-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
AS IT IS 2014-10-01 US Signs Security Agreement with Afghanistan
The United States has welcomed the signing of a Bilateral1 Security Agreement with Afghanistan. US officials are calling the agreement, “an important step in strengthening the strategic partnership2 between the two countries.” The signing comes just three months before U.S. and NATO forces are set to officially end military operations in the country.
The International Security Assistance Force has been active in Afghanistan for 13 years. The force, known as ISAF, resulted from the 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. ISAF operations are supposed to end on December 31st.
Under the new agreement, the United States and NATO are expected to keep a smaller force in Afghanistan. John Podesta is an adviser3 to President Barack Obama. He welcomed the measure’s approval.
“The Bilateral Security Agreement provides the legal framework for the United States to continue to train, advise and assist Afghan national security forces, so terrorists can never use Afghanistan to launch attacks against the U.S. or its allies. The continuation of our security partnership will help Afghanistan preserve its progress in education, health care, human rights and economic opportunity.”
U.S. and Afghan officials opened talks on the security agreement in November of 2012. Their stated goal was to have a treaty ready by May of 2013. But negotiations4 with former President Hamid Karzai proved difficult. He refused to sign the agreement, leaving his replacement5 to do so. Afghanistan’s election process delayed the signing even more.
Arturo Munoz studies South Asian issues for the RAND Corporation, a not-for-profit policy group. He says one issue the negotiators faced was defining the work of the force in future combat operations.
“People were adamant6 for years that it would not have a combat role … that their main mission would be to support the Afghan army, the Afghan armed forces and provide them with additional training, with advice. One big, unresolved question was that this stay-behind force would include a commando element that would continue to do raids against suspected terrorists. For the Afghans, this was hot-button issue – foreign troops breaking down the doors of Afghan homes at night to do raids against suspected terrorists. The accusation7 was that a lot of times the intelligence wasn’t good and they broke into the wrong house.”
He says the solution was to place members of the U.S./NATO force with Afghan security forces. In addition, the Afghan forces are to take the lead in any such operation.
The Obama administration says the new, smaller force will have two goals: training Afghan forces, and carrying out anti-terrorism operations against al-Qaida supporters. Administration officials say the U.S. will reduce its military presence by about half at the end of 2015. By the end of 2016, the military will only guard the U.S. embassy in Kabul, while providing equipment and advice to the Afghans.
The United States is expected to keep about 9,800 members of its armed forces in Afghanistan after 2014. On Monday, State Department official Jen Psaki was asked if a force of this size will be able to successfully help Afghan forces neutralize8 the Taliban.
“There is a training component9 of this that has been ongoing10. And as you know, Afghans have been in the lead, and we are continuing to implement11 that in the months ahead. We are, felt committed and felt so strongly about moving forward, of course, with the conclusion of this political situation, as well as the signing of the BSA, so we could continue to have that partnership. Obviously, it has to be implemented12, and we need to continue to work closely together to achieve a successful outcome.”
Arturo Munoz says the continued presence of NATO and U.S. troops is important for more than just military purposes.
“Not only in terms of the military advise and training, which is their main function, but the fact that they’re there also gives assurance to all the Western donors13 that are contributing money to the Afghan government that there’s going to be stability and that Afghanistan is not going to adapt an anti-Western position, kind of like Iraq did. So the Afghans want to show ‘we’re not Iraq, we’re different’”.
Jonah Blank works for the RAND Corporation. He says the U.S/NATO force remains14 important because of the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban.
“The fact that the U.S. and other partner nations will be present doesn’t suggest that this is going to be an easy fight. This year, the Taliban killed more Afghan soldiers and police than it has in any year since it fell from power, and there are no signs that it is easing up.”
Jonah Blank says the real test for the US/NATO force is whether it can help Afghan security forces keep the country from becoming an ungoverned space again. The Taliban, he says, were bad not just for the international community, but for the Afghan people.
1 bilateral | |
adj.双方的,两边的,两侧的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 partnership | |
n.合作关系,伙伴关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 adviser | |
n.劝告者,顾问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 negotiations | |
协商( negotiation的名词复数 ); 谈判; 完成(难事); 通过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 replacement | |
n.取代,替换,交换;替代品,代用品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 adamant | |
adj.坚硬的,固执的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 accusation | |
n.控告,指责,谴责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 neutralize | |
v.使失效、抵消,使中和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 component | |
n.组成部分,成分,元件;adj.组成的,合成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 ongoing | |
adj.进行中的,前进的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 implement | |
n.(pl.)工具,器具;vt.实行,实施,执行 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 implemented | |
v.实现( implement的过去式和过去分词 );执行;贯彻;使生效 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 donors | |
n.捐赠者( donor的名词复数 );献血者;捐血者;器官捐献者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|