27 November 2001

"Dialogue" TV Program on U.S. Aid Efforts in Afghanistan

The U.S. government has increased its aid to Afghanistan following the September 11 terrorist attacks to $320 million from the nearly $180 million it provided in 2000, according to the host of the November 27 Dialogue program, Doris McMillon.

The U.S. government also has supplied more than 80 percent of all food aid to Afghanistan through the World Food Program and will continue to be the lead donor, McMillon said, summarizing the U.S. relief effort.

Along with other donors of the international community, the U.S. is trying to minimize population movements by sending in emergency shelter, clothing and supplies, stabilizing food prices and increasing international food deliveries by boat, truck, helicopter and plane, McMillon said. She said the immediate objective is to reduce deaths during the coming Afghan winter.

She added that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has begun planning for the reconstruction of Afghanistan with programs to provide clean water, sanitation, irrigation systems and seeds for next year's crops.

The featured guest of the program was Mike McKinley, deputy assistant secretary of state for population, refugees and migration, who participated in an interactive news conference with journalists in Sarajevo and Sophia.

McKinley gave detailed explanations about how the humanitarian aid programs are being administered.

A key point he made is that the military campaign in Afghanistan has facilitated increased deliveries of aid.

McKinley also highlighted the importance the international community places on developing a "seamless transition" from the immediate humanitarian relief efforts to multi-year rehabilitation and reconstruction projects for Afghanistan. He said that was a central message that came out of an Afghan reconstruction conference held at the State Department in Washington November 20.

Following is a transcript of the November 27 "Dialogue" program:

Ms. McMillon: Hello, and welcome to "Dialogue," I'm Doris McMillon.

After 22 years of war, three years of drought, and five years of Taliban misrule, Afghanistan is facing a major famine. The U.S. government is leading the international community in responding to this humanitarian crisis. Afghanistan was the number one recipient of humanitarian assistance prior to September 11th, and remains so today.

Ms. McMillon: Following September 11th, the U.S. increased its aid to $320 million annually, from the nearly $180 million it provided last year. It has supplied more than 80 percent of all food aid for vulnerable Afghans through the United Nations World Food Programme, and will continue to be the lead donor.

Along with others in the international community, the U.S. is using every available means -- emergency shelter, clothing and supplies minimizing population movements, stabilizing food prices, and increasing food arriving from every border by boat, truck, helicopter and plane, to reduce death rates among the Afghan people during the winter.

The U.S. Agency for International Development, has begun developmental relief efforts and long-term planning to help the Afghan people eventually resettle and rebuild, including programs to provide clean water, sanitation, and irrigation systems, as well as seeds for next year's crops.

Just two weeks ago, USAID's administrator, Andrew Natsios, visited camps for displaced Afghans in Afghanistan.

Mr. Natsios: The conflict is entering a new phase. There's stability growing in the northern regions of the country. The president instructed USAID to begin reconstruction work in stable and peaceful areas of the country that are free of terrorists -- and this area is -- and we want to assess the situation. We have some grants here that were already in place during the conflict that were emergency response grants. And now we want to look toward reconstruction of wells, of the irrigation system, of agricultural growth.

Ms. McMillon: Here today to discuss the United States humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, we welcome our distinguished guest, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration at the U.S. Department of State, Mike McKinley. The Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration leads the government in providing assistance to refugees worldwide. It has contributed more than $36.7 million to help Afghan refugees in this recent crisis.

We also welcome our participants standing by in Sarajevo and Sofia. But before we join them, Mr. McKinley, do you have any opening remarks for us?

Mr. McKinley: Well, thank you, Doris, for the introduction, and welcome to Sofia and Sarajevo for a discussion of a very important issue.

I think Doris provided an excellent summary of the issues which have been at stake over the last several weeks in dealing with the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. I would like to again stress that the crisis is not a crisis which began on September 11th; it's a crisis which is in many ways over 20 years old, dating from 1979 or even earlier, as the Afghan people have dealt with over two decades of internal civil strife, economic mismanagement, the interference of foreign powers, and the effects of a three-year drought.

As we came into 2001, up to six million Afghans inside the country were at threat of starvation, and the international community was gearing up to respond to that crisis and deal with its impact throughout this winter. And, as sources pointed out, the United States government before September 11th had already provided $180 million to deal with the crisis.

