korea: South Korea expressed hope Friday that an upcoming summit between the United States and Afghanistan would help efforts to win the release of 21 Korean hostages from Taliban captivity.Afghan President Hamid Karzai is to make a weekend visit to the United States to meet U.S. President George W. Bush, with the agenda of their talks expected to include the hostage crisis.

South Korea has asked Washington and Kabul to exercise "flexibility" in handling the crisis, as negotiations to free the captives are deadlocked over the Taliban's demand that insurgent prisoners be freed, including some in U.S. custody.

"The Afghan and U.S. governments ... have a certain level of involvement in this issue," South Korean presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-sun said in a regular press briefing. "We have expectations that the two leaders would have sufficient understanding of our position when they hold a summit."

The Taliban insurgents kidnapped 23 South Koreans from a bus in southern Afghanistan on July 19, and have since killed two men as their demand for a prisoner-hostage swap was not met. The captors have threatened to kill more. Cheon declined to comment on whether South Korean negotiators planned face-to-face talks with the Taliban, repeating an earlier remark that the country has been "maintaining direct and indirect contacts" with the captors.

"What we want to tell (the kidnappers), the primary goal of these contacts is to make it clear that there is a limit in our government's ability to address the release of prisoners they demand," he said.

The United States has said it remains in contact with the South Korean and Afghan governments on the issue, repeating its principle of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. That prompted criticism in South Korea that Washington is not doing enough, but the president's office here sought Friday to defuse such remarks.

"The U.S. is providing maximum support in all areas actively," Cheon said. "Our position is that this is not an issue that should lead to anti-Americanism."

Senior South Korean lawmakers are in Washington to ask the U.S. government to soften its no-negotiation stance. State Department spokesman Tom Casey said Thursday in Washington that the U.S. maintained contacts with South Korean and Afghan governments, adding "we are all going to do whatever we can to see that these individuals are released unharmed and allowed to go back to their families."

Earlier South Korean efforts — including sending a presidential envoy to Afghanistan — failed to get the Kabul government to respond to Taliban demands, concerned that it could encourage more kidnappings. South Korea's envoy Baek Jong-chun returned home Friday, apologizing for the death of the second hostage during his mission.

Afghan Doctors Hope to Visit Ailing South Korean Hostages

By Kurt Achin - Seoul 3 August 2007, VOA - Afghan doctors say they may soon get a chance to visit South Korean hostages held by the Taleban in Afghanistan. Two of the surviving 21 hostages are reported to be gravely ill, and South Korean and Afghan officials are struggling to secure their freedom. VOA's Kurt Achin reports from Seoul.

Afghan Doctor Rajia Sharibi said Friday that she and a medical team might be able to offer the hostages professional treatment for the first time since they were kidnapped more than two weeks ago. She says she is ready, as an Afghan woman, to go and treat the hostages as a matter of humanitarian obligation. Sharibi and several colleagues from an Afghan hospital are exchanging messages with Taleban insurgent kidnappers, and say the medical visit might be arranged within the next 24 hours.

A self-described Taleban spokesman is quoted in media reports as saying two of the female hostages could die from serious illnesses they have incurred from the stress and heat of their captivity. The kidnappers have shot to death two of the male hostages, and say more may be executed if Taleban prisoners are not released from Afghan prisons.

Baek Jong-chun, a senior South Korean presidential envoy, returned to Seoul Friday after a week of unsuccessful diplomatic efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan to secure the hostages' release. Despite Baek's return, South Korean presidential spokesman Cheon ho-seon says efforts to save the hostages continue.

He says the word "negotiations" is not appropriate, saying South Korea prefers to say it is in frequent "contact" with the Taleban. It remains to be seen whether that "contact" will be face to face. The purported Taleban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, has told reporters the insurgents are ready for direct talks.

He says U.S. and Afghan officials have not been "sincere" in dealing with the Taleban. Because of that, he says, the Taleban welcomes direct negotiations with Korean officials. Ahmadi's comments have fueled South Korean media speculation that a direct meeting may take place soon, but so far, no firm plans have been announced.

The Afghan government and its main security partner, the United States, have ruled out releasing any Taleban prisoners in exchange for the hostages, despite pleas for "flexibility" from the South Korean government and public. U.S. officials say refusing concessions to terrorists is a decades-old American policy designed to discourage hostage-taking. Afghan, U.S. and South Korean officials have also ruled out any attempt at a military rescue for the time being.

Kidnap crisis: Head of negotiating team quits

Pajhwok News Agency - 08/03/2007 - GHAZNI - The head of a government-appointed team Thursday pulled out of negotiations with Taliban on the release of South Korean hostages, many of them feeling sick.
In an exclusive chat with Pajhwok Afghan News, Waheedullah Mujaddedi accused the government of refusing to cooperate with his delegation in securing the release of the captives, including 15 women.

Parleys on the kidnappees fate had failed to make any headway owing to the lackadaisical attitude of the authorities concerned, he alleged, claiming he himself was under threat in restive Ghazni province, where the Koreans were taken hostage more than two weeks back.
At 1.30pm, I left Ghazni City for my home in Kabul, said the parliamentarian, who headed several rounds of indirect talks with the insurgents over the last few days.

But the provincial governor was unaware of the legislator quitting the government-named delegation of negotiators. If Mujaddedi had really resigned from the team, Aziz Mangal feared, the dialogue could stall.
Mangal revealed the South Korean government had urged the Wolesi Jirga member to help pave the ground for direct talks with the Taliban, who have already killed two of the male captives.

U.S. Strikes Taliban in Afghanistan

The Associated Press - Friday, August 3, 2007 - KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- U.S.-led coalition airstrikes in southern Afghanistan targeted Taliban commanders, and Afghan officials reported Friday that a number of militants and civilians had been killed or wounded.

The airstrikes targeted two Taliban commanders during a meeting in a remote area of Baghran district in Helmand province on Thursday, the coalition said in a statement.

"During a sizable meeting of senior Taliban commanders, coalition forces employed precision-guided munitions on their location after ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area," it said. The statement gave no details of casualties.

