is behind a series of crude pipe bombs is committing terrorism. the authorities in the us have now intercepted ten explosive devices, all sent to prominent democrats and critics of president trump. the fbi has stepped up its hunt for whoever is responsible. japan's prime minister shinzo abe is in beijing, the first such visit for seven years. relations between the two nations, the world's second and third—largest economies, have been strained in recent years. and this video is trending on bbc.com: the philippines is re—opening the resort island of boracay. it was shut for six months to clean up the damage after years of mass tourism. it will now limit the number of visitors. that's all. stay with bbc news. i'll be back again at 1am with mariko oi for newsday, but now on bbc news — hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk.

afghans will have to wait until next month to get the results of last sunday's parliamentary election. but in one sense, the verdict is already in. the ballot again exposed widespread insecurity and the absence of government control in many parts of the country. my guest today is the president's recently appointed and strikingly young national security adviser, hamdullah mohib. has the us government decided to engage with the taliban regardless of the wishes of the afghan government? hamdullah mohib in kabul, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you, good to be here. we speak of course after the parliamentary elections. would you accept that the way those elections worked out, with so many afghans facing the impossibility of going to the polls because of insecurity and a lack of government control of key parts of your territory, they brutally exposed everything that is currently wrong with afghanistan and its politics? there were multiple threats by the taliban and there is precedence of attacks on polling stations. the afghan people defied all of that and came out to vote. i think that speaks for itself on what the afghan people's

verdict on democracy is and what is that they want in their life. this was the first election that was completely organised by the afghan government and security provided by the government. i think they did a tremendously good job compared to what we had in the past. even from the number of attacks that were launched on election day in 2014, when we had foreign security assistance and the elections had a lot of support from the international community, were much larger in scale than we had this year. let's look at reality. i do not mean to belittle the bravery of those three or so million afghans who did go to the polls and face the taliban and its threats. i do not belittle their bravery for one second, but here is the reality. your own electoral commission says at least a quarter of polling stations across the country did not

open because of security concerns. we know that in whole swathes of territory, including kandahar and ghazni, there was no voting because of security concerns. of course, there may be some more voting next week, we're not quite sure. we know that your own transparent election foundation in the country found that the biometric systems were not working in many of the polling stations which were open, and if one takes all of that together plus the dozens killed and more than 100 wounded in and around the polling stations, one has to conclude that after 17 years of post—taliban governance, the government in afghanistan is still not delivering for its people. well, the government of afghanistan is delivering for its people, and as far where we did not have elections for security, we took risks, but we did not want to have those risks be beyond what we could control. in the areas where we thought

casualties may be higher, there were no elections. but the ghazni and kandahar issue is totally different. in ghazni, because of constituency issues that existed, the election commission decided that it would postpone those elections and hold them along with the presidential election until we can find a solution to its constituency problem that it had. and in kandahar, as a result of the unfortunate events, the brutal attack on the life of the general, the people of kandahar asked the government to delay the elections in kandahar, which we did and we hope to hold them next week. in the rest of the country, the polling stations that were safe and where we believed that elections could happen, all of the elections, all of those polling stations were open.

we had some technical issues on day one, but it was repeated and an opportunity was provided to those stations and we had elections on the second day. you're giving me plenty of detail, but i fear you are not addressing my main point. my main point is really simple. how come, 17 years after the taliban government was toppled, how come afghanistan has never been as insecure in those 17 years as it is today? well, that's a perception issue. that's what you think. no, with respect, it's not what i think. it's what a whole host of independent analysts, including from the us government, it's what they all think and it is backed by figures, figures that show territory that is now controlled or operated in with impunity by the taliban. when we talk of control, we have to have a definition of what that means.

if control means providing governance and services to the people, then i do not think that is what the taliban provide. if it is fear, then yes, that exists. and we are at war and we are not denying that we are at war with the taliban and the 20 or so terrorist groups that operate because of the instability the taliban provide. as for calling and making it sound like it is all falling apart, i think we are not looking at the detail in this matter. one has to look a lot closer thanjust the mere headlines, to see what the situation is. this is a transformed country. i am painfully aware and it is easy for me that, i will grant you, it is easy for me to stay in london and tell you about the situation in your country and sound as though i am being extraordinarily arrogant. i do not mean to do that, but i do wish to ask you a very direct question.