Since September 11th, and with the impact of Taliban disruption of humanitarian efforts inside the country, the international community picked up a gear in its efforts to address the needs of the Afghan people. We have provided over $128 million in assistance since September 11th, working closely with international organizations and NGOs, many of which have been well positioned inside Afghanistan or working with the largest refugee communities in neighboring countries to deal with this prolonged crisis. And they have been very effective in keeping food supplies and other emergency relief going into Afghanistan throughout the weeks of conflict, despite the many interruptions and obstacles they have faced.

Obviously in the last 10 days or so the change in the security situation on the ground, the change in political fortunes, has greatly enhanced the prospects of address the needs of the Afghan people. And I think perhaps today's discussion can focus on what has happened in recent weeks and how the international response to the humanitarian crisis is going to move forward in the coming three months.

Ms. McMillon: Thank you, Mr. McKinley.

And now we go to our participants standing by in Sarajevo. Please go ahead with your first question, Sarajevo.

Question: How would you explain what is currently going on? And what is the development of the events in Bonn? And what is going to happen at the donor conference next week?

Mr. McKinley: Well, the situation on the ground really has changed dramatically over the last three weeks. We can't look at it in isolation from the political and military developments. In fact, at a time when many people were concerned that international assistance would not get in because of the fighting on the ground, through October, the World Food Programme for example was able to deliver inside Afghanistan 27,000 metric tons of food -- more than it ever had in any previous month, including months predating September 11th. And over the past 30 days, as World Food Programme Director Catherine Bertini announced on November 16th, World Food Programme actually met its target of delivering inside Afghanistan 52,000 metric tons of food, which would be the monthly requirement to deal with six million people.

So across the last two to three to four weeks, we have seen a dramatic change in the ability of international organizations and NGOs to deliver emergency relief inside the country.

Over the past several days, the emphasis has been on building up the logistics capabilities, both inside the country and in bordering states, to sustain delivery of emergency relief inside the country. That means returning expatriate personnel to Kabul and other parts of Afghanistan. That means providing the trucking capacity from Turkmenistan, from Pakistan, from Iran, from Tajikistan and elsewhere to deliver food relief, winterization packages -- which would include tenting, warm clothing; emergency health care provisions -- and this is being done quite successfully. Just this week, for example, ICRC was able to reestablish water supplies for 400,000 people in Kabul. And with the changing fortunes in the north, particularly with what seem to be the pacification of Mazar-e Sharif and Kunduz, international organizations and NGOs are hoping they can surge -- increase greatly -- the flood of relief supplies into the northern areas.

As you may be aware, it is northern Afghanistan and the central highlands where people are most at risk. In northern Afghanistan, northeastern Afghanistan, approximately three million people are at risk. In the central highlands there are several hundred thousand others.

In addition to the trucking capacity I mentioned, the World Food Programme is developing airlift capability to transfer supplies from Pakistan to Turkmenistan so that it can be trucked down into areas like Herat and northeastern Afghanistan. In Uzbekistan there has been a sustained effort to develop the use of a river port, Hiratan (ph) down from Termiz which has four barges capable of carrying three to four hundred tons each. The World Food Programme is hoping to move up to 16,000 tons a month this way into northeastern Afghanistan.

So, as you can see from the numerous examples, we do have quite a number of very practical developments in the last few days taking place to address the humanitarian emergency, at the same time as efforts are being made in Bonn, as you rightly point out, to develop broad-based representative interim arrangements for government in Afghanistan which can lead to a more permanent and stable transition. As well, as you are aware, with military developments on the ground, it is to be hoped that more and more corridors inside the country will be opened up and that expatriate staff can work with what has already been an extraordinary effort by 7,000 local Afghan employees of international organizations and NGOs, to keep the relief supplies going into the country and distributed over the last several weeks of conflict.

Ms. McMillon: Okay, Sarajevo, we thank you for your question. And now we'll go to Sofia for your first question. Please go ahead, Sofia.

Question: (Off mike.) There are many (concerned ?) for the thousands of foreign volunteers aligned with the Taliban. And all the information coming from the ground -- (inaudible) -- do you have any information as to that, and what are your -- (inaudible) -- ?

Mr. McKinley: I am afraid that question is beyond my remit. I am here to discuss the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, not the military developments per se.

