The UN Mission in Afghanistan – Mandate Extended, Challenges Persist…

«Maintaining international peace and security and to that end: taking effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace» (Article 1 of the UN Charter, one of the four purposes of the Organization).

 

In March of this year, the UN Security Council, traditionally «recognizing the important role that the United Nations will continue to play in facilitating peace and stability in Afghanistan», once again extended the mandate of the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) until 17 March 2025.

This Mission was established pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution of 28 March 2002. Its predecessor was the UN Special Mission to Afghanistan, which operated from December 1993 to May 2001.

The organization’s mandate has been extended annually since 2006, which is not unusual, just as there is no alternative for the international community to communicate with Afghanistan.

It has been almost three years since the Taliban came to power. However, there has been a lack of coordination and a well-established dialogue between UNAMA and the de facto authorities until now – «character alignment» is quite difficult, which is due to a number of factors.

The current Mission simply reflects the position of its parent organization, and its difficult relationship with the Taliban is a direct consequence of problems within the UN itself, which has been regularly criticized in recent years for its ineffectiveness and lack of effective practical measures to address the problems of the modern world.

Members of the UN Security Council have differing views and opinions on the level of political interaction between the UN and the Taliban. This directly affects the role of UNAMA and complicates its strategic focus. The Mission itself is caught in contradictions. On the one hand, they would not like to contribute to the rehabilitation of the Taliban’s image against the backdrop of their general international isolation. On the other hand, the UN mission must achieve practical results in assisting Afghanistan.

Therefore, UNAMA tries to maneuver and often finds itself in a dual position when implementing its mandate.

In this light, the Islamic Emirate’s rejection of the Mission’s actions seems quite objective. The Taliban’s position boils down to the following theses:

1) UNAMA should not always look at Afghanistan’s problems from a negative perspective; Afghan realities are not objectively covered in the UN – the main focus is on two or three negative issues used in a propagandistic manner;

2) the UN mission should change its policy towards Afghanistan and cooperate more effectively with it – UNAMA’s effectiveness has so far been very limited;

3) UNAMA’s activities are important, but it should present its reports on Afghanistan impartially.

4) UNAMA is responsible for assisting Afghanistan in restoring diplomatic relations.

5) The UN is influenced by major world powers.

In defence of UNAMA, it is also necessary to point out that Afghanistan is undergoing a complex political transition, which hinders its work as long-standing narratives continue to obstruct the development of effective solutions, and the priorities set for this mission appear very vague and subject to various interpretations.

Certainly, Afghanistan is not as optimistic as the «fierce mullahs» try to show, but it is not as tragic as their opponents and some parts of the international community demonstrate. More than 40 years of civil war with foreign involvement could not pass without a trace. The Taliban are in the stage of state-building and represent real power in the country – this must be reckoned with in the world. UNAMA should be allowed to take a clear position and establish constructive dialogue with the de facto authorities.

Certainly, the Mission should not compromise with the Taliban in the interests of solving immediate tasks. There should be a realistic understanding. Yes, women’s rights are one of the fundamental principles, but they cannot be put forward as a precondition and constantly emphasized.

It is important to understand that the Mission, as an organization with regional offices, should not be a blind conduit for Western agendas and exert significant efforts to achieve them.

The Taliban will definitely sooner or later compromise on the issue of women’s and girls’ rights, they need time at least to save face. For them, it’s just a bargaining chip…

In turn, the Taliban need to show more transparency, create conditions for greater involvement of the Mission in the essence of the policy they are implementing, taking into account the mentality of local ethnic groups, their national traditions, and Islamic values. There is no other way, considering that there is no alternative – UNAMA with its 11 field units remains the only source of official knowledge about Afghanistan for the international community.

For UNAMA, in our view, it is more important to prioritize and address other priorities that are more important for the Afghan people. Ordinary Afghans are suffering from hunger, lack of proper medical care, and the consequences of natural disasters. According to the UN’s own forecasts, in 2024, 23.7 million people – more than half of Afghanistan’s population – will need humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian direction should be the main focus of UNAMA’s modern agenda. It is important to actively engage donors of various levels – governmental, private, international. For the Mission, it is relevant to break the existing politically motivated approach to aid to Afghanistan, focused on situational support and short-term measures, and unite initiatives of individual donor states under its leadership.

