His comments at a high-profile appearance at Georgetown University in Washington come a day after he and George W Bush, the American president, admitted to errors over Iraq.

Mr Blair today conceded that the war in Iraq had "split the world" but said that now was the time for the world to come together and support the emerging democracy.

"This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq but in the international community," Mr Blair said. "The war split the world. The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it."

The Prime Minister also called for a new impetus in the Middle East peace process and the reform of global institutions such as the UN.

A UN Security Council with no permanent seats for India, Japan, Germany or representatives from Latin America and Africa was no longer "legitimate in the modern world" and must be reformed, he said.

"To meet effectively the challenge that faces us, we must fashion an international community that both embodies, and acts in pursuit of global values - liberty, democracy, tolerance, justice," Mr Blair said.

He said the case for merging the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank should be looked at, to foster a more effective response to global problems like terrorism, climate change, poverty and unfair trade.

Mr Blair's address comes at the end of a 48-hour visit to Washington during which he and Mr Bush admitted that "mistakes" and "mis-steps" had been made in Iraq.

During a White House press conference, the President and Prime Minister expressed distress at many aspects of the campaign which brought down Saddam Hussein but also undermined their own popularity.

They refused to be drawn on a timetable for troop withdrawal, but Mr Blair said he believed it would be possible for Iraqi forces to take over nearly all security duties by the end of 2007.

Mr Bush expressed regret for the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and some of his tough-talking comments. Mr Blair said the "de-Ba'athification" of Iraq - the clearing out of Saddam followers - had been badly handled.

Mr Bush said he should not have made gung-ho comments such as "bring 'em on" when refering to insurgents in July 2003 as attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians mounted.

"I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," he said.

Both Mr Bush and Mr Blair have seen their public standings collapse over the past year, in large part because of the war, but both insist they were right to order the invasion of March 2003.

The Prime Minister said: "I think it's easy to go back over mistakes that we may have made. But the biggest reason why Iraq has been difficult is the determination by our opponents to defeat us. And I don't think we should be surprised at that."

"We'll keep the force level there necessary to win," he told reporters attending an early evening news conference in the White House.

For his part, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said after his recent visit to Iraq he came away with the expectation the Iraqis would "take control progressively of their own country."

"[But] for that to happen, the first thing obviously we need is a strong government in Baghdad," said Blair.

"It is our duty," said the British prime minister, "it is also the duty of the whole of the international community, to get behind this government and support it. "

The two leaders will continue their discussions on Thursday evening and then resume their meetings on Friday.

Both leaders have praised the formation of Iraq's new government of Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds. But it remains unclear whether that will lead to a reduction of U.S., British and other foreign troops in the country.

The estimate of 34 deaths more than doubles the number of dead civilians given by the governor of Kandahar and President Hamid Karzai, who said that 16 people had died. The U.S.-led coalition has said their estimate of the number of deaths was in line with the governor's.

Haji Ikhlaf, a resident of Azizi who was wounded in the attack, told The Associated Press earlier this week that villagers had buried 26 civilians.

The coalition has said that up to 80 insurgents were killed, although 60 of those fatalities were unconfirmed. It appeared to be one of the deadliest air strikes since U.S.-led forces ousted Afghanistan's hardline Taliban government in late 2001.

Karzai has called for an investigation into the air strike and on Wednesday urged the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan to make "every effort" to ensure the safety of civilians.

The U.S. military has said it takes "extraordinary measures" to protect Afghan civilians, but that Taliban rebels were firing on coalition forces from inside the villagers' homes, and that troops had the right to return fire in defence.

Noorzai said he hasn't been able to visit Azizi to take a survey of the civilian deaths because security forces surrounding the area won't let anyone in.

Meanwhile, fighting broke out Friday between insurgents and Afghan security forces in Ghazni province, Gov. Sher Alam said. He didn't know the numbers of fighters involved or any casualty numbers.