Ms. McMillon: Thank you, Sofia. We'll return now to Sarajevo for more questions. Please go ahead.

Question: We are pleased that we can ask a question, and perhaps make it a little bit simpler. I think we have too many numbers. One [piece] of information that you pointed out from the State Department says that the U.S. participated with 80 percent of the assistance. What's with the other countries? Why does such a high percentage fall onto the U.S.? Why not other countries?

Mr. McKinley: Traditionally in cases of humanitarian emergency, and particularly in cases of impending famine, the United States has been the largest single donor. And if you look at examples going back to the '70s, '80s and '90s, whether it was Ethiopia in the mid '80s or Somalia in the early '90s, we traditionally provide the bulk of food because we are the world's largest agricultural producer and have the supplies on hand to respond to the crisis in immediate fashion.

In the case of Afghanistan, the 80 percent refers to the food supplies going into the country. And we have also traditionally provided about a quarter of the budgets of the international organizations currently working inside Afghanistan in all emergency relief areas.

If you look at the picture in its entirety, which would include addressing issues like health care, water sanitation, other humanitarian and longer term humanitarian requirements inside Afghanistan, you will see that the European Union and the Japanese in particular have been generous. But -- and if you look at the response to the UNHCR, U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees appeal that was made in late September, while we put on the table $320 million, other nations, a total of 40 or more, added another 450 to 500 million dollars in response to the appeal. One of the encouraging features of the response to the Afghan humanitarian crisis in fact its broad multilateral and international nature. And with over 40 countries already responding with support for the emergency, we are hardly acting alone.

And I would like to draw special attention to the fact that the World Food Programme in particular, but also many other U.N. agencies, international organizations and NGOs, are the ones who are doing the heroes work on the ground, making sure that the food crosses the borders, is delivered, that emergency health care provisions are provided, that winterization packages are delivered to needy populations in remote areas. It is a truly international response to a major humanitarian crisis.

Question: Mr. McKinley, we have two questions. How would you -- if I may say -- in layman's terms, what are the needs -- how many inhabitants of Afghanistan directly depend on you, and how much are you able to respond? And my colleague -- (inaudible).

Mr. McKinley: The estimate of -- sorry -- the estimate that the international community has been working with is -- throughout this year -- has ranged between five and seven million people at risk; that is, people who cannot fend for themselves in terms of basic food needs. Most recently I think the U.N. has been working with a figure of approximately six million, or roughly a quarter of the population inside Afghanistan's borders. So this is the target group of people that the international community is trying to reach.

The international organizations have a lot of experience working in Afghanistan. They have worked out very precise figures. The reason I use so many figures is I think it's important to have a sense of the scale of the response and a scale of the needs of the people in Afghanistan. So when we speak about 50,000 -- 52,000 tons to be exact -- metric tons of food that need to go into the country and be distributed every month, this gives us a better appreciation for just how much has to be mobilized in support of these people.

When you talk about restoring water to 400,000 people in the city of Kabul, or restoring health care centers which have been ravaged or destroyed or looted during the war, these are all very evident manifestations of the enormous needs there are inside the country. Again, to give it context, the U.N. system is looking at how to help rebuild an educational system inside the country, and trying to see whether they can greatly increase the number of children in primary school. If I remember correctly, we are working with a statistic of maybe about 350,000 people -- children, sorry -- in school at the moment -- and the U.N. is looking at ways where they can increase -- help that number grow to over a million in the next four to five months. Therefore, there's a very human face to the figures that we are speaking about. And there's also a very graphic face, if you will. Afghanistan has one of the most difficult terrains in the world to address -- very few roads -- the roads that are there, particularly in the central part of the country or the northeastern part of the country, cannot be traversed in the winter. You have many isolated rural communities, which having been affected by three years of drought, are truly at the mercy of the elements -- unless food can reach them. And if food doesn't reach them, these populations begin to move. And as the history of previous impending famines or famines have shown us, when people begin to move they die.

