|
A spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Kabul declined to comment on the demand. "We're not going to comment on ongoing negotiations," Gavin Sundwall said. U.S. officials have said previously that they expect the document to address economic and development support for Afghanistan but it is unclear if the American negotiators would have the legal authority to make a specific financial commitment. Much of the contention over the strategic partnership deal with the U.S. appears to come from two very different opinions from the two governments about what the goals of the document should be. U.S. officials involved in the negotiations have said that it is not meant to set forth exact rules, but to establish a framework between the two countries to continue to work together for years to come. The Afghan government, meanwhile, has repeatedly demanded concrete commitments and rules for U.S. forces. It sees the document as necessary to establish Afghan sovereignty after years of letting policy be set by the international allies who bankroll the government. If the strategic partnership is not signed by the NATO summit on May 20-21, it would not necessarily derail negotiations, but it would strike another blow to a U.S.-Afghan alliance that has been on edge for much of this year.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor