Afghan Parliament Lately Regrets BSA Approval

 

With the expansion of unprecedented instabilities in Afghanistan, some members of the upper and lower houses have demanded a review or even abrogation of the Bilateral Security Agreement with the US. President Ashraf Ghani had signed the controversial BSA on the second day of his first term, early in October, 2014. However, now, members of the two houses argue that BSA has not benefited Afghanistan and the country has been further become more unsecured after the signing of BSA. 

Before the approval of BSA, Center for Strategic and Regional Studies (CSRS) has invited a number of legal experts to assess all the sides of the agreement. The discussions continued for weeks. The conclusion of the debate was:  BSA just fuels the ongoing conflict between the Afghan government and the Taliban, but, moreover, will more motivate the armed opposition. The analysis proposed to Afghan government to first resolve the conflict with its armed opposition before signing BSA. Unfortunately, neither the president and nor the parliament has paid any attentions to the recommendations recommended by CSRS.

 

The Afghan representative’s Report on Negotiations with the US

The draft of the agreement was finalized during Hamid Karzai’s tenure. It was just ready for the approval of the president. But, at the times, Eklil Ahmad Hakimi, the head of Afghan negotiating team with the US, wrote to Afghan president in his report that the agreement does not meet the strategic military needs of Afghanistan as a sovereign nation.

Hakimi wrote in his report is that what he understands from the negotiations with the US regarding BSA is that the United States is not ready for giving any binding commitment or security guarantees. The approval of the agreement is a timely guarantee not a binding one.

The report maintains that the agreement defines US military presence after 2014 in Afghanistan. Actually, “Status of Forces Agreement” (SOFA) has been signed with 122 countries by the US. Therefore, US party cannot make any edition/deduction to the agreement in technical sections.

The Afghan side of the negotiations writes, that the agreement belongs to executive branch of US government, therefore, US party refrains acceptance of any commitment which will require congress’s approval.

In part of assistance to Afghan forces the agreement says:

US cannot add any explicit commitment regarding the financial support of the Afghan security forces into the text of the agreement.

 

Hamid Karzai and BSA

Though supporters of Hamid Karzai alleges that he came to know the problems of BSA on time and refused to sign it, but the realities are otherwise.

The report of Afghan party was dispatched to Karzai long before the Loya Jirga (grand gathering), in spite of the Hakimi’s critical view regarding BSA, Karzai invited Loya Jirga, and where stanch supporters of the US policy were gathered. The Jirga approved the text and even there was a minor criticism not possible with it. The managers of the Jirga were the stanch supporters of the US.

If Karzai was really against the BSA signature, he would have not invited a Jirga with such participants on the basis of whom US claims that a great majority of Afghan people supported BSA. In the preamble of the agreement it has been argued.

Therefore, Karzai’s opposition to BSA can be termed as artificial. The same Jirga then became the pretext for signing BSA to Ashraf Ghani.

 

Parliament and BSA

After the signature of BSA by Afghan government’s representatives and US ambassador in Kabul, the Afghan parliament approved it along with the contract with the NATO (SOFA). Parliament approved it against the usual rules, on Sunday. Usually, the general meetings of parliament are convened on Mondays and Wednesdays.

One of the main reasons posed by the US supporters for approving BSA was that Afghanistan needs a powerful strategic partner to confront neighbor’s interventions. US ambassador in Kabul, on the other hand, said that BSA is not being signed with the purpose to defend Afghanistan’s borders against foreign interventions.

Though it was said that the agreement would be signed by the two presidents of the two countries, it was very clear from the beginning that the US does want an agreement with Afghanistan at such level. Signing the agreement by the American ambassador means that the US tried to minimize its moral commitments at the lowest level.   

 

 

Reinforcement of Afghan Forces

Another hope for signing BSA was that the US government will reinforce the Afghan security forces, and they will be equipped with heavy artillery, but another story discloses that the US has not strong intentions to support Afghan Security Forces.

Special Inspector General for Afghanistan or SIGAR expressed that US forces dismantled sixteen out of twentieth aircrafts, which were bought down by the US from Italy. The four remaining will face the same fate sooner. The price of the air crafts was around $400million. It has been said that the aircrafts were too old to be use, anymore.

US have not added any clear financial commitment in this regard.

 

Conclusion

Every treaty is a legal document. In case of any confusion both the parties are referred to. Therefore, the text should be very explicit and transparent to avoid any misleading interpretations. In case of any ambiguity, both the parties can interpret the provisions as accordance to its benefits. 

The terms of “making efforts”, “both the parties work to” and “trying to” are available in the agreement. Only one point is explained here:

The parties recognize that ANDSF are responsible for securing the people and territory of Afghanistan. The parties shall work to enhance ANDSF’s ability to deter and respond to internal and external threats. Upon Afghan requests, the United States shall urgently support ANDSF in order to respond to the threats which are pointed towards Afghanistan’s security.

In this article the term “working” and “responding to any external threat” can have different meanings. And “support” is, too, with the US preparedness condition. Such conditions cannot make the US binding. Therefore, the US has not accepted any binding, which is to be demanded from Afghan parliament.