This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/21/world/asia/afghan-pact-kerry-apology-.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
As Afghan Pact Is Reached, Kerry Says Apology Wasn’t Considered Afghan Pact Would Keep U.S. Troops Until 2024
(about 5 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the United States and Afghanistan had completed a bilateral security agreement that will be submitted to a grand council of elders in Kabul the next day, but he stated emphatically that there had been no discussion of an American apology to President Hamid Karzai or to his nation as part of the deal. WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry announced on Wednesday that the United States and Afghanistan had finalized the wording of a bilateral security agreement that would allow for a lasting American troop presence through 2024 and set the stage for billions of dollars of international assistance to keep flowing to the government in Kabul.
The deal, which will now be presented for approval by an Afghan grand council of elders starting on Thursday, came after days of brinkmanship by Afghan officials and two direct calls from Mr. Kerry to President Hamid Karzai, including one on Wednesday before the announcement.
Just the day before, a senior aide to Mr. Karzai had said the Afghan leader would not approve an agreement unless President Obama sent a letter acknowledging American military mistakes during the 12-year war. But on Wednesday, Mr. Kerry emphatically insisted that a deal was reached with no American apology forthcoming.
“President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology,” Mr. Kerry said. “I mean, it’s just not even on the table.”“President Karzai didn’t ask for an apology. There was no discussion of an apology,” Mr. Kerry said. “I mean, it’s just not even on the table.”
Mr. Kerry’s comments appeared to contradict statements from Afghan officials, including Mr. Karzai’s spokesman, Aimal Faizi, who said on Tuesday that Mr. Karzai would drop his opposition to future American counterterrorism raids on private homes in return for a letter by President Obama acknowledging military mistakes that have hurt Afghans and promising that they would not be repeated. After a war that stands as the longest in American history, the security agreement defines a training and counterterrorism mission in Afghanistan lasting at least 10 more years and involving 8,000 to 12,000 troops, mostly American.
In interviews, Mr. Faizi emphasized that Mr. Karzai’s approval of the final wording about American home raids — the last remaining holdup to a long-term security agreement, according to Afghan and American officials — was contingent upon receiving such a message from Mr. Obama. Despite the sometimes harsh criticism from Afghan officials during the negotiations, the agreement includes concessions that the Obama administration could not win from Iraq during a similar process in 2011, leading to the final withdrawal of American troops there.
And while Mr. Faizi did not use the word “apology,” it was clear that Mr. Karzai was seeking some demonstration of contrition or regret, at the least. The difference in perception may explain an apparent gap between the Afghan expression and Mr. Kerry’s comments. Now, the United States has at least an initial agreement from Afghan officials that American soldiers will not face Afghan prosecution in the course of their duties. And United States Special Operations forces will retain leeway to conduct antiterrorism raids on private Afghan homes — a central American demand that Afghan officials had resisted and described as the last sticking point in negotiations.
There was no immediate confirmation Wednesday night from Afghan officials about agreement on the wording of the security deal, which is to approve a framework for a lasting American military presence in Afghanistan past the 2014 troop withdrawal deadline. In the end, the Obama administration and the Karzai government had more reason to agree than disagree, according to officials on both sides. American officials do not want to see Afghanistan again become a haven for terrorists after it spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives in the war. And the Afghan leadership knows that more than $4 billion in annual international security assistance would simply not flow absent an American military presence to account for it.
The agreement itself would not establish a final troop number. That is still to come from the Obama administration, and is expected to be a force of between 8,000 and 12,000 personnel to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. There would be no direct combat role for most of those troops — only for the much smaller counterterrorism force envisioned by American and NATO planners. Still, domestic political risks remain for both presidents today, as well. Some in Afghanistan already criticize Mr. Karzai as the political agent of a long-term foreign military presence. And Mr. Obama must explain to a nation weary of war why he is pressing for a continued military deployment, albeit a smaller one than advocated by American military commanders.
The Afghans have made final approval of a bilateral security agreement subject to an Afghan grand council of elders, a loya jirga, that is to begin meeting on Thursday. And though Mr. Kerry said Wednesday that the final language of the proposed deal was now ready for consideration after passing muster with senior Afghan and American negotiators, aspects of the security deal were likely to be unpopular with the Afghan public. Further, there is an immediate risk to the deal itself: The bilateral security agreement must now be approved by the Afghan council, known as a loya jirga. About 3,000 elders and leadership figures, all vetted by the Karzai government, will meet in Kabul for the next three days to weigh the agreement’s language, and it is sure to face at least some criticism.
“We have agreed on the language that would be submitted to a loya jirga, but they have to pass it,” Mr. Kerry said.
Draft language of the security agreement that was posted on the Afghan Foreign Ministry website on Wednesday night differed substantially from earlier working documents made available to journalists, seeming to ease off several Afghan demands that officials had publicly described as untouchable. Still, it was unclear whether the posted draft reflected the wording that will be handed out to loya jirga delegates on Thursday morning.
On the issue of American searches of Afghan homes, the draft proposal avoids the blunt prohibition previously offered by the Afghans, which had stated: “No detention or arrest shall be carried out by the United States forces. The United States forces shall not search any homes or other real estate properties.”
Instead, the draft states that American counterterrorism operations will be intended to “complement and support” Afghan missions. It underscores that Afghan forces will be in the lead and that any American military operations will be carried out “with full respect for Afghan sovereignty and full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes.” Even then, though, the wording does not say that American raids of Afghan homes would be conducted only to protect American soldiers’ lives — phrasing that Afghan officials had publicized on Tuesday.
The agreement itself would not establish a final troop number after the official NATO combat mission ends in December 2014. That detail is still to come from the Obama administration, and the force is expected to comprise 8,000 to 12,000 personnel to train, advise and assist Afghan forces. About two-thirds of that force would be American, and the rest from NATO and other allies.
There would be no direct combat role for most of those troops, who would be assigned to major headquarters and not out in the field with Afghan fighting units. There would be a much smaller counterterrorism force envisioned by American and NATO planners.
The current draft agreement accedes to the central American demand that ended up scuttling the Iraq negotiations: United States military personnel would be subject only to American military law, not Afghan laws, and Afghanistan pledges not to turn them over to any international tribunals.
The proposed treaty does, however, grant Afghans legal jurisdiction over contractors.
The document also has a clause committing the United States to consulting with the Afghan government in the event of external threats — stopping well short of the sort of NATO-style mutual defense pact the Afghans originally wanted.
“The United States shall regard with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external aggression against the sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of Afghanistan,” the proposed agreement states. There is a later clause saying they would “consult urgently” in the event of such aggression.
The draft concludes, as earlier versions have, that it takes effect Jan. 1, 2015, provided internal approval procedures in both countries are satisfied — in the case of Afghanistan, ratification by the loya jirga and then by Parliament — and then “it shall remain in force until the end of 2024 and beyond“ unless terminated with two years’ advance notice.
A State Department official said that Mr. Kerry had spoken by telephone with Mr. Karzai on Wednesday morning, for the second time in two days, to nail down details of the agreement.
While Mr. Kerry was adamant that there would be no presidential apology for actions in Afghanistan, he left open the possibility that there would be some form of White House communication in the coming days.
“It’s very important for President Karzai to know that the issues that he’s raised with us for many years have been properly addressed,” Mr. Kerry said, “and it’s very important for us to know that issues we have raised with him for a number of years are properly addressed.”

Thom Shanker reported from Washington, and Rod Nordland from Kabul, Afghanistan.