The U.S.-Afghan Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)

[fblike]

The United States invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001 to topple the country’s Taliban-led government, capture Osama bin Laden, and destroy al-Qaeda.  The war has been America’s longest conflict and more than 2,000 American troops have been killed and more than 19,000 have been wounded.  Since the Iraq invasion of 2003, Afghanistan has played second fiddle to the global war on terrorism and the war has largely been ignored by the national media since President Obama assumed office in 2009.  Although President Obama committed more American forces to Afghanistan, which emulated the “surge” strategy used in Iraq in 2007, America’s presence in the country is beginning to wind down.  2014 marks the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) combat mission and the United States is trying to negotiate a bilateral security agreement (BSA) with Afghan President Hamid Karzai that would allow American forces to remain in the country to train Afghan soldiers and continue counterterrorism operations.  However, while Afghan elders have approved of the BSA, President Karzai has said that he will not sign the agreement until after Afghanistan holds presidential elections in April.  He has also issued new conditions that the United States must agree to in order to get him to sign the BSA.  The United States argues that Karzai cannot wait that long to sign the agreement and that if he fails to do so soon they will withdraw all combat forces from the country by the end of the 2014.

This topic brief will discuss the terms of the BSA, Karzai’s objections to the current agreement, and discuss the likelihood of the United States reaching a BSA agreement with Afghanistan by April of next year.

Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.

The Terms of the Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA)

As noted above, the NATO combat mission in Afghanistan ends in 2014.  The United States has been the primary combat player in Afghanistan, with NATO forces playing a supporting role.  The United States and its NATO allies have not always gotten along in Afghanistan, as the United States has supported combat missions against terrorists, while European nations like Germany have favored security arrangements and humanitarian missions.  After 2014, all foreign combat forces are set to leave Afghanistan unless the United States can work out a BSA with the Afghan government.  A BSA would outline the role of American combat forces in Afghanistan, define the scope of their operations, and deal with legal issues concerning their presence.  A BSA would give the United States a legal right to continue its presence in Afghanistan and would not make it an occupying power under international law.

The Economist on November 23rd defines the terms of the present BSA that the United States thought they had already worked out with Hamid Karzai’s government.  The BSA is supposed to last for another ten years, which would commit American troops to Afghanistan through 2014, and would allow the United States to train troops in the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), conduct special operations against al-Qaeda terrorists, commit the United States to defend Afghanistan’s territorial integrity, and would give the United States troops extraterritoriality.  What this means is that American troops, as well as those of any international contingent NATO would keep alongside the Americans, would be subject to their nation’s legal code and not Afghan law.  This last point is a very contentious issue among Afghans because it gives the impression that foreign forces are an occupying force that does not respect national customs and laws.  It also harkens back to the days of British imperialism in Afghanistan.  Extraterritoriality agreements have been the source of outrage in Central Asian and Middle East governments in the past and American troops under the Muhammad Reza Shah in Iran were given extraterritoriality.  Historians note that outrage against American privileges in Iran was one of the contributing factors to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The Los Angeles Times of November 26th explains that Susan Rice, America’s former ambassador to the United States and President’s Obama’s national security advisor, has told Karzai that if a BSA is not signed then the United States will enact what it calls the “zero option.”  This means that the United States will not leave any troops in Afghanistan after 2014.  International experts warn that if the United States and NATO leave Afghanistan that the country will not be able to successfully fight off attacks by al-Qaeda-linked militants and the Taliban and would collapse.  They also warn that billions of dollars in international aid might be cut off to the country because there would not be an international force to secure the distribution of the aid.  If the West leaves Afghanistan it could create another power vacuum which would prolong and potentially escalate the Afghan civil war, which started in 1978 and is still ongoing.  This could create a lawless environment where al-Qaeda could find a new refuge and once against threaten American and Western interests.

The New York Times on December 4th also points out that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has told Afghanistan that if a BSA is not reached between the United States and Afghanistan that it will be difficult to persuade European parliaments to continue to fund the Afghan war and reconstruction.  Europeans have expected Americans to do the heavy lifting in Afghanistan and if the United States were to withdraw all of its forces then the Europeans would not want to remain in the country.  As of right now there are more than 47,000 American troops in Afghanistan, in addition to 27,000 NATO soldiers.  The BSA, as Reuters explains on December 6th, would reduce this presence down to a force to 8,000-12,000 soldiers.  This would be enough to help Afghan forces conduct logistical operations, train new recruits of the ANSF, and pursue Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

Karzai’s Resistance

The United States felt that it had reached an understanding with Karzai over the BSA this year and last month the Afghan loya jirga, which is an assembly of tribal elders and Afghan politicians, approved of the BSA.  Tribal elders and politicians were hesitant to sign the BSA, but President Obama issued a statement of apology for civilian casualties incurred during combat operations and that was enough to persuade them to approve of the accord.  The elders and politicians are also aware that America’s presence is necessary to help them retain their political position in the Afghan government, so they felt that signing the accord was necessary and they urged Karzai to approve it.

