us president donald trump and north korean leader kimjong—un are in singapore ahead of tuesday's historic summit. the white house says it hopes the meeting will begin a process that will lead to pyongyang giving up its nuclear weapons. mr trump says he has a good feeling about the talks. it will be the first face—to—face meeting between him and kim jong—un. north korean state media says the summit will discuss a permanent and durable peace and denuclearisation on the korean peninsula. the fall—out from president trump's decision to withdraw his support from a g7 communique is continuing, with the german chancellor, angela merkel, describing it as sobering and depressing. mr trump's advisers said the president believed he'd been stabbed in the back by the canadian prime minister, justin trudeau. now on bbc news, it's time for hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

i'm stephen sackur. the afghan president ashraf ghani has ordered an unconditional ceasefire in the army's military campaign against the taliban, but afghans can be forgiven for being sceptical. the pause is forjust two weeks. the taliban has given no sign it will respond in kind, and the broader security, economic and political condition of the country remains parlous. my guest is abdullah abdullah, chief executive officer of the afghan unity government. do he and president ghani have a coherent plan for rescuing afghanistan? abdullah abdullah, welcome to hardtalk. thank you. let's start with this declaration of a ceasefire from your government. unconditional for the first time, albeit lasting for only roughly two weeks. what does it mean? a few days ago, in a conference of afghani ulemas, or clerics,

they requested the government of afghanistan as well as the taliban to announce ceasefire throughout the last week of ramadan and also during the period of eid. the announcement by president ghani is a response to that call. that very conference you're talking about with the scholars and the academics was attacked. u nfortu nately, yes. there was a suicide bomb. that, i suppose, was a signal that as far as the militants are concerned, including the taliban, there appears no interest in responding in kind. the question is, what happens if the taliban at launch a major attack on kabul or another population centre during this supposed unconditional ceasefire? there is no doubt that unfortunately the taliban have shown a lack of respect for human lives and the conditions in the country, and also the calls made by either ulemas or by the people

of afghanistan or the international community. at the same time, we do have a responsibility as the government of afghanistan to search every avenue, to see if there is a chance for our people to live in peace and calm, even forjust a few days. i'm interested in the degree to which you and ashraf ghani coordinated on this. did he discuss it with you before making the announcement? absolutely, i was in kabul at that time. and you were supportive, were you? yes, the idea was this is the call by the ulemas of afghanistan... with respect, the ulemas of afghanistan are not running the security strategy of the afghan government. some generals and respected commentators in afghanistan have already said this is a mistake, it will just allow the taliban to regroup, restrengthen their forces on the ground and will do nothing to help the struggle that we see every day in your country. when that call was made,

the idea was to hold the national security council meeting and to see different aspects of it. and while my initial response was positive, at the same time i suggested it has to be made clear that it's not daesh or al-qaeda or other terrorist groups, only the taliban. i understand that. it's obviously about your relationship with the taliban. also, if our forces come under attack, they will respond. they will. absolutely. i'm glad we've straightened that out. so as you say, it is targeted at that taliban. it seems indicative of a strategy that ashraf ghani and his government is pushing to draw the taliban into direct political negotiations. we had that major development at the end of february, beginning of march, after the so—called kabul process where the president came out and talked about recognising the taliban as legitimate political movement in the country, saying he wanted to see talks begin with them.

you have always seemed much more sceptical. where do you stand on that today? rather than being sceptical, i want to be realistic. at the same time, i am a supporter of the calls for talks. forgive me for interrupting but it's important to get this straight. you said not long ago that you see no alternative to fighting the taliban and you don't believe that their interest or discussion about negotiation is serious. have you changed your mind? the taliban have not shown seriousness, while we have been serious right from the beginning. so you still see no alternative to fighting? i believe that at

the moment when the taliban have rejected the calls for peace talks, serious negotiations, we have no choice but to defend our own country and to protect our people. at the same time, the door should always remain open for talks and negotiations. but you're telling me something that i genuinely don't know. if you're telling me that the taliban have entirely rejected this call from ashraf ghani, you will know better than i then a senior us general testifying in washington just a few days ago, generaljohn nicholson, said, and i am quoting his words directly, "there are offstage intensified talks going on between mid and senior level taliban people and government officials in kabul about how to enter the conflict." is that true? i would rather call them contacts rather than talks and negotiations. there have been contacts throughout the past 17 years. the position of the government of afg hanistan‘s previous administration and national unity government has been that we should be ready for the talks. the taliban have appeared

in one or two occasions, once in qatar... are these offstage intensified talks that the us general is talking about, are they still taking place? currently today, yesterday, the day before yesterday, no. we will see the response from the taliban about the ceasefire. if there is to be more than just talk for talks sake but a realistic process leading somewhere with the taliban, then you have to consider whether you're prepared to make concessions on the taliban's two key points. one is complete withdrawal of all foreign forces from your territory, and two, they want to see sharia law imposed across your nation. are you prepared to talk to them and consider compromises on those principles?

