Security Pact Boosts Hopes in East Afghanistan

Wednesday, 19 November, 2014

The link has been copied

Ezatullah Niazi

Residents of eastern Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province interviewed by IWPR say the defence and security agreement recently signed with the United States has already had a positive effect on their daily lives.

President Mohammad Ashraf Ghani signed the long-delayed Bilateral Security Agreement on September 30, the day after he came into office. The pact allows a limited US contingent to continue training and advising Afghan security forces, as well as to carry out counter-terrorism operations. The agreement comes into effect on January 1, but some Afghans say it has already created a new mood of confidence.

Esmatullah Khogyaniwal, who owns a cement shop in Nangarhar’s Rodat district, said the new president had created fresh hope for the future by signing the pact. Former president Hamed Karzai had consistently delayed ratifying the crucial but controversial agreement.

According to Khogyaniwal, business leaders and investors had resumed work on some major projects. He had already felt a positive impact on the cement trade.

“Business has improved by 20 per cent in comparison with previous months and people are confident that business will improve further after this,” he said.

Shinwari, 47, a labourer in the Majburabad area of the provincial centre Jalalabad, said that he had noticed more jobs becoming available.

“Previously, we had work one or two days a week, but since the security pact was signed, I am working the entire week,” he said.

The pact will allow nearly 10,000 American troops to remain in the country after most NATO forces are withdrawn this year, a number which will be gradually reduced over the next two years. Afghan national security adviser Hanif Atmar and NATO envoy Maurits Jochems also signed a separate agreement on continuing cooperation which will allow small numbers of other international troops to remain in the country.

One of the most controversial parts of the agreement stipulates that US soldiers will not face trial in an Afghan court if they commit any misdemeanours in the country. Instead, they will be under US jurisdiction.

Some Afghans find this clause particularly galling. 

“No matter what crimes the Americans commit in Afghanistan, they will not face trial in Afghanistan,” Sayed Farhad Daulatzai, a resident of Chaparhar district, told IWPR. “It therefore means [continuing] occupation and is contrary to the constitution.”

Nangarhar university lecturer Mangal Sherzad also criticised the immunity granted to American soldiers, arguing that they should be under Afghan jurisdiction if they committed crimes.

“Regarding their presence, I think that the pact should not have been signed at all,” he added.

However, other analysts predict that a US commitment to defence and security in Afghanistan will help create stability in the long term.

University lecturer and political analyst Mohammad Bashir Dodyal argued that the US and NATO would no longer be occupiers, instead helping train and equip the Afghan armed forces.

“Afghans will not accept foreign invaders on their soil at all,” he said. “The difference here is that they have not entered into this agreement as an invading force, nor are we accepting them in that sense. They will cooperate with our system. As long as their forces are here in a supportive role, there will be no reason for concern.”

Eshqullah Yaqub, another analyst and head of the Pashto service at Kabul’s Salam Watandar radio, said that the agreement prioritised training and equipping the Afghan armed forces and deterring external threats against the country. The pact would also facilitate the transfer of more than one billion US dollars of aid annually.

Zabihullah Zmarai, a former parliamentarian and now a member of the Nangarhar provincial council, said Afghan interests would be protected by the bilateral agreement. Support from NATO forces would help bring the Afghan army up to the same level as the militaries of other regional powers, he claimed, adding that the US should step in to prevent periodic cross-border shelling by the Pakistani army.

However, US officials have already made it clear that they view these frontier incidents as a bilateral matter for Kabul and Islamabad to resolve between themselves.

Such regional sensitivities were highlighted by Nangarhar journalist Mohammad Asef Shinwari, who said the Afghan government should have coordinated with its neighbours before agreeing the pact. Alienating them could create many security problems, he warned.

“Before signing the agreement, the Afghan government should have secured the confidence and trust of the neighbouring countries” he said. “They are located in the same region as us, and separating ourselves off from them is no solution.”

But Mohammad Anwar Sultani, a defence expert and retired army colonel, said that a strong national army was Afghanistan’s best defence against regional strife.

“It is the responsibility of America and its allies to train the Afghan forces, to supply them with modern equipment and support them when they need it. As long as this happens, there will be no reason to fear threats from other countries, and national security will be ensured.”

Anything short of this level of support would be a wasted effort, he continued, adding, “It’s therefore necessary for NATO to equip the Afghan air force and air defence as well as [supplying] the army with tanks and armoured vehicles. The agreement states that the Afghan army will be supplied, supported and assisted in times of need.”

Ezatullah Niazi is a student at Nangarhar university and an IWPR-trained reporter.

This report was produced as part of IWPR’s Afghan Critical Mass Media Reporting in Afghanistan programme.