Afghanistan rebuffs U.S. demand to sign security pact

By Agence France-Presse
Friday, November 22, 2013 10:55 EST

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 


• 



Afghanistan on Friday rebuffed a US demand to sign a highly anticipated security pact as soon as possible, insisting the document must wait until after next year’s presidential election.




Washington warned Kabul on Thursday to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) as soon as possible, with senior officials hinting that delaying beyond the end of this year could mean no post-2014 US troop presence.




The latest US run-in with President Hamid Karzai was set off by the Afghan leader saying the painstakingly negotiated deal would not be signed until after the election in April.




US officials bristled, saying the pact, which governs the conditions of any post-war American counter-terrorism and training mission in Afghanistan, must be signed by the end of the year.




The White House said it needed a swift decision from Karzai to start planning the footprint of any US forces, and warned Obama had not yet decided whether or not to keep US forces in Afghanistan.




“Failure to get this approved and signed by the end of the year would prevent the United States and our allies from being able to plan for a post-2014 presence,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.




Karzai had said the pact currently under consideration by a loya jirga, a meeting of tribal chieftains, could only be signed “when our elections are conducted, correctly and with dignity”.




His spokesman Aimal Faizi stood firm on the issue on Friday.




“Security, peace and good elections are key to the signing of the BSA,” Faizi told AFP.




“Let’s wait and see what will the loya jirga decide on the document. If approved, as the president said, it will be signed after elections.”




Senior US officials speaking on condition of anonymity were blunt, warning that if there were no BSA in force, there would be no US troop garrison in Afghanistan after NATO combat troops leave in 2014.




“We desperately need this pact”




Some jirga delegates voiced frustration at Karzai’s unexpected announcement — the latest in a long line of antagonistic outbursts.




“This should be signed by the current government not be left to the next one,” Aminullah Muavez, a member of the provincial peace council of Nuristan — a Taliban stronghold in the country’s northeast — told AFP.




“If we don’t sign it soon, the US might change their mind and withdraw from Afghanistan.”




Karzai on Thursday told jirga delegates that the BSA would allow up to 15,000 foreign troops to stay in the war-torn country.




Afghanistan goes to the polls on April 5 to elect a successor to Karzai, who must step down after his two terms. A credible election is seen as crucial to the country’s future stability.




The jirga is to give its decision Sunday on the BSA, the text of which was only agreed after months of tortuous negotiations with Washington.




It is widely expected to approve it, though possibly with recommendations or conditions, after which it must also be approved by the Afghan parliament before Karzai can sign it into effect.




Tahira Mirzad, a former MP representing Kapisa province at the Jirga, told AFP the country urgently needed the BSA.




“This is a sensitive phase we are going through at the moment. it’s a chaotic phase, every day we have attacks by the enemies, there is a lack of proper training for security forces, we desperately need this pact to be signed,” she said.




Obama stepped in this week with a letter to confirm a deal on the vexed question of US forces raiding Afghan homes.




The letter released by Karzai’s office said US forces would not enter Afghan homes for military operations “except under extraordinary circumstances involving urgent risk to life and limb of US nationals”.




The issue is a sensitive one in Afghanistan and had for a time appeared to pose a serious threat to the deal.




Supporters of the deal say it is vital for post-2014, when the bulk of NATO’s 75,000 troops will pull out. The Taliban insurgency this year has reached levels of violence not seen since 2010, according to the United Nations.




The Taliban condemned the jirga as an American plot and threatened to target its delegates if they approve the deal.




A draft text released by Kabul Wednesday appeared to show Karzai had bowed to a US demand that American troops would not be tried in local courts if they are accused of crimes.




A similar security deal between the United States and Iraq collapsed in 2011 over the issue of whether American troops would be answerable to local courts, leading Washington to pull its forces out.








Agence France-Presse


AFP journalists cover wars, conflicts, politics, science, health, the environment, technology, fashion, entertainment, the offbeat, sports and a whole lot more in text, photographs, video, graphics and online.














WHAT REALLY HAPPENED



Afghanistan rebuffs U.S. demand to sign security pact

Afghan-U.S. security pact in limbo on eve of crucial debate

By Jessica Donati and Hamid Shalizi

KABUL Wed Nov 20, 2013 2:27am EST

1 of 3. Afghan policemen keep watch at the area where the Loya Jirga will take place later this week, in Kabul November 19, 2013. Thousands of Afghan tribal and political leaders will gather in the Afghan capital this week to decide whether to allow U.S. troops to stay after the 2014 drawdown of foreign forces.

Credit: Reuters/Omar Sobhani

KABUL (Reuters) – The text of a security pact between the United States and Afghanistan that sets out a military blueprint once Washington starts pulling out its troops after 2014 is unfinished a day before thousands of Afghan elders were due to start debating it.

Without the accord the United States has warned it could pull out all its troops at the end of 2014 and leave Afghan forces to fight alone against a Taliban-led insurgency.

Last-minute efforts to finalize the pact stalled on Tuesday by differences over whether President Barack Obama had agreed to issue a letter acknowledging U.S. mistakes made during the 12-year war.

