KABUL —Efforts by the United State and Afghanistan to finalize a long-term security arrangement appeared on the brink of collapse Monday as Afghan President Hamid Karzai made a new set of demands, and the Obama administration said it would be forced to begin planning for a complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces at the end of 2014.
In a two-hour meeting here, Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s top national security adviser, told Karzai that if he failed to sign the bilateral security agreement by the end of this year, the United States would have “no choice” but withdrawal, according to a statement by the National Security Council in Washington.
Jellyfish, Bangkok street rallies, Paris comics expo, comet ISON and more.
Latest stories from Foreign
Nick Miroff
Supporters of leftist candidate Xiomara Castro are urged to “take to the streets.”
Loveday Morris
The goal of the talks is to establish a transitional government in Syria. Assad’s role remains unclear.
Tim Craig and Karen DeYoung
Karzai tells the U.S. national security adviser he needs more concessions to allow U.S. troops to remain.
William Booth and Scott Wilson
Israel and many U.S. lawmakers are worried that the interim deal with Iran does not dismantle nuclear program.
Tim Craig
The United States wants Karzai to sign the troop agreement by the end of the year. So far, he refuses.
Karzai told Rice that he would sign only after the United States helps his government begin peace talks with the Taliban, and agrees to release all 17 Afghan citizens being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, according to Afghan and U.S. officials.
In addition to those new demands, the Afghan leader also reiterated that he will not sign if “another [U.S.] soldier steps foot into an Afghan home,” Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi said. The United States has already promised to show “restraint” in so-called “home entries” by U.S. troops and to carry them out only in conjunction with Afghan troops, but the tactic remains a principal part of U.S. operations against insurgents here.
If Rice’s unannounced visit to Afghanistan, her first solo trip abroad in office, was designed to convince Karzai that the Obama administration was not bluffing about a complete withdrawal, it did not appear to work. Instead, Karzai doubled down on the position he staked out last Thursday, when he shocked both U.S. officials and an called to approve the deal by saying that he would not sign it until his growing list of demands was met.
The agreement, completed last week after year-long negotiations, outlines the conditions for a follow-on presence of U.S. troops to train and advise the Afghan military, and conduct counter terrorism operations, after the Americans and their NATO partners withdraw all combat troops by the end of next year. The administration has it must be signed before the end of this year if U.S. and NATO planning for post-2014 deployments are to be completed.
On Sunday — despite endorsement of the deal by the assembly, called a loya jirga — Karzai repeated his refusal to sign until after presidential elections here in April. U.S. officials have said they believed Karzai himself was bluffing, and jockeying for position as the election approaches.
But “the president said, ‘Madame Rice, the ball is in your court,’” Faizi said. “The president said, ‘if you are under the impression the [agreement] will be signed without a peace process, and without a total ban on raids of Afghan homes, this is a serious miscalculation.’”
Although written in far more diplomatic language, the NSC statement was equally tough, saying that Rice “stressed that we have concluded negotiations and that deferring the sitnature of the agreement until after next year’s elections is not viable” and that she “reiterated that, without a prompt signature, the U.S. would have no choice but to initial planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.”
In a two-hour meeting here, Susan E. Rice, President Obama’s top national security adviser, told Karzai that if he failed to sign the bilateral security agreement by the end of this year, the United States would have “no choice” but withdrawal, according to a statement by the National Security Council in Washington.
Jellyfish, Bangkok street rallies, Paris comics expo, comet ISON and more.
Latest stories from Foreign
Nick Miroff Supporters of leftist candidate Xiomara Castro are urged to “take to the streets.”
Loveday Morris The goal of the talks is to establish a transitional government in Syria. Assad’s role remains unclear.
Tim Craig and Karen DeYoung Karzai tells the U.S. national security adviser he needs more concessions to allow U.S. troops to remain.
William Booth and Scott Wilson
Israel and many U.S. lawmakers are worried that the interim deal with Iran does not dismantle nuclear program.
Tim Craig The United States wants Karzai to sign the troop agreement by the end of the year. So far, he refuses.
Karzai told Rice that he would sign only after the United States helps his government begin peace talks with the Taliban, and agrees to release all 17 Afghan citizens being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, according to Afghan and U.S. officials.
In addition to those new demands, the Afghan leader also reiterated that he will not sign if “another [U.S.] soldier steps foot into an Afghan home,” Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi said. The United States has already promised to show “restraint” in so-called “home entries” by U.S. troops and to carry them out only in conjunction with Afghan troops, but the tactic remains a principal part of U.S. operations against insurgents here.
If Rice’s unannounced visit to Afghanistan, her first solo trip abroad in office, was designed to convince Karzai that the Obama administration was not bluffing about a complete withdrawal, it did not appear to work. Instead, Karzai doubled down on the position he staked out last Thursday, when he shocked both U.S. officials and an called to approve the deal by saying that he would not sign it until his growing list of demands was met.
The agreement, completed last week after year-long negotiations, outlines the conditions for a follow-on presence of U.S. troops to train and advise the Afghan military, and conduct counter terrorism operations, after the Americans and their NATO partners withdraw all combat troops by the end of next year. The administration has it must be signed before the end of this year if U.S. and NATO planning for post-2014 deployments are to be completed.
On Sunday — despite endorsement of the deal by the assembly, called a loya jirga — Karzai repeated his refusal to sign until after presidential elections here in April. U.S. officials have said they believed Karzai himself was bluffing, and jockeying for position as the election approaches.
But “the president said, ‘Madame Rice, the ball is in your court,’” Faizi said. “The president said, ‘if you are under the impression the [agreement] will be signed without a peace process, and without a total ban on raids of Afghan homes, this is a serious miscalculation.’”
Although written in far more diplomatic language, the NSC statement was equally tough, saying that Rice “stressed that we have concluded negotiations and that deferring the sitnature of the agreement until after next year’s elections is not viable” and that she “reiterated that, without a prompt signature, the U.S. would have no choice but to initial planning for a post-2014 future in which there would be no U.S. or NATO troop presence in Afghanistan.”