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/2014/10/01/world/asia/afghanistan-and-us-sign-bilateral-security-agreement.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Afghanistan and U.S. Sign Bilateral Security Agreement Mending Alliance, U.S. and Afghanistan Sign Long-Term Security Agreement
(about 11 hours later)
KABUL, Afghanistan — Nearly a year after a long-term deal to keep American troops in Afghanistan was suddenly derailed amid worsening relations, Afghanistan and the United States signed the security pact on Tuesday. KABUL, Afghanistan — American and Afghan officials signed a long-term security pact here on Tuesday, nearly a year after the agreement was cast into limbo by a breakdown of trust at the highest levels of each allied government.
The agreement allows 9,800 American and about 2,000 NATO troops to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on Dec. 31. Their role will be to train and support Afghan security forces, but the pact also allows for American Special Operations forces to conduct counterterrorism missions in the country. The new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, sworn in just a day earlier, oversaw the signing of the security pact in a cordial ceremony at the presidential palace, sending a clear message that he meant to heal an alliance that had soured under his predecessor, Hamid Karzai.
The signing, in a televised ceremony at the presidential palace, fulfilled a campaign promise by the new Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, who was inaugurated just a day before. As Mr. Ghani watched, Ambassador James B. Cunningham signed for the United States, and the new Afghan national security adviser, Hanif Atmar, signed for Afghanistan. “We have signed an agreement for the good of our people,” he said, outlining a relationship of “shared dangers and shared interests” with the United States.
After months of wrangling on the terms of the bilateral security agreement last year, President Hamid Karzai ultimately refused to sign it, souring relations between the two countries. The deal, known as a bilateral security agreement, will allow 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on Dec. 31. Most of them will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions.
In his inauguration speech on Monday, Mr. Ghani called for the healing of that relationship, and for a new era of cooperation. On Tuesday, however, he was more focused on the Afghan interest, emphasizing that the agreement had been signed “in accordance with our national interests,” and that it would open the doors for a continuation of civilian and military aid to his hist government. The buoyant scenes at the palace were in stark contrast to the increasingly tense, even hostile, expressions between officials in the final months of Mr. Karzai’s presidency, after he suddenly refused to sign the agreement late last year after months of brinkmanship.
Pointedly noting that Western donors had promised Afghanistan $16 billion in economic aid, he said that Afghanistan and the West had “shared dangers and shared interests.” Still, the global landscape in which the security agreement is finally taking hold is quite different from the one in which it was conceived more than a year ago.
But he also addressed lingering Afghan sovereignty concerns, stressing that international forces would not be allowed to raid mosques or other sacred sites; foreign contractors would be subject to strict government regulation; and that both countries have the right to withdraw from the pact in two years. The sudden onslaught of Islamic State jihadist militants in Syria and Iraq has reshaped a large stretch of the Middle East. The new United States military mission against the group has dominated American attention and resources in a way painfully familiar to Afghans who felt the 2003 invasion of Iraq left Afghanistan’s needs marginalized.
In Afghanistan, a multifront Taliban offensive this summer has raised serious questions about the ability of the Afghan security forces to keep the insurgency at bay as they suffer soaring casualty rates and continue to struggle with logistical problems. And there are new concerns about Afghan political unity after a bitter election dispute between Mr. Ghani and his rival, Abdullah Abdullah, revived some of the ethnic and geographic dividing lines that had seemed to ebb under Mr. Karzai’s management.
Yet despite the rapid changes, some analysts say the security pact may still offer Afghanistan a different path, helping to solidify the country’s political dispensation and create the underpinnings necessary to avoid state collapse.
“The B.S.A. has a symbolic, stabilizing role for the political process in Kabul,” said Vali R. Nasr, dean at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington. “Now that Iraq has happened, and the president has acknowledged that we underestimated the risk there, he can’t afford to make the same mistake in Afghanistan.”
Many Afghans agreed. Although Mr. Ghani and Mr. Abdullah were divided over the results of June’s vote, they were united by the need to sign the security pact, which American officials had tacitly tied to the continued flow of billions of dollars in military and civilian aid.