“The final language is not ready between the two governments,” said Aimal Faizi, the Afghan president’s spokesman, adding the U.S. state department was right to say that work remained to be done.

The Afghan government said it received assurances that an Obama letter would be provided this week to a grand council of Afghan elders. But Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, insisted that such an offer – which would draw criticism from Republicans and anger American war veterans – is “not on the table.”

It was the latest misunderstanding between the two governments, which have a long history of mistrust.

The security pact must be approved by the Loya Jirga, a gathering of Afghan tribal and political leaders that will meet in Kabul starting on Thursday.

If the two sides cannot agree on a pact, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has suggested submitting rival versions of the document for the elite group to decide on.

This has been met with anger and confusion by elders who have braved perilous journeys to the Afghan capital from remote and dangerous provinces for the meeting.

“Whatever is happening with the security pact is very confusing for us,” said Abdul Hanan a senator from eastern Paktia province who will attend the jirga.

“It will be very difficult to vote for which drafts and which is for our benefit, we are all confused.”

Another member from Ghazni province said the elders would vote on an Afghan version, but not an American one.

Security was tight in Kabul ahead of the traditional Afghan grand assembly convened to debate matters of national importance, following a suicide bomb attack outside the tent over the weekend.

A security pact would clear the way for a decision on how many troops to keep in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials said during a meeting of NATO defense ministers in February that the alliance was considering keeping a residual force of 8,000 to 12,000 troops. The Obama administration has been discussing keeping 3,000 to 9,000 U.S. troops as part of that.

Two years ago, Washington ended its military mission in Iraq with a similar “zero option” outcome that led to the withdrawal of all of its troops after the failure of talks.

(Reporting by Jessica Donati; Editing by Michael Perry)

• Link this


• Share this


• Digg this


• Email


• Print


• Reprints

Reuters: Top News

Afghan-U.S. security pact in limbo on eve of crucial debate

Afghan-U.S. security pact in limbo on eve of crucial debate

KABUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The United States and Afghanistan scrambled to try to finalize a crucial security pact on Wednesday, a day before thousands of Afghan elders were due to start debating whether to allow U.S. troops to stay in the country after 2014.

Reuters: Top News

Afghan-U.S. security pact in limbo on eve of crucial debate

Troubling Questions: No-Spy Pact Backfires on Berlin

When German Chancellery Chief of Staff Ronald Pofalla sat before a parliamentary committee on Monday, his prepared text was almost entirely marked up in yellow. Everything that he intended to present to the Parliamentary Control Panel, the body in German parliament charged with keeping tabs on the country’s intelligence agencies, was apparently important. He ran down the 15 items on his list, speaking without pause — just as he did at his last appearance before the committee, more than two weeks ago.

Pofalla appeared before the committee to clear the air. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives hope finally to put a lid on the NSA scandal, which was set off by reports leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The core of Pofalla’s message was simple: The American intelligence agency and its British counterpart adhere to German law and have agreed in writing to do so. Pofalla went on to say that the rights of millions of Germans have not been violated, ostensibly in response to recent criticism by the opposition Social Democrats. The data that the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, has handed over to America’s National Security Agency pertained to reconnaissance abroad and not to German citizens, he assured the panel.

It was a peculiar sort of political spectacle. Merkel’s chief of staff and the government’s official intelligence coordinator praised the “hard work” of the agency and quoted written assurances made recently by the American and British intelligence agencies to the German government. Pofalla painted a picture of a harmonious world of German-American intelligence cooperation. And it’s this collaboration, he said, that has prevented terrorist attacks on German and US soldiers in Afghanistan.

If you subscribe to Pofalla’s version of events, all the recent fuss is actually superfluous.

Only, there’s a hitch in this rosy scenario. The BND and the NSA have agreed on pursuing brand new “no-spy pact.” The agreement, says Pofalla, represents a unique opportunity to set standards for the future work of Western intelligence agencies.

The No-Spy Pact

Just last Friday, BND chief Gerhard Schindler sent NSA Director Keith B. Alexander a written request that discussions over a mutual no-spying pact be initiated. It is to be the placebo administered to the public at election time, to pacify brewing concern and say, “Look, everything is going to be just fine.”

Yet the establishment of such a no-spying agreement implies that espionage has been allowed up to now, an unwitting confirmation of the information in the documents leaked by Snowden — including the internal paper that SPIEGEL reported on this week: As a target of espionage, Germany ranks somewhere in the middle of the priority list, about on par with France and Japan. In the leaked document, the US notes a particular interest in Germany’s foreign policy and economic situation, citing threats to the financial system and “economic stability” as high-priority subjects of interest when it comes to spying in the European Union.

The no-spying agreement isn’t likely to make the NSA scandal disappear. On the contrary, Berlin will be faced with new questions: What should comprise such a pact? Will it only pertain to the work of foreign intelligence agencies? Or will it address the interests of citizens whose Internet data flow through American servers and can potentially be captured and cached? None of this has been definitively answered, all written assurances to the contrary.

Pofalla obviously anticipated what new questions might be raised by the envisaged agreement. It was he who carefully said that the US agency would not have made the offer, “if their assurance that they would abide by the law were not true.” This is twisted logic — logic that only Pofalla himself could explain.