However, instead of signing the accord, Karzai has decided to sit on it.  Karzai has said that he will not sign the agreement until after the Afghan presidential elections in April, which the United States says is too late to sign the accord because they need to have a year to plan a withdrawal or sustained series of combat operations in Afghanistan.  The U.S. has also claimed that Karzai’s timeline is too late because if the Afghan presidential election necessitates a runoff then the winner might not be known until summer or fall, at which point is would be too late to negotiate with the new presidential administration.  The New York Times article above notes that President Obama wants to announce whether troops will remain in Afghanistan after 2014 in his State of the Union Address, but if BSA is not signed then he cannot do this.  The South China Morning Post on November 26th explains that Karzai is demanding that the United States not endorse a candidate in the presidential election and he has accused the United States of meddling in the 2009 Afghan election, which was marred by fraud and led to Karzai’s re-election.  Under the Afghan constitution, Karzai cannot stand for another term in office so he might be trying to use the BSA as leverage to get the U.S. to approve of another marred corrupt election process that will produce a handpicked successor.

Karzai has also issued new demands that the United States must comply with in order for him to sign the agreement.  The Guardian of December 1st explains that Karzai has demanded the release of Afghan prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, the end of American military operations in Afghan homes, and has demanded that the United States help him negotiate with the Taliban.  This is not the first time that Karzai has angered the United States.  Chosen by the United States as the country’s post-Taliban leader, Karzai has tried to stake an independent course while in office.  The Guardian on December 4th calls him a “diplomatic pain in the ass” and points out that Karzai has called Taliban insurgents “brothers,” accused the United States of helping the Taliban attack Afghans, and stating that he would side with Pakistan in a U.S.-Pakistani war.  Karzai has also done very little to clean up corruption in the Afghan government and Politico on December 4th writes that Transparency International ranked Afghanistan, North Korea, and Somalia as the most corrupt nations in the world.  Some of this corruption has been due to an influx of American aid into Afghanistan with little oversight, much of which came with the Obama surge.  Elements of this corruption have even weaved their way into the American military as The Washington Post on December 3rd discusses how the military spent $36 million on a 64,000 square foot headquarters in Southwestern Afghanistan that has never been used and which local commanders said that they didn’t even need.  An unfortunate NATO drone strike last month, which killed a two year old child, has also given Karzai ammunition to fire at the United States and NATO and argue that there should be modifications to the BSA.

Karzai’s stance has placed him at odds with the loya jirga, tribal elders, and the middle-class in Kabul (the capital of Afghanistan) because they want the BSA signed to protect the city, their property, and persons from militant attacks.  They also worry that Western aid will evaporate if Karzai does not sign the agreement.  The Guardian of December 2nd points out that the BSA promises Afghanistan $8 billion a year in military and development aid, which would likely be forfeited in the event that the BSA is not signed.  The fact that the Taliban has supported Karzai’s stance on the BSA has only increased the anxieties of these groups.

Will There Be a BSA?

Although Karzai is trying to position himself as an independent leader, he might be playing with fire regarding the BSA and thinking he has more leverage with the United States than he actually does.  President Obama has been committed to the war in Afghanistan, but he is facing attacks from the political left and right over how the war is being waged.  The Washington Times on December 5th relays conservative criticisms of the Afghan campaign, arguing that since Obama took office there have been increasing deaths in Afghan due to strict rules of engagement.  The higher casualties are higher than the rates of the surge and conservatives argue that America’s military is having to fight with one hand tied behind its back in Afghanistan.  President Obama is also facing criticisms on his left flank, as he promised during the 2012 presidential election that he would withdraw U.S. forces, but the BSA would extend America’s presence into 2024.  If President Obama keeps U.S. forces in Afghanistan it may serve as another public relations blunder for the administration, who has struggled during its second term so far over its “red line” gaffe on Syria and its over exaggerated promises about the benefits of the Affordable Care Act and its impact on the private insurance market.  Since the Iraq debacle, America has become a war weary nation and the cost of a continued American presence in Afghanistan is estimated to be over $80 billion.  With corruption permeating Afghan society and, as Reason notes on December 6th, al-Qaeda spinoffs proliferating in Syria, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula, the United States may decide to pull the plug on Karzai if he becomes too belligerent and leave him to his own devices.

Karzai may also be playing a game of diplomatic chicken with the wrong leader.  In 2011, Iraq’s government refused to agree to terms with the United States on a new Status of Forces Agreement.  Iraq refused to give American troops the degree of extraterritoriality that the United States demanded, so President Obama pulled American troops out of the country.  Iraq is now facing rising levels of sectarian violence and The Los Angeles Times of November 26th reveals that Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari visited Afghanistan and urged Karzai to sign the BSA because the Iraqi government wishes American troops were still in Iraq to maintain order.  With Iraq, President Obama showed that he was willing to withdraw American forces because he did not get a deal favorable to American interests.  If Karzai continues to push back his signing of the agreement, a similar fate may await Afghanistan.

Despite these difficulties, it is still more likely than not that the U.S. will agree to a BSA with the Afghan government.  Secretary of State John Kerry has floated the idea that another official in the Afghan government could sign the BSA, but this does not seem to be a likely strategy since Karzai would have to play a role in implementing the agreement.  Karzai may talk tough, but he has very little leverage to use against the United States.  The United States may not want to leave Afghanistan, but as Politico notes on December 4th, Americans are losing faith in the “good war” in Afghanistan and they are coming to believe that after the death of Osama bin Laden several years ago that America’s mission in the country is done.  Karzai likely realizes that if he does not secure some American cooperation that his country will devolve into chaos and he may suffer the same fate as Dr. Mohammad Najibullah Ahmadzai, the former president of the Afghan Republic during the Soviet occupation, who was captured and publicly executed when the Taliban took over Kabul in 1996.  Therefore, for purposes of self-survival, the fact that the United States may abandon him and is willing to do so, and since a large majority of tribal elders and influential politicians want the agreement signed, it is likely that Karzai will sign the BSA by early next year.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.