based on those two basic demands or fundamental demands of taliban, they have raised this during those contacts. our point is that come to the the negotiating table and talk about it. the foreign troops... there is no point talking for talking's sake. are you saying, yes, on those two pillars of taliban policy, there is ground we can give? why are those international troops there? it is because the taliban is fighting against the government of afghanistan. it's because there are terrorist groups and networks there. if they give up fighting and violence and sever their links with the terrorist groups and then come to the negotiating table and talk about the international troops‘ withdrawal, i don't think that would be an obstacle. at the same time... with respect, why would they do that? when donald trump, going back to last august when he ramped up the numbers of us troops in afghanistan to some 15,500, they heard donald trump say,

quoting directly, "we are not into nationbuilding again, we are nowjust killing terrorists." "and in the end", he said, "we will win." so donald trump's message to the taliban is, we, the american forces, are only interested in winning a military victory and destroying you. so that doesn't seem to fit with your notion that we can talk to the taliban about drawing them into a process when your allies, the americans, and you have 15,000 on your territory, say they are simply going to eliminate the taliban. as a whole, that is one sentence out of the whole context of the south asia policy. you mean of the americans? i mean yes, trump administration. you mean, we shouldn't take trump seriously when he said that? i didn't say that. my point was that the south asia policy is a broad policy

which afghanistan government, national unity government, has welcomed it. part of this is to keep the presence of the american troops in afghanistan condition—based rather than time—bound. the announcement of withdrawal of troops by 2014, made in 2012, i had the same view then and now. it was counter—productive. taliban were encouraged. taliban thought that between 2012 and 2014 they will avoid engagement with the international troops and they will come back full force and capture afghanistan. the truth is, even today, now that the americans have ramped up their forces, the taliban militarily is scoring major victories. both the us and independent analysis of your territory suggests that at least 40% of afghanistan today is either "contested territory" or is actually controlled by the taliban. and your forces are smaller and weaker today than they were three years ago. i don't agree with your analysis.

whichever it comes from. first of all, six years ago... some of that analysis actually comes from the us survey group which actually the government of the united states gives the task of analysing what goes on in the ground in afghanistan. the picture. a few years back, six years back, five years back, there were 150,000 us and international troops in afghanistan. they were having the full combat role. with it came the equipment, airpower, firepower, intelligence, reconnaissance, everything, air transport. everything you can imagine. then there was a steep withdrawal. by 2014, only 10,000 international troops were left. the fighting is then today by our forces. of course, with a cost. a high number of casualties.

the point is, we see the suicide bombers, we already referred to one just the other day at the conference of islamic scholars. we seejournalists being killed, we see civilians in notjust kabul but other towns and cities being killed. we see afghani army and police forces which have suffered a 10% decline in numbers according to the us watchdog group that works for the us government. all of this together suggests the afghan civilian population lives in greater insecurity today than pretty much ever before. there are evidences and incidents in terrorist activities increasing. a few years ago, daesh was non—existent. we didn't know there would be a phenomena like daesh. now in one part of the country, at least one or two parts, daesh have established...

