Afghanistan rejects U.S. call for quick security deal

Discussion in 'Afghanistan' started by Ray, Nov 23, 2013.

  1. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Afghanistan rejects U.S. call for quick security deal

    KABUL (Reuters) - The future of U.S. troops in Afghanistan remained in doubt on Friday after a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai rejected Washington's call to sign a security pact by the end of the year rather than after next year's presidential election.

    The United States has repeatedly said it will not wait until after the April 2014 vote to seal the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) and rejected Karzai's suggestion for the signing to take place next year "properly and with dignity".

    Without an accord, the United States could pull out most of its troops by the end of 2014, as it did two years ago when it failed to negotiate a deal with Iraq.

    "We do not recognize any deadline from the U.S. side," said Aimal Faizi, a spokesman for Karzai, as Afghan tribal elders considered the pact for a second day. "They have set other deadlines also, so this is nothing new to us."

    Karzai had suggested on Thursday, as the Afghan leaders began a meeting known as a Loya Jirga, that the signing of the pact should wait until after the poll. Having served two terms, he is ineligible to run again.

    In Washington, the White House kept up the pressure on Karzai, saying President Barack Obama wanted the BSA signed by the end of the year. Obama would decide about a further U.S. presence after Afghan authorities approved the deal, U.S. officials say.

    "It is our final offer," said White House spokesman Jay Carney. "We can't push it into next year and be expected to plan for a post-2014 military presence," he told reporters.

    In a telephone call earlier on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry conveyed to Karzai that any delays were unacceptable and signing the agreement as quickly as possible was imperative, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

    "I can also confirm for you that the secretary communicated it to President Karzai this morning on a phone call as well," Psaki told a briefing.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the United States needed to ensure there would be protection for U.S. forces if they stayed in Afghanistan beyond next year.

    "Without that, I, as secretary of defense, could not recommend to the president of the United States to go forward," he said on a visit to Halifax, Nova Scotia.

    U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said this week the language of the accord had been agreed.

    Faizi refused all comment on whether Karzai endorsed the plan. He said any action by the president depended strictly on the recommendation of the Loya Jirga.

    "It is absolutely up to the Jirga to decide about the BSA. The president very clearly said good security, peace and good elections are the key to the signing of this document."

    Most participants at the gathering's second day appeared to favor ratifying the pact. But reporters had little access to opponents of the deal and were kept away by security staff.

    "We have to sign this agreement with the United States of America," said Aminullah Mawiz Nooristani, an elder from eastern Nuristan province. "President Karzai has to sign it as soon as we announce our decision."

    Afghanistan has wrangled for more than a year over the pact with the United States, which has had troops in the country since the Taliban was ousted from power late in 2001.

    DIFFICULT RELATIONS

    Karzai has had an increasingly fraught relationship with Washington and is reluctant to be associated with the pact.

    "My trust with America is not good," Karzai told the assembly on Thursday in his opening speech. "I don't trust them and they don't trust me."

    The elders, largely handpicked by Karzai's administration, are expected to vote in favor of the document and urge the president to follow their advice, allowing Karzai to distance himself from the process without jeopardizing the deal.

    The 2,500-member assembly is expected to announce its decision on Sunday.

    The pact contains painful concessions such as immunity for U.S. forces from Afghan law and allowing them to enter Afghan homes if an American life is under direct threat.

    "Whatever the Jirga tells him, whether they tell him to sign it before election or after the election, he will follow through," said Hasseeb Humayun, a member of the group.

    If the United States pulls out its troops, other countries in the NATO alliance underpinning Karzai's administration are expected to follow suit and a thinner international presence could deter donors from releasing promised funds.

    Afghanistan remains largely dependent on foreign aid.

    Afghanistan rejects U.S. call for quick security deal

    ******************************************************************

    The issue is the security of Afghanistan after the US leaves.

    Is the Afghan Armed Forces capable of defending the security and the territorial integrity of Afghanistan?

    Is Afghanistan ready to hand over the reins of government to the most armed militant group that operates in Afghanistan and go back to the Taliban type of governance that was there before the ISAF arrived?

    Is Afghanistan willing to be a surrogate of Pakistan?

    On these issues the question rests as to what should be the security set up?

    If Afghanistan is to bank on the US, then it will have to accept the US terms.

    If it does not want so, then Afghanistan is cast to the winds for her Destiny to chalk out.

    However, it will not be Pakistan alone who will be interested, but also the peripheral countries, as also Russia.

    India too would be interested, but she had no teeth and too incompetent to pick up the false teeth from the floor that has fallen during the repeated bashing she has had from the neighbours thanks to a flawed and weak kneed foreign policy of appeasing all and sundry and suing for peace at all costs.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  2.  
  3. J20!

    J20! Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Messages:
    1,762
    Likes Received:
    668
    Location:
    Some where in Li Na's imagination
    The American's proposal would be difficult to accept, even without a deadline.

    Karzai is expected to agree to a deal that grants US forces - with numerous cases of crimes against Afghan citizens by US Military personnel mind you - IMMUNITY from Afghan law, and allows them to unilaterally enter and conduct operations on Afghan private property without Afghan supervision.

    That's basically giving Karzai an ultimatum to sell off Afghanistan's sovereignty with significant opposition from the Loya Jirga (which excluded the Taliban by the way) right before he leaves the presidency and oh yeah, within the year please, or no deal.

    We all recognize the need for Afghan security for international investments to continue, but the US Govt is offering Karzai an all-or-nothing deal that threatens Afghanistan with the Taliban, which the US ousted via proxy = the Northern Alliance - today's Afghan government.
     
  4. datguy79

    datguy79 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Messages:
    702
    Likes Received:
    937
    Location:
    Canada
    The deal was unanimously accepted by the 50 committees of the loya jirga and it was recommended to be signed by Karzai asap. Whenever Karzai signs it is the only variable left. The deal is done.

    What people don't realize is that the loya jirga has never historically rejected what the leader/president of the time wanted. It is more of a gathering to flush out the fine print rather than anything resembling "significant opposition."
     
    TrueSpirit1, gokussj9 and kseeker like this.
  5. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Selling Afghanistan one way of the other is inevitable.

    In fact, they have been sold a long time back from the time the Soviets came to the Taliban to the present times!

    It is the question of having a Nation that is somewhat orderly with investments coming in even if very tenuously or selling the nation wholesale to forces which will lead to chaos and return to Medieval times.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  6. Free Karma

    Free Karma Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2013
    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    2,576
    Location:
    Chennai
    @Ray

    OT:

    I see your flag has changed!! I used to wonder why was it iceland?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    kseeker likes this.
  7. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,117
    Likes Received:
    23,545
    Location:
    Somewhere
    Iceland was to signify that life is 'cool'. :

    That is the first reason.

    Second, I shuttle.
     

Share This Page