Key Points In US
Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement
At long last, Kabul and Washington have signed a Bilateral Security
Agreement (BSA) under which some 10,000 U.S. troops can remain in Afghanistan
after the international combat mission ends on December 31.Here are five things
to know about the accord signed on September 30.
How many U.S. troops will
stay, and how long?
The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and
remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is
terminated by either side with two years' notice.
The document itself does
not establish how many U.S. troops can be in Afghanistan during that time. But
U.S. President Barack Obama announced in May that there would be only 9,800
soldiers after December 31. He also said that number would decrease rapidly by
being halved at the end of 2105 and reduced to only a vestigial force by end of
2016.
The Associated Press has reported that Washington's plan
calls for fewer than 1,000 soldiers to remain after 2016 to staff a security
office in Kabul advising the Afghan army.
The U.S. troops will not
be the only foreign troops staying in Afghanistan.
Kabul signed a similar
agreement with NATO on September 30 to allow 4,000 to 5,000 additional troops
-- mostly from Britain, Germany, Italy, and Turkey -- to stay in Afghanistan in
a noncombat role after 2014.
That means the total
number of foreign soldiers immediately remaining in the county could be up to
14,800.
Why are the U.S. soldiers
staying?
The U.S. forces' mission
under the BSA is to "enhance the ability of Afghanistan to deter internal
and external threats against its sovereignty."
That includes
"advising, training, equipping and sustaining" Afghanistan's National
Defense and Security Forces, which are those under the ministries of Defense
and Interior, and "as appropriate," those of the National Security
Directorate, which is a special counterterrorism office.
Importantly, however, the
BSA says that "unless otherwise mutually agreed, United States forces
shall not conduct combat operations in Afghanistan." Instead, the emphasis
is upon supporting the Afghan forces, sharing of intelligence, and strengthening
Afghanistan's air force capabilities.
Similarly, the new NATO
mission, which is led by the United States, will focus on training and support
for the Afghan army and police, not on combat.
What about earlier
sticking points regarding the BSA?
Former Afghan President
Hamid Karzai refused to
sign the BSA in part because he wanted it to ban U.S. soldiers from entering
Afghan homes in future counterterrorism operations. That was in line with his
frequently blaming of U.S. forces for Afghan civilian deaths in military
operations.
However, a special loya
jirga (traditional grand assembly) convened by Karzai in November to review the
draft of the BSA found its language regarding soldiers entering homes
acceptable and recommended the president accept it.
That language -- repeated in the text signed September 30 -- commits U.S. forces to having "full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes."
That language -- repeated in the text signed September 30 -- commits U.S. forces to having "full regard for the safety and security of the Afghan people, including in their homes."
It also stresses that
"U.S. military counterterrorism operations are intended to complement and
support" those of the Afghan government, meaning Afghan forces should take
the lead in operations that could include entry into homes.
Another sticking point had
been whether U.S. forces remaining in Afghanistan would be immune from Afghan
law, as they have been since entering the country in 2001.
The BSA addresses this
question directly, saying Kabul "agrees that the United States shall have
the exclusive right to exercise jurisdiction" over U.S. soldiers who
commit "any criminal or civil offenses" in Afghanistan.
Washington commits only to
keeping Kabul informed "if requested" of the progress of U.S. criminal
proceedings against soldiers accused of crimes and to making efforts so that
representatives of Afghanistan can attend or observe the proceedings in U.S.
military courts.
However, the BSA does give
Afghanistan jurisdiction over "United States contractors and United States
contractor employees."
If Kabul had not agreed to
immunity for U.S. soldiers, Washington would almost certainly have refused to
sign the BSA. Iraq's refusal to give U.S. soldiers immunity helped to scuttle
plans to leave a U.S. military-training presence in that country beyond 2011.
Will America Defend
Afghanistan Against Third Countries?
The BSA is not a defense
pact which would commit the United States to defending Afghanistan if it were
attacked by another state. But the text does say Washington "shall regard
with grave concern any external aggression or threat of external
aggression."
It also says that in the
case of external aggression, Washington and Kabul would work together to
develop "an appropriate response," including considering political,
military, and economic measures.
Will the United States
Maintain Military Bases In Afghanistan?
The BSA authorizes U.S.
forces to maintain existing facilities and undertake new constructions so long
as they are agreed upon by both sides.
That clause in the BSA is
likely to be closely read by Iran, which accuses Washington of seeking to
create a permanent presence in the region under the guise of fighting
terrorism. Iran's state-run Press TV said
in a commentary on its website September 30 that "Germany and Japan
provide excellent examples of how the number of American bases mushroomed in
these countries under the pretext of fighting the Cold War."
The United States has
repeatedly said it does not seek permanent bases in Afghanistan, despite claims by Karzai in May last year that Washington
wanted nine bases and that he would not accept it.
"We seek no permanent
bases," then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters the day
after Karzai's remarks. "Any continued presence of U.S. forces in
Afghanistan beyond 2014 would be subject to an agreement between the
Afghanistan government and the U.S. government, and would only be at the
request of the Afghanistan government."
No comments:
Post a Comment