Prognosis on the future is still a series of questions in Afghan minds. Will the security situation hold after NATO withdrawal? How will the country benefit from a US security agreement that guarantees the presence of military bases?
Prognosis on the future is still a series of questions in Afghan minds. Will the security situation hold after NATO withdrawal? How will the country benefit from a US security agreement that guarantees the presence of military bases? Does holding or not holding presidential election threaten the transfer of political power? Who is the final arbiter of what is good for Afghanistan – Parliament or a Loya Jirga?There is consensus between the government and opposition on the long-term security pact with the US. Both sides have no doubt the agreement must be in Afghanistan’s interest.
Kabul and Washington have been bargaining hard at pact talks that opened last December but ground to a halt over US attempts to open peace talks with the Taleban in Qatar. A day after a political office for the Taleban was officially opened in the presence of Taleban representatives and Qatari officials, Karzai pulled out of talks on July 19 in anger over the sidelining of his government in Doha.
The US would have to deliver on promises if Karzai is to return to the talks.
Sayed Abdul Qayum Sajjadi, a member of the parliamentary international relations commission says, “For both countries the military pact is a serious aim. Both are applying pressure and bargaining. There is no doubt that America has other goals and was sending a clear message to Karzai through establishing a Taleban office under the name of Islamic Emirate that America hasother alternatives instead of Karzai’s government. But Karzai is not ready to compromise with US.”
Zero option
Washington has turned on the pressure to get Kabul to conclude an agreement. US media are reporting the Barack Obama administration, which has decided to speed up the exit of US troops, may be looking at not leaving a single US soldier in Afghanistan after 2014 because of differences with the Afghan president. The Tokyo-based online current affairs magazine for the Asia-Pacific, The Diplomat, reported the US would keep only 12 advisers in the country. But not maintaining a military presence in Afghanistan was not what Washington wants, the magazine believes.
Faizullah Jalal, political analyst and lecturer in Kabul University, observes it is “clear” the Taleban, al Qaeda and other insurgent groups are active and “the exit of international forces would pave the way for the return of Taleban to power, which is not acceptable to Afghanistan. America is using (the situation) to pressure Kabul.”
Afghan parliamentarians are seeking firm commitments from the US on its policy in Afghanistan. Khaleqdad Balaghi, a member of the National Assembly, called US policy on Afghanistan “two-fold”. “One day it announces that it would leave some of its forces in Afghanistan beside Afghan forces after 2014. Another day it says American forces would be zero by 2014,” he said.
Opposition parties are worried that a bilateral security pact agreed to by the government may be used by Karzai to retain power after the end of his presidential term. Polls to elect a new president are scheduled for early next year.
Opposition’s stand
Sardar Rahimi, a political analyst and memberof the National Front, thinks the president is “trying to pave the way by bringing up the twin issues of a security pact and the peace process in order to get international backing for an election that the president would have an open hand in influencing”. The implementation of the security pact and restarting of peace talks should not be considerations in the polls. The elections should be “just and transparent … (so) that we can take necessary and proper decisions on security pact and peace talks,” Rahimi said.
This position was endorsed at a meeting last week of the Coordination Council of Political Parties and Coalitions.There was criticism of Karzai’s call for a Loya Jirga to decide on the twin issues of a security pact with the US and the upcoming presidential election. The meeting decided issues such as these were beyond the ambit of a Loya Jirga. Also, the holding of a grand assembly of tribal elders was anti-Constutitutional, the meeting reiterated. Was the president calling a Loya Jirga to get votes to extend his power, the coalition of opposition parties wondered?
According to article 90 of the Constitution, final approval for international agreements and pacts can only come from the National Assembly.
The government’s representatives in the National Assembly have also publicly stated their disapproval of the government’s efforts to hold a Loya Jirga.
Shukria Barakzai, a Member of Parliament (MP) said, “Whenever the president thinks there is need for more consultation on serious national issues like the security pact with the US, he can open doors of consultation with the National Assembly. By this he can get votes of people who have voted in members of National Assembly.”
Mirwais Yasini, the first deputy speaker of the Lower House of Parliament, warned that the Loya Jirga track was a challenge to the authority of parliament.
Aimal Faizi, the president’s spokesperson, defended the government’s stand. “It was Afghan tradition to get the assent of representatives and elders of people,” he said.
