Afghanistan: Vote on Draft Resolution Renewing UNAMA’s Mandate*
On Monday morning (16 March), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for three months, until 17 June.
On 3 March, China, the penholder on the file, circulated to all Council members the initial draft of the resolution, which sought a one-year renewal of the mission’s mandate. Following an expert-level meeting on 5 March, one revised draft, and two rounds of comments, the penholder placed a second revised draft under silence procedure on Tuesday (10 March) until the following day (11 March). The US subsequently broke silence, requesting a shorter extension of the mandate. China then engaged in bilateral consultations with Council members before placing a third revised draft under silence procedure on 12 March until later that day, which was again broken by the US. A further revised draft was subsequently placed under silence procedure until this morning (13 March). The draft text passed silence and was put in blue earlier today.
It seems that Council members largely converged on a straightforward renewal of UNAMA’s mandate from the outset of the negotiations. Accordingly, the initial draft text circulated by China was largely identical to resolution 2777 of 17 March 2025, which last renewed the mission’s mandate, while introducing minimal additions, mostly in the preambular paragraphs. During the expert-level discussions, a majority of Council members supported China’s approach of renewing the mission’s mandate for one year without an extensive review of the mandate, while emphasising the importance of sustaining UNAMA’s continued presence on the ground.
Disagreements emerged after the US called for a three-month technical rollover, apparently arguing that a shorter extension would allow the Council to conduct a comprehensive review of UNAMA’s mandate before committing to a longer renewal. It seems that the US argued that since UNAMA is one of the UN’s most costly special political missions and operates in a highly complex environment, the Council should first examine whether the mandate remains appropriate and fully implementable. In this regard, it apparently argued that a three-month technical rollover was the most viable path forward, providing the Council with additional time to hold discussions with all concerned stakeholders, including on streamlining the mandate and bringing it in line with current realities on the ground. (The Council has not comprehensively discussed or adjusted UNAMA’s mandate and priorities since 2022. For background on Council members’ positions, see the brief on Afghanistan in our March 2026 Monthly Forecast.)
However, several other Council members, including the penholder, objected to this proposal. They apparently argued that a short-term renewal of UNAMA’s mandate could signal uncertainty about the mission’s future and might risk undermining its standing on the ground. It seems that some members cautioned that such an approach might discourage engagement by the Taliban authorities if they perceive that the mission lacks firm backing from the Council, while also creating uncertainty among UNAMA staff. They also apparently maintained that the Council should carefully consider all relevant factors before agreeing to a shorter mandate. During the 9 March closed consultations on Afghanistan, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General (Political) and Officer-in-Charge of UNAMA Georgette Gagnon made similar arguments. At that meeting, she apparently called for support for a one-year extension of the mission’s mandate, noting that a short-term renewal could undermine confidence in the mission and the UN’s work in the country.
It seems that, during the expert-level meeting, the US permanent mission maintained a firm stance in favour of a short-term renewal. It also expressed scepticism about UNAMA’s role and its future. It seems that at the time of the expert-level meeting, there was limited clarity from Washington regarding its position on the question of UNAMA’s future. After China circulated the second revised text, it seems that the US permanent mission in New York received updated instructions from Washington, which indicated that the US was unable to support a year-long extension of UNAMA’s mandate, while indicating that its intention was not to end the mission. Rather, it apparently sought to streamline it so that it would better reflect the situation on the ground and allow the mission to effectively carry out its mandate.
Consequently, China incorporated the US proposal for a three-month renewal in the third revised draft. This approach appears to reflect a shared understanding among Council members regarding the importance of UNAMA’s continued presence and the need to ensure effective implementation of its mandate, as reflected in the draft text in blue.
Since the former Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Head of UNAMA, Roza Otunbayeva, completed her term in September 2025, the position has remained vacant. In this regard, the draft text in blue requests the Secretary-General, in a timely manner and in consultation with Security Council members, to appoint a new Special Representative to lead UNAMA. It further stresses the importance of maintaining the mission’s continued field presence.