my point is that the insecurity that's nationwide is having a great affect on, for example, the numbers of children who are able to go to school. we see thatjust one in three girls is currently attending school in afghanistan. it's the biggest drop in the number of school attendees since the taliban were removed from power 16 years ago. look at the poverty rate which is on the rise. hunger is on the rise. all of this are connected to profound insecurity across your country. let me share my own perspective. i agree with some of the numbers but not with all of them. the point is that when you have nato and allies fully gripped and trained, having the combat role, that is one sort of situation, and when you have the forces which are trained by nato but not equipped in the same way, not supported by the same airpower, you have a different security context. you have the ceo of the country

saying we can't cope. we have coped. i've just gone through the figures which you say you don't really quarrel with, saying you're not coping. the point is, lots of analysts and politicians, even in our partner countries, they fear or have concern that post—withdrawal date, 2014, afghanistan would collapse and taliban will take over. that was the hope from the taliban as well. that's what they were planning for. the taliban hasn't taken over. it has in some areas but the point is, the country is stuck in this limbo where you can't impose your control and authority, neither can the taliban. the war is clearly not

winnable by either side. it begs the question, what on earth are you going to do to change a situation which for the afghan people means unlimited suffering. the suffering of the people of afghanistan, now, unfortunately, has continued for over 40 years, due to different circumstances. what is our mandate, and our responsibility today? to make our best efforts to protect our citizens, and the military and security forces are much better trained today than they were a few years back. the special forces are doing a good job. with it comes, of course, casualties in our armed forces, and i mentioned the number of casualties are high. there is a security sector reform plan. part of it is doubling the size of our

special forces and commando forces, and support for air power. these are the shortcomings of our forces, which have to be addressed. at the same time there is a political process which unfortunately, because the taliban have rejected it, it is not getting anywhere. but at the same time we are making that call. well, you can blame the taliban, of course, and the afghan people can make their own judgements about that. they can also make judgements about the failings of your government. you and ashraf ghani have had a rather strange sort of cooperative national unity government deal in place for the best part of four years. now, i've just looked at the record on, you know, important gauges of how much governance has improved during those four years. frankly it is depressing. corruption, for example. transparency international has you pretty much at the bottom of the entire global league table of corrupt countries.

today. you have been in power for the last four years as ceo of the country. but we talk a little bit more about the security, military situation, just one to make sentences but we don't have that much time. you have made your point about the security situation. there is pressure on the security forces. i also pointed out that overall you have suffered a reduction of numbers in your security forces, so that does raise questions about the degree you are following through on the commitment to improve your forces. but i do think we have to get to this point about corruption. because afg hani people are crying out for decent governance. and you are not providing it. two points in that respect. it is a challenge, and we are dealing with it, and we have dealt with it over the past four yea rs. it was not that we inherited a corruption free administration and then we initiated that. certain reforms have been carried out. certain people have been prosecuted.

senior level people in the army as well as in the civilian side. the reform of thejudiciary and be prosecuted general‘s offers... 0pium production actually increase last year and the new york times ran a special investigation showing that officials, notjust taliban people, but officials are now intimately involved in all stages of the poppy and opium production cycle. as security has increased in parts of the country, if you look at the map, it is only taking place in areas which are under taliban control. it is rarely in the areas which are directly under the control of the government of afghanistan. but that is not a problem just for afghanistan. look at the consumption part of it. look at the transit countries. countries which are blaming afghanistan for this. the precursor is our coming through their own territories, to our territory, and then we get the blame.

yes, we have a responsibility to deal with it. these are the realities around it. let's look forward a little bit. you, in 2014, were furious. you claimed that what you saw as a victory in the presidential election was robbed, robbed by systematic rigging. now elections are coming around again. a parliamentary elections are supposed to be october, and a presidential election next year. there is a big drive to register voters in a way that will be deemed free and fair. are you confident that that registration of that will work? this is one of the basic and fundamental recommendations made by all those who have monitored the elections in afghanistan, the voters list, providing the voters lists to the polling centres. that is one of the key reform measures to. . . are you confident? simple question. are you confident that the government will deliver a free and there system in time

for the elections in october? it is the responsibility of the commission. our responsibility is not to interfere, not to use our influence over the elections... but with respect, you have interfered. that is why i am asking you. there is a new electronic id system which will be an important part of the process of voting. everybody is supposed to get one of these new electronic ids. the president, ashraf ghani, has backed it. in fact, he made a point of saying he had one of these new cards himself. you have called these new id cards are legitimate. ——illegitimate. why did you do that? if you are talking about the elections, let me be clear on one point. this electronic id was not meant to be for the afghani elections, not even for the presidential elections. and we are not sure if it will be carried out in the upcoming five years. the reason i express my reservations about it, it became a controversial issue. a divisive issue.