In terms of the priorities over the next two years, it's an excellent question, which I think began to be answered in a very coherent way by the international community on November 20th in a reconstruction conference which took place in Washington, D.C., co-hosted by the United States and Japan, attended by the European Union, attended by numerous European states, attended by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, development banks, the World Bank and the U.N. system in its entirety. And one of the central messages that came out of that was the importance of working on a seamless transition between humanitarian and rehabilitation and reconstruction needs inside Afghanistan, which everybody recognized was going to be a multi-year effort. The importance of dealing with immediate humanitarian needs should not obscure that we are dealing with more than two decades of strife and economic mismanagement which have degraded Afghanistan's economic ability to provide for its own people. And the reconstruction effort will begin to address the wider needs of development inside Afghanistan.

Question: If you were to try to grade one through five the success of airdrops, what would you say of the efforts so far? So in some way an assessment of what has been done so far -- in short.

Mr. McKinley: The statistic is over 1.9 million individual meal packets have been dropped over Afghanistan. But the United States government has been very clear from the start that this is a tiny percentage of the relief effort inside Afghanistan. In fact, USAID Administrator Natsios, whom you saw in the film clip earlier in the program, estimated that it was considerably less than one percent of the foods needs that would be needed to address the people at risk inside Afghanistan.

What we have emphasized, however, and it is a point which others have supported as well, is that particularly in the early stages of a war when it was very difficult to get food relief inside the country, every effort had to be made to deliver food to needy people inside Afghanistan. And by and large this assistance did reach needy populations, with drops in areas away from conflicts that were inaccessible by road.

With the success in more recent weeks in increasing the flow of food and other emergency relief into Afghanistan, obviously the priority shifted to making sure that that relief can be distributed inside the country. But the air dropped food has certainly played its part in easing the plight of the Afghan people.

Question: Again we have two questions. And my question is since the Pentagon says that about a million and a half packets have been dropped, and BBC reported -- said that there are many kids that chase the packets -- and at the same time encountered packets that are quite similar to cluster bombs. Do you have any data on the victims of this type of delivery of food? Are you afraid that with such a great need for humanitarian assistance that your planning in upcoming years will be endangered?

Mr. McKinley: The answer on the humanitarian air drops is that every effort has been made to separate out the air drops from areas where bombing is taking place. And, no, I don't have any particular figures I can provide you on in response to that BBC report.

More generally, I think I would like to make a point that every effort has been made to minimize civilian casualties throughout this conflict.

We do not believe that the humanitarian and developmental efforts that are underway are endangered in any way by what has happened. In fact, it is the success of the military efforts on the ground which have opened up the prospects for dealing with the massive humanitarian emergency inside Afghanistan, and which for the first time in a generation offers a hope of dealing with the longer-term developmental needs of the Afghan people.

Ms. McMillon: Thank you, Sarajevo. Now we'll go now to Sofia for more questions. Please go ahead, Sofia.

Question: Hello again from Sofia. Mr. McKinley, what are your expectations on the refugee flow, and how are you prepared to meet the demands and severe circumstances in the winter? What do you plan?

Mr. McKinley: As you are probably aware, we have been speaking up till now obviously about the situation inside Afghanistan, the suffering of the internally displaced people and the needs of ordinary Afghans throughout the countryside. Let us not forget that there are approximately four to five million Afghans living outside Afghanistan's borders, and they have been for generations, with Pakistan and Iran being the countries which have provided refuge for most of these people for most of the last 20 years.

As we are all aware, when this crisis first broke the U.N. system was anticipating a surge in refugee flows to the borders, reaching totals of as high as 1.5 million. The reality with the shifting fortune on the ground and with the freeing of most of the country from Taliban rule, has been that many fewer people have moved towards the borders than anticipated. The U.N. estimates that a total of about 135,000 people perhaps crossed borders during the conflict. And in fact in the last week to two weeks we are now seeing a counter-flow, if you will, with Afghan refugees returning spontaneously to their homes. This is true in areas of the northeast; it's also true of the refugee populations inside Iran. There are estimates running as high as 45,000 refugees having returned from Iran since the beginning of this month.

Obviously this places a premium on preparing for a more general return of the large refugee population on the borders of Afghanistan as the situation inside the country stabilizes.

In terms of the needs of the refugee populations in Iran, Pakistan and elsewhere, these are long-standing refugee populations which have been supported by the U.N. system and NGOs for many years, and those systems remain in place.

Question: You mentioned that this crisis is over 20 years so -- how long do you think that the humanitarian aid has to keep on going?