Speaking at Tuesday’s ceremony, Mr. Ghani, a former World Bank official, pointedly reminded his Western allies that they had promised Afghanistan $16 billion in economic aid, and that a stable Afghanistan was very much a shared interest.
But Mr. Ghani also addressed lingering Afghan sovereignty concerns, stressing that international forces would not be allowed to raid mosques or other sacred sites; foreign contractors would be subject to strict government regulation; and that both countries have the right to withdraw from the pact in two years.
American officials, for their part, appeared simply relieved that an episode that had stirred much rancor — and multiple diplomatic interventions by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry — had finally come to an end.American officials, for their part, appeared simply relieved that an episode that had stirred much rancor — and multiple diplomatic interventions by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry — had finally come to an end.
After signing the pact in Kabul, Mr. Cunningham smiled and firmly embraced Mr. Atmar. Speaking later, he called it a historic agreement, and said that the endorsement of Afghan tribal leaders, who met to approve the pact last December, showed that “the people of Afghanistan placed a great stake in our enduring partnership.” After signing the pact in Kabul, the American ambassador, James B. Cunningham, firmly embraced Hanif Atmar, the new Afghan security adviser, who signed for his country. And in Washington, Mr. Obama said the agreement reflected a “continued commitment to support the new Afghan unity government.”
In Washington, Mr. Obama hailed the agreement and said the United States was committed to supporting Afghanistan. Senior White House officials said the lesson of Iraq — where despite training from American advisers, the security forces have been unable to hold back the advance of Sunni militants — is that a unified government is a precursor to maintaining stability after the bulk of American troops are gone.
“The B.S.A. reflects our continued commitment to support the new Afghan Unity Government, and we look forward to working with this new government to cement an enduring partnership that strengthens Afghan sovereignty, stability, unity, and prosperity, and that contributes to our shared goal of defeating Al Qaeda and its extremist affiliates,” he said in a statement released by the White House. “This is exactly what we planned for,” Antony J. Blinken, the deputy national security adviser, said in an interview. The agreement puts the United States on a “very deliberate glide path that enables us to sustain our support for the Afghan security forces, which already are in the lead throughout the country.”
Mr. Ghani was joined onstage by his chief executive officer, Abdullah Abdullah. The two men spent the summer embroiled in a bitter dispute over the results of last June’s presidential vote. But one of their few points of agreement was that the American security deal should be signed. The security pact provides for a significantly different international military presence in Afghanistan from next January. The current NATO-led mission, known as the International Security Assistance Force, will give way to a training mission headquartered in Kabul with six bases around the country.
On Tuesday, Mr. Atmar also signed an agreement with NATO to provide for the continued presence of non-American NATO troops after 2014. The smaller mission, whose size is yet to be finalized, will consist of American Special Operations forces based in the small number of remaining American bases. A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.
Afghanistan urgently needs to bolster its security forces to fend off a muscular threat from Taliban insurgents, who have aggressively attacked vulnerable districts this summer and badly bloodied the Afghan security forces who have taken over security duties from foreign troops. Another undecided question is the role of American airstrikes. Outraged by civilian casualties, Mr. Karzai had all but banned air attacks — a condition many Afghan commanders say has contributed to high casualty numbers. Mr. Ghani has signaled a willingness to reverse that stance.
In his inauguration speech on Monday, President Ghani called on the Taliban to join peace talks. But he also warned that the invitation should not be taken as a sign of weakness, and that his government would respond forcefully to any attacks on civilians. In his inauguration speech on Monday, Mr. Ghani called on the Taliban to join peace talks. But he also warned that the invitation should not be taken as a sign of weakness, and that his government would respond forcefully to any attacks on civilians.
The Taliban denounced the security pact as a “sinister” plot by the United States, and used it to launch its first propaganda assault on the new Ghani administration.The Taliban denounced the security pact as a “sinister” plot by the United States, and used it to launch its first propaganda assault on the new Ghani administration.
“With this action, the new staff of the presidential palace have proved their disloyalty to the religion and history of Afghanistan,” said a Pashto-language statement posted on Twitter. The following post read: “Death to America!”“With this action, the new staff of the presidential palace have proved their disloyalty to the religion and history of Afghanistan,” said a Pashto-language statement posted on Twitter. The following post read: “Death to America!”