U.S.-Afghan security pact needs clarity by February: Hagel

KABUL Sat Dec 7, 2013 12:57pm EST

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R) shakes hands with Afghan General Sher Mohammad Karimi during a meeting at the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul December 7, 2013. REUTERS/Mark Wilson/Pool

U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (R) shakes hands with Afghan General Sher Mohammad Karimi during a meeting at the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) headquarters in Kabul December 7, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Mark Wilson/Pool

KABUL (Reuters) - A NATO meeting in February could become a new deadline for a security pact between the United States and Afghanistan, whose president has been reluctant to sign the deal, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said on visit to Kabul.

Hagel arrived in Afghanistan on Saturday to visit troops and senior Afghan officials but, unusually, did not plan to meet President Hamid Karzai, who has resisted signing the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) which would govern the U.S. military presence after most NATO forces leave by the end of next year.

Karzai has said he wants to wait until after April elections to conclude the deal, but Hagel said that could delay any signing until mid-2014, which he said was undesirable.

"I would say that one of the things that you might want to look at is the NATO defense ministers ministerial meeting in the end of February," he said, suggesting a possible deadline. "Some answers are going to be required at that NATO ministerial."

Hagel met the Afghan defense minister, the deputy interior minister and the commanding general of the Afghan National Army, but said the purpose of his trip was to greet troops during the holiday season and that he had never intended to see Karzai.

There was little he could add to the message conveyed by U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice, who met the Afghan leader in Kabul last month, he said.

"I don't think pressure coming from the United States, or more pressure, is going to be helpful in persuading President Karzai to sign a bilateral security agreement," Hagel said.

A senior U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Karzai had shown no sign of giving ground.

"Two days ago, President Karzai repeated his position to senior U.S. officials that he is not yet ready to sign the BSA, and provided no timeline or practical steps for doing so," the official said.

A year-long negotiation over the text of the document was thought to have been concluded last month when an assembly of Afghan tribal elders and politicians, called a loya jirga, approved the pact. But Karzai surprised everyone during concluding remarks by saying he still had important demands.

They relate to a desire for the United States to kick-start a nascent peace process with the Taliban, and an end to raids on Afghan homes by U.S. forces pursuing militants.

Hagel follows several other senior U.S. officials who have visited Afghanistan without persuading Karzai to sign the deal. He is the first to visit with no plans to meet the president.

WANING CONFIDENCE

U.S. officials say further delay in clinching the agreement might force Washington to consider a "zero option" in which all U.S. forces would be withdrawn next year.

The NATO commander in Afghanistan, U.S. General Joseph Dunford, also said there was a need to sign the BSA soon.

"First and foremost I think it's about Afghan confidence. And what we have seen over the last couple of months, we've seen capital flight, we've seen some real estate prices go down. So inside of Afghanistan I think the BSA will provide a degree of certainty that I think will be very helpful," he said.

The United States has 47,000 troops in Afghanistan and has discussed plans with Kabul to leave about 8,000 there post-2014.

Despite Hagel's assertion he had never meant to meet Karzai, the president's spokesman Aimal Faizi said the United States had last week requested such a meeting on Sunday. Karzai had declined because he flies to Iran that day for a state visit.

"This morning we were again told that there might be a meeting around 6 (p.m.)," Faizi said. "Out of hospitality, we did prepare for a late evening meeting which finally did not take place. It is as simple as that, and not an issue."

(Additional reporting by Hamid Shalizi; Editing by Ron Popeski and Alistair Lyon)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (20)
RSchuckman wrote:
As I understand it, the Loya Jirga’s agreement on the BSA is contingent on US agreement not to drone or enter Afghan homes. Well, clearly the US drones and searches as it pleases, agreement or no. It seems the Afghans are putting down there foot and are determined to live with the consequences. In the bigger picture, from where will we drone Pakistan if Afghanistan kicks us out?

Dec 07, 2013 8:35am EST  --  Report as abuse
anonymot wrote:
If the “democratically” elected puppet leader of an “ally” country feels he knows what is best for his country, why is it that we should think we know better? Why is it that we insist? What is behind our gross and obvious efforts to stay there?

Anyone who follows Middle Eastern affairs knows it’s not about Afghanistan’s interests, but then we think it’s about the gigantic drug trade; an idea no one in the administration dares to mention. That’s the 300 Billion dollar gorilla in the room. Is it our bases to drone bomb Pakistan which our Pakistani “allies” don’t want us to do?

Our foreign policy has been so unbelievably wrong since 2003 that what passes for policy could be just a series of mistakes. But why doesn’t Washington finally just say what they’re doing and why. A bit of speakable truth might change everything.

Meanwhile, with no truth spoken, we can only assume it is unspeakable.

Dec 07, 2013 10:25am EST  --  Report as abuse
AZreb wrote:
“We will have them ALL OUT OF THERE BY 2014″ (EMPHASIS ADDED – Obama in Boulder, CO, September, 2012, speaking of our troops in Afghanistan.

Did he mislead?
Did he misspeak?
Did he LIE?

Security for who? Certainly not the US and our troops, who would be sitting-ducks. And we would also be responsible for giving one of the most corrupt countries on earth $8 BILLION per year! Where is that money coming from – the taxpayers are tapped out and we would have to borrow more money from China.

If they can’t be responsible for their own “security” after over a decade of our training, our equipment and arms, then they don’t deserve any more help from the US.

Obama needs to remember what he promised in 2012 – or will this be another LIE?

Dec 07, 2013 10:30am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.

Full focus