Afghan officials said US forces joined the battle Friday and yesterday but a US military spokesman said he could only confirm involvement in the first day of fighting.

The violence spread across the border as a roadside bomb exploded near an army vehicle yesterday in Pakistan in a north-western tribal region near Afghanistan, killing three security personnel, an official said.

Nobody immediately claimed responsibility but security officials have blamed al-Qaida-linked Islamic militants for previous attacks in the area, where Pakistan has sent thousands of troops to flush out insurgents.

The bloodshed yesterday underscored the challenge facing thousands of British and Canadian troops in coming months as they gradually relieve American forces in southern Afghanistan, a hotbed of insurgency and the drug trade.

Fighting began on Friday with a mountain ambush of a police convoy that left 16 militants and six police dead and scores wounded, said Amir Mohammed Akhund, the province’s deputy governor.

American and British war planes bombed suspected Taliban militants fleeing the fighting around midnight on Friday, killing eight of them, said Khan Mohammed, a police chief in Helmand province.

Another group of militants fleeing the initial clash attacked a government office early yesterday, killing the government chief and wounding four police, Akhund said.

Later in the day, another group of militants attacked the main government office in a neighbouring district, setting off a two-hour gunbattle that left one policeman and three suspected Taliban dead, he said.

Militants used a remote-controlled bomb to attack a police convoy in Kandahar, the main city in southern Afghanistan and a former Taliban stronghold, said Sher Mohammed, a police officer.

A woman and a child who were walking in the area were killed, and three other passers-by were wounded, he said.

Also in Kandahar, a Taliban commander, Abdul Samad, was killed by border forces as he tried to enter illegally from neighbouring Pakistan, Kandahar Gov. Asadullah Khalid said. Ten other militants fled back across the frontier.

Fighting last year left some 1,600 people dead, the highest death toll since 2001, as militants stepped up their campaign against the US-backed central government.

“Under Mr Putin, Russia today is neither a democracy nor one of the world’s leading economies, and I seriously question whether the G8 leaders should attend the St. Petersburg summit,” McCain said.

The high-profile Republican senator for Arizona, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam who unsuccessfully ran for the U.S. presidency in 2000, said Russia could have helped the U.S. and Europe transform the world following the end of the Cold War.

“The Kremlin, however, shows no interest in such a relationship. Instead it continues to pursue foreign and domestic policies strongly at odds with our interests and values.

”Even after Iran rejected the EU-3 talks and removed nuclear seals, Moscow indicated that it would proceed with a one-billion-dollar deal to sell short-range missiles to Iran.“

With Russia’s powerful Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov looking on, McCain said Russia had punished ”democratic“ Ukraine and Georgia by disrupting energy supplies ”while providing cut-rate gas to the dictatorship in Minsk“.

”It (Russia) continues to prosecute a brutal war in Chechnya that has killed as many as 200,000, radicalizing the Muslim population, and it actively supports dictatorships in Central Asia.“

McCain said ”the broadcast media are Kremlin-controlled, as are parliament, provincial governors and the judiciary. All of these were free and independent when Mr Putin took office.“

The G8 summit will take place in Saint Petersburg on July 15-17.

In her first few months in power, the German leader has worked to improve relations with the United States which were severely strained over her predecessor Gerhard Schroeder's firm opposition to the US-led war in Iraq.

"Terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, failing states — these are the scourges of our times," German Defence Minister Franz Josef Jung told the conference. "The old NATO as a purely defensive alliance is history," he added.

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld thanked Merkel for her "thoughtful and important remarks on NATO" in his own conference speech devoted to Islamic militancy.

"The competences that exist within NATO can be used to advantage in other parts of the world," Rumsfeld said.

The US defence chief praised the alliance's deployment in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime and in giving humanitarian assistance to Pakistan after a massive earthquake last year.

But NATO's potential was being held back by insufficient defence spending in members of the alliance, Rumsfeld said.

The United States was spending 3.7 percent of its GDP on defence but other NATO members were spending far less, he said. "Unless we invest in defence and security, the reality is that our homelands can be at risk."

French Defence Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie took a more sceptical view on NATO's role and stressed the importance of the European Union's growing security capability, reflecting widespread concerns in France that a stronger NATO would mean a weaker EU.

"Let's take care ... not to spill into areas where the competence of other organisations is more suitable. Let's not waste our financial means, which are vital for fighting crises and upgrading our equipment," Alliot-Marie said.

NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, however, supported "pragmatic" cooperation between NATO and the European Union and sought to calm French fears.

"NATO is not a global policeman," he said.

Among the new global threats that NATO could help combat, de Hoop Scheffer mentioned the protection of energy supply lines.

"For reasons that are obvious — including the potential of terrorists targeting our energy supplies — it makes sense to me that the Allies should discuss this issue," he said.

Supplies of Russian gas to Ukraine and Georgia have recently been disrupted.