particularly along ethnic lines? yes. because you have a very strong base in the tajik community. it seems to many afghans that you are playing politics with this and deepening the divisions afghan society. i am sure that the research done in that respect is not based on facts. my point is very clear and simple. it is the issue of national identity of every citizen of the country. if we start in a situation that part of the population is saying that we have reservations about some ethnic groups... many people watching will not know, but the electronic id describes the national identity as afghan. now, tajiks in your country do not like to be described as afghan because they see that as being akin to being described as pashtun. they do not like this notion that we are all afghan in our identity. do you? do you see yourself as afghan?

absolutely. so what do you say to those tajiks to say, we will never accept this, we'll do everything in our power to thwart this? my point is notjust that one word. my point is about the fact that it is a divisive issue. it was not a sort of immediate priority for us. we should have solved the issues around it, we should have come to a sort of consensus and went ahead with its... and you haven't, and it muddies the waters in this upcoming electoral season. i want to be clear about one thing. are you going to run for president in 2019? i haven't decided yet. when will you decide? it will come. and in the meantime the international crisis group says political partisanship has permeated every level of government, the security apparatus is being undermined, it is a terrible indictment of the way that this government, this supposed

national unity government, is working today. the national unity government was formed in very difficult circumstances. the alternative to a national unity government would have been absolute chaos, instability in the country, which we prevented that from taking place. the unity government has performed in the best way possible? the answer is of course no. of the indictment that it has not done anything for the people, and for its citizens, that is not fair. right now the challenges look impossible for this national unity government to overcome. we don't call any challenge impossible. the most important thing is that we have to make the right efforts and not mess up our opportunities any more. we have to render to there. —— we have to end there.

abdullah abdullah, thank you for being on hardtalk. hello there. on sunday, we saw heavy thunderstorms and showers across northern england into south—east scotland, but the majority of the country was warm, dry and sunny, and it led to a lovely end to the day for many. some glorious sunday evening sunsets. we start monday morning off on a fine and dry note. we've lost the overnight showers and storms across northern areas, but we almost do it all again. it looks like we'll see plenty of sunny spells again. as those temperatures rise, it could set off a few heavy showers and thunderstorms, mainly a high—ground feature again. so, through monday morning,

there'll be plenty of sunshine across england and wales. a bit more cloud for central and eastern scotland, few showers developing here, but i think the heaviest ones will be over the pennines, maybe into the higher ground of wales and into the south—west of england. elsewhere, dry again, top temperatures 24 or maybe 25 degrees. a bit cooler, though, across some north—eastern coasts. now, we have a ridge of high pressure across the country for tuesday. a bit of a northerly breeze as well, so that will take the edge off the temperatures somewhat across the eastern side of the country. you'll notice that breeze, particularly close to the coast. we're going to have a bit more cloud around, so across the board it will feel a bit fresher on tuesday, with some sunshine breaking out here and there. highs generally in the upper teens celsius, with a top temperature of around 20 degrees. so, we move out of tuesday into wednesday. this is where we start to see the changes. this area of low pressure begins to push into the north—west corner of the country later on in the day. but for most of wednesday, another fine and dry one.

some good spells of sunshine around. the odd shower may develop over the high ground, particularly across wales. but a dry and warm afternoon, warmer than tuesday. temperatures bouncing back up into the mid—20s celsius across central and southern areas. across western, central and southern scotland, more persistent cloud and increasing wind pushing in, which will hurtle across the country wednesday night and into thursday. a deep area of low pressure, something we have not seen for a long while. that leaks into the north of the uk and we're likely to see gale force winds, 50 or 60 mile an hour gusts of wind. tending to weaken as it reaches south—eastern parts of england. elsewhere, good news for gardeners and growers. in the afternoon, sunshine and showers. these will be blustery across northern areas, where it will feel fresher. we could make 20 or 21 across the south—east, given some brightness, after the rain clears. the main message for the week ahead is that we will see changes. it starts out warm and dry but turns unsettled with a spell of wet and windy weather moving through and also turning fresher for all of us. hello, this is the briefing.

i'm sally bundock in london. our top story: the summit of the century. donald trump and kimjong—un prepare to meet face—to—face for the first time. donald trump has just left his hotel to meet the singaporean prime minister. north korea says kim jong—un will discuss denuclearisation and a permanent and durable peace. other stories we're keeping across for you: with the world cup just three days away, we take a look at how the russian capital's readying itself for football fever. and global markets wakeup to fresh trade turmoil after president trump's g7 meltdown and europe and canada threaten counter—action against the us.