In apparent reference to the same incident, Mohammad Hussein, the provincial police chief, said that several Taliban and civilians were killed in an airstrike in the Shah Ibrahim area of Baghran district on Thursday.

Taliban militants were hanging two local people accused of spying for the government. Other villagers had come out to watch when the bombs fell, he said. He said 20 wounded people were brought to the hospital in Helmand's capital of Lashkar Gah.

Enayatullah Ghafari, the head of the health department for Helmand province, said that the youngest victim was an 8-year-old boy while the oldest was a 50-year-old man. The rest are aged between 22 and 40, he said.

Musharraf, Karzai to open jirga in Kabul

Daily Times - ISLAMABAD: President General Pervez Musharraf and Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai will inaugurate the Pak-Afghan Jirga Commission’s meeting on August 8 in Kabul, Daily Times learnt here on Wednesday.

Seven hundred members of the commission from both the countries will participate in this first ever meeting. The meeting will deliberate on the ways and means to end terrorism in Afghanistan and tribal areas of Pakistan.
Sources said that the three-day meeting, which would continue till August 10, would also discuss border security and improvement in bilateral relations. Promotion of people-to-people contacts would also come under discussion.

Sources said that after inauguration of the meeting the commission members would be divided into different committees, who would forward their recommendations to the main jirga where the decisions would be taken. The commission members would also constitute a permanent commission, which would monitor the status of the implementation of the decisions taken in the meeting, said the sources.

Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao will head the 350-member Pakistani delegation. Pir Syed Said Ahmad Gilani, Afghan jirga commission’s chairman, will lead the Afghan members.
Governor NWFP Lt-Gen (r) Ali Muhammad Jan Orakzai, Governor Balochistan Owais Ahmad Khan Ghani, federal ministers Dr Ghazi Ghulab Jamal and Yar Muhammad Rind, former bureaucrats Sahibzada Imtiaz, Khalid Aziz, 17 members of the Parliament from tribal areas, notables and clerics from NWFP and tribal areas will also be the part of the Pakistani delegation, said the sources.

According to the sources, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, was also invited to participate in the jirga meeting being held in Kabul, but he declined the invitation due to his engagements here.

Tribesmen get visas for Pak-Afghan jirga

Daily Times - PESHAWAR: Pakistani tribesmen nominated for the joint Pak-Afghan peace jirga starting on August 9 in Kabul visited the Afghan consulate on Thursday to receive travel documents required for a visit to Afghanistan.

“Are you a jirga member?” an Afghan guard asked a tribesman from North Waziristan while welcoming him to the consulate. Afghan diplomats were seen enthusiastic while dealing with jirga members.
Despite strong pessimism that the Pak-Afghan jirga cannot succeed without the participation of the Taliban, Pakistan’s delegation members and Afghan consulate staff looked hopeful.

“Inshallah, the jirga will deliver the desired results,” a jirga member from North Waziristan told Daily Times at the consulate where special arrangements were made to issue visas to tribesmen. The Interior Ministry has directed all passport offices in the NWFP to prepare passports for jirga members on a priority basis.

Pak tells US, UK to plan exit strategy from Afghanistan

ANI - 08/03/2007 - London - Pakistan has urged both Britain and America to prepare an exit strategy from Afghanistan, even as NATO force fatalities in that country continue to rise.

According to The Telegraph, a senior Foreign Office official has said that the NATO is equally responsible for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and suggested that NATO reviews its tactics after precipitating a series of blunders, which led to a large numbers of civilians being killed.
Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri has asked the NATO to consider holding talks with Taliban leaders.

"They should take a holistic approach - the military is an essential component, but it has to be coupled with a political process and development," he said.

Kasuri said that Britain in particular should know the limitations of a purely military approach in Afghanistan.

In recent weeks Pakistani and US officials have been embroiled in an angry row sparked by an American intelligence report that claimed that al-Qa'eda had begun regrouping in Pakistan's border region with Afghanistan.

Relations between the US and Pakistan, a key ally in the war on terror, have also been soured by the refusal of a US counter-terror official to rule out military strikes in Pakistan. Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential contender, threatened to launch US military strikes against al-Qa'eda on Pakistani soil if he were elected president.

Kasuri accused Obama of "trying to advance a political career by indulging in inflammatory rhetoric". The diplomatic rift with America has also widened since President Bush said that a peace agreement signed between pro-Taliban tribesmen and the Pakistan government in North Waziristan had been a "failure".

A peace jirga or council of Afghan and Pakistani tribal leaders and politicians is due to be held next week in Kabul in an attempt to resolve differences between the Hamid Karzai Government and Pakistan.

US will not hesitate to hit Qaeda targets in Pak territory: Burns

ANI - 08/03/2007 - Washington - The US will not hesitate to hit Qaeda targets in Pakistan, the country's Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, has said.

'If we had perfect knowledge about the location of al Qaeda, and we felt that we could give the terrorist outfit a severe blow by US military action; then of course, we wouldn't hesitate,' Burns said.

He also said that Washington wants Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda in the battlefield, and will not hesitate to send American troops to demolish terrorist bases in tribal areas bordering Afghanistan to achieve this.

'We would prefer the Pakistan Government to take it to the al Qaeda and defeat them in the battlefield,' Burns told C-Span Television.

'The US has an enormous stake in what happens in Pakistan, because that's where the al Qaeda is, that's where the Taliban leadership is, in Quetta,' he said.

In a detailed review of US policy towards Pakistan, Burns observed that al Qaeda had built a safe haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), while the Taliban leadership operated from bases in and around Quetta.

Burns said Pakistan should take two immediate steps to fight terrorists: 'First, they have got to take stronger military measure in Balochistan against the Taliban and in Waziristan against the al Qaeda to defeat those groups inside Pakistan.'

Second, the Pakistan Government should take stronger measures to stop its banks from laundering money for al Qaeda and other terrorist outfits.

US policy, Burns said, favours a democratic change in Pakistan, and wants a government that is friendly to Washington, and is a 'judicious custodian of the country's nuclear weapons.'

