Afghanistan: Vote on a Draft Resolution Renewing UNAMA’s Mandate*
Tomorrow morning (15 June), the Security Council is expected to vote on a draft resolution extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for another year, until 17 June 2027.
China, the penholder on Afghanistan, sought to streamline the text by consolidating the mission’s priorities and tasks. This approach was apparently strongly influenced by the US’ position. Earlier this year, the Council extended UNAMA’s mandate for only three months, instead of the customary one-year renewal, through the adoption of resolution 2818 of 16 March. At the time, the US apparently advocated for a broader assessment of the mission’s tasks and priorities, including on whether UNAMA’s mandate remains realistic, appropriately prioritised, and fully implementable under current conditions, and whether aspects of the mandate could be streamlined and better aligned with developments on the ground. (The Council had not mandated a comprehensive review or significant adjustment of UNAMA’s mandate and priorities since 2022. For more information, see our 13 March What’s in Blue story.)
It seems that while the negotiations on the draft resolution in blue were difficult and lengthy, Council members were ultimately able to find common ground. Ahead of the formal negotiation process, China circulated a “pre-zero” draft and engaged bilaterally with Council members to exchange views on changes to the mandate. The US subsequently circulated its own proposal outlining its priorities. Following consultations with the other permanent members of the Council (France, Russia, and the UK), China circulated a zero draft to all Council members on 18 May. This was followed by three revised drafts and two rounds of negotiations. After the US broke silence on the third revised draft, China circulated a fourth revised text, which was placed under a further silence procedure on the morning of 10 June. The text passed silence later that day and was subsequently put in blue.
One of the key points of discussion concerned a US proposal requesting a strategic review of UNAMA aimed at enhancing structural coherence, reducing duplication, and improving coordination across UN entities in Afghanistan, in light of challenges that have directly impeded UNAMA’s capacity to deliver on its mandate. The US also proposed language expressing the Council’s intention to review the full range of options for UNAMA’s mandate, including assessing the future viability and potential sunsetting of the mission. This would also include making necessary adjustments to improve the mission’s effectiveness in Afghanistan, as may be warranted by developments on the ground, including actions taken by the Taliban.
It seems that several Council members expressed openness to the US proposal for a strategic review; however, some members maintained that such a review should not be construed as questioning the future of the mission. Russia, for instance, apparently questioned the necessity of the request and expressed concern that it could create uncertainty regarding UNAMA’s future, and therefore opposed its inclusion. Some members also raised questions regarding the review’s scope, methodology, and timeline. To accommodate these views, China incorporated language in the second revised draft, based on the US proposal, requesting the Secretary-General to conduct a strategic review of UNAMA and submit a written report, “with a view to supporting the effective implementation of [the mission’s] mandate”. This language was apparently acceptable to Council members and was retained in the draft in blue.
It seems that Russia also argued that the strategic review process should be undertaken in consultation with the relevant authorities in Afghanistan, which was opposed by some members, including France and the US. To accommodate these differing views, China included language in the draft resolution in blue stipulating that the review should be conducted “in accordance with best practices”.
Text relating to engagement with Afghanistan, including references to the Doha Process and the Group of Special Envoys and Special Representatives, appears to have generated considerable discussion. Several members—including France, Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the UK—preferred language emphasising engagement linked to Afghanistan’s international obligations and reintegration into the international community. These members argued that the UN-led Doha Process remains the principal framework for coordinated international engagement on Afghanistan and should therefore continue to be explicitly reflected in the mandate.
By contrast, Russia advocated for what it described as a pragmatic approach centred on maintaining all channels of engagement, which it argued is necessary to advance efforts towards a political settlement. It also questioned the prominence accorded to the Doha Process, citing what it viewed as limited progress and arguing that regional formats have assumed a more active role in engagement on Afghanistan. Therefore, Russia suggested deleting references to the Group of Special Envoys and Special Representatives. (Russia has referenced in several Council meetings on Afghanistan the role of the Moscow Format and its regional “Quartet”, as well as the engagement on Afghanistan by the Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO] and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation [SCO].)