The insurgents have stepped up attacks the last several months in Afghanistan's southern and eastern regions near the border with Pakistan. The U.S. military says it has seen an increase in the number of Taliban fighters, particularly in the south.

As many as 339 people have died in violence since May 17, mostly militants, according to Afghan and coalition figures. Because of the difficulty of accessing the scenes of combat, those figures could not be confirmed independently.

Last week the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Karl Eikenberry, admitted that the Taliban are now better trained, armed and organized than in the past. He said the Taliban has adopted tactics used in Iraq including suicide attacks and roadside bombs.

Meanwhile the Afghan government has accused Pakistan of recruiting, training and coordinating attack missions for the Taliban.

Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said, "Pakistani intelligence gives military training to people and then sends them to Afghanistan with logistics." The Pakistani government has rejected the charge.

For more we are joined by Habib Rahiab - he is an Afghan-born human rights activist. Up until two years ago he lived in Afghanistan where he helped "Human Rights Watch" document human rights abuses committed by U.S. forces -- including some similar to those that later surfaced in the Abu Ghraib scandal in Iraq. He is now a fellow at Harvard Law School.

Click here for interview

Left-wing Labour MPs joined forces with the SNP to try to reduce the tariff.

John McDonnell, the chairman of Labour's Campaign Group, claimed the plans were part of a government crackdown on servicemen and women opposed to the war in Iraq. He said the punishment was "inhuman and barbaric".

Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, said those who "besmirched parliament" and sold peerages faced a maximum of two years, while soldiers could be punished with a life sentence. "Two years is enough for somebody who has, arguably, followed their own conscience," he said.

But Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former army officer, said desertion was a grave offence and added that the life sentence had not been applied widely in recent times.

Chris Bryant, a Welsh Labour MP, said reducing the life sentence would "undermine many of our operations" and bring "ethical chaos" to the armed forces.

FORT MEADE, Md. - An Army dog handler was right to release his canine on an Abu Ghraib prisoner who ran at and struck a military policeman, a defense witness testified.

Sgt. 1st Class Melvin J. Avis, a dog-handler certification trainer at Fort McPherson, Ga., said Thursday that Sgt. Santos A. Cardona freed his Belgian shepherd to bite Mohammed Bollendia because no one else moved to restrain the prisoner.

"The other MPs failed to do anything about the situation," Avis said. "They had the ability to control the situation; whether they hesitated or not, no one will ever know."

Avis said Cardona used the minimum amount of force necessary to gain control, the standard set forth in his training. Prosecutor Maj. Matthew Miller suggested under cross-examination that Cardona violated that standard. Testimony was to resume Friday.

Cardona, 32, of Fullerton, Calif., is charged with assault, dereliction of duty, maltreatment of detainees, conspiracy to maltreat detainees and lying to investigators. He faces up to 16 1/2 years in prison if convicted on all nine counts.

Cardona is accused of letting his dog, Duco, bite Bollendia and of competing with another dog handler to frighten detainees into soiling themselves in late 2003 and early 2004. He also is accused of using his dog to harass and threaten detainee Kamel Miza'l Nayil in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Prosecutors contend Cardona harassed the prisoners for his enjoyment and the entertainment of other MPs who have been convicted of abuses at Abu Ghraib.

A general visiting the prison urged guards and interrogators to use dogs "as much as possible" with detainees, a former supervisor testified earlier Thursday.

The statement by Lt. Col. Jerry Phillabaum, a military police reservist who ran the Iraq prison in summer 2003, differed from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller's testimony a day earlier that he encouraged the use of dogs only for custody and control of detainees.

Phillabaum, a defense witness, said under cross-examination that Geoffrey Miller "encouraged the use of dogs as much as possible in the normal operations of the confinement operations."

Neither Phillabaum nor Geoffrey Miller testified that the general ever recommended using dogs for interrogations. The use of muzzled dogs in interrogations was permitted by a memo signed by Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, then commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, on Sept. 14, 2003, five days after Miller's visit.