Burns justified the linking of US aid to Pakistan's performance in the fight against terror, and added that as a friend Washington had the right to expect Islamabad to fight terrorists who attacked America on September 11, 2001.

He also supported the new anti-terror law, which required the US President to certify on a six-month basis Pakistan's sincerity in fighting terrorist groups.

Burns said the US did not question Musharraf's will to fight terrorists, and wanted Pakistan Government to be more effective in fighting the terrorist groups.

He acknowledged that the Musharraf regime has not taken kindly to some of the criticism from Washington over the past fortnight, but 'we believe we have to speak plainly'.

Obama's Pak quips stir up storm in US

TNN - 08/03/2007 - WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential aspirant Barack Obama set off a firestorm of debate in Washington on Wednesday by advocating direct American military intervention in Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, jolting a US political establishment that critics say has long coddled Islamabad and its excesses.

In what was billed as major foreign policy address at the Woodrow Wilson Center, and therefore implied premeditated remarks, Obama offered a stunning "get out of Iraq in order to take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan" policy in the war on terror, should he be elected president.

He also said he would make the hundreds of millions of US aid to Pakistan conditional to Islamabad closing down terror camps and evicting foreign fighters who make the country a staging ground for attacks in Afghanistan.

"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama told Washington's policy wonks who largely subscribe to the administration's kid-glove treatment of Islamabad. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

The freshman Senator, who has been disparaged about his lack of foreign policy experience, also warned that the US should not turn a blind eye to upcoming elections in Pakistan that may not be free or fair, saying "our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

His blunt remarks immediately set off a damage control exercise from Washington's old guard that experts say has been protective of Pakistan as a client state at the expense of its people.

Vice-president Dick Cheney, considered the author of America's warped war on terror, led the chorus that rejected direct military attacks against terrorists in Pakistan, saying it was a sovereign state and he expected it to act against terrorists by itself.

The White House also rushed to cover its ally. "We think that our approach to Pakistan is not only one that respects the sovereignty of Pakistan, but also is designed so that we are working in cooperation," Bush spokesman Tony Snow said.

Even Obama's Democratic colleagues in the Senate who are old hands at Washington's delicate foreign policy imperatives rejected his direct action remarks.

Senators Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd, both long-shot challengers to the Democratic nomination behind Hillary Clinton and Obama, suggested they favoured the administration's nuanced policy of supporting Pakistan in public while squeezing it in private to deliver in the war on terror.

"The way to deal with it is not to announce it, it's to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club, suggesting Obama's comments reflected inexperience.

"It's not something you talk about; as president, it's something I would do." But endorsement of Obama's forceful stance towards Pakistan came from Hillary Clinton, who is thought to have provoked him into taking a tough stand with remarks about his inexperience on foreign policy.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured. And that will be my highest priority because they pose the highest threat to America," Clinton told American Urban Radio Networks.

Such direct action remarks, following up similar comments from homeland security and intelligence officials, drove Pakistan to familiar hysteria.

A Pakistani minister accused Obama of "sheer ignorance" of Pakistan's role in the war on terror which most experts now say has been dubious and double-faced, and there were the usual shrill rejoinders from Pakistan's foreign office.

German hostage 'brutally killed' in Afghanistan

Posted Fri Aug 3, 2007 - A German hostage in Afghanistan who suffered circulatory failure and was then shot dead by his captors was "brutally killed", German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said.

"His kidnappers killed him brutally and ended his life in a criminal way," Mr Steinmeier said during a tour of west Africa. "This is deeply shocking. This crime must not go unpunished."

The 44-year-old construction engineer was one of two Germans kidnapped in southern Afghanistan on July 18 and his body was found on July 22. He has not been named.

The results of a post-mortem carried out in the German city of Cologne were released overnight.

"As a result of the strain of the situation he was in during the kidnapping he suffered a collapse of his circulation," Foreign Ministry spokesman Martin Jaeger said.

"This collapse alone did not lead to the death of the hostage. The victim, still alive, was then shot twice after collapsing. "Once he had died, four more shots were fired at the victim."

German authorities initially believed the man had died solely as a result of the conditions in which he was kept. The other German kidnapped, a 62-year-old identified only as Rudolf B, is still being held and appeared in a video on Tuesday surrounded by armed and masked men.

Al-Jazeera television, which broadcast the video, said the man pleaded for his life. "Now all our efforts must go towards facilitating the release of the remaining German hostage," Steinmeier said. – AFP

Canada says will change Afghan focus to training

Wed Aug 1, 2007 7:42 PM EDT - By David Ljunggren

CHARLOTTETOWN, Prince Edward Island (Reuters) - Canada's troops in Afghanistan will increasingly spend the last 18 months of their assignment training Afghan soldiers so they can operate effectively once Western forces leave, beleaguered Defiance Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Wednesday.

O'Connor also criticized Canadian journalists, accusing them of twisting his words to imply he was arguing with the chief of the defense staff over how quickly the Afghans can be trained.

Canada's 2,600-strong military mission in the southern city of Kandahar is due to end in February 2009 and the minority Conservative government says an extension is very unlikely, given rising domestic opposition to the idea.

That prompts the question of who will maintain security in the region once the Canadians leave. "In the 18 months we have left ... there will be more and more emphasis on operational training of the Afghan army," O'Connor told reporters on the sidelines of a meeting of Conservative legislators.

"We are trying to make the security forces of Afghanistan in our area as effective as possible."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is under heavy pressure to remove O'Connor, who critics say is incompetent and unable to handle the complexities of the Afghan mission.

The chances of him keeping the job appeared to diminish later in the day when officials said all government ministers had been told to stay in Ottawa the week of August 13 -- the kind of order which typically precedes a government reshuffle.

Possible replacements include Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and Foreign Minister Peter MacKay.

Canada has lost 66 soldiers so far in Afghanistan and Ottawa regularly complains that it is bearing too much of the military burden.

"I'd love thousands more NATO troops in the south and the east but I'm not waiting for that, we're not waiting for that. We are training the Afghan army to take over their responsibilities," O'Connor said.