In the second revised draft, China incorporated language in the preambular paragraphs, partly based on Russia’s suggestion emphasising the importance of “pragmatic engagement” with Afghanistan, crucial for promoting a “comprehensive approach” aimed at addressing all pressing issues and Afghanistan’s international reintegration. The draft text also expressed support for all diplomatic efforts conducive to the political settlement of the Afghan issue and the continuation of the forum of Special Envoys and Special Representatives in Doha and regional formats. Several members considered this language as inconsistent with previous mandate renewals and the broader framework established through the Doha Process and the independent assessment on Afghanistan, which the Council requested through resolution 2679 of 16 March 2023. Subsequently, the reference to “pragmatic engagement” was removed from the third revised draft, while “relevant” was added before “regional formats”.
However, concerns apparently persisted among some members, including France and the US, regarding references to regional formats and support for all diplomatic efforts, which they argued risked elevating regional initiatives to the level of the Doha Process. It appears that members were ultimately unable to reach agreement on the language relating to engagement with Afghanistan. As a result, China omitted the relevant paragraph from the draft resolution in blue.
The language used to describe the Taliban and its administration has remained a sensitive issue among Council members. It appears that several Council members, including France, the UK, and the US, remain uncomfortable with the terminology “de facto authorities”, expressing concern that it could confer legitimacy on the Taliban or imply a degree of de facto recognition. China and Russia, however, maintain that the term accurately reflects the realities on the ground in Afghanistan. In the initial draft text, China apparently referred to the Taliban-led government as “de facto authorities”; however, in the subsequent drafts the reference was altered to “relevant authorities”, as also reflected in the draft resolution in blue.
Another important issue concerned the extent to which UNAMA’s mandate should retain or strengthen language on several thematic areas, such as human rights, women, peace, and security (WPS), and climate change. For instance, several members—including Denmark, Greece, Latvia, Panama, and the UK—generally sought to preserve or strengthen language from previous mandate renewals, particularly resolution 2626 of 17 March 2022. The US apparently reiterated its priorities on these issues, particularly with respect to WPS and climate change. At the same time, some members, including Pakistan and Russia, advocated for a balanced approach to these areas vis-à-vis other aspects of the mandate.
It appears that some members—including Denmark, Latvia, and other like-minded delegations—advocated for integrating gender mainstreaming as a cross-cutting issue throughout the implementation of UNAMA’s mandate, consistent with the approach taken in resolution 2626. However, rather than incorporating gender mainstreaming throughout the mandate, the draft resolution in blue added a reference to resolution 1325 of 31 October 2000, the Council’s first resolution on WPS. The text also retains a reference to sexual and gender-based violence; however, the reference to gender equality was replaced with language referring to “equality for all women and girls”.
It appears that some members would have preferred to retain language on violations, abuses, and reprisals committed against persons such as women, journalists, and health care and humanitarian workers. Although this reference was not incorporated in the draft resolution in blue, language was added calling on UNAMA to “document”, among other things, the human rights situation, including the rights of women and children.
Language relating to climate change also underwent several iterations. Some members apparently favoured references to the adverse impacts of natural disasters and environmental degradation. In the draft resolution in blue, however, this language was revised to refer to the economic, humanitarian, and social impacts of natural disasters, water scarcity, and environmental challenges in Afghanistan.
Another point of disagreement concerned references to the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team supporting the 1988 Afghanistan Sanctions Committee. It appears that some members—including France, the UK, and the US—sought to retain language from resolution 2626, which requested UNAMA to provide assistance to the Monitoring Team, as appropriate. Russia, however, apparently expressed reservations about retaining this language, reflecting its preference to de-link UNAMA from issues relating to the 1988 Afghanistan sanctions regime. In the initial draft text, China had included language specifying that UNAMA’s assistance would include support for the Monitoring Team’s visits to Afghanistan, which some members apparently interpreted as an attempt to limit the scope of such assistance, an approach that Russia apparently preferred. Ultimately, in the draft resolution in blue, China retained a general reference requesting UNAMA to provide assistance to the Monitoring Team, without specifying what such assistance should include.
_________________________________________________________________
**Post-script: On 15 June, the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 2822, extending the mandate of the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) for another year, until 17 June 2027.
