were posted from florida. they're concentrating their inquiries on a sorting office nearmiami. the police say 10 suspicious packages have now been identified. saudi arabia has admited for the first time the murder of the journalist jamal khashoggi was pre—meditated. mr khasshoggi, a fierce critic of the kingdom's leadership, was killed three weeks ago in istanbul. google says it's sacked nearly 50 employees over sexual harassment allegations in the past two years. the statement was issued in response to a newspaper report that one executive received $90 million when he left the company four years ago despite credible claims of sexual harassment against him. now on bbc news, hardtalk. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. afghans will have to wait

till 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 president ashraf ghani's recently appointed and strikingly young national security adviser, hamdullah mohib. as 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, stephen. 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. wrong with afghanistan and its politics? stephen, 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 peoples‘ verdict on democracy is and what it 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 andsf. 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 in face of taliban threats. i do not belittle their bravery for one second. but here's the reality, your own electoral commission says that at least a quarter of polling

stations across the country didn't 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 around 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 for where we didn't have elections for insecurities, of course, we took risks, but we didn't want to have those risks be beyond what we could control. in areas where we thought that

casualties may be higher, there were no elections. but the ghazni and the kandahar issue is totally different. 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. in kandahar, as a result of the unfortunate events, the brutal attack on the life of general raziq, the people of kandahar asked the government to delay the elections in kandahar, which we did, and we hope to hold them next week. and in the rest of the country, the polling stations that were safe and where we believed that elections could happen, 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 the elections on the second day. you are giving me plenty of detail, but i fear you're not addressing my main point. my main point, really, is a very simple one. how come, 17 years after the taliban government was toppled, how come that afghanistan has never been as insecure in those 17 years as it is today? that is a perception issue. that's what you think. what makes afghanistan any less safe... no, no, it's not what i think, it's what a whole host of independent analysis, including from the us government, it's what they all think. and it's backed by figures, figures on the amount of 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 service

to the people, then i don't think that's what that taliban provide. if it's fear, yes, that exists. and we are at war, stephen, 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 that the taliban provide. as for calling and making it sound like it is all falling apart, i think we're not looking at the detail in this matter. one has to look a lot closer than just the mere headline to see what the situation is. this is a transformed country. i am painfully aware that it's very easy for me... it's easy for me, i would grant you, mrmohib, i would grant you, it's easy for me to sit in london and tell you about the situation in your country and sound as though i'm being extraordinarily arrogant. i do not mean to do that, but i do wish to ask you a very direct question. you're the government's national security adviser.

there are experts on security in afghanistan who say that if you drive an hour in any direction from the capital, kabul, it will, in effect, put you in taliban territory. to quote one expert, ashleyjackson in foreign policy magazine, he says, "there may not be a taliban flag flying, but everyone will know who is in charge. the taliban make and enforce the rules, they collect the taxes, they decide how much of a presence the state government can retain." it that true or not? it's not. look, there are areas, there are districts where taliban are 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 controlthose that they are engaged in, but to say that they control those areas is, i think, a very big exaggeration.

yes, they can drive fear into people in those areas, they will be able to kidnap and they will be able to attack people, but do they govern those areas? i think that there has to be a distinction between those. is it possible for us to control... if you're telling... ..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 insecurities 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're working on the challenges, and the challenges are real. just explain to me if you can,

because you're the president's 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? we are under attack. as the space for the insurgents grew smaller and they were not able to launch the kind of attacks they wanted to take territory, in 2014 after the international security forces, the majority of the international security forces left, they tried to take territory, and that has been their strategic objective, but they failed. they could take it, could not maintain, so the tactics switched

to attacks in cities and populated areas to bring international pressure and, of course, pressure on the afghan government. that said, we have been working at protecting population centres, you hear of the news of the extraordinary attacks that happen, but you don't 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 that the taliban have had. those civilian casualties are largely by that... i'm so sorry to interrupt, mr mohib, it is difficult with this delay on the line, but 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, and the numbers appear to be dwindling, and not only 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 didn't exist and were reflected. 0ur security forces continue to fight with valour and bravery

and are defending their soil. do remember that our security forces are all voluntary. they subscribe, they come in to fight for their country, and in the few weeks that 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 defended them. just one example, there was a check post in farah 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 and they had the opportunity to do both of those.