Asked whether the Afghan army would be in a position to take over in February 2009, O'Connor said he did not know.

He also denied he and Chief of the Defense Staff Rick Hillier were arguing over how quickly the Afghan troops could be trained.

The two men made separate comments last month in which O'Connor seemed much more optimistic than Hillier.

"I don't make this stuff up," O'Connor said in emphasizing that he and Hillier were speaking from the same page.

"There's not an iota of difference between General Hillier and myself but you guys continue to try to create these differences and it doesn't assist," he said.

Dump O'Connor from defence role

Toronto Star editorial August 03, 2007 - Canadian troops battling Al Qaeda and its ilk in Afghanistan deserve to know that the shop back home in Ottawa is in steady hands.

Sadly, it is not. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is a poor communicator who has failed repeatedly to shore up fading public confidence in the mission. He has misled Parliament, has appeared to be openly at odds with Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier and has been inadequately briefed on significant matters.

That has left opposition Members of Parliament calling for O'Connor's head for months. None of this inspires confidence.

As the Star argued in this space in April, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should replace O'Connor in the defence portfolio with a stronger figure as the Conservatives prepare for Parliament's fall session. If anything, O'Connor's performance has grown weaker since April.

Canada has no more important foreign commitment at this moment than Afghanistan. We have 2,500 troops there, and are taking more than our share of casualties with 66 dead so far. As well, we are investing $1.2 billion in aid. Yet public support for the mission is eroding.

As Ottawa weighs its next move, Harper urgently needs a defence minister who commands Parliament's respect, is a good communicator, is firmly in charge of his department and is in step with its command. O'Connor is shaky on all counts.

In the latest Afghan-related mishap, O'Connor and Hillier have recently appeared to be openly at odds over the Afghan army's combat ability. A week ago O'Connor made headlines when he seemed to tell CTV news that the weak Afghan army may be ready to take over much of the fighting from Canadian troops by the time Quebec's Royal 22nd Regiment, the Van Doos, end their rotation in February. Then, in another CTV interview, Hillier appeared to contradict his boss. "That would certainly be a significant challenge for them," he said.

In fact, O'Connor and Hillier weren't at odds. They just seemed to be.

What O'Connor said was that by the time the Van Doos move out, Ottawa hopes to have 3,000 Afghan army troops operating in Kandahar, which will let the Canadians "continue to withdraw ... put more emphasis on training and at some stage basically be in reserve." No mention of February there. Hillier's assessment is much the same.

Still, this latest public relations mishap is only the latest in a string of Afghan-related gaffes, confusions and questionable decisions by O'Connor that have forced Harper to rush to his embattled minister's defence rather than admit he goofed in appointing him.

O'Connor has also misled Parliament on the role the Red Cross plays monitoring detainees in Afghanistan, and was slow to ensure detainees are humanely treated. He was stung when the grieving parents of a soldier killed in Afghanistan contradicted his claim that families were fully compensated for funerals. He claimed, wrongly, that lightly armoured G-wagon vehicles were restricted from risky convoy duty.

And O'Connor has yet to deliver the long-awaited "Canada First Defence Strategy" to guide defence policy and investment. But that has not stopped Ottawa from feverishly increasing base spending to $20 billion a year, boosting personnel to 75,000, and investing $20 billion in new Arctic vessels, supply ships, aircraft, helicopters, tanks and other equipment. Rather than guide forward-looking investments, the defence strategy is limping in behind, and may do little more than legitimize past procurement.

Canada needs a credible military vision for the 21st century, with appropriate spending. And Afghanistan is a huge challenge. The defence minister must make sense of it all. O'Connor has come up short.

No special treatment for Vandoos, general says

New commander quickly puts to rest suggestions that francophone unit will be shielded from heavy fighting

ALEX DOBROTA - From Thursday's Globe and Mail August 2, 2007

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Quebec's famed Vandoos regiment will receive no special treatment to shield it from the risks taken by other Canadian troops in the volatile province of Kandahar, Canada's new commander in Afghanistan said yesterday.

Soldiers with the Royal 22nd Regiment will tackle the same daunting tasks as have troops from previous rotations, as the regiment gears up efforts to train the tattered Afghan security forces, Brigadier-General Guy Laroche said.

"The orders, we receive them from the Chief of Defence Staff, General [Rick] Hillier," Gen. Laroche told reporters yesterday, after he took command of Canada's 2,500-strong contingent during a short change-of-command ceremony at Kandahar base.

"It matters little what people say in Canada, on the political side or in the street. The work on our side goes on, much the same way it has in the past."

Gen. Laroche's comments were meant to put to rest suggestions that the Harper government was willing to exert political pressure to keep the Vandoos from heavy fighting so as to avoid inflaming the antiwar sentiment in Quebec.

The grim spectacle of coffins coming back home to a province historically opposed to Canada's military operations has the potential to seriously hurt the Tories' standing in Quebec.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor suggested recently that soldiers might soon be able to pull back and let Afghans do most of the combat operations against the Taliban insurgency.

But the minister's optimism was countered by Gen. Hillier, who said training Afghan soldiers will take a "long while."

As Canada's first and only francophone regiment, the Vandoos pride themselves on having fought valiantly and with great sacrifice alongside other Canadian units in all of the country's major military engagements since the regiment's creation early in the First World War. In fact, the suggestion that the Vandoos should be spared from heavy fighting came as an insult to many of the regiment's soldiers.

But in Quebec, where conscription during the two world wars was met with fervent opposition, the mission in Afghanistan evokes few images of glory. More than two-thirds of Quebeckers oppose Canada's commitment to NATO in Afghanistan, even though the human costs of the mission have largely been felt outside the province.

So far, 65 soldiers have died in Afghanistan since 2002, mainly from Edmonton's Princess Patricia's Light Infantry and from Petawawa's Royal Canadian Regiment, two units that so far have borne the brunt of the fighting in the south of the country.

Quebec-based support troops started rotating into Kandahar base two weeks ago, as the roughly 1,000-strong Vandoos battle group is slowly beginning to replace Princess Pats and RCRs at forward operating bases. The transition could last about a month.

