NATO forces are pulling out of Afghanistan as decided but promises of providing security for Afghans have not been met.
Defence of national and territorial sovereignty was assured under the US-Afghan strategic treaty.
Defence of national and territorial sovereignty was assured under the US-Afghan strategic treaty. There is still a question mark over the details of the military pact between the two countries that will ensure long-term US security support for Afghan forces.
The ambiguity has understandably affected public morale.The ripples of uncertainty have also triggered concern in parts of central Asia and beyond. Neighbouring Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have expressed concern while Russia has repeatedly cautioned against NATO’s plans to exit without guaranteeing security in Afghanistan.
Russian Federation Security Council Secretary General Nikolai Patrushev has been quoted saying, “ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) has announced its exit. They started their mission in the beginning with the approval of the UN Security Council. Now they should present a report giving information about their future plans and programmes (in Afghanistan).”
Patrushev said Moscow does not know how many foreign soldiers are leaving and how many would stay and for how long.
Meanwhile, the Hamid Karzai government remains optimistic about the future. It has dismissed fears about political, economic and social crisis after the pullout, which will be completed by next year, as “western (media) propaganda”.
Mohiuddin Mehdi, Member of Parliament (MP) from Baghlan, is far from optimistic. “The security situation would be much worse after 2014. I am not optimistic about future after the exit of international forces,” he told Killid.
Shared concerns
Chief editor of Eqtedar-e-Millie Mohammad Ali Rezwani says the concern is not just Afghanistan’s. “I think the concern is a joint concern. The Afghan people as well as the neighboring countries are concerned about whether Afghan security forces have the ability and capacity to defend the country, and provide stability. Are the Afghan police equipped and trained enough to perform their responsibility? Has the security situation improved? Will the pressure on armed opponents decrease from the military point of view when the external forces leave? These are unanswered questions, and a concern for Afghans and the region. These questions must be answered. Unfortunately NATO and the US have not responded to the questions yet,” Rezwani says.
NATO officials have chosen to respond only in very general terms. They have promised again and again that Afghanistan will not be left alone.
On Aug 13, Christopher Chambers, NATO’s Senior Civilian Representative, described the relationship between Afghanistan and NATO as beyond the security pact between Washington and Kabul.
ISAF spokesperson BG Heinz Feldmann last week promised the international community would safeguard the achievements of the past 12 years. “We want to make sure that our achievements of the past decade would remain visible (after the departure of foreign troops),” he told a press conference.
Just how this will be achieved may be clearer once the details of the US-Afghan security agreement are decided. There will be a permanent military presence for training Afghan security forces. The US has not responded to Karzai’s preconditions for signing. He has sought a guarantee of security, comprehensive development of the country, and support for a strong government and powerful military.
Uncertainties grow
Hopes for a secure future hang on along-term security pact with the US. Sayed Eshaq Gailani, MP from Paktika, and member of the international relations panel in Parliament, says: “As the Afghan National Security Forces have not got the ability to counter al-Qaeda and armed opponents of the government, I see the pact as necessary and should be signed.”
There will be no security deal with the US unless the two sides reach an agreement on an Afghan condition that if US troops remain they must be answerable to Afghan law. US officials insist US troops must be protected from prosecution with a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA).
Ahmad Behzad MP from Herat,calls for adept diplomacy to ensure “national interests are not trampled”. “It is natural in international relations that expectations and demands seem unreasonable to the other side. We should negotiate a pact wisely,” he advises.
The deadlocked talks with the Taleban are another concern. Multiple efforts to get the Taleban to the peace table have failed to produce any result.
Wahid Muzhda, political commentator, says each time it is the Taleban who decide who, when and where they will talk peace. In 2010 Qatar was chosen since it fulfilled the Taleban’s various pre-conditions. Both Turkey and Saudi Arabia failed at least one of the conditions, says Muzhda.
Talks in Qatar have broken down for the second time. In June, the Taleban had opened an embassy in Doha, flying their flag and a sign that identified the group as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, angering Karzai. Peace talks involving the US that were to follow the opening of what should have been a political office never got off the ground.
As the clock ticks the uncertainties continue to pile up in Afghanistan. In the absence of guarantees of peace and security the planned exit by NATO in 2014 is a serious worry.