A prosecution witness, former Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, who is serving an eight-year prison sentence for abusing detainees, testified earlier in the week that the MPs had taken Bollendia from his cell so the dogs could search it for weapons. The dog handlers had their animals bark at Bollendia when he refused to lie on the hallway floor, Frederick said.

The frightened prisoner jumped on former Cpl. Charles A. Graner Jr., striking him with his hands, Frederick said. He said Cardona told Graner to push Bollendia away and then released his dog, which bit the prisoner's right leg, grazing the skin. Bollendia again jumped on Graner and Cardona again released the dog, which bit the prisoner's left leg deep enough to draw blood, Frederick said.

Ten low-ranking soldiers have been convicted of abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, in many cases by forcing them to assume painful or sexually humiliating positions.

This latest "turning point" reveals an Iraqi state without a social contract, a government without a center, a prime minister without power and an American president without a strategy. Each sectarian group maintains its own militia. Each leader's influence rests on these armed bands, separate armies of tens of thousands of men. The militias have infiltrated and taken over key units of the Iraqi army and local police, using them as death squads, protection rackets and deterrent forces against enemies. Reliable statistics are impossible, but knowledgeable reporters estimate there are about 40 assassinations a day in Iraq. Ethnic cleansing is sweeping the country. From Kirkuk in the north to Baghdad in the middle to Basra in the south, Kurds are driving out Turkmen and Arabs, Shiites are killing Sunnis, and the insurgency enjoys near unanimous support among Sunnis. Contrary to Bush's blanket rhetoric about "terrorists" and constant reference to the insurgency as "the enemy," "foreign fighters are a small component of the insurgency," according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Patrick Cockburn, one of the most accurate and intrepid journalists in Iraq, wrote last week in the Independent of London that "the overall security situation in Iraq is far worse than it was a year ago. Baghdad and central Iraq, where Shia, Sunni and Kurd are mixed, is in the grip of a civil war fought by assassins and death squads. As in Bosnia in 1992, each community is pulling back into enclaves where it is the overwhelming majority and able to defend itself."

While Prime Minister Maliki has declared his intention to enforce an unused militia-demobilization decree proclaimed by the now disbanded Coalition Provisional Authority in 2004, he has made no gesture beyond his statement, and no Iraqi leader has volunteered to be the first test case of demobilization. The New York Times Wednesday cited an American official on the absence of action on this front: "'They need to begin by setting examples,' an American official in Baghdad said of the Iraqi government. 'It is just very noticeable to me that they are not making any examples.' 'None,' the official said. 'Zero.'"

Maliki's inability to fill the posts of minister of defense and minister of the interior reflects the control of the means of violence by factions and sects unwilling to cede it to a central authority. Inside the new government, ministries are being operated as sectarian fiefdoms. The vacuum at the Defense and Interior ministries represents a state of civil war in which no one can be vested with power above all.

In his speech on Monday referring to another "turning point," President Bush twice spoke of "victory." "Victory" is the constant theme he has adopted since last summer, when he hired public opinion specialist Peter Feaver for the National Security Council. Feaver's research claims that the public will sustain military casualties so long as it is persuaded that they will lead to "victory." Bush clings to this P.R. formula to explain, at least to himself, the decline of his political fortunes. "Because we're at war, and war unsettles people," he said in an interview with NBC News last week. To make sense of the disconcerting war, he imposes his familiar framework of us vs. them, "the enemy" who gets "on your TV screen by killing innocent people" against himself.

In his Monday speech, Bush reverted yet again to citing Sept. 11, 2001, as the ultimate justification for the Iraq war. Defiant in the face of terrorists, he repeated whole paragraphs from his 2004 campaign stump speech. "That's just the lessons of September the 11th that I refuse to forget," he said. Stung by the dissent of the former commanders of the U.S. Army in Iraq who have demanded the firing of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Bush reassured the audience that he listens to generals. "I make my mind up based not upon politics or political opinion polls, but based upon what the commanders on the ground tell me is going on," he said.