In the political agenda, a trump card for UNAMA could be regional cooperation with Afghanistan, which is one of the priorities according to Resolution 2626 (2022). In particular, sub-paragraph h indicates the need to «support regional cooperation to promote stability and peace and to assist Afghanistan in utilizing its role in the heart of Asia to encourage regional cooperation and connectivity on the principles of transparency, openness, and inclusivity, to welcome joint efforts to enhance dialogue and interaction and to promote common goals of economic development throughout the region, as well as to assist the application of coordinated approaches by countries and regional organizations, in order to contribute to building a stable and prosperous Afghanistan”.

We are confident that UNAMA can act as a mediator not only between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (IEA) and the international community but also in various multilateral formats, addressing not only humanitarian issues but also security matters.

In the absence of consensus on the «Afghan issue», when members of the international community hold different views and promote their scenarios, UNAMA could help neutralize specific contradictions among participants in a particular dialogue.

Currently, we are witnessing the establishment of a security dialogue between Iran and Pakistan (the exclusive role of Islamabad and Tehran in the «Afghan issue» was noted earlier by the OWF). The issue of Afghanistan occupies a special place in it. Why shouldn’t UNAMA join this process as a facilitator, considering that the further practical dialogue of these three countries will be hindered by a tangle of contradictions?

For UNAMA, the key element of its activity in the «security» and «politics» cases could be efforts aimed at involving Afghanistan in the Iran-Pakistan dialogue and further forming a trilateral (Afghanistan-Iran-Pakistan) security contact group.

The UN’s participation in this political project would help bring it to the international level, in which all parties, especially considering the unpredictable situation in the world, are expected to be interested.

In the initial stage, the Mission could hold relevant consultations with various circles of the three countries (government, intelligence services, expert circles) to assess opportunities and find acceptable ways to succeed in the trilateral negotiation process.

Subsequently, UNAMA could play a practical role in forming a continuously functioning trilateral consultative group to objectively monitor all aspects of security, primarily in border areas.

Overall, the regional format is already bringing positive results. In this regard, the UN through its Afghan mission could actively interact with regional partners whose influence on Afghanistan is not yet well studied, including in the interests of achieving political goals.

The OIC and SCO, with their economic potential, cultural-humanitarian direction, and growing influence in the world, will provide particular assistance in this. Just look at the figures:

The total area of the SCO member states exceeds 35 million km², which is 65% of the territory of Eurasia. The total population of SCO countries is approximately 3.5 billion people, which is half the world’s population.

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation covers an area of 32,087,666 km² and has a population of 1.9 billion people. Moreover, all of Afghanistan’s neighbors – Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asian republics – are participants in these two organizations.

Overall, the international community needs to narrow down and specify the place and role of UNAMA, while avoiding vague setups. It is essential for the UN to strengthen its Afghan mission by providing it with a strong and specific mandate that grants political influence and creates conditions for working with stakeholders. In doing so, UNAMA should rely on medium-term programs at the very least, rather than expecting annual mandate renewals and acting on a whim each time.

Furthermore, we consider it important to highlight the role of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan – the head of UNAMA. Currently, this position is held by Roza Otunbayeva, a citizen of Kyrgyzstan and a Kyrgyz state and political figure, and diplomat. It is noteworthy that her mandate was recently extended for another year. This is highly significant, considering the strengthening regional paradigm around Afghanistan. As a native and resident of this vast region, she understands and perceives all the nuances of coexistence in it like no one else. Having the authority and political support from the UN, such a head of the UN Mission could elevate the dialogue of stakeholders to a realistic level.

We believe that the practice of appointing the head of UNAMA from among the representatives of the countries surrounding Afghanistan should be enshrined in the UN, for example, through a mechanism of annual rotation.

However, this is just an opinion… for now, UNAMA continues to play the role of an observer, whose actions cause irritation or, at the very least, misunderstanding among many.

 

P.S.

We noticed the April report of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), which provides information on the funding volumes of UNAMA. We provide this for the general understanding of taxpayers.

In particular, «…the State Department notified the US Congress of its annual funding plan for UNAMA alongside other UN political missions based on budgets from the 2008 fiscal year.

The US contribution to UNAMA, based on a fixed 22.0% of the total budget funded through contributions to international organization accounts, amounted to $59.01 million for the 2021 and 2022 calendar years, paid for with funds for the 2022 and 2023 fiscal years.

Governments of other UN member states funded the remaining portion of UNAMA’s budget for this period, amounting to $268.22 million».