I want to add to the point about commitment. The dog that doesn't bark in this whole debate is what John alluded to in his comments. There is no question that the commitment in Afghanistan has been distracted by events in Iraq by the number one player in the military mission and the civilian mission. Don't forget, the Americans are not just involved militarily, they're making a huge development assistance contribution as well.
One of the encouraging things going forward, in my opinion--and it's far easier to find negative things to focus on in Afghanistan--is that in the eyes of the aspirants for the presidency in the United States today, from either party, this is the good war. This is the one they know they have to win on their terms of winning. So it seems to me that part of the distraction of NATO and the reluctance of NATO is a reflection of the distraction in Washington about the priority Afghanistan has had. I don't think that's going to be a problem going forward.
On the high-level representative, absolutely. The issue of the lack of coordination of the international civilian effort, the multiple agendas, each country doing its own thing.... Even within the United Nations you have individual agencies of the United Nations doing their own thing. There's a desperate need for a high-level representative pulling together the power and the capability of the UN in a concerted way. Unfortunately, the appointment of Paddy Ashdown did not materialize. We have to hope there will be some other form of high-level representative who will give that.
China and Russia obviously are potential players in the region. For good reasons that you're aware of, Mr. Chan, the Russians are in the rear seat at the moment, but nonetheless, they're very concerned. In fact, this is probably one of the few areas in the world where the current Russian government's view on Afghanistan is similar to the view of the western allies.
On China, and this is a personal view, we as a matter of our own foreign policy should be looking for ways to make the Chinese aware of their global responsibilities as a responsible stakeholder in global peace and security, not in pursuit of narrow self-interest, which is the only motivation to date of Chinese foreign policy. So yes, I think today they are a passive participant in events around Afghanistan. They should be more active. It's in their fundamental interest that there be stability in Afghanistan and in that region.