THE Enduring Strategic Partnership Agreement between Afghanistan and the United States, which Presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai signed at Kabul on May 2, follows established precedent in its main objective but is unprecedented in the intrusive powers it confers on the powerful partner.

It reduces Afghanistan to a vassal of the US, undermines prospects of conciliation with its neighbours and with the Taliban, and will have baleful consequences for regional peace.

On its details the US Afghan pact sets new records of intrusion. Its preamble repeatedly affirms respect for Afghanistan’s constitution, which was “drafted by a Frenchman and imposed by an American, that was (and is) out of sync with Afghan political realties” Sherard Cowper-Coles, the UK’s former ambassador to Kabul, notes in his book Cables from Kabul. It is sought to be imposed on the people and on the Taliban who are sworn to reject it. Bilateral commitments are a licence to interfere. They cover respect for human rights, and much else besides. “Afghanistan shall strengthen and improve its electoral process.” The US will monitor its conduct.

A bilateral security agreement will be negotiated. The US will designate Afghanistan a “major non-Nato ally” while, “assistance to the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) shall have the goal of being consistent with Nato standards and promote interoperability with Nato forces”.

Can Kabul accept military aid from any other country? All doubt is dispelled by this provision: “Afghanistan shall provide US forces continued access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014, and beyond as may be agreed in the Bilateral Security Agreement, for the purposes of combating Al Qaeda and its affiliates, training the Afghan National Security Forces, and other mutually determined missions to advance shared security interests.”

The US “reaffirms that it does not seek permanent military facilities in Afghanistan, or a presence that is a threat to Afghanistan’s neighbours. The United States further pledges not to use Afghan territory or facilities as a launching point for attacks against other countries”.

Will this cover the drone attacks? The pact adds: “the nature and scope of the future presence and operations of US forces in Afghanistan, and the related obligations of Afghanistan and the United States, shall be addressed in the Bilateral Security Agreement.”

The broad outlines emerge from this guarantee: “the United States affirms that it shall regard with grave concern any external aggression against Afghanistan. Were this to occur, the parties shall hold consultations on an urgent basis to develop and implement an appropriate response, including, as may be mutually determined, political, diplomatic, economic, or military measures, in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures”. This establishes firmly America’s presence and its role as protector of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan pledges with a foreign power to “pursue consolidation and growth of a market economy”, build a “strong financial system which is needed to sustain private investment”; “fight decisively against all forms of corruption”; devise with the US “mechanisms to enhance aid effectiveness and avoid corruption through improved procurement practices, transparency and accountability”.

America’s commitments on aid are “contingent upon the Afghan government establishing mechanisms and demonstrating agreed-upon progress to ensure financial transparency and accountability, increasing budget expenditures, improving revenue collection, enhancing public financial management systems, and other mutually determined measures of performance and progress.…” The US will monitor the conduct.

Particularly harmful are the provisions on negotiations. “The necessary outcomes of any peace and reconciliation process are for individuals and entities to break ties with Al Qaeda; renounce violence; and abide by the Afghan constitution.”

Such surrender terms the Taliban are sure to reject. Conciliation is the need of the hour; internally, with the Taliban and externally with regional stakeholders among whom, second only to Afghanistan, Pakistan has suffered the most.

Cowper-Coles realistically points out that “nor could Afghanistan be stabilised without engaging the neighbours, Pakistan above all, but also India, Iran, China and Russia, seriously and collectively. The serial bilateralism which had marked American diplomacy on Afghanistan would not be enough”. The pact is an example of America’s “serial bilateralism” which effectively bars regional cooperation.

No one wants permanent US presence in Afghanistan. The pact says “the parties shall further cooperate in restoring Afghanistan’s historic role as a bridge connecting Central and South Asia and the Middle East by….” Specific steps are mentioned. This is a matter of greater interest to Afghanistan’s neighbours. The US comes in only to play its silly games vis-à-vis Russia and China.

Afghanistan is made a US protectorate. Read this pledge. “Afghanistan shall improve governance by increasing the responsiveness, and transparency of Afghan executive, legislative, and judicial institutions so that they better meet the civil and economic needs of the Afghan people.” The pact has teeth. “To advance cooperation and monitor progress towards implementing this agreement, the parties shall establish an Afghanistan-United States Bilateral Commission and associated implementation mechanisms.”

Dependent on US money, separated from its neighbours as it watches the US parley with the Taliban — which Obama confirmed on May 2 — Karzai signed on the dotted line. In doing so, he has put the esteem of his proud people in peril.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.