A US-Afghan peace deal will definitely contribute towards stability in Afghanistan. However, I liked the statesmanship of Karzai. If we closely listen to Karzai's speech to the Loya Jirga we notice the following things.
1.He referred to Shangai Cooperation Organization which means Karzai is keeping the options open for Afghanistan. 2. He referred to international support and commitment such as the one pledged to him in the Chicago summit. 3. He talked about Afghanistan sovereignty and Istiqlal. 4. He forcefully argued about interference in Afghanistan from its neighbors. 5. He hinted towards peaceful elections.
I think the agreement should be studied from three broader angles.
1. Afghans must evaluate the Agreement in line with all such previous agreements in the past. The infamous Gandamak Treaty of 1979, the infamous agreement of Durand Line, Rawalpindi Treaty of 1919 and Afghan War of 1979 must be carefully evaluated. What I understand from the history of Afghanistan is that Afghans are free people and they never like to be dictated. Afghans have mostly suffered due to their leaders. Afghans' freedom was never recognized by the powers. Afghans have been engaged in internal fights. And Afghans' neighbors have always interfered in their affairs. So an Afghan perspective must clearly understand its strength and weakness. I think as compared to the past Afghanistan is a different country today. Unlike the past when the kings mostly decided the course of history or certain factions within the state reigned, today's Afghanistan is a democratic entity having a parliament and working state institutions. Afghanistan has enmity with none and the world recognizes Afghanistan as a sovereign country. The Agreement (in principle) will ensure stability of Afghanistan and continuation of democracy and state building which will ultimately help in shrinking spaces for anti-Afghan forces.
2. The US perspective: We must understand where does the US stand today? This is no colonial era. This is no Cold War time. The world today is a changed world. The US is simply fighting a legitimate war (with UN support). But war today does not mean subduing the enemy. War today is evaluated in terms of peace building and rehabilitation of the people by addressing human security issues. In principle the war in Afghanistan was ended back in 2002 but peace is still a far far cry The US has a commitment in Afghanistan to prove to the world (a world of free trade) that she is capable of bringing peace. This is exactly the US position today. The US will be staying in Afghanistan not for some strategic gains but for the shared interest of the world and free enterprises. Without this moral obligation the US will not be able to sustain its economy, cultural and technological dominance or leadership and security of its own people.
3. Pakistan: Pakistan is in deep troubles. The strategic assets are proving as strategic liability. Pakistan must realize that religious extremists and militants have no country. They think beyond geographical boundaries. If the militants feel they are not able to regain control of Afghanistan they will definitely try to take control of Pakistan. This is simple logic. However, Pakistan as a state is almost paralyzed before the militants. This paralysis has deeply affected state institutions including the sole stable institution of the Pakistan Army. However, army cannot play its traditional role which it supposed to play in the past. A helpless and paranoid army procrastinated during Musharaf's time (a Golden Opportunity for the army to prove as saviors of the people) and thus the militants were able to influence democracy. Now the future of Pakistan is in the hand of PML N and PTI. Both lack the vision, experience and commitment to bring the country out of the quagmire.
Conclusion: In principle a US-Afghan peace agreement under UN supervision shall ensure the stability of Afghanistan and help it grow as a sovereign state. The US must understand that UN supervision must continue as Afghans are none but equals among the comity of nations. A bilateral agreement will definitely end this war and bring peace in the long run but a continuation of international commitment will do the miracle earlier.