Mr. McKinley: The response over the last 20 years has obviously varied in response to the nature of the crises inside the country. The current crisis was made considerably more acute by the accumulative impact of three years of drought. And this is what led the international community as a whole by late last year and the beginning of this year to look at a serious increase in emergency assistance for the Afghan people. It is to be hoped obviously that with the changing political fortunes inside the country, and with the prospects of peace and responsible government increasing that there will be longer-term development inside Afghanistan which will reduce the need for humanitarian assistance. But I think I am not in a position to try to give an estimate for how long humanitarian or indeed developmental assistance will be required inside Afghanistan at this point in time.

The U.N. system, World Bank and others, are working hard to develop assessments which can give the international community and the Afghan people themselves a better sense of what is required to put that nation back on its feet.

Question: (Off mike) -- that this humanitarian operation may at some point be more focused on information education of the Afghani population?

Mr. McKinley: The message that came out of that November 20th reconstruction meeting I referred to was in fact that we have to begin preparing now for the transition to medium- and longer-term developmental needs inside Afghanistan. Education will obviously be a huge priority; repairing the broken health care system will be another; but also providing for the daily livelihood of the Afghan people, 80 percent of whom live and earn their living from the countryside, will have to be addressed.

As you saw in that clip with USAID Administrator Natsios, the focus of a lot of the assistance will be on developing the capacity of rural Afghanistan to rebuild agriculture inside the country. So I think it's fair to say there will be a multi-faceted response to the developmental needs of Afghanistan.

Question: How much at this moment is the humanitarian action dependent on the recent political developments and the expected political developments?

Mr. McKinley: Obviously the change in the situation on the ground is making it much easier to address the humanitarian needs of the Afghan people. Obstacles still remain. And, as I mentioned earlier, the terrain is extremely difficult, and this is a race against time to deliver food to the areas where populations will soon be cut off by snow; to preposition supplies throughout the country; to reestablish the relief network that does the distribution inside the country. So I think it's a situation that has been improved by the change in fortune on the ground, and the collapse of the Taliban rule in much of country. But we wouldn't want to underestimate the need to continue to address the needs of the Afghan people in as immediate a fashion as possible.

Question: Do you have reliable feedback on how will this food supply be used on the ground? How do the populations use them?

Mr. McKinley: The international system as a whole, and certainly before the Taliban expelled the large expatriate NGO and U.N. presence inside the country, has established and has developed long-term monitoring programs which are very detailed in addressing, supervising how food and other relief reaches the Afghan people. The monitoring is done on a constant basis, and much of it frankly is made very public by the U.N. agencies and by the NGOs themselves. They produce sometimes daily report or often weekly reports which are very detailed on which parts of the country they are trying to reach, how many people they have reached -- beneficiaries they are called -- what kind of supplies are being prepositioned, what's in the pipeline, what their evolving needs are as certain issues are addressed and new problems come to the fore.

So the international community as a whole has developed a very effective monitoring system inside the country. Obviously that has been affected by the difficulties of working inside the Taliban-run Afghanistan.

Ms. McMillon: Sofia, thank you for your questions. We'll return now to Sarajevo. Sarajevo, please go ahead. Sarajevo, we'll take your questions. Please go ahead. (Technical difficulties.)

All right, apparently we are having a little technical difficulty. One of the questions that I know they wanted to ask is about how can bombs and food go together.

Mr. McKinley: Well, the truth of the matter is it's not bomb and food going together, as I mentioned earlier. It's a question of separating out the air drops from the bombing campaign, and I think every effort has been made to do that. More generally if the question is directed at whether the milita ry campaign in and of itself affected the humanitarian operation on the ground, the concern that the bombing campaign would actually make it more difficult for relief organizations to deliver supplies inside the country, has not in fact turned out to be the case. And, as I mentioned, throughout October WFP had quite a bit of success in breaking records in delivering food supplies inside the country.

Ms. McMillon: How has the cooperation been with neighboring countries?

Mr. McKinley: The neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative, and in fact everything from air bridges to providing supplies across rivers -- in the case of Uzbekistan for example the opening of the river port at Hiratan (ph) down river from Termiz -- Turkmenistan and Tajikistan providing cross-border facilitation for relief supplies that are delivered inside those countries, and then transferred into northeastern Afghanistan -- has really been extremely helpful to the relief operation in general northeastern.

Ms. McMillon: Sarajevo, we'll try you again. Please go ahead with your questions.

