Thread by @Afghan_Policy

Some quick thoughts and reflections on the US-Taliban Agreement. THREAD

Firstly, interesting that the portion on withdrawal stipulates an 'announcement' of the timeline while the clause on prevention of Afghan soil contains identical wording minus 'announcement'.

CT: The wording of 'guarantees' & 'enforcement mechanisms' in both parts suggests there are likely secret annexes for monitoring compliance with both these commitments.

Unlike the withdrawal however, the TB actions against foreign groups will likely not be officially publicised

INTRA TALKS: Whilst para 3 sets a date for intra-Afghan talks & commits Taliban to negotiations, it does not require negotiations with the government. Rather TB commits to negotiating with 'Afghan sides'.

This is a significant concession to the Taliban.

CEASEFIRE: This part looks nothing like what the US had initially promised. Ceasefire will simply be 'an item of agenda' in talks between TB and 'Afghan sides' which may or may not include the government.

US might as well have saved themselves the embarrassment & deleted this!

INTERCONNECTED?
This para as full of such paradoxes and obscurities that I couldn't help but laugh!

Claims that all FOUR parts are interconnected but obfuscates the 'interconnectedness' to a point so as to render it useless. Let me explain 👇

Starts off by stating all four parts are interconnected but then reverses course by saying each will be implemented separately & independently

Having defeated the object & purpose of 'interconnectedness' then seeks to clarify that ONLY the first two parts (i.e. CT & Withdrawal) are in fact connected.

Now let's dive into each of the main parts:

WITHDRAWAL: Under the withdrawal clause, US commits to withdrawing all non-diplomatic military and civilian personnel including those of allies.

This essentially implies withdrawal of all intelligence and military assets.

While withdrawal, when completed, will be total, it is not unconditional.

US will only withdraw the bulk of its forces AFTER the Taliban meet their commitments under Part 2 of the Agreement.

Thus, the US has the ability to renege on its withdrawal commitment if it is unsatisfied with Taliban actions pertaining to Part 2.

Again, the unannounced 'enforcement mechanisms' will be of crucial importance when shedding light on when and how US can reverse course.

On the other🖐 however, it is worth pointing out that the US withdrawal is not at all conditional upon the results of intra-Afghan talks.

In fact, there is no requirement of 'negotiating in good faith' for the eventual withdrawal.

This is either an oversight or indifference!

The inclusion of this Para in Part 1 seems ill-placed to me. This is a confidence building measure that was better suited to intra-Afghan talks rather than withdrawal.

From that perspective, it makes sense why Pres @ashrafghani rejected it.

@ashrafghani However, at a time that the Taliban gained such a powerful hand in negotiations, while the election results are disputed, and while other Afghan factions are actively opposed to Pres Ghani, I think it was a very unwise move to reject this commitment.
bbc.com/news/world-asi…

@ashrafghani Political astuteness would have dictated that Pres @ashrafghani should not antagonize the US at such a critical juncture on guaranteeing his political survival.

This guy seriously needs better advisors

@ashrafghani From the wording of this Para however, I think the Taliban played a clever ruse in getting this concession. The TB has essentially pleaded that they are overstretched, & in order to be able to guarantee that they can fight off various terrorists groups, they need this manpower.

@ashrafghani I have to be honest, I think the next two Paras are equally mis-conceived and would have proved as powerful 'sticks or carrots' in ensuring efficacious incentives for a successful intra-Afghan process.

Almost seems like the US could care less if these talks succeed or not!

@ashrafghani I am still confused about this one. While I am sure, this was inserted at the insistence of TB, but does this mean US will no longer play a 'viceroy' role in Afghanistan or does it mean, they will not interfere in intra-Afghan talks?

@ashrafghani This latter interpretation is somewhat supported by this last para of the agreement 👇🏽

@ashrafghani On a related note, this withdrawal timetable runs contrary to US commitments under the Strategic Partnership Agreement (Article 26) which requires two years' written notice for termination of that agreement (which includes full withdrawal inter alia).

@ashrafghani To overcome this, the US inserted a clause in the Joint Declaration whereby the AFG govt agreed to 'mutually agree' to this amended withdrawal timeframe. If Pres Ghani, wanted to undermine the current agreement, I think refusing to agree to this might have been a better approach.

@ashrafghani Part 2 of the Agreement is most interesting for a number of reasons. I think the deliberate inclusion of al-Qa'ida is quite interesting & leaves little room for ambiguity.

@ashrafghani In it, the Taliban commit to preventing any group from recruiting, training, fundraising in TB-controlled territory AND commit to preventing such groups from threatening US or allies.

Also requires TB to instruct its members not to cooperate with such groups.

@ashrafghani The inclusion of these two paras should however be seen as a major concession to the Taliban.

The Taliban always justified harboring Osama Bin Laden based on the argument that the latter was an asylum seeker...

@ashrafghani Under this clause, the TB can continue to harbour any individual of any nation so long as that individual is no longer planning or perpetuating acts that threaten the security of the US and allies.
Nothing in the Agreement obliges TB to prosecute individuals from past crimes.

@ashrafghani There might however, still be one thing that seems to be overlooked, and could have major ramifications for the Agreement, & that is the legal status of the Agreement.

As far as I can tell, this agreement is neither not covered by either of the two Vienna Conventions on the Law of Treaties.

It is not covered by first since that is reserved for States. And here US explicitly states that Taliban are not recognized as a State.

Will add more thoughts to this later.