Yet currently serving U.S. military commanders have been explicitly telling him for more than two years, and making public their view, that there is no purely military solution in Iraq. For example, Gen. John Abizaid, the U.S. commander, said on April 12, 2004: "There is not a purely U.S. military solution to any of the particular problems that we're facing here in Iraq today."

Newsweek reported this week that the U.S. military, in fact, is no longer pursuing a strategy for "victory." "It is consolidating to several 'superbases' in hopes that its continued presence will prevent Iraq from succumbing to full-flown civil war and turning into a failed state. Pentagon strategists admit they have not figured out how to move to superbases, as a way of reducing the pressure -- and casualties -- inflicted on the U.S. Army, while at the same time remaining embedded with Iraqi police and military units. It is a circle no one has squared. But consolidation plans are moving ahead as a default position, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has talked frankly about containing the spillover from Iraq's chaos in the region."

Yet Bush continues to declare as his goal (with encouragement from his polling expert on the NSC) the victory that the U.S. military has given up on. And he continues to wave the banner of a military solution against "the enemy," although this "enemy" consists of a Sunni insurgency whose leadership must eventually be conciliated and brought into a federal Iraqi government and of which the criminal Abu Musab al-Zarqawi faction and foreign fighters are a small part.

Bush's belief in a military solution, moreover, renders moot progress on a political solution, which is the only potentially practical approach. His war on the Sunnis simply agitates the process of civil war. The entire burden of progress falls on the U.S. ambassador, whose inherent situation as representative of the occupying power inside the country limits his ability to engage in the international diplomacy that might make his efforts to bring factions together possible. Khalilzad's tentative outreach to Iran, in any case, was shut down by Washington. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, for her part, finds herself in Bulgaria, instead of conducting shuttle diplomacy in Amman, Jordan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Ankara, Turkey; and Tehran. The diplomatic vacuum intensifies the power vacuum in Iraq, exciting Bush's flights of magical thinking about victory: I speak, therefore it is.

Bush doesn't know that he can't achieve victory. He doesn't know that seeking victory worsens his prospects. He doesn't know that the U.S. military has abandoned victory in the field, though it has been reporting that to him for years. But the president has no rhetoric beyond "victory."

Bush's chance for a quick victory in Iraq evaporated when the neoconservative fantasy collapsed almost immediately after the invasion. But the "make-believe" of "liberation" that failed to provide basic security set in motion "fratricidal violence," as Nir Rosen writes in his new book, "In the Belly of the Green Bird: The Triumph of the Martyrs in Iraq," based on firsthand observation of the developing insurgency in the vacuum created by U.S. policy.

Indeed, Bush's nominee for director of the CIA, Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the National Security Agency, in his confirmation hearings, acknowledged the neoconservative manipulation of intelligence to make the case for the Iraq war and disdained it. Asked by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., about the administration's efforts to tie Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida, Hayden replied: "Sir, I -- as director of NSA, we did have a series of inquiries about this potential connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. Yes, sir."

The exchange continued:

Levin: Now, prior to the war, the undersecretary of defense for policy, Mr. [Douglas] Feith, established an intelligence analysis cell within his policy office at the Defense Department. While the intelligence community was consistently dubious about links between Iraq and al Qaeda, Mr. Feith produced an alternative analysis, asserting that there was a strong connection. Were you comfortable with Mr. Feith's office's approach to intelligence analysis?

Hayden: No, sir, I wasn't. I wasn't aware of a lot of the activity going on, you know, when it was contemporaneous with running up to the war. No, sir, I wasn't comfortable.

