Afghanistan: Vote on Draft Resolution Renewing UNAMA’s Mandate*
On Monday morning (17 March), the Security Council is expected vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) until 17 March 2026.
The draft resolution renews UNAMA’s mandate for an additional year without changing its tasks and priorities and also contains preambular language regarding several issues, including human rights, particularly those of women and girls; women, peace and security (WPS); the economic and humanitarian situations in Afghanistan; terrorism; drug trafficking; small arms and light weapons, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees; and the impacts of natural disasters. The draft resolution is a “presidential text”, which means that it is co-sponsored by all 15 Council members.
It appears that negotiations on the draft resolution were difficult. Although Council members apparently agreed to extend UNAMA’s mandate for another year without making substantive changes to its tasks and priorities from the outset of the negotiations, differences nevertheless emerged in relation to preambular language concerning several issues, including development aid, frozen assets belonging to Afghanistan’s central bank, engagement, accountability, and environmental degradation.
The negotiations were also complicated by a tussle among Council members over the penholdership on the file following the departure of former member Japan, which held the pen on Afghanistan in 2024 and was co-penholder with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in 2023. During discussions on Japan’s possible replacement, it appears that China, Pakistan, and the Republic of Korea (ROK) each expressed an interest in becoming a penholder on the file. China subsequently invited Pakistan and the ROK to work with it as co-penholders. While Pakistan agreed to this suggestion, the ROK apparently indicated that it needed more time to consider its position. It seems that this proposal was resisted by the US, which expressed concern about China holding the pen and begun to discuss a possible co-penholdership with the ROK.
This disagreement culminated in early February when China and Pakistan circulated a draft resolution on the renewal of UNAMA’s mandate, which prompted the ROK and the US to circulate their own draft resolution extending the mission’s mandate on the following day. Neither draft proposed substantive changes to UNAMA’s tasks and priorities, and the difference between the two texts was the inclusion of preambular language on human rights and other issues in the ROK/US draft and a change to UNAMA’s reporting cycle in the China/Pakistan draft. Council members held closed consultations to discuss the competing drafts on 10 February following a request from Algeria, and subsequently agreed that China would lead the negotiations during February, including by circulating a consolidated text combining the two drafts. As part of this arrangement, members apparently agreed that the draft would be a “presidential text”, meaning that it would be co-sponsored by all 15 members. Members also agreed that China would be acting in its capacity as president of the Council in February in leading the negotiations. After discussions on the text carried over into March, Council members agreed that Denmark, the current president of the Council, would work with China to lead the remaining negotiations and finalise the draft. At the time of writing, Council members had not yet resolved the broader disagreement regarding penholdership on the Afghanistan file.
On 21 February, China circulated the consolidated draft, which incorporated much of the preambular language in the ROK/US draft and did not include a change to UNAMA’s reporting cycle. Following in-person consultations on 24 February and a round of written comments, a second draft was sent to members on 27 February. After receiving further written comments, on 28 February China put a second draft of the resolution directly under silence until 3 March. Silence was then broken by France, the ROK, the UK, and the US. Denmark and China subsequently convened another in-person consultation before placing a third draft under silence until Tuesday (11 March). Silence was then broken by the US. After a series of bilateral consultations, China and Denmark put a fourth draft under silence until yesterday (13 March). Silence was not broken, and the draft was then put in blue.
It appears that language relating to development aid, economic recovery and development, and frozen assets belonging to Afghanistan’s central bank was particularly contentious. This language was added to the draft by China following suggestions from Russia, which had apparently argued that the text was not sufficiently balanced and incorporated too much language on certain issues, such as human rights. The proposed additions included text linking reduced development aid and the delay in releasing frozen assets to the difficult economic and humanitarian situations in Afghanistan, as well as language on complementing humanitarian aid with development initiatives. These suggestions were unacceptable to several other members, however. While China made some minor changes to the draft in an effort to address the concerns of these members, France, the ROK, the UK, and the US were apparently not satisfied with these additions, which led them to individually break silence on 3 March. China and Denmark subsequently removed much of the relevant language and added alternative text on the lack of funding for humanitarian operations and the obstacles they face and the importance of creating opportunities for economic development. It appears that this proposal was still not acceptable to the US, which again broke silence over this issue on 11 March. Apart from previously agreed language from resolution 2626, which renewed UNAMA’s mandate in March 2022, on the need to address the challenges facing Afghanistan’s economy, the remaining language on economic development and recovery was subsequently removed from the draft resolution, although the text on funding gaps for humanitarian operations and the obstacles they face was retained.
Differences between Council members also emerged in relation to text referring to the impact of environmental degradation and natural disasters on the humanitarian situation and stability in Afghanistan. It appears that the relevant paragraph, which was drawn from the ROK/US draft, was added to the consolidated text following a proposal from Slovenia. Although several members supported including this paragraph, it seems that the text referring to environmental degradation was particularly problematic for the US, which broke silence over this language twice and apparently suggested that the paragraph be removed entirely, while Russia also took issue with the reference to Afghanistan’s stability and pushed for its deletion. In response, some members that are supporters of the joint pledges on climate change, peace and security—France, Greece, Panama, the ROK, Slovenia, and the UK—jointly argued that the relevant paragraph and the text on Afghanistan’s stability should be retained. Following bilateral consultations, it appears that, in an effort to address the concerns raised by the US, the text on environmental degradation was removed and replaced with language on disaster risk reduction. The qualifier “socioeconomic” was also added to the reference to Afghanistan’s stability in response to Russia’s argument that this reference should be deleted.
Text relating to engagement was also controversial. Russia apparently suggested adding language that referred to the importance of pragmatic, patient, and constructive engagement. This was opposed by other members, however. In an effort to reach compromise, China apparently proposed adding text on the importance of dialogue, consultation, and engagement that drew on previously agreed language. It appears that this proposal was still not acceptable to some members, particularly France and the US, who argued that all references to engagement should be removed. Ultimately, the draft resolution in blue does not contain such references.
During the negotiations, some members also apparently pushed for additional language on human rights and WPS. Some of these suggestions were incorporated into the draft in blue, such as language referring to the ban on Afghan women working for the UN and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Afghanistan, as well as text on the indispensable role of women in Afghan society and their participation in decision-making. However, other suggestions were not included in the draft in blue, including language relating to accountability that was apparently proposed by Denmark.
Pakistan, which has a particular interest in the file given its proximity to Afghanistan, was also active in the negotiations and suggested adding language on several issues, including counter-terrorism, narcotics, small arms and light weapons, and the return and reintegration of IDPs and refugees. Several of these proposals were incorporated into the draft resolution in blue.
It seems that language regarding humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan was also discussed by Council members during the negotiations. France apparently argued that text highlighting the importance of humanitarian access for NGOs should be included, and this language was ultimately added to the draft in blue. The relevant paragraph also refers to the need for such access to be consistent with international humanitarian law and other applicable international legal obligations, apparently to address the concerns of the US, which had contended that the previous reference to international law, which did not specify a particular field of international law, was too vague and should be removed entirely.
________________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 17 March, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2777, extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for another year, until 17 March 2026.