you are the national security adviser. there are experts on security in afghanistan who say that if you drive an hour in any direction from the capital, it will in effect put you in taliban territory. to quote one expert, ashleyjackson, he said, "there may not be taliban flag flying but everyone will know who is in charge. the taliban make and enforce the rules, collect the taxes, they decide how much of a presence the government can retain." is that true or not? it is not. look, there are areas, there are districts where there are taliban collecting taxes and they are benefiting from illegal mines and they are exploiting the businesses in the areas from the jungles, illegal logging and the likes of criminal activities that they are engaged in. but to say that they control those areas is a very big exaggeration. yes, that can drive fear into people in those areas,

and they can be able to kidnap and be able to attack people. but do they govern those areas? i think that there has to be a distinction between those. if you are telling me... is it possible for us to man every inch of the country? is it possible to man every inch of the country? no. no country does that. but to be able to bring the population centres, the afghan population centres under control and provide them with security is an effort that we are, that we have been working on and are working on plans even for the areas where there is insecurity so that we have the support of the people and new solutions to bring stability to those areas and security for the people. i understand you are working on the challenges, and the challenges are real. just explain to me, if you can,

because you are the national security adviser as of the last few months, explain to me why according to the pentagon inspector general, the civilian death toll in afghanistan has reached a new record high in recent months, the last year. why is it that the trajectory is in the wrong direction and that the most important function of any government, that is protecting its civilians, your government cannot achieve? where we are under attack, as the space for the insurgent groups grew smaller and they are not able to launch the kind of attacks they wanted to to take territory. in 2014, after the international security forces, the majority of the forces left, they try to take territory and that has been their strategic objective. but they failed.

they cannot maintain it. so the tactics switched to attacks in the cities and populated areas to bring international pressure and of course pressure on the afghan government. that said, we have been working at protecting the population centres. you hear of the news of the extraordinary attacks that have happened, but you do not hear of all the attacks that have been prevented, that we have been preventing. our security institutions have been improving their services to prevent them and prepare themselves for the changing tactics. the more you tell me... i am so sorry to interrupt, but it is difficult with this delay on the line. the more you tell me about the scale of the taliban threat, the more i get completely confused about what your government is doing in response. for example, why is it that you are failing to keep up the force levels that you promised to actually

deliver security to the afghan people? as i understand it, according to the pentagon, your force numbers, both in the police and the armed forces, are now at least 10% below their expected strength. the numbers appear to be dwindling, and not only are the numbers dwindling, the morale is most definitely dwindling as well. when we look atjust numbers, i think, without the context, it obviously seems very bad, but we have been working on reforms in our institutions. so some of those dwindling numbers, what it seems like, were actually inflated in the past. they were ghost soldiers that have been reduced in numbers because we put systems in place to detect that. and numbers that did not exist and were reflected.

our security forces continue to fight with valour and bravery and are defending their soil and do remember that our security forces are all voluntary. they subscribe, they come in to fight for their country, and in the few weeks i have been the national security adviser, i have read reports and heard from officials the stories of the attacks and how bravely our security forces have defended us. just one example, there was a checkpost in a province that was under attack. all of the personnel that were inside fought to their last breath. not one of them surrendered. not one of them escaped. they had the chance to do both of those. let me stop you there. you made a very interesting point about the bravery of some of your security force personnel. let me tell you what one of them said to reuters news agency after that terrible bloodshed

and loss of life in ghazni when taliban forces assaulted the city, more than 100 mostly police, afghan police were killed in that assault. one of the policeman who survived afterwards said, "we fight for our country, but we do not get the benefits and respect that are given even to afghan soldiers. we suffered so many casualties, so many policemen were killed but the government paid no attention to us." he said, "we have not even been paid yet." what does that say about your government? as a national security adviser, that is exactly what is on my mind to change. i do realise that we have a lot of challenges. ghazni was one of the reasons i took this job. it hurt me personally as an afghan to know that we failed our security forces from a policy standpoint. and i am dedicated, me

