Prospects for a US-Afghan security agreement enhanced - possibly

By Nigel Chamberlain, NATO Watch

Edited highlights of the Joint Press Availability with Secretary of State John Kerry and Afghan President Hamid Karzai after their meeting in Kabul on 12 October 2013

PRESIDENT KARZAI: John Kerry, US Secretary of State, arrived in Kabul yesterday so that we can discuss our relationship with the United States, especially with regards to the security pact between Afghanistan and the United States. He delayed his visit to the Middle East so that we could discuss these issues in detail, and so that we can reach a result considering the national interests of both countries.

We have been having difficult discussions over the security agreement between our two countries for some time. Respecting Afghanistan’s sovereignty, which has been violated, was considered our highest priority. Afghanistan has suffered a lot in the fight against international terrorism. The Afghan nation wants a guarantee that violations will not take place in terms of the lives of the people, children, and citizens. Under no circumstance or excuse will foreign forces search the homes of the Afghan people, nor will they conduct any sort of ground attack or air attack on Afghan homes. Thirdly, we require that Afghanistan is protected from invasion or attack. This includes the use of mortars and tanks and sending terrorism and suicide bombers to Afghanistan. Fourth, international forces cannot conduct operations inside Afghanistan by themselves and without permission.

After a long discussion and exchanging thoughts and ideas, tonight we reached some sort of agreement. In our agreement, the United States will no longer conduct operations by themselves. We have been provided written guarantee for the safety of Afghan people about invasion. A clear definition has been provided and we accepted it. Our national sovereignty is being also clear, and they have committed themselves that they will respect and no violation will take place.

The issue of foreign forces immunity was also raised. We don’t have a common understanding on this, and such an issue is beyond Afghan Government authority. The decision is up to the Afghan people, and especially the Loya Jirga. If they approve it, it will be sent to Afghan parliament. We hope that the security agreement between Afghanistan and the United States, will provide what we did not have during the past 10 years in Afghanistan, which is the safety of the Afghan people as well as the national sovereignty. We hope that once we finalize this agreement, Afghans and Americans will become real friends, friends in reality.

SECRETARY KERRY: I thank the President for his serious effort over these last hours. Too many Afghans have lost their lives. Too many Afghans have been subject to terrible violence. And the United States hopes and prays and looks forward to the day that Afghanistan can be free from that violence and that the people of Afghanistan will be free to move around and live their lives with full respect for their sovereignty and for their nationhood. President Obama wants the United States to work in partnership with Afghanistan. And nothing would please us more or serve American interests more than to see an Afghanistan free and independent, and without the need for support from America or any other country.

We have resolved, in these last 24 hours, the major issues that the President went through. But I need to make very clear that the issue of jurisdiction is still outstanding. If the issue of jurisdiction cannot be resolved, then there cannot be a bilateral security agreement. After 2014 the Unites States will not be conducting combat operations but we fully guarantee the opportunities that the Afghan people want for their future. If the security agreement is finally approved, it will cement a relationship of cooperation, a relationship where the Government of Afghanistan is fully independent and sovereign and the United States and partners will be helping and working in cooperation.

The Bilateral Security Agreement also provides the foundation for us to be able to work together against terrorism, against those who wish to harm us or our partners, our interests, and the region. And that is vital to both Americans and to Afghans. But let me underscore that nothing – neither this agreement when completed, nor the assistance that we provide – nothing can replace the commitment and energy of the Afghan people to be defining their own future.

Q1. Lesley Wroughton from Reuters: Mr. Secretary, you said that there’s no deal without addressing the issue of immunity. How does one proceed with this, and what kinds of concessions do you need from each other to close this deal? And what faith does it show in Afghan sovereignty when the US snatches a Taliban commander from Afghan hands when you’re so close – when you were so close to a deal? President Karzai, if this immunity issue is still outstanding, how do you see this relationship going forward? And how can Afghanistan stand for this kind of operation, and does it undermine you just when you’re trying to agree on issues of counterterrorism and security?

A1. SECRETARY KERRY: There is no question of immunity. If an American who is part of any expeditionary force under agreement from the Afghan Government were to violate any law, as we have in the past, we will continue to prosecute to the full measure of that law, and any perpetrator of any incident, crime, anything will be punished. On jurisdiction, wherever our forces are found, they operate under the same standard. We are not singling out Afghanistan for any separate standard. We are defending exactly what the constitutional laws of the United States require. With respect to counterterrorism activities and the apprehension of an individual, we followed the normal procedures that the United States follows in our agreement. We regret that this circumstance took place in some ways that some folks apparently the chain of communication didn’t go as far. But we did what we are supposed to do under the agreement.

A1. PRESIDENT KARZAI: As I said in my introductory remarks, the whole document will go before the Afghan Loya Jirga for their consideration and consultation. And if it is approved, it will go to the Afghan parliament for the formal approval of relevant state institutions. The issue of jurisdiction is one such issue that is beyond the authority of the Afghan Government. On the issue of seizing a Taliban commander by the US Forces Afghanistan, this is an issue that we have raised in earnest with the United States in the past few days, as we have on other previous occasions of such arrests in which the Afghan laws were disregarded, which we do consider a violation of Afghan sovereignty. And therefore, our discussion today in particular has been focused on making sure that through the Bilateral Security Agreement we make sure that such violations are not repeated.

Q2. Not specified: As you had serious discussion during the past two days with your US counterpart Mr President, can you assure the Afghan people that after this agreement is signed, the United States will not conduct operations by themselves and they will consider Afghan people’s sovereignty? How did you come up with the definition of sovereignty? How do you define insurgency? The Russian Foreign Minister stated that some specific terrorist group received training in Afghanistan, in terms of using chemical weapons. What do you think? What’s your position on this?

A2. PRESIDENT KARZAI: We have been discussing security and sovereignty with our NATO and ISAF counterparts for many years. Civilian causalities in Afghanistan is one of the top priorities of the Afghan Government. I can tell you that we have received some written guarantees from the Unites States about the definition of invasion or attack. And we will, later on, share this with our media. If the Unites States want to be partner with us, this partnership must completely guarantee sovereignty and security of Afghanistan. Any training in the use chemical weapons is against Afghanistan, and against our well-being. The Afghan Government will take action against this, and we will also have some questions for our allies who are here with us so that we can find answers for these concerns.

NATO Watch comment

As the New York Times states, the issue of legal jurisdiction, or immunity from prosecution under Afghan law for American troops who remain in Afghanistan after 2014, is “a deal-breaking issue for the United States”. The Iraqi government’s refusal to grant the same immunity was what forced the American troop withdrawal two years ago. While these latest talks are to be welcomed and the mood music certainly seems to have improved, American officials carefully avoided saying they had secured a deal.

And it is, as yet, unclear just how any security guarantee for Afghanistan’s sovereignty can be achieved without the Unites States being willing to conduct counterterrorism activities over the border into Pakistan – as President Karzai expects and President Obama has rejected. His other expectations about counterterrorist activities inside Afghanistan, so firmly and confidently stated, will need further clarification and practical reinforcement if they are to gain widespread acceptance. We await, with interest, the President’s commitment to share the written guarantees from the Unites States “with our media”.

It does seem that the Unites States, seemingly carefully guided by some sensitive diplomacy in the State Department, has made significant compromises which have been warmly acknowledged by President Karzai. It remains to be seen if everything that has been discussed and provisionally agreed comes to fruition in reality after further domestic scrutiny in both countries. And then ‘the deal-breaking’ issue will decide if a Bilateral Security Agreement, which John Kerry considers “vital to both Americans and to Afghans” is to be signed, or not.