Regarding the preambular paragraphs, in the initial draft text, the penholder introduced language referencing the ban on Afghan women from accessing UN premises across the country since early September 2025, which received support from a majority of Council members and is reflected in the draft resolution in blue.
The draft text in blue retains language from resolution 2777 expressing serious concern about the increasing erosion of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in Afghanistan, while also describing the erosion as “widespread”, in line with a proposal by Denmark that was supported by several other members. The text in blue underscores that the absence of such rights and freedoms makes peace, stability, and prosperity in the country unattainable. It further calls on the Taliban to swiftly reverse all policies and practices restricting women and girls’ rights and equal access to education, employment, justice, economic opportunities, healthcare and other basic services, as well as their full, equal, and meaningful participation in public life and their freedom of movement. It appears that some Council members—including Denmark, Greece, and Latvia—sought a mention of freedom of expression; however, given opposition from some members, like Russia, the reference was not incorporated in the draft text in blue.
During the negotiations, several members, including Denmark, France, Greece, Latvia, and the UK, supported by others such as Colombia and Panama, sought to include a reference to the Taliban’s decree on the “Criminal Rules of Courts”, which was issued in early January. The Secretary-General’s most recent report on UNAMA describes the decree as containing stringent and discriminatory provisions inconsistent with Afghanistan’s international human rights obligations. However, it appears that some members, including Russia, opposed this addition, arguing that references to human rights are already reflected in the text. Nevertheless, the draft text in blue retains a reference to the decree and calls on the Taliban to reverse such policies and practices.
During the negotiations, Russia apparently argued against placing excessive emphasis on human rights in the text and instead called for a focus on economic cooperation and development. Therefore, at the request of Russia, language was added to the draft resolution in blue highlighting the importance of addressing development needs that are crucial for Afghanistan’s long-term self-reliance.
Based on language proposed by China, the draft resolution in blue also expresses serious concern regarding the prevailing level of civilian casualties, particularly among children, resulting from explosive ordnance incidents in Afghanistan, and the diminishing number of de-mining teams addressing the threat. It further emphasises the need for member states to support and sustain the Mine Action Programme in Afghanistan.
Pakistan, which has a particular interest in the file as a neighbour of Afghanistan, was also active in the negotiations and suggested adding language, particularly on counter-terrorism. It sought to add language in the preambular paragraphs calling on the Taliban to take immediate, concrete, and verifiable counter-terrorism actions against all terrorist organisations without discrimination.
It appears that in subsequent revised drafts the penholder incorporated modified language referring to efforts to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations without distinction. However, when breaking silence for a second time, the US sought to delete the phrase “without distinction”, noting that “in all its forms and manifestations” is the standard formulation. As a compromise, the phrase was replaced in the draft text in blue with “wherever and by whomever committed”. The term “verifiable” was also apparently not acceptable to some members, including Russia, and was replaced with “demonstrable” in the final draft text. Language was also added at Pakistan’s request stressing the importance of strengthening the safe and secure management of weapons and ammunition to prevent their diversion to terrorist groups.
Based on suggestions from some members, including Denmark and Latvia, references to heatwaves and desertification were added to the existing language on disaster risk reduction in the draft text in blue. However, other proposals by these members, such as references to climate change, ecological changes, and rising temperatures, were not incorporated.
In line with language contained in resolution 2777, the initial draft proposed by China said that humanitarian access should be consistent with “applicable international obligations”. During the negotiations on resolution 2777, a reference on the need for humanitarian access to be consistent with international law was removed apparently to address the concerns of the US, which had contended that such a reference that did not specify a particular field of international law, was too vague and should be removed entirely. (For background and more information, see our 15 March 2025 What’s in Blue story.) Denmark and Latvia sought to reinsert the reference on the need for humanitarian access to be consistent with international law, including international humanitarian law, while removing reference to “applicable international obligations”. This suggestion was not incorporated in the draft text in blue, however.
___________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 16 March, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2818, extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for three months, until 17 June 2026.