and the national security council will be working to resolve all of those issues. i issued a statement to our people, our security forces that what i would be doing is to reflect their voices in our policies. it is true. we have not been able to deliver the kind of services that our soldiers on the front line deserve. they have not failed us, but i want to make sure that we also do not fail them when it comes to policies and strategies that protect their lives and their families. i am mindful of something, the former afghan president said as he was leaving office, something that deeply upset many people in the west, in nato, especially family of those who lost their lives. he said, "the nato exercises, all of its operations have cost afghanistan a lot of suffering and loss of life and no gains because our country is not secure." he said that of nato‘s operations

and of course the operations cost more than 2000 american lives, more than 440 british lives. one can almost the same thing today to afghan veterans, the families of those who lost their lives in uniform serving the afghan government. all of this loss of life, either from nato forces or from your own afghan forces, and for what? because this is a war you cannot win. that, again, is something that you have the luxury to say. as afghans, we do not. this is our country. if it is not winnable, we have no other option. we are in this country and we have to live our lives and protect ourselves. while i do not want to comment on colleagues from previous government, they have their own opinion. what i can say to you is this is a changed country as a result of your investment and those

of your viewers. and one of the reasons i came on this show is to tell you and your viewers that this is not the afghanistan that you only see through tv. there is so much more to that context. i understand that there is only so much news space, and it is usually covered by the spectacular events which are unfortunate. but this is a transformed country, whether you look at it physically or you look at it socially. a generation, 75% of this country grew up in the war. 0ur aspirations are to end this conflict and bring peace to afghanistan. we are extremely proud of our country and what we have, but we also realise the challenges that we face are also ours. we are thankful that we get support from our allies to help us along that way. and know that your investment in this country has not gone to waste.

yes, we are at war. it's not a war that we have brought upon ourselves, it is a war that we must end. and it takes more than just statements to be able to end it. there are, we are taking measures every day, and thanks to resolute support who have been helping in equipping and training our security forces to provide the kind of security that the afghan people deserve. we do not have so much time, so let me ask you some quick questions, pivoting to what you alluded to. the support of allies, and of course the us, and you a former ambassador to the united states on behalf of afghanistan. let me ask you this. donald trump has said, of course, that he will keep troops in afghanistan advising and training, 111,000 of them, but he clearly wants to end this conflict and america's commitment to it as quickly as possible.

one thing mooted in america is privatising the us military commitment in afghanistan. i spoke recently to erik prince, formally the head of blackwater, who wants to get a piece of that action. how would you feel if the americans offered you, instead of the us military, a privatised contracted force? we have a decision by the national security council, and we issued a statement. we will not allow businesses to turn our war into profit. it is an honourable cause. we are proud of our partnerships with our allies. we are fighting terrorism and counterinsurgency in this country and that is not—for—profit. a second and more important point about the diplomacy right now. it turns out that in october, i believe october the 12th, donald trump's afghan envoy,

he had talks with senior taliban officials. yes or no, did you know that those talks were taking place? were you told beforehand? we knew he had talks. this, i want to clarify, there is a lot of confusion about this. people confuse talks with negotiations. the afghan government has the initiative on the peace and reconciliation process. we held two major conferences here in kabul called the kabul process to bring regional countries on board on what we are doing with peace and security. we also have the initiative on the cease—fire... i'm going to stop you because you have not given me a straight answer to a very important question because it is about who really is driving efforts to engage the taliban right now. the new york times reported sources saying he had these meetings

with the officials from the taliban. he flew to the gulf state of qatar, he quietly met them and your president, your boss and his government heard of that meeting only afterwards through news reports. is that true or not? you are reading me an article or are you asking me a question that you want confirmation for or what is going on? it is a lot more detailed than what you see in a news report. just because a few words were not said in a meeting does not mean there was intention behind hiding that. it was a quick meeting, and the ambassador was very exhausted from his trip. to be clear then, i think you cleared up for us, you did not know that the special envoy was talking to the taliban

and itjust strikes me that the signals we are getting right now is that the americans have decided that far from this position in the past where the afghan government always says we must own any political process with the taliban, now the americans seem to be saying, "no, we are going to engage with taliban ourselves." no, you cannot have one incident dictate an entire policy. that is not what the americans are saying and that is not what the american stance is. we are in constant contact with our american partners. that is not their policy, and let me tell you one other thing. it's not that afghans must own and drive the peace process. afghans do own and drive the peace process. and that is the only way for its success. it is not that we want the ownership just for the sake of ownership.

