As the transition period is going on in Afghanistan and the withdrawal of international forces are going to be completed in 2014, there are concerns about the capability of Afghan authorities to shoulder the responsibilities of carrying on the security and governance of the country appropriately. This fact is now widely accepted that Afghanistan would require a lot of support even after 2014 from prominent powers in the world.
Strategic agreements with major powers in the world and the regional players will definitely support Afghanistan in this regard. Afghan authorities have already started efforts in this regard. Strategic partnership agreements with India and some of important European countries have already been signed and there have been discussions going on about strategic agreement with the most dominant player in Afghanistan – the US.
The strategic agreement between Afghanistan and US will be a dominant one. The US has already announced the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014 but at the same time has mentioned that it would be supporting Afghanistan in building a country with independent political and economic system so that it would play a dominant role in putting an end to religious extremism and terrorism as terrorism had hit US hard.
Moreover, there are fears that if Afghanistan remains instable militarily, economically and politically, there are great chances that it once again becomes the abode of terrorist networks. The US thinks that the best way to proceed with this support would be a strategic agreement between the two countries, therefore recently there have been discussions going on both in US and Afghanistan among the authorities regarding the agreement and the nature and details of it.
One of the most dominating points that have been bothering the authorities is the permanent US bases in Afghanistan. Some of the authorities in Afghanistan and mostly the authorities of the regional countries have serious concerns about US permanent bases.
The regional countries believe that US can use these permanent bases against them and can also pursue their political aims as long as they remain in their neighborhood. However, last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned in her speech in World Affairs Council 2012 NATO Conference, "By the end of 2014, Afghans will be fully responsible.
In Chicago we will discuss the form that NATO's enduring relationship with Afghanistan will then take… But we do not seek permanent American military bases in Afghanistan or a presence that is considered a threat to the neighbors, which leads to instability that threatens the gains that have been made in Afghanistan." But the regional countries will remain doubtful in that regard before the strategic deal between Afghanistan and US is formally signed.
Countries like Iran and Pakistan do not like the presence of US forces in Afghanistan at all. Iran has been a traditional rival to US. After the Revolution in Iran, there has been a series of bad patches in the relations of both the countries.
Recently, there are serious differences between the two countries about the nuclear program of Iran. Moreover, Iran has always mentioned that permanent bases in Afghanistan would be considered a threat for Iran and Iran has always considered the presence of US in Afghanistan as a pretext for its imperialistic intentions.
Pakistan on other hand has always been of the opinion that US has used and can use the Afghan soil in order to threaten the sovereignty of Pakistan. In addition, US-Pak relations are also going through a tough time. From the unilateral decision of US to hunt Osama in Abbotabad to the bombing of Pakistani military checkpoints by NATO troops, there has been a steep decline in the relations of both the countries and they have been blaming each other for not doing its part against terrorism. Moreover, Pakistan, in accordance to the theory of strategic depth in Afghanistan, would want that it should have a strong hold in Afghan affairs so that it should be in a position to stand rigidly in the region.
Another issue that has been of great importance regarding the agreement is the night raids. The issue has been, to a certain extent settled as a memorandum of understanding (MoU) has been signed between US and Afghanistan regarding Afghanizing the night raids.
The US Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker mentioned on Sunday, April 08, "As President Obama has said, we are making sure this transition is not abrupt, but a path marked by benchmarks and steps that build Afghan capacity… We hope now to conclude our strategic partnership negotiations with the government of Afghanistan ahead of the Chicago NATO summit in May."
There is a definite urgency on the part of US to reach conclusions in the End Game in Afghanistan. For that matter, there has been visible flexibility shown by US. Even the memoranda of understanding for transfer of important detention center to Afghan authorities and Afghanizing the night raids are clear evidence of the flexibility shown by US to sign strategic deal with Afghan government. President Karzai had set these two conditions before signing the strategic deal. However, in the perception of serious minds these two steps are not void of risk.
The strategic agreement between US and Afghanistan will play a very important role in the post 2014 Afghanistan. The US expects that the agreement should be signed before the NATO summit in May. However, the main concern is the preparation for the agreement and true involvement of the representatives of the people of Afghanistan in the process.
Involving the government alone will not suffice; the concerns of the minority groups and civil society members must also be kept in consideration while signing the deal. It is necessary that the important terms of the agreement should be put to debate in the parliament and a sort of consensus has to be achieved before finalizing the deal. So far, such steps have not been taken and Chicago Summit is not very far away. Expecting that the agreement would be signed before the summit seems very much hasty.