Hayden then explained at length the difference between working from the facts and trying to cherry-pick data to support a hypothesis. He made clear that the administration had engaged in the latter. Levin asked: "Now, I believe that you actually placed a disclaimer on NSA reporting relative to any links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. And it was apparently following the repeated inquiries from the Feith office. Would you just tell us what that disclaimer was?" Hayden answered: "Yes, sir. SIGINT neither confirms nor denies -- and let me stop at that point in the sentence so we can stay safely on the side of unclassified. SIGINT neither confirms nor denies, and then we finished the sentence based upon the question that was asked. And then we provided the data, sir." In the language of the agency, in other words, Hayden would not lend support to the Bush's administration's twisting of intelligence.

On May 15, Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor, gave a speech revealing one of his ideas about politics. "I think," he said, "there's also a great utility in looking at game changers. What are the things that will allow us to fundamentally change people's behavior in a different way?" Since Sept. 11, Rove has made plain that terrorism and war are the great game changers for Bush.

But while war may be the game changer for Bush's desire to put in place a one-party state, forge a permanent Republican majority, redefine the Constitution and the relationships of the branches of the federal government, and concentrate power in the executive, Bush has only the rhetoric of "victory." He has not stated what would happen the day after "victory." Although a victory parade would be his political nightmare, now the absence of victory is his nightmare. With every proclaimed "turning point," "victory" becomes ever more evanescent. He has no policy for victory and no politics beyond victory.

Bush's true agenda is reflected in his call for "respect for property rights." A change is taking place in South America as Morales and Chavez move to exert greater control of their energy resources and challenge US plans for a hemispheric free trade zone. As the president of the Bolivian Senate, Santos Ramirez, noted: "Bolivia and Latin America are no longer the servile democracies that tolerate...poverty and the surrendering of sovereignty."

Early in May Morales announced that Bolivia would nationalize its energy resources, particularly its natural gas exports. While no foreign corporations were expropriated out right, Morales made it clear that "the looting of our natural resources by foreign enterprises is over."

At the same time Morales is moving to reshape the country's commercial relations, particularly with Venezuela. This week Hugo Chavez flew to Bolivia, declaring "we are going to concretize the People's Trade Treaty," an accord that was recently signed between Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba. It is openly pitched as an alternative to the US-backed Free Trade Area of the Americas, a trade zone based on neo-liberal principles that facilitates the expansion of multinational corporations.

Bolivia and Venezuela have signed eight different accords dealing with 200 different projects concerning energy, mining, education, sports and cultural exchanges. Most importantly Venezuela has agreed to invest over $1 billion to help industrialize Bolivia's natural gas production, including the construction of a petrochemical complex.

Venezuela is also providing diesel fuel, which Bolivia does not produce, in exchange for the sale of soybeans. This comes at an opportune moment for Bolivia as most of its soy exports have gone to Colombia which just signed a free trade agreement with the United States. The US-Colombian accord means that cheap, subsidized US grains will flood Colombia, driving out Bolivian soybeans.

In Bolivia Morales took Chavez on a visit to Chipare, the semi- tropical region where he rose to prominence as the leader of the coca growers' confederation. There they announced their intention to build a factory to process coca leafs for herbal teas, medicinal products, and cosmetics. This is certain to arouse the ire of the United States which for years has pursued a policy of forced eradication of coca in Chipare, leading to the virtual militarization of the region.

The burgeoning economic alliance between Venezuela and Bolivia also helps offset the difficulties that have arisen with Brazil and Argentina over Morales' determination to exert greater control over natural gas exports. Both neighboring countries have significant investments in Bolivia's gas fields, and both are importing gas for domestic use at prices well below the world market. At a recent international gathering of Latin American and European leaders in Vienna, Austria, Morales and President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil exchanged harsh words over efforts to draft a new accord over natural gas. While the two leaders formally made up before they left Austria, there is little doubt that Chavez' support provides Bolivia with leverage in its negotiations with its two more powerful neighbors.