One of the Vandoos' first priorities will be to step up training of the Afghan National Police, Gen. Laroche said. On paper, the force has about 50,000 officers, but a combination of absenteeism, corruption and low wages limit the force's effectiveness.

The Vandoos are also set to increase the number of soldiers embedded with Afghan Army units to about 130 from about 70. But that will not ease the burden of Canadian soldiers, nor will it minimize the risks they face on the field, because the Afghan National Army has yet to become self-sufficient, Gen. Laroche said.

Fewer than 500 ANA soldiers are fully trained and ready for battle in Kandahar province and while that number is set to triple over the coming months, Gen. Laroche said the Vandoos are not likely to reap direct benefits from the increase.

"Essentially there will be no big difference from what you have seen before, at least not in the first months," Gen. Laroche told reporters. "We may see a difference in six months, seven, eight, I don't know."

The Vandoos will end their tour of duty in six months. Yesterday's change of command ceremony marked the beginning of their rotation.

The event, held in a room inside the Kandahar base, drew the commander of Kandahar police, Sayed Aka-Sakib, and several of his subordinates - a half-dozen men ostensibly of Hazara origin, a people from central Afghanistan who fought the Pashtun-led Taliban movement in a series of bloody battles in the late 1990s.

The officers jumped out of a Japanese-made pick-up truck, Kalashnikovs slung across their shoulders, and lined the back of the room. One officer hung a wreath of paper flowers that read "Welcome" around Gen. Laroche's neck.

Bush expresses his thanks for Canada's efforts in Afghanistan

Harper initiates a phone call to the White House in advance of hosting leaders' summit in Quebec - August 01, 2007 - Les Whittington, Toronto Star, Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–U.S. President George W. Bush expressed appreciation to Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday for Canada's efforts in the war in Afghanistan, the White House said.

"The president thanked the Prime Minister for Canada's steadfast support for the people of Afghanistan," Tony Snow, a presidential spokesperson, told reporters during a briefing on a telephone call between the two leaders.

The handling of Ottawa's military mission in Afghanistan is likely to be one of the thorny topics when Harper and his Conservative colleagues gather in Charlottetown today for a three-day caucus retreat.

Canadians are sharply divided in their support for the mission, and it is seen by many observers as a potential problem for the Tories in the run-up to an election that could come within the next year.

No one was available from Harper's office to inform the media of the details of the 20-minute call initiated by Harper yesterday morning. Instead, the PMO issued by email a three-sentence summary of the exchange between Harper and Bush. It made no mention of Afghanistan.

Yesterday's high-level chat was held in advance of the leaders' summit in Montebello, Que., on Aug. 20 and 21, where Harper will play host to Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for private talks.

The summit, which will focus on efforts to streamline trade and post-9/11 security measures, is expected to attract thousands of protesters concerned about the Bush-led war in Iraq and what some see as a clandestine move toward closer continental integration.

Snow said Bush and Harper yesterday "briefly touched upon other issues related to the Western Hemisphere, including the importance of supporting President (Alvaro) Uribe of Colombia with approval of the free trade agreement with Colombia."

During a mid-July trip to Colombia, Harper stressed the importance of a free-trade deal between Canada and Colombia despite that country's record of human rights abuses and the fact that Uribe's government has been linked to paramilitary death squads.

"They also reviewed a range of bilateral issues including the situation with softwood lumber and implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative," Snow told reporters in Washington.

Canada has expressed concerns that the tougher border identification requirements under the travel initiative pose a threat to the Canadian economy.

On-the-Record Briefing on Afghanistan
Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs

Washington, DC - August 2, 2007 Stae Dept.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Good afternoon. It's good to see you all. As has been mentioned, I was down here a couple weeks ago to talk about Pakistan with you -- President of Afghanistan visiting over the weekend, coming to Camp David to meet with the President on Sunday and Monday. I thought it was a good time to come in and talk a little bit about Afghanistan and what's going on there. So if you'll bear with me, let me make a few comments at the beginning and then I'll be able to take your questions about Afghanistan or anything else in the region.

President Karzai is coming to the United States as a partner in the war on terror and a partner in stabilizing a very strategic region for the United States. I think it's important to remember how much has been accomplished already. Every time you talk about Afghanistan, we have to remember that in five years we've built roads and highways, brought down infant mortality rates, put five million kids in school. Enormous strides have been made. The economy, the legitimate economy has achieved very healthy growth rates and Afghanistan is in a much better position now than it ever was before as a nation.

In addition, the Government of Afghanistan is in a much better position as a government. In terms of facing the enemy this year, whether it's the Taliban or the narcotics traffickers, there are more police, more NATO troops, more soldiers in the Afghan army, more governors, more police chiefs, more government generally, as well as more aid projects going on throughout the country and that's an enormous project.

Together we're building security and governance for the people of Afghanistan throughout the country of Afghanistan. The Taliban, in turn, are under pressure from all sides, including from the Pakistan side and that's an important development. Unfortunately, they have turned more and more to pure terror tactics, tactics of bombings, tactics of kidnappings as we have seen. They've been unable to take towns and territory. They have been in this year unable to concentrate forces to -- even to the extent they did last year and to try to achieve military objectives and they're just turning more and more into blowing things up and killing people and kidnapping people and that's very unfortunate for those involved. But it represents a real, I think, shift on their part into what is increasingly I think, alienating a local population. And they find it more and more difficult to work with people who live in Afghanistan because in the end, those people want stability and they want safety and they want justice and they want opportunity. So the issue is as much fighting the enemy as it is providing the safety and justice and opportunity to the people throughout the country. We're helping obviously in a big way. We have about over $10 billion for Afghanistan this year. We have another request for 4.7 billion for next year. That's both the regular request and the global war on terrorism supplemental that we've talked about. The Afghan Government is pushing out with governance, with roads, with electricity, counter-narcotics efforts, law, governors, police chiefs.

