Last week’s summit between President Obama and President Karzai addressed few of the points that dominated the speculation of commentators in the weeks leading up to the meeting. But in fact, it might end up being one of the more important summits, for Afghans and Americans alike.

Normally such summits are painstakingly prepared by aides, who negotiate agreements over months. The presidents then sign in ceremonial fashion. There is usually very little suspense by the time the summits take place. In this case, instead of leaks from negotiators, speculation was rife over what the visit was about -- troop numbers after 2014, the pace of the pre-2014 drawdown, a Karzai wish list for F-16s and advanced tanks. The Joint Statement that resulted addressed none of these issues directly, and a summit that began with great suspense seemed to end in anti-climax, judging by most of the commentary afterwards.

But look again. The underlying theme of the summit was Afghan sovereignty. That might sound like wishful thinking. But this has been a genuine concern for Karzai, not only for the dignity of Afghans chafing at years of NATO  military practices like night raids, however justified some might have been, but also for his own feelings of helplessness as a leader who couldn’t stop them. For Obama, Afghan sovereignty is a positive rationale for the departure of most American troops by the end of 2014, and it’s not altogether disingenuous after 11 years of war.

The emphasis on sovereignty was reflected in the many times that both presidents referred to the term during their joint news conference, as well as language such as “self-reliance” and “self-sufficiency” in the official Joint Statement. Karzai’s formulation during the press conference was particularly interesting: “I am going back to Afghanistan this evening to bring to the Afghan people the news of Afghanistan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with America as a sovereign, independent country, but in cooperation and in partnership.”

President Obama also focused  at the beginning of his remarks on Afghan security forces now leading 80 percent of combat operations and that, in February, they will “have the lead in securing nearly 90 percent of the Afghan population.”

The concept of sovereignty also was reflected in the decision that, in the words of the Joint Statement, “the Presidents committed to placing Afghan detainees under the sovereignty and control of Afghanistan.”

Sovereignty was further reflected in how Karzai spoke about allowing immunity for the U.S. troops who will operate in Afghanistan beyond 2014. The U.S. is insisting that, as is the case anywhere that American forces are stationed, they be immune from prosecution under local laws. Karzai has been resisting immunity, though he knows well that it is a definite red line for the U.S. 

After meeting with Obama, however, Karzai said, “I can go to the Afghan people and argue for immunity for U.S. troops in Afghanistan in a way that Afghan sovereignty will not be compromised.” Essentially, he seemed to say that, while allowing immunity might appear in some circles to be a breach of sovereignty, it would be acceptable if the Afghan people agreed and under conditions that limit the American military’s permission for invasive actions that violate the dignity of innocent Afghan citizens.

In making his case, Karzai referred to last year’s Loya Jirga, saying , “The Afghan people have given their approval to this relationship and they value it as one that’s good for Afghanistan.” This is not exactly how politics happens in Afghanistan --  the head of state consulting closely with a representative assembly on issues of great national importance, and persuading them of what they think the right course should be. But it reinforces the signal that he wanted to send: that the people of Afghanistan as guardians of its sovereignty have accepted this long-term relationship, and that it was not something the U.S. should have taken for granted.

Above all, the sovereignty question was reflected in what was perhaps the summit’s only surprise: the specific acceleration of the end of the U.S. combat role to this spring. As the Joint Statement put it, starting this spring, “most unilateral U.S. combat operations should end, with U.S. forces pulling back their patrols from Afghan villages.” The references in the press conference to the end of a U.S. presence in “Afghan villages” is the key to decoding the summit.

 Karzai’s greatest frustration as a leader of Afghans has been his inability to end airstrikes and house raids. A former United Nations representative in Afghanistan, Kai Eide (for whom I worked),  described in his book, Power Struggle over Afghanistan, how delegations from Afghan “villages” brought Karzai reports of children killed and women humiliated by the actions of international forces, and how those pleas affected the President in a deeply emotional way.

Such reports also are the most vivid and painful reminders that on the issues most important to Karzai, he is powerless. Last week, Karzai seems to have obtained assurances that these practices will cease in the very near future. For Karzai, this is a major achievement, an end to a long-standing frustration, and perhaps the first building block of how he sees his legacy.

Karzai referred to his legacy during the news conference, answering a question about whether he was “completely committed to stepping down as President after the elections next year.”

 “On elections, for me, the greatest of my achievements eventually seen by the Afghan people will be a proper, well-organized, interference-free election in which the Afghan people can elect their next president,” Karzai said. “Certainly I would be a retired president, and very happy.”

Many Afghans are skeptical that he means it, but by making the pledge repeatedly and publicly , he places any positive legacy at serious risk if he does not follow through. Karzai also said, “Our friends in the international community, in particular the United States, will be assisting in conducting those elections.” That reversed his previous reluctance to allow international assistance in organizing the balloting.

Last week’s summit may mark the outlines of a bargain both grand and subtle. Karzai secures for Afghanistan its sovereignty. The U.S. assures Afghanistan of a long-term relationship. Karzai accepts that the consolidation of the new Afghanistan requires his stepping down in 2014 and a democratic transfer of power, which he will accept under the condition of sovereignty.

This is not a bad outcome. Karzai’s belief that international military tactics were the source of instability rather than its solution instead might have fed Obama’s apparent desire to bring troops home as quickly as possible under whatever veneer of “success” that could be plausibly claimed. Such a superficial meeting of the minds could have been disastrous.

The agreement that resulted seems to be more sophisticated. Karzai  might have been alluding to this in an otherwise whimsical and substance-free speech at Georgetown University before  returning to Kabul. He told the audience that it was the second time he had spoken at Georgetown.

“The first time was many years ago, when I was very popular in the U.S.,” Karzai said, generating laughter. “The second time is a more real time,” he said, adding later that the once “emotional” relationship had “matured.”

I think there was more to the meeting of the presidents than met the eye. It might signal the most decisive step yet towards a relationship between Afghanistan and the U.S. that is based on mutual sovereignty, not on faulty perceptions by Afghans that Americans are just occupiers or by Americans that our security depends on controlling Afghanistan.

What do you think – is this on target or too optimistic a read on the results?

Scott Smith is USIP’s deputy director for Afghanistan programs.

Comments: