New Delhi: The United Nations Security Council on Monday, August 16, will be the platform for countries to indicate if they will work with the new Taliban regime by accepting the latter’s argument of a “peaceful transition” or argue that there had been an unacceptable military takeover.
Over the last week, there had been meetings on maritime security, Somalia, and Lebanon in the Security Council, but the issue of Afghanistan largely transfixed member states as provinces fell like ninepins in front of the Taliban’s rapid progress.
The emergency meeting of the UN’s most powerful body will take place at 10 am (New York local time, 7.30 pm IST) on Monday following an urgent request made by Estonia and Norway, the two penholders for the Afghanistan file in the Security Council.
The call for the meeting was made even as reports from Kabul stated that president Ashraf Ghani had left Afghanistan. Taliban security forces entered the capital city within a few hours and eventually took over the presidential palace.
This will be the second time the Council will meet on Afghanistan in August – the month of India’s Council presidency. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will brief the members.
Eight months into its eighth term at the Council, Afghanistan seems to be a recurring leitmotif for India’s latest stint as a non-permanent member.
When India selected the 2021-22 term for its candidacy seven years ago, the first obstacle had been Afghanistan. Kabul had already announced that Afghanistan would stand for election for the first time as a non-permanent member. The issue had to be escalated to the political level to secure then-President Hamid Karzai’s approval to India’s request.
After India joined the Security Council, an expectation was raised with the help of Indian media that New Delhi would have some leverage in Afghanistan.
This was further bolstered when India became the chair of the Security Council’s 1988 Committee that covered Taliban sanctions matters. “Our chairing this committee at this juncture will help keep the focus on the presence of terrorists and their sponsors threatening the peace process in Afghanistan. It has been our view that peace process and violence cannot go hand in hand,” said India’s permanent representative to UN, T.S. Tirumurti, in January.
Also read: UNSC Watch: With Last-Minute Afghanistan Session Before Troika Plus Meet, India Ticks Off Priority
Ironically, during India’s presidency, the Taliban have scored their spectacular victory of taking over the entire country, 20 years since US forces invaded Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11.
Earlier on August 3, UNSC had issued a press statement which had expressed deep concern about the high levels of violence following the Taliban’s military offensive and called for an “immediate reduction of violence”. It also called on both the Taliban and the Afghan republic to “engage meaningfully in an inclusive, Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process in order to make urgent progress towards a political settlement and a ceasefire”.
According to the website Security Council Report, the press statement was modified after some Security Council members asked for the removal of language that blamed only the Taliban for the rise in violence and pushed for peace talks. Some contended that the Taliban had had a disproportionate role in increasing the recent violence.
Three days later, India quickly accommodated a request from the Afghanistan penholders to hold a meeting.
At the August 6 briefing, the UN special envoy on Afghanistan, Deborah Lyons, had asserted that the international community must convey to the Taliban that “a government imposed by force will not be recognised”. Among the member states, the UK and Niger had also reiterated this principle.
Outside the Council, US’s special envoy for the Afghan peace talks, Zalmay Khalilzad had also said on August 10 that a Taliban government that comes to power through force would not be recognised.
This principle, however, may not hold with many countries eager to give legitimacy to a Taliban government.
A day after television channels flashed photos of armed Taliban sitting in an empty presidential palace, it is now clear that the transition process, negotiated behind the scenes, was a non-starter, with Ghani leaving without taking part in a transfer of power ceremony.
The arrival of an Afghan political leaders’ delegation in Islamabad – many of whom are members of the erstwhile Northern Alliance – shows also that Pakistan is trying to forge a transitional arrangement.
Meanwhile, China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said that the Taliban should ensure a “smooth transition” and establish an “open and inclusive Islamic government”. China, whose embassy remains operational, was willing to develop “friendly and cooperative relations with Afghanistan”, she said.
This is likely to be the line adopted by China, Russia and others who want a transitional arrangement in place at the earliest, which will allow them to recognise the new government quickly.
Only Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia had recognised the Taliban government formed in 1996. But this time, it is likely to be different.
It will also be interesting to see the line taken by Afghan envoy Ghulam Isaczai, who had previously asked the UNSC to properly implement the sanction regime against the Taliban to pressure them to engage in talks with the Afghan government.
Facing the Council, Isaczai would be in a difficult position, but it remains to be seen whether he will go down the Myanmar envoy or dodges the bullet.
As per SC procedure, the UN had not recognised the Taliban regime in 1996, and the previous Rabbani government’s diplomats were treated as Afghan representatives at the UN.
When Taliban in power ’96-2001 UN didn’t grant recognition. As per 1997 Legal Opinion p.3, as per GA Credentials Cttee 1996 deferral & Rule 29, Rabbani govt delegates continued as Afghan reps.
Under SCR 1333 Taliban wasnt allowed NYC office but only 1 jr level diplo using his apt pic.twitter.com/TAim17yEbR— SC Procedure (@SCProcedure) August 14, 2021
This could mean that the UN General Assembly credentials committee in September may have to decide on whether to recognise new representatives for Afghanistan, along with Myanmar.
Last week, even as the Taliban was swiftly advancing across the country, UNSC member states were also negotiating a draft statement that would have condemned the assault on cities and threatened sanctions.
However, with the Taliban takeover complete, events may have overtaken the Council’s negotiation process.
It remains to be seen if India will use its chairmanship of the 1988 Sanctions Committee to take a diverging view from the major powers and propose strict implementation of the sanctions against the Taliban. Any such proposal will not likely go through the committee, which decides by consensus, but at least it will show the cards held by most countries.
Indian diplomats had been satisfied with the adoption of the presidential statement on Maritime Security. It was issued after the high-level discussion on maritime security, touted as the first-ever focused meeting on the topic held in a “holistic manner”. The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had chaired the meeting, which saw participation from the Russian president Vladimir Putin, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta and Vietnam Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh.
The presidential statement had been in work for several months.
Diplomatic sources confirmed that China had objected to listing the issue of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing as a threat to maritime security, which was removed from the draft text. This was first reported by Security Council Report.
Sources added that India’s position on IUU was similar to that of China as New Delhi also did not consider it an issue that threatened international security.
India considered it a triumph that China had endorsed the presidential statement, which affirmed that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea was the “legal framework applicable to activities in the oceans, including countering illicit activities at sea”.
This week in UNSC
After the Afghanistan meeting on Monday, the Council will have a private meeting on Myanmar.
India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar will also be in New York to preside over two meetings – an open debate on ‘Technology and Peacekeeping’ and a discussion on the UNSG’s report on threats from Islamic State.
This is a weekly column that tracks the UNSC during India’s current term as a non-permanent member. Previous columns can be found here.