The session that we'll have with President Karzai and his team over the weekend is a strategy session. It's a high-level discussion of strategy with-- and accomplishments and goals between the two leaders of partner nations, nations that are strategically linked and that work very closely together. And as you've seen, the President and President Karzai get together periodically. This is one of those occasions where they can go and talk about how things are going and what we have to do together, what we are doing together, and a chance for us, I think, to make clear once again that U.S. support for Afghanistan is strong. It is strategic and it is steadfast. And with that, I'd be glad to take your questions.

Sir.

QUESTION: Strong, strategic and steadfast? Was that your own alliteration?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah. How's that?

QUESTION: Well done. Can I ask about the money? You said 10 billion this year, but -- you're going to cut in by more than half next year? Is that -- I understand it?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: The surge this year, the big increase this year was in the supplemental and that was intentionally designed to step up the effort and just push really forward; make the funds available for a major increase, particularly in training of police and military. So having gotten that big -- large amount of money in the supplemental, next year's budgets, including the supplemental for next year, go down a bit in terms of an ongoing effort and a push for years to come.

QUESTION: Well, go down a bit?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Go down another level.

QUESTION: I mean, that's more than a half that's going down.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah, but that's -- I mean, the amount in 2006 was about 3.3 billion, and then in 2007, because of the supplemental, we're up to 10.1. So even when we drop back in 2008 to 4.7, we're still 50 percent higher, if we get all the money from Congress, than we were in 2006 and previous years.

QUESTION: Well, I'm no mathematician, Richard, but that sounds a bit bizarre. Is there going to be another supplemental that would --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: It's a jumpstart.

QUESTION: The 10.1?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: It's a jolt. The 10.1, yeah -- the 10.1 this year is a jumpstart to get a bunch of -- a number of very important and big programs, particularly police and military training started, to get the equipment in the pipeline we need to get and to really increase the output on these programs.

QUESTION: But is -- so this reduction is a reflection of what; progress that they have made --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Dropping back to more normal but higher levels of sustainable support.

QUESTION: And what -- okay, so what are you -- what can you -- what have you gotten for the taxpayer's money in Afghanistan?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: We've got kids in school. We've got a ring road. We've got highways throughout the country. We've got electricity grids north and south that are up -- that are being constructed right now. We've got a decline -- a major decline in infant mortality. We've got 85 percent of the population with access to health care, compared to very, very small numbers, previously. I think we've got a lot in Afghanistan to be proud of. We've got a democratically elected government that's up and running and serving the needs of the Afghan people throughout the country.

QUESTION: Okay, and then just my last one on this. But at the same time, you have 21 South Koreans who are being held hostage. You have -- I don't know what the drug figures or the opium production figures are like, but they're not good.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: They're bad.

QUESTION: Yeah. So, how much of this 4 point -- how much of the reduced -- I won't say reduced -- 4.7 billion, goes for -- how much money has been put into the opium? And then, last -- absolute last one, what's being done about the South Koreans?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay, two different things. Let me talk about the poppy problem first of all. I think if you look carefully at the experience of other countries -- take Thailand, take Turkey, take even Pakistan -- you look at their experience in fighting drugs, it took time. It took years, it took determination from the government in a variety of forms, and it took a development of an alternate economy of other things for people to grow, too, and earn their living from. That's the pattern we're following in Afghanistan and that's what we do with a very broad-based program to try to fight drugs.

The number last year was in the, sort of, $600 million range specifically devoted to the narcotics problem, including alternate livelihoods. But obviously, any funds for roads and electricity and economic development contribute to that broader economy. And, for example, Helmand Province, where much of the production is, receives a very large portion of assistance, a very large amount of assistance, and we can get you some of those numbers if you need them.

The poppy issue this year is: There is going to be a lot of production in Afghanistan. It's probably going to be on the same level as last year. I think the UN's already made that clear in their numbers. What we're seeing, though, is it's more and more concentrated in the areas of the insurgency. It's more and more concentrated in the areas of insecurity. The tie between insecurity and poppy production is more and more clear. Where the government has established governing mechanisms and been in control, in fact, poppy production is going down.

So you'll probably go this year from six poppy-free provinces to at least double that number: a dozen or more poppy-free provinces. And more and more of the concentration of production is in the south, now the production is enormous, but it's more and more associated with the insurgency. And as government, it's controlled more generally, I think, we can look to start really beating back the poppy problem and not just containing it.

On the question of the South Koreans, we feel very deeply for these people who are being held hostage. We very much want to see their release. We're working very closely with the Government of South Korea. We're working very closely with the Government of Afghanistan to try to see these people released. This is, as I mentioned, something the Taliban is unfortunately doing. It's a horrible act on their part to take these innocent people hostage. I think 18 of these people are women and that, too, is a very unusual and disreputable, I would say, activity on their part, to take these people hostage. And we think they should all be released. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

Okay.

QUESTION: I have a couple questions. First of all, just --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Okay.

QUESTION: -- on the South Koreans, are there going to be any meetings between -- this weekend, there were some South Korean officials in town. Are you going to do any kind of trilateral meetings or --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: We're not doing any trilateral meetings. The South Korean legislators -- I'm not sure how long they're here -- but they're meeting this afternoon with Under Secretary Burns.

QUESTION: Yeah, yeah, I was just wondering if that would be --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you talk about the insurgency, are you limiting it to the Taliban, or is there a wider insurgency that you see? And on one hand, you say that the Taliban is kind of resorting to just pure terror tactics. It's a little bit more than that if they're also controlling the drug --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: They're not controlling the drugs. They're profiting from the drugs, they're sucking the sustenance from drugs. We did see, in the springtime, that Taliban in some areas gave their fighters a month off to go harvest poppy. So the link is very clear. But I would say that there are drug networks that control the drugs; that have various sorts of links with the Taliban. The Taliban makes money off of it; either taxes or extortion or, you know, fighters profiting from wages or growing it.