Venezuela is also signing a financial accord aimed at bolstering Bolivia's banking and monetary system. This is intended to strengthen Morales' hand vis-à-vis the United States and international financial institutions. The Bolivian government at the end of March announced that it would not solicit any new loans from the International Monetary Fund. The fund has aroused a great deal of antipathy in recent decades as it restricted social spending and forced the privatization of state enterprises, particularly in the tin mining industry.

The visit of Chavez to Bolivia coincides with the opening of the Exchange Fair, a project of the People's Trade Treaty between Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba. Enterprises from all three countries participated with the goal of expanding commerce and sharing technical expertise. At the fair the vice-president of Bolivia, Alvaro Garcia Linera, criticized the US neo-liberal trade regime, asserting: "It is not necessary for small producers and entrepreneurs to subordinate themselves to financial capitalThere are other forms of interdependence, other forms of globalization, other ways to generate regional exchanges of products, ideas, and necessities." Garcia Linera concluded, "Bolivia needs the world, and it will produce for the world."

"Now the Australian troops are the ones holding the reins of security," Horta told AFP in an interview.

Sporadic gunfire could still be heard in parts of Dili a day after the worst violence since the unrest began last month over alleged discrimination in the army against soldiers from the east of the tiny country.

The government sacked 600 of the 1,400-strong military after they went on strike and sporadic clashes escalated this week with gangs roaming the streets and both sides opening fire on each other.

Australia deployed troops following East Timor's urgent appeal for international help to quell the growing violence.

"When it comes to people running around the street and using guns and machetes and so on, the task will be for our military to make sure that sort of behaviour doesn't continue," Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.

"That won't be easy for them, but they will try to achieve that," he said.

In the worst reported attack Thursday, soldiers opened fire on unarmed police after a stand-off, killing nine and wounding another 27, said Sukehiro Hasegawa, who heads the UN mission in the country.

Meanwhile an AFP reporter saw the charred bodies of five women and a child inside a burnt-out house near Dili's international airport.

Local residents said four men had smashed the windows of the house overnight Thursday, poured petrol inside and set it ablaze. Some of the bodies were crammed into a cupboard, where the victims had apparently fled to try to escape the flames.

"It's just like 1999," resident Jose Moucho told AFP.

East Timor was wracked by violence that year after a vote for independence from Indonesia, which had ruled the territory since 1975 -- and the bloodshed was finally brought under control with the help of Australian soldiers.

Australia's military said the troops' main task was to help the two sides in the current conflict to negotiate but warned they would return fire if attacked.

Acting commander Lieutenant Colonel Michael Mumford said he dreaded the prospect of fighting rebel troops that Australia had helped to train but was determined to restore order after days of bloodshed.

"We are certainly able to defend ourselves and any innocent parties that might fall victim to the conflict," he told reporters.

About 180 more Australian soldiers landed early Friday morning, with around 1,300 are expected in all.

Dozens of terrified but curious East Timorese gathered to watch the Australians policing their strife-torn town.

But most stayed out of the way and the usually busy streets were virtually deserted.

In the Caicoli area, where small groups of people watched the manoeuvres of two Australian ships in the bay, Sonia Gusmao, 30, a sanitation worker, welcomed the incoming troops.

"I am very happy because with their arrival, I hope East Timor can be peaceful again," she said.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said he would expect to see political reforms in exchange for the military assistance.

"The way in which the country has been governed in the last few years has left a lot to be desired," Howard said. "The government obviously has lost a lot of authority and confidence."

Timorese Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri said the clashes between security forces and the disgruntled soldiers amounted to an attempted coup.

But the rebel leader, Major Alfredo Reinado, said on Thursday that his fighters did not want to topple the government and would not give the Australian forces any trouble.

"I'm with Australia. I'm with peacekeeping forces. I'm ready to cooperate with them based on any agreement that will be reached by our president," Reinado said.

Along with Australia, the government asked Malaysia, New Zealand and Portugal, the former colonial power, to send police or soldiers. All said they would contribute, and the first Malaysian troops were seen on Friday morning.