Heads of state, government ministers, top defence officials and security experts gathered in a heavily-guarded five star hotel for the conference, entitled "Restoring the Transatlantic Partnership."

First, Harper effectively has a majority for at least a year, since no party will be ready to face him in an election. Of course, he'll tread carefully during this period, since his eye is on winning a majority.

Still, Harper can do a lot of damage to Canada's relatively progressive social and political systems without entering into any high-profile battles in Parliament.

George W. Bush accomplished much of his agenda by appointing right-wing radicals who rolled back progressive regulations governing the environment, food and drug inspections and the legal system.

Harper could do the same. His government could, as business has been urging, adopt U.S. drug and biotechnology testing, dismantle plans to meet our Kyoto targets, and ease up on environmental regulations, particularly those that could stall development of Alberta's oil sands — Washington's key hope for reducing its Middle East oil dependency.

Harper could also press forward with ongoing talks aimed at integrating Canada more with the U.S., and could sign an energy-sharing deal ensuring Washington even greater access to our energy.

There is also a lot Harper could do to weaken medicare, without taking a direct shot at the Canada Health Act. He could allow private medicine to flourish. Indeed, his promise of a “wait-time guarantee” for health care will deliver patients into the arms of private health providers.

Until now, Canada has managed to resist some of the worst aspects of the right-wing tide of Thatcherism and Reaganism that swept Britain and the U.S. — despite vigorous efforts here by corporate-funded organizations to push us down the same path.

Harper has been in the thick of those organizations, serving as head of the anti-medicare National Citizens Coalition. Back in 1989, he urged the Reform Party to become “a modern Canadian version of the Thatcher-Reagan phenomenon.”

He doesn't talk like that now. Like other sophisticated right wingers, he's discovered that the most effective way to sell unbridled capitalism is to camouflage it.

At a conference in Vancouver last fall, medicare opponents openly discussed how to repackage their message to make it more palatable to Canadians. As The Star's Thomas Walkom reported, one privatization guru told the crowd they'd have more success selling private medicine if they pitched it, not as a way for the affluent to jump the queue, but as a way to “strengthen” medicare.

If Harper keeps his views wrapped in the garb of moderation, he'll have a good shot at winning a majority. And then our unique Canadian social system — preserved against great odds — will be in the hands of a man who's devoted much of his life to figuring out how to destroy it.

During dinner a vast deal of discussion upon religious and philosophical doctrine took place, and a wonderful deal of atheistic nonsense was expounded, without, as you may guess, any conclusion being attained. At least one of the guests (neither of those whom I have named) proposed the opinions of the seven persons present should be take in a vote upon this plain question - "Is there or is there not a Divine Being?"

The impiety was actually committed; seven little rolls of paper were deposited in a hat after each guest had written down yes or no upon the inside. Six noes came out and the seventh was a piece of blank paper.

Many comments and jokes were made upon the undecided individual who had not ventured upon either an affirmation or negation; and at last Proudhon, who (like young Napoleon's intimates) has his perfect freedom of speech with his imperial friend, turned to the Prince, and said: "Monseigneur, this is your doing, and it is not fair."

The prince denied; objected that the secrecy of the vote was sacred; but ended by avowing that the unwritten bit of paper, expressive of neither no nor yes was in truth his. He added: "To be candid, I have contradictory opinions thereupon: when I am in the plenitude of my reasoning faculties and when my intellect is clear and straight before me, I say No without any hesitation; and then again there are times when doubts overtake me, when I really do not like to assume the responsibility of a denial. Remembering the alternations of doubt and inclination to believe, I thought it on the whole safer and even more honourable to say nothing at all, and therefore I put in a blank vote".

The five others took the prince's excuses very well, laughing and seeming unconcerned; but Proudhon, with the peculiar sort of smile that he has, and that may be held to mean anything you choose (provided it be bad!), held up his hand, saying - "Ah! Monseigneur, Monseigneur! After all then, you are but a false brother".

Families of victims have complained that the authorities have been slow to declare who died in the tragedy and who survived.

Around 1,000 people are believed to have drowned after the Salam 98 sank on Thursday night as it crossed the Red Sea from Duba in Saudi Arabia to Safaga in Egypt.

According to the Egyptian cabinet office, rescuers have so far pulled 387 survivors from the sea and found 135 bodies.

Survivors say the tragedy began when a fire broke out on board. Water used to fight the blaze is thought to have made the ship unstable, causing it to capsize.

They have also accused the captain and crew of negligence, while Egyptian media claim the owners made the ferry unsafe by adding an extra deck after buying it from Italy.

Hundreds of angry relatives attacked the offices of the vessel's owners, Salam Maritime Transport, in Safaga. They smashed windows, threw the building's contents into the street and burned a large photograph of one of the company's ferries.

Police guarding the nearby port arrived and quickly dispersed the crowd.

The 11,800-tonne Salam 98 was carrying some 1,400 people, mostly low-income Egyptians returning from work in Saudi Arabia, when it sank.