NEW DELHI: While the UNSC resolution meant to ensure sanctions don’t come in the way of humanitarian aid to Afghanistan was adopted unanimously, the negotiations for the resolution again brought to the fore “sharp divisions” within the Council over Afghanistan.
China and Russia opposed strong oversight and a short time limit for the exemption from sanctions to facilitate aid even as countries like India and France backed a proposal for the same.
India voted in favour of the resolution as it welcomed the provision for a review in 12 months of the “humanitarian carveout”. India ambassador T S Tirumurti called for the Council to exercise oversight and to ensure there was no “misuse or diversion of funds”.
China and Russia, with which India has been working closely on the Afghanistan issue, ensured though there was no time limit for the exemption. This has led to concerns that the US-sponsored resolution could effectively mark the beginning of the end of the Taliban-related sanctions regime.
India’s position on Taliban has been nuanced with the government having offered Afghanistan 50,000 MT of wheat and also medicines as humanitarian aid but also simultaneously maintaining that the dispensation in Kabul lacks legitimacy. For India it’s important to ensure Taliban severs links with Pakistan-based terror groups like LeT and JeM before it considers backing any move to accord international recognition to Taliban. Many countries share the concern that unregulated aid flow could further empower the Taliban.
According to the Security Council Report, which tracks closely the functioning of the Council and provides “independent” information, sharp divisions emerged during the negotiations between Members which supported a short time limit for the provisions of the resolution and stricter reporting requirements, such as France and India, and those who did not want a set time limit for the resolution’s provisions, such as China and Russia.
The US, as ‘pen holder’ for the resolution, is reported to have upheld China’s objection to a time limit to ensure support from Beijing. While the review after 1 year of exemption is significant, it will not automatically end the humanitarian exemption but will require another Council resolution to end the exemption and reimpose the restrictions lifted now. Such a resolution is almost certain to be vetoed by China and Russia. France described the lack of a time limit as a mistake and urged the Council to re-examine the decision “based on how future events unfold”.
In complete contrast to the position taken by China and Russia, according to the Security Council Report, India, France, UK and Estonia maintained that the Council review the exemption within a shorter time frame because of the dynamic nature of the situation on the ground. The final draft mentioned no time limit even as it said that the Council will review the implementation of the provision after a period of 1 year.
According to the Security Council Report, the frequency of the reporting requirement on the provision of humanitarian assistance by humanitarian agencies was another matter of discussion during the negotiations. India and several other countries wanted strong oversight to ensure funds weren’t diverted to terror groups.
“It appears that these Council members also wanted to ensure that mandatory reporting requirements were imposed on non-UN humanitarian organisations relying on the exemption. Other members opposed these reporting requirements on the basis that they create an undue burden for humanitarian organisations,” said the Report. In an apparent compromise, the Report added, it was decided that the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) would bear the primary responsibility for reporting on humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan while the exemption was in place.
China and Russia opposed strong oversight and a short time limit for the exemption from sanctions to facilitate aid even as countries like India and France backed a proposal for the same.
India voted in favour of the resolution as it welcomed the provision for a review in 12 months of the “humanitarian carveout”. India ambassador T S Tirumurti called for the Council to exercise oversight and to ensure there was no “misuse or diversion of funds”.
China and Russia, with which India has been working closely on the Afghanistan issue, ensured though there was no time limit for the exemption. This has led to concerns that the US-sponsored resolution could effectively mark the beginning of the end of the Taliban-related sanctions regime.
India’s position on Taliban has been nuanced with the government having offered Afghanistan 50,000 MT of wheat and also medicines as humanitarian aid but also simultaneously maintaining that the dispensation in Kabul lacks legitimacy. For India it’s important to ensure Taliban severs links with Pakistan-based terror groups like LeT and JeM before it considers backing any move to accord international recognition to Taliban. Many countries share the concern that unregulated aid flow could further empower the Taliban.
According to the Security Council Report, which tracks closely the functioning of the Council and provides “independent” information, sharp divisions emerged during the negotiations between Members which supported a short time limit for the provisions of the resolution and stricter reporting requirements, such as France and India, and those who did not want a set time limit for the resolution’s provisions, such as China and Russia.
The US, as ‘pen holder’ for the resolution, is reported to have upheld China’s objection to a time limit to ensure support from Beijing. While the review after 1 year of exemption is significant, it will not automatically end the humanitarian exemption but will require another Council resolution to end the exemption and reimpose the restrictions lifted now. Such a resolution is almost certain to be vetoed by China and Russia. France described the lack of a time limit as a mistake and urged the Council to re-examine the decision “based on how future events unfold”.
In complete contrast to the position taken by China and Russia, according to the Security Council Report, India, France, UK and Estonia maintained that the Council review the exemption within a shorter time frame because of the dynamic nature of the situation on the ground. The final draft mentioned no time limit even as it said that the Council will review the implementation of the provision after a period of 1 year.
According to the Security Council Report, the frequency of the reporting requirement on the provision of humanitarian assistance by humanitarian agencies was another matter of discussion during the negotiations. India and several other countries wanted strong oversight to ensure funds weren’t diverted to terror groups.
“It appears that these Council members also wanted to ensure that mandatory reporting requirements were imposed on non-UN humanitarian organisations relying on the exemption. Other members opposed these reporting requirements on the basis that they create an undue burden for humanitarian organisations,” said the Report. In an apparent compromise, the Report added, it was decided that the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) would bear the primary responsibility for reporting on humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan while the exemption was in place.