US commits to Afghan security in new pact: Official
"That is a very important aspect of this relationship," Jawed Ludin said in response to a question about US military commitment in a draft strategic partnership pact agreed on Sunday.
But the agreement should not be seen by neighbouring countries as a threat to their own security and would be "a force for good for the whole region", Ludin told a group of foreign journalists.
"We have made it very clear in this document that this can't be used against a third country and this will not affect the security of Afghanistan's neighbours," he said.
The full text of the document, which still has to be signed by US President Barack Obama and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai, has not been released and a US embassy spokesman said Tuesday details would not be discussed before it was final.
Afghanistan holds a strategic position in the region, neighbouring Iran, Pakistan and China as well as three former Soviet states, and Ludin said it wanted to build relations throughout the region.
"We would like to show to this neighbourhood that Afghanistan is a positive - and can be an even more positive - force for peace and stability in this region and they should see (the pact) as such," he said.
"That's our vision, but the nation has had bad experiences - we need guarantees, we need to be able to be strong at the same time."
The problems and challenges in the region, including terrorism, would continue to be present and the pact with the US was the surest way of ensuring Afghanistan's security, he said.
NATO has some 130,000 US-led troops in Afghanistan helping Karzai's government fight a decade-long insurgency by the Taliban who were toppled from power in a 2001 invasion after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.
But they are due to pull out by the end of 2014, and the pact does not cover the crucial issue of the number or status of any US troops remaining in Afghanistan.
That is due to be dealt with in a separate status of forces agreement expected to be signed within a year, Ludin said, adding that it was likely to be the subject of "complex" negotiations.
In Iraq, Washington pulled out all its troops, leaving no residual force, after failing to get Baghdad to grant its soldiers immunity from prosecution in local courts.
COMMENTS (6)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1730884134-0/BeFunky-collage-(26)1730884134-0-270x192.webp "trump plans sweeping tariffs on mexico canada china sparking trade war fears")
1732618327-2/Untitled-design-(7)1732618327-2-270x192.webp "instagram adds live location sharing and nicknames to dms")
@Dr. Jamil Chaudri
You must be self medicating yourself if you are a medical doctor and if you are Ph.d then you have read way too many books written by Pakistanis. Stop deluding yourself. I am an Afghan and believe me there is no bond between Afghans and Pakistanis.
@Dr Jamil Chaudri: my views are diagonally opposite than yours , but thanks for bothering to reply .
@let there be peace:
Foremost you should know that I am a Paki-American. . The explanation of why only Paki commentators are worried about Afghan sovereignty can be explained easily. However, as the explanation is derived from a certain sense of history, let me first give you a brief (very brief) introduction to my understand of it. Neither Pakis nor Afghans recognize the Durand line as a boundary between nations. There is no such thing as an Afghan nation or a Paki nation: Afghan population consists, mostly, of Pakhtoons, Tajiks , Hazaras and Uzbeks; Pakis consists, mostly, of Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Sindhis, and Baluchis. The two countries are the construct of Brutish and Russi colonialisms. . Whatever of the Tajiks the Russians did not conquer was left as Afghanistan; whatever of the Pakhtoons the British did not conquer was left as Afghanistan. The present-day governments in Dushame and in Islamabad are vestiges of colonialism. For both Tajikia and Pakia, Afghania is a redoubt land. This is where many a Paki and many a Tajik sought refuge and succor (freedom) after the British and Russians conquests.
Afghania and Pakia are in fact ONE NATION, under God: the Afghans are simply upland Pakis and the Pakis are Lowland Afghans. Starting with Mahmud of Ghazna, the upland Afghans brought a superior civilization to their Lowland cousins. For 800 years the language of the Paki people was Persian. The Paki people are the most Afghanised people on earth. In terms of faith, in terms of outlook to life, in terms of core values there is no difference between an Afghan and a Paki.I am a Paki-American. Driving over the state line into Indiana one is greeted by the “Welcome” sign which also proclaims: the People of Indiana are Sovereign. You really have to experience the feeling of exultation when you come across it for the first time. Other affirmations of the value placed on Freedom in America can be traced to pre-revolutionary Rattler-Flag with the motto: “Join or Die”; the early Navy Jack with the words: “DON’T TREAD ON ME”; the speech given by Partrick Henry purportedly containing the sentence, “Give me Liberty or give me Death” to the Virginia Convention. . Thus it is my American Experience (also informed by my British and Swiss Experiences) that orients my judgment to the cherishing of sovereignty. I cherish it for myself and I recognize it as God given to the Paki-Afghan peoples: United Islamic Republics.
You ask: why do Pakis desire Sovereignty for the Afghan people? It may be the Paki experience of having lived under the jack-boots of colonialists that they would not like the other half of THEIR NATION (the Afghans) to go through the same shameful and humiliating experience. .
Personally, I believe that people who cherish freedom for themselves but perpetrate violation of the freedom of others, are not true to themselves. . Peace without dignity, peace without honour - SLAVES HAVE THAT.
@Dr Jamil Chaudri: Why is it that only Pakistani commentators are always worried about Afghanistan's 'sovereignty', 'Taliban freedom fighters', and 'occupation' by American and NATO forces; whereas whatever occasional comments from few Afghans I have seen here, they are always telling Pakistan and Taliban to stay away from Afghanistan?
Even if Karzai and his coterie of functionaries in the Foreign Installed Government are willing to sign off Afghan sovereignty, the Afghan sense of self will not die in the general population. Whatever is signed while the land is under occupation and ruled by Foreign Installed capitulation-ists, is not a treaty between SOVERIGN nations; therefore, it will ultimately not be honoured by the Afghan nation. Moreover, non-disclosure of treaty contents until it is signed forebodes trouble in the future. It has to be remembered that in the early 1960s the Shah of Iran lost his legitimacy when he proposed to the Majlis that Foreign Solders be exempt from Iranian Law. And now the Shah is in the Garbage heap of History. I can imagine that 20’000 contractors/mercenaries armed to the teeth, a la Raymond Davis, will be needed to keep the Afghans in their designated reservations.