QUESTION: So, if you see the Taliban is not able to make, kind of, gains in controlling territory and kind of resorting to terror and insurgent-type tactics -- do you see dealing with the Taliban in kind of ending their influence as purely a kind of law enforcement, and as you train the police, you'll be able to get rid of them that way? And then lastly --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you talked about that you would -- this would be a strategy session and you'd talk about some of your goals. Could you expand on that; what you mean by the goals and what beyond the training of the police what --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think you have to look at the challenge in Afghanistan as a bit more than just Taliban per se. First of all, there are different groups of Taliban fighting in different ways; some of them aligned with tribal leaders, some of them not, some of them more tied into al-Qaida. And so you face different groups, or different clusters, of Taliban in difference places. And that's something our military, I think, deals with in different places.

Second of all, what we're really dealing with is challenges to government authority. And the issue is sort of the government pushing out to extend itself into all parts of the country. And that -- as the government pushes out, you encounter a variety of challenges. One is Taliban, many of whom have been entrenched there. Sometimes there are local potentates, militias, warlords, others, who have to accept government authority. Sometimes it's drug smugglers and criminal groups. And so the issue is pushing the government out and asserting government authority.

That -- would that that were just the police and law enforcement function, but these are in many cases some very nasty people with sources of supply and weapons, that we've talked about and we've seen, who are occasionally able to mount more than a suicide bombing, although that in itself is dangerous. And so it needs to be done with proper military force. And I think you've seen in the first half of this year, a very effective use of military force by NATO, by the Afghan army, together, to push them out of areas and to bring in government and bring in government control in those areas.

So you need to train the military forces to be able to do that, to push them out. You need to train the security forces, more generally, the police, to be able to hold and provide stability and safety for the inhabitants and you need to bring in the assistance. And that's why -- that's -- those are the things that this big supplemental this year is jumpstarting; is really doing the big push on.

QUESTION: Just one quick follow-up. Some of the people at NATO are complaining that the missions between Operation Enduring Freedom and -- am I saying the right mission operation?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: And --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: And the NATO mission.

QUESTION: -- and what the NATO mission of training and law enforcement, things like that, are kind of intercepting and it's causing some conflicts between the dueling missions and -- that there's -- that's one of the problems you see with the hesitancy of European countries to add troops and things like that. And there was just a lot of --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I don't think I would interpret it that way. Certainly, no -- I can't remember any Europeans ever telling me that they couldn't have troops because there were two other missions going on.

QUESTION: Well, that you have -- but that you do things a different way. You have different mandates, you have different missions, and there's not --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: There's an effort, I think, to coordinate this. And there are different missions. You have to deal with the hare-core bad guys -- well, the hard core of al-Qaida and the Taliban -- in an anti-terrorist way, in a different sort of way than you deal with the sort of sweeps in the establishing government control in areas. And so, yeah, NATO and the Enduring Freedom folks do have different missions with a lot of coordination on the ground. I think it's an ongoing effort, it's a continuous effort, and it's something I think where all the commanders out there are certainly aware of.

Okay, let's go -- Michelle.

QUESTION: Regarding South Korean hostages --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Yeah.

QUESTION: South Koreans would like to see the United States to play a bigger role, a more active role in solving this problem. And after yesterday, the State Department said that the United States wants to do everything that it can do to solve this problem. And at the same time, you're saying that there will be no concessions to terrorists. What are the things that the United States can do?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think it probably wouldn't be good for me to go through a list of things that we might do. What's important is that we're working very closely with the people, South Korean Government, and with the Afghan Government. Now let's remember, this place -- is taking place on Afghan territory and they are working hard to deal with the problem and the difficulties that these unfortunate people are facing.

Let's also remember the problem is not one of -- Afghan, the United States, or South Korea are making; this is something the Taliban have done and that all pressures need to be applied to the Taliban to get them to release these hostages. And we hope that that pressure can be effective in a variety of ways, but the goal is to get these people released unharmed, to get them released peacefully and safely, and we'll all make efforts together to try to encourage that and try to make that happen.

Yeah, Michelle.

QUESTION: Some Afghans say they expect President Bush to give Karzai a yellow card of sorts, a warning to crack down on corrupt officials, get rid of corrupt officials in his government. Is that going to be part of this meeting?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: No yellow cards in here. We're partners with Afghanistan; we're partners with the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan. The issue of corruption is a very serious one; it's one that we take seriously, but I think it's also one that the Afghan Government is quite aware of.

And so if you look at what's happened over the last year or so, you've seen a variety of changes that President Karzai has made in the ministries, in the governors recently, in the police chiefs earlier this year. And I think it's an ongoing effort. It's something that we've tried to support both in terms of his ability to govern and the responsiveness of government to the democratically elected president and congress, the assembly.

We've supported anti-corruption efforts in the ministries, pay reform, civil service reform throughout the ministries. Some ministries are farther along than others. We've supported the efforts of the attorney general and we've supported the efforts of the supreme court in moving ahead. And we've done that in a variety of ways. There was just a big conference in Rome in early July where we pledged additional money, other governments pledged considerable sums to support rule of law in Afghanistan and to work on, sort of, three bases.

One is the prosecutors' in the attorney general's office, one is the court system, and the other is the legal system more generally. And so I think there's a lot of effort being put into all the different pieces of this that need to be -- that are necessary to improve governance and pride -- not just governance to all of Afghanistan, but good governance to the people of Afghanistan. I think that'll be one of the topics of discussion with President Karzai, how he intends to proceed in extending government and improving the quality of government and improving the quality of government services and then how we can help him in all those respects.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) this is -- any suggestion that the U.S. might go across the border after al-Qaida or Taliban targets. And you talk to Pakistani officials, they say the real problem lies across the border in Afghanistan where they either lack capacity or will or corruption to fight. And the Governor of Balujistan is in town this week and one of his messages is we catch Taliban -- wanted Taliban, turn them over to Kabul and they get released and they're back on the field. How do you finesse the differences between these two allies and might it be time for another one of those Bush-Karzai-Musharraf meetings?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: We do work with them both together as well as individually. I think we start from the premise that there are problems on both sides of the border. And in some ways they're essentially the same problem from both sides of the border. On the Pakistani side, many of these areas, the tribal areas in particular, not Balujistan so much, but the tribal areas, have been ungoverned spaces, have been places where the government doesn't -- the rule of government doesn't hold sway.