that is not a fight that you... that is interesting. 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 more than 100 mostly police, afghan police, were killed in that assault. one of the policemen who survived afterwards said, "look, we fight for our country, but we do not get the benefits and respect that are given even to afghan solders. we suffered so many casualties, so many policemen were killed, but the government paid no attention to us." he said, "we haven't even been paid yet." what does that say about your government? and as a national security adviser, that is exactly what is on my mandate to change. i do realise that we have a lot of challenges. ghazni was one of the reasons i accepted and took this job. it hurt me, personally, as an afghan, to know that we failed our security forces from a policy standpoint, and i'm 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's true, we haven't 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. you know what i'm mindful of, i'm mindful of something that hamid karzai, former president, said as he was leaving office, it was something that deeply upset many people in the west, in nato particularly, family members of those who lost their lives, because he said this — he said, "the nato exercise, all of its operations in afghanistan, have been ones that have caused 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 2,000 american lives, more than 440 british lives. one could almost say 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 can't win. that's, again, something that you have the luxury to say. as afghans, we don't. 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 governments, 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 for afghanistan, and it's 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're extremely proud of our country and what we have, but we also realise that 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's a war that we must end, and it takes — 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 don't have so much time, mr mohib, so let me ask you some quick questions pivoting to what you've just alluded to, that is the support of allies, in particular, the united states and, of course, 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, 14,000 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, formerly 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. this is — we will not allow businesses to make — to turn our war into profit. it's an honourable cause. we are proud of our partnership with our allies. we are fighting terrorism and counterinsurgency in this country, and that's not for profit. a second and more important point about the diplomacy right now. it turns out that, in october — i believe october 12 — donald trump's afghan envoy zalmay khalilzad —

he had talks with senior taliban officials. yes or no — did you know that those talks were taking place at the time? were you told beforehand? we knew he had talks. stephen, 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 on peace and security, we also had the initiative on the ceasefire... i'm going to stop you, mr mohib, because you haven't given me a straight answer, you haven't given me a straight answer to a very important question because it's about who really is driving efforts to engage the taliban right now.

the new york times reported sources saying, "khalilzad had these meetings with the officials from the taliban." he flew to the gulf state of qatar, he quietly met them, and ashraf ghani, 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 — are you asking me a question that you just want confirmation for, or what is going on? it's a lot more detailed than what you see in a news report. just because a few words were not said in a meeting doesn't mean there was intention behind hiding that. it was a quick meeting and ambassador khalilzad was obviously very exhausted from his trip. so, you didn't know. to be clear then, i think you've cleared it up for us — you didn't know that khalilzad, 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, farfrom 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 the taliban ourselves." no, you cannot have one incident dictate an entire policy. that's not what the americans are saying and that's not what the american stance is. we are in constant contact with our american partners, that's 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's the only way for its success. it's 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 by — through a process. we own that process and it's very clear. alright, final thought — we've discussed, and you've been frank, about the degree to which the taliban has a real presence on the ground in many parts of afghanistan, but what would it take, mr national security advisor, for you to formally recognise the taliban's right to a stake in the governance of your country — what would it take? well, the taliban can attend elections, they're more than welcome to participate and see that the afghan people want that process despite their threats, they've participated 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 really vote for them or not.

during the ceasefire, the short ceasefire that we had for three days, it was quite clear that once the taliban let their security — let 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 afghan people accept can only be known if they participate in a democratic process and let the afghan people choose and not be forced upon them. hamdullah mohib, we have to end in there, but i do thank you very much forjoining me on hardtalk. well, thank you for having me here. 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 round 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 fronts through friday morning bringing a band of cloud and some 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 south—west as well. the showers over the hills in the north will be wintry, and temperatures at best between six and 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 a few hills in the northern half of scotland could see a little bit of snow, and temperatures through the night into the first part of saturday morning dropping very close to freezing, and 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 in 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 south—west and also for northern ireland. the winds will be noticeable, a risk northerly wind. so, while the thermometer will read 6—11 degrees, not particularly impressive, if you add on the strength of the wind and it will feel like this. in aberdeen, it'll feel like it is just a degree above freezing. maybe five feels—like temperature in cardiff. on sunday, the wind direction shifts subtly more to a north—easterly, so that will confine most of the showers to eastern areas. further west, it should be largely dry i suspect, with some spells of sunshine, but still not particularly warm with those temperatures between eight and 12 degrees. 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 more likely we'll 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 windy weather at times as we head on into next week, but slowly but surely it should turn a little bit less chilly. this is the briefing — i'm victoria fritz. our top story: federal agents search on a sorting office in florida — the hunt continues for whovever mailed a series of pipe bombs to prominent critics of donald trump. at least 18 people, are killed by a flash flood during a school outing, nearjordan‘s dead sea. emergency services rescue over thirty people. the first bilateral talks in seven years — japan's prime minster is in beijing, for a summit aimed at repairing

relations between china and japan. and in the business briefing. a disappointing sales forecast for the christmas season sent amazon shares sliding on thursday night. and google's parent alphabet‘s results disappointed as well.