Question: We wanted to ask how many organizations outside the Pentagon and State Department -- how many American organizations are included in this operation? And my colleague also asks how many of your people are working on that?

Mr. McKinley: The State Department and AID are obviously the U.S. government agencies that have been working most closely in developing a response to the humanitarian crisis inside Afghanistan. But I emphasize that we should never lose sight of the fact that this is an international effort, and that we do much of our work through and by supporting organizations like the World Food Programme and NGOs on the ground. There are, for example, close to 150 NGOs that have been working in and around Afghanistan for many, many years, with considerable experience of what is required inside the country and how to get things done inside the country. So as we look to providing the necessary resources to ensure everything from food deliveries to emergency health care and winterization packages, we must rely on and work closely with the international organizations on the ground. Obviously the United States government as a whole is committed to this effort, and the president has made that very clear. Much of the food relief that is being shipped to respond to the needs inside Afghanistan comes from the United States, and obviously we work closely with our farmers and with USDA making sure that that food is delivered in a timely fashion.

In terms of personnel working directly on this issue, obviously there's been a significant mobilization effort to deploy the resources we need to respond to this crisis, which is so evident to all of us. But I don't really have a figure of numbers on people in particular who are working on responding to the humanitarian crisis.

Question: Could you tell us if the United States is planning to continue with air drops of humanitarian assistance, especially in these hard-to-reach places?

Mr. McKinley: My understanding is that the air drops will continue for now.

Question: You said you think that they will continue?

Mr. McKinley: That's correct. That's all I can tell you right now.

Question: There are many questions that we wanted to ask, but it seems there's bad communications, there are some misunderstandings. But at any rate, we wouldn't want to end the program without asking how you respond to criticisms of those that say, for example, that at some -- that at one moment you are bombing and the next moment you are feeding. How do you respond to those criticisms?

Mr. McKinley: I think I already have. We didn't seek out this war, and as I think is abundantly clear to everyone. And we have made every effort throughout this conflict to increase the capacity of the international community to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. And, in fact, the reason we are so well positioned in terms of prepositioning of supplies and in terms of having the resources on hand to greatly increase the capacity for delivery and distribution inside Afghanistan, is the product of U.S. government efforts to not watch the crisis unfold but to try to get ahead of it.

Question: To connect this question -- because of these criticisms, there are present in Western home media on the accounts of the ways humanitarian assistance is being conducted with military operations. Are you in your further operations thinking about medical assistance, medical protection or assistance, and in what shape and how much?

Mr. McKinley: I think perhaps on this issue of criticisms of the air drops, again, I have tried to point out that we are fully aware, and we have never claimed to the contrary, that airdrops represent only a tiny percentage of the needs of the Afghan people and of the humanitarian response to the crisis inside that country. And, again, if we look at what we have been trying to do in supporting ICRC, the Red Cross for example inside Afghanistan, the different U.N. agencies inside the country, the focus very much has been on enabling them to resume what were long-standing operations inside the country to address everything from food emergency needs to health care provisions, to water sanitation, to land mine clearance, to developmental needs inside Afghanistan. So our focus will remain on creating the environment where the U.N. system, the international organizations, the non-governmental organizations can resume their work inside the country, and with the resources on hand perhaps resume them in a more effective and efficient manner now that Taliban obstructionism is no longer part of the picture.

Question: That's what I wanted to ask for the end: How do you expect the cooperation within Afghanistan -- talking about the unknowns -- who will be the political leader in this. What is the best-case scenario? What could be best expected in the future, and do Americans intend to remain in Afghanistan by all means?

Mr. McKinley: We obviously fully support the efforts of the U.N. Special Representative Brahimi in Bonn, and any follow-on that may occur, to develop a broad-based representative government inside Afghanistan that can represent all ethnic groups inside the country, and can lead to a peaceful, stable environment where longer-term economic development can take place. That obviously is the hope for the future.

Ms. McMillon: And on that note we are going to close our program. For more information on U.S. humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan, please access the World Wide Web at www.usinfo.state.gov, or www.state.gov, and www.usaid.gov.

A special thanks to discussion will come to an end. Our thanks to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Mike McKinley for joining us today, as well as our participants in Sarajevo and Sofia, and to all of you watching. From Washington, for "Dialogue," I'm Doris McMillon.