we think that without it, there will be no peace in afghanistan. and it would be a shame that all your investment and our investment and sacrifices go to waste just through a process. we own the process and it is very clear. all right, a final thought. we have discussed and you've been quite frank about the degree to which the taliban has a presence on the ground in many parts of afghanistan, but what would it take for you to formally recognise the taliban's right to a stake in the governance of your country? what would it take? well, will the taliban contend elections? they are more than welcome to participate and see that the afghan people want that process, despite their threats. they took part in elections. if the taliban really feel that they have a place in afghan society other than driving fear into them, then they must

come and contend and see whether the afghan people will believe them or not. during the cease—fire, the short cease—fire that we had for three days, it was quite clear that once the taliban let their security and their fighters out of the fighting norms, they had no control over them. i think that scares the taliban. they can only be a force, a military force that drives fear. can they provide governance and will the afgahn people aceept them can only be known if they take part in a democratic process and let the afghan people choose and not be forced upon them. hamdullah mohib, we have to end it there, but i do thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. well, thank you for having me. hello there.

the weather is dishing up something significantly colder than we've been used to of late as we head towards the weekend. the winds switching around to northerlies. we'll see some sunshine, yes, but there'll be some showers as well and some of those showers over hills in the north will be a little bit wintry. the cold air is going to be coming from a long way north. the winds bringing that air down from the arctic behind this cold front. the front‘s through friday morning, bringing a band of cloud and patchy rain across central and southern parts of england, the south of wales. behind that, the skies will brighten. yes, we'll see some sunshine, but some showers will start to pack in on the brisk northerly wind,

particularly across northern scotland, down the east coast of england, some for northern ireland into parts of wales and maybe the far southwest as well. the showers over hills in the borth will be wintry. temperatures at best between 6—12 degrees. so we spend friday night, all of us, in that cold air. some showers most likely around the coast, but perhaps further inland for a time. snow levels across scotland coming down to around 250 metres, so quite a few hills across th northern half of scotland could seek a little bit of snow and temperatures through the night into the first part of saturday morning dropping very close to freezing. there could be some icy stretches. so a similar sort of day on saturday. a bright day for many. lots of sunshine around, but those showers most plentiful across parts of northern and western scotland. some at this stage starting to spill into eastern england, perhaps moving inland into the midlands, and a few for west wales, the southwest, also for northern ireland. the winds will be noticeable. a brisk northerly wind, so while the thermometer will read 6—11 degrees, not particularly impressive,

if you add on the strength of the wind, it will feel like this. in aberdeen, it'll feel like it's just a degree above freezing. maybe five for the "feels like" temperature in cardiff. now on sunday, the wind direction shifts subtly more to a northeasterly, so that will confine most of the showers to eastern areas. further west, it should be largely drier, i suspect with some spells of sunshine, but still not particularly warm with those temperatures between 8—12 degrees. but a bit of a change on the way as we head into next week. a frontal system which could bring rain into the west, but will more likely will see rain from this area of low pressure which is going to spin its way up from the near continent. so there's the potential for some wet and some windy weather at times as we head on into next week, but slowly but surely, it should turn a little bit less chilly. welcome to newsday on the bbc. i'm mariko 0i in singapore. 0ur headlines this hour.

the us steps up the hunt for whoever‘s behind the crude bombs sent to high—profile democrats. new york's mayor says this is "terrorism". the people of the city understand the whole game plan of terrorists is to intimidate us. new yorkers refuse to be intimidated. the first bilateral talk in seven years. can shinzo abe's trip to beijing help repair relations between japan and china? i'm ben bland in london. also in the programme. paradise re—opens. the philippines‘ boracay island is back in business after closing for a six—month clean—up, but there are new rules. you all know what to do. saddle up!