KABUL, Afghanistan — Senior American and Afghan officials held talks on Saturday to try ironing out the details of a key pact signed a year ago that defines the future of the United States' commitment to Afghanistan.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement outlines a set of principles and general commitments for relations between Washington and Kabul after 2014, when foreign combat troops are to withdraw from Afghanistan. But there is lingering uncertainty over whether either party would be willing or able to adhere to the provisions of the pact, which includes several loopholes for both nations.
The meeting in Kabul between U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rasoul is the second round of negotiations over how to implement the agreement, signed last May by President Obama and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai.
The deal spells out the United States' commitment to Afghanistan over the next 10 years as well as its expectations of the nation — including free and fair presidential elections in 2014; pledges to fight corruption; improve efficiency; and protection of human rights, including those for women.
Sticking points might include the amount of funds that the United States provides to Afghan security forces. The two countries are squabbling over a separate agreement that would protect from prosecution a residual force of as many as 10,000 U.S. troops who would stay behind after the final withdrawal.
The deal allows either country to opt out with a one year's notice, which could result in Karzai's successor in next year's presidential elections scuttling the agreement.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.