But an explanation never came. Just like at his last appearance before the committee, the Chancellery chief declined to take any questions. After item 15, Pofalla exited without a word.

Keep track of the news

Stay informed with our free news services:

All news from SPIEGEL International

Twitter | RSS

All news from Germany section

RSS

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2013
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH

SPIEGEL ONLINE – International – NSA Spying Scandal

Troubling Questions: No-Spy Pact Backfires on Berlin

Senate nomination pact averts meltdown _ for now

Senate majority leader Harry Reid gestures as he speaks to the media as lawmakers moved toward resolving their feud over filibusters of White House appointees on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 16, 2013. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Senate majority leader Harry Reid gestures as he speaks to the media as lawmakers moved toward resolving their feud over filibusters of White House appointees on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, July 16, 2013. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and GOP leaders talk to reporters after the Senate stepped back from the brink of a political meltdown, clearing the way for confirmation of one of President Barack Obama’s long-stalled nominations, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, July 16, 2013. At far left is Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Republican senators, from left, Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., walk from the floor to a closed-door caucus after a compromise between the Democratic majority and the GOP minority on filibuster rules, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, July 16, 2013. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid credited Sen. McCain, with helping broker a breakthrough.The Senate just voted 71-29 to end a two-year Republican blockade that was preventing Richard Cordray from winning confirmation as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, speaks with reporters just off the Senate floor as lawmakers moved toward resolving their feud over Republican filibusters of White House appointees, at the Capitol in Washington, Tuesday, July 16, 2013. The Senate just voted 71-29 to end a two-year Republican blockade that was preventing Richard Cordray from winning confirmation as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

Buy AP Photo Reprints

WASHINGTON (AP) — A bipartisan Senate pact has smoothed the confirmation path for a batch of President Barack Obama’s nominations and removed, for now, a Democratic threat to impose procedural changes weakening minority Republicans’ clout. Yet there are no guarantees that the conflict won’t flare anew the next time a White House appointment stirs controversy.

A day after both parties celebrated an agreement averting a bitter fight over Senate rules, the chamber planned to vote Wednesday on one of Obama’s picks, Fred Hochberg to be president of the Export-Import Bank.

Also possible this week are roll calls on Labor Secretary-designate Tom Perez and Gina McCarthy, Obama’s choice to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

On Tuesday, Republicans agreed to allow quick votes on seven Obama selections by simple majority margins, rather than forcing Democrats to garner 60 votes to succeed. Hours later, the Senate by 66-34 approved the first of those appointments, confirming Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — after Republicans had blocked him for nearly two years as they demanded changes in the agency’s structure and financing.

In a written statement, Obama thanked Senate leaders for working out their dispute but criticized his opponents for using “purely political reasons” to stall the nominations.

“In the weeks ahead, I hope the Congress will build on this spirit of cooperation to advance other urgent middle-class priorities” like revamping immigration laws and keeping student loan interest rates from rising, Obama said.

In exchange for the GOP concessions on the nominations, Democrats agreed to drop their effort to change the chamber’s rules. Obama also submitted two new nominees for a pair of labor posts after Republicans adamantly opposed his initial picks.

“Does that mean it will last forever? I don’t know about that,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of the accord. But he added, “We have a new start for this body, and I feel very comfortable with it.”

Democrats had been threatening to muscle through a rules change preventing opponents from forcing top agency nominees to win 60 votes from the 100-member Senate.

That would have diminished the chamber’s filibuster rule that minority parties, Republicans as well as Democrats, have long cherished as a tool that prevents them from becoming virtually irrelevant. Changing the Senate’s rules by majority vote — instead of the two-thirds margin usually required when the plan is controversial — is unusual and considered likely to invite such harsh retaliation that it is called the nuclear option.

“I think it’s a step in the right direction that the majority has chosen not to exercise the nuclear option,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. “We feel good about that. I think they feel good about it. So I think that crisis has been averted.”

The standoff was resolved following an exceptional closed-door meeting in the Capitol’s old Senate chamber Monday night, attended by nearly every senator. For the previous several days, senators had met and made phone calls in an effort to head off a clash, with several lawmakers crediting Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., for helping bring the sides together.

As part of the resulting agreement, Obama withdrew his nominations of two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board, Richard Griffin and Sharon Clark. Obama installed Griffin and Clark onto the board in 2011, bypassing the Senate but triggering a legal challenge in which an appeals court has said the two appointments were invalid. Republicans were insistent that those selections be replaced.

In their places, Obama nominated Nancy Schiffer, a former top lawyer for the AFL-CIO, and Kent Hirozawa, counsel to NLRB Chairman Mark Pearce. Reid said he was planning for the Senate to confirm both next week.

The seventh Obama appointment involved in the bipartisan deal is Pearce, whose pick is relatively uncontroversial. The NLRB appointments, if confirmed as expected, would prevent the virtual shutdown of the agency because of a lack of confirmed board members to rule on collective bargaining disputes between unions and companies.

___

Associated Press writer David Espo contributed to this report.

Associated Press

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Headlines

Senate nomination pact averts meltdown _ for now