And so it's again a question of extending government, providing government apparatus, providing security, providing economic opportunity to the people who live there, but doing it under the authority of government. And so I think that is going on on both sides of the border. That's why I say the Taliban are under pressure from both sides. And you've seen a lot of activity. I mean, you guys read it in your own reports, in the wire stories and the newspapers -- fighting in Waziristan with the Uzbeks earlier this year, attacks on compounds, training centers, attacks on Taliban concentrations, al-Qaida groups, that have been holed up in the tribal areas. So there's a lot of activity on both sides of the border.

And I think our approach -- how do we finesse this -- one is we encourage cooperation as much as we can. And I think over the general trend, we've seen a rise in cooperation, although there are a lot more areas where we can encourage that and do encourage that. And the second is we work with Afghanistan on the problems inside Afghanistan and we'll work with Pakistan on the problems inside Pakistan. And we have major programs with Pakistan to bring economic development to the border areas, major programs to help them improve and transform the Frontier Corps to provide better security in that region and other programs to cooperate with the Government of Pakistan as it goes about its task of imposing government order and dealing with the extremists who are still holed up in those areas.

QUESTION: Back to the hostages briefly. Are you confident that Karzai is indeed doing everything he can and is there any prospect whatsoever of any kind of prisoner swap?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think you know U.S. policy on prisoner swaps and other concessions to hostage takers. We think that only invites further activity for the kidnappings or hostage taking. So I think our position on that's pretty clear. As far as President Karzai, I think he's very actively working this. We're in close touch with him and his government. So I think I'll just leave it at that for the moment.

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be very embarrassing for him if he's here later this week and these people are still being held or anyone else is killed?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: No, this is not something he did. This is something the Taliban have done. It's something the Taliban -- a reprehensible act of an outlaw group and the government is trying to deal with it responsibly, with all due concerns for the safety of the individuals who are unfortunately caught in this. But the pressure needs to be on the Taliban and on the hostage takers who've captured innocent men, innocent women, held them hostage against their will. And the only real solution to this is for them to be released by the hostage takers and that's where all our effort and pressure has to go.

QUESTION: Yeah, but that -- that's the second time you've mentioned pressure. What kind of pressure do you have, other than military, to get the Taliban? I mean, standing up here and as spokespeople have done for the -- since this began, calling for their release is not exactly pressure. So what --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think it's one of the many tools we have. We'll just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Well, what kind of pressure are you talking about?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think there are both the things that we say, things that others say, things that are done and said within Afghan society, as well as potential military pressures. But as I said before, I don't think it's useful for us to stand up here and list a whole list of tools that we might use. But I think it's important that we keep the focus in the right direction.

QUESTION: You believe that the people that are holding the South Koreans now are susceptible to what Afghan society might -- what elements of Afghan society might say?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I don't know. I'll have to see.

QUESTION: Are there any intermediaries talking to the Taliban or just --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I am not going to try to get into that. I'm 10,000 miles away and it's the wrong place to be talking about it.

QUESTION: According to Steve Coll in his book Ghost Wars, Pakistan was enormously instrumental in the rising of the Taliban. Surely they must still have some contacts that could be used, either directly or indirectly, to obtain the release of these people.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think that's very speculative. I think we all know the history of this region and the ties that Pakistan and others, including ourselves, had to various groups that were operating in this region in the anti-Soviet period, but a lot has changed since then. And when you have people shooting each other and fighting each other, it's not exactly the kind of contact that leads to the release of hostages.

QUESTION: There's nothing Pakistan can do? I mean --

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I assume that everybody who can bring pressure on the Taliban to release these hostages would do so, but I wouldn't prescribe anything in particular for Pakistan in that regard.

Yeah. Sir.

QUESTION: Is there going to be any discussion on (inaudible) about Iran's role in Afghanistan?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I don't want to predict everything the President and President Karzai might discuss. They're free to discuss whatever they want, but that certainly has been an object of attention both from us and from the Government of Afghanistan. They've had to deal with difficulties created by Iran and the way that people have been pushed back across the border, refugees forced to return from Iran into Afghanistan. We've all had to deal with the growing signs that the-- that Iranian weapons are making their way to the Taliban. We've all had to deal with questions being raised in Afghanistan as to running interference in Afghan politics. So I think it is a subject that we were all -- been looking at over the last months, but how much they will deal with it, I can't predict at this point.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. talking to Iran about that? They used to have the Bonn conference -- I mean, the six-party contact. There was a way to talk to Iran about those things?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: The six-party contact was about narcotics. I mean, it's not active at this point. The Bonn process is something that, yes, indeed, Iran did cooperate with and support raises even more questions about why they're doing some of these other things now. At this point, I wouldn't say we have any active discussion with Iran. But we always have the option of discussing things in Kabul if we think that's appropriate.

QUESTION: Can I ask you -- I've got just one more to ask. Is this pressure that you're talking about, is that being applied? Now?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I think there's a variety of pressures being applied now, yes.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: Let's -- why don't we make this the last one then.

QUESTION: The Korean Government had to show their hope for U.S. Government to adapt their principle that -- which is said that there's no negotiation, there's no concession to the terrorists to be more flexible. So what is your answer to the hope from the Korean Government? And was there any formal request from the Korean Government to adapting the principle more flexibly?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY BOUCHER: I -- you'll have to ask the Korean Government what they're asking for. I'm not a spokesman for the Korean Government. On the U.S. Government side, I think our policies and principles are well known. I'm not going to spend too much time reiterating them here. I think what is very important is we're working closely with the South Korean Government. We're very concerned about the situation. We're very concerned about the fate of these people and their welfare. We're working very closely with the Korean Government and with the Afghan Government to try to make sure the pressure and the focus remain where they should be and that's on the Taliban who are the ones who've done this terrible thing.

Okay. Thank you.

[Disclaimer: The content of this news bulletin does not necessarily reflect the view or policy of the Afghan Government, unless specifically stated as such. The collection of articles and commentaries from Afghan and international news sources is provided for informational purposes, and accuracy of the news is the responsibility of the original source.]