1. Home
  2. Asia
  3. Afghanistan
  • News

US-Russian stand on embargo worries humanitarians

As a “punishment” for alleged support of terrorism, senior US and Russian officials say they have introduced a resolution to the UN Security Council which would add an arms embargo to existing sanctions on the ruling Taliban Islamic Movement of Afghanistan. But humanitarian experts say the move, which excludes opposition forces battling the Taliban, could complicate the delivery of humanitarian aid to suffering Afghans by provoking a backlash from the Taliban authorities. “This resolution is specifically tied to the terrorism issue,” a US official told reporters on Thursday. “We want to punish the Taliban leadership for harbouring terrorism over the past two years”. A year ago the Security Council froze Taliban assets and imposed an air embargo on Afghanistan’s Taliban-run airline. The goal was to pressure the Taliban into delivering Osama bin Laden, a millionaire Saudi Arabian exile, for trial for the August 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. The Taliban refused, saying the United States had not given proof of bin Laden’s involvement. Although US officials say that the proposed embargo is not designed to hurt the Afghan people, humanitarian sources express concern that a one-sided arms ban imposed by the international community could invoke a harsh reaction by the Taliban authorities, with serious repercussions on humanitarian relief efforts. Anders Fange, Director of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan, told IRIN that such a one-sided arms embargo could result in increased suspicion and negative feeling among the Taliban authorities towards non-governmental organisations (NGOs) as well as UN humanitarian agencies. Medecins sans frontieres (MSF) Country Manager, Fouad Hikmat reinforced this view. “This type of sanction would only further complicate an already complicated situation. We are trying to reach populations in need and such an action would certainly set the clock back, in terms of creating a more difficult situation to work in,” he said. The US official said on Thursday that the resolution currently under discussion sought to ban the sale of all military equipment to the Taliban. In addition, the official added, it proposed that the Taliban turn over bin Laden without delay and close all terrorist training camps within 30 days. Diplomatic sources in Islamabad told IRIN on Wednesday that the proposed arms embargo was specifically linked to the Taliban’s hosting of alleged terrorists, and therefore did not apply to the opposition United Front (also known as the Northern Alliance). The embargo was not expected to directly affect the Afghan population or disrupt international assistance to Afghanistan, they said. The spokesperson for the Russian embassy in Islamabad, Yevgeny Griva, told IRIN that the situation in Afghanistan was “out of control”. “In our opinion, the instability in Central Asia and Chechnya is a direct result from Afghanistan. Our main concern is the presence of terrorist training camps that we know are supported by the Taliban regime,” he said. Griva recognised that the imposition of a one-sided embargo could make the situation inside Afghanistan more “unpredictable” for humanitarian assistance. However, he thought it was “possible for the international community to impose an embargo and provide food to Afghans at the same time”. Nancy Dupree, a well respected author on Afghanistan, told IRIN that further “discriminatory sanctions” are liable to create some unrest and destabilise the country. “As far as humanitarian aid is concerned, there are likely to be repercussions and this could hinder the delivery of humanitarian aid,” Dupree said. The timing of the proposed sanctions was particularly bad, she added. “At this stage, with winter coming, the drought still affecting people, the border with Pakistan closed - I think this has nothing to do with the welfare of the people in Afghanistan.” Dupree feared the proposed embargo could “back the Taliban into a corner”, with terrible implications for humanitarian activities. Haneef Atmar, Programme Manager for Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), told IRIN that the perceptions of Afghan civilians, reeling from the effects of prolonged war, economic hardship and drought, had to be seriously considered. “Any threat of sanctions of an economic nature would definitely cause resentment by the population towards the international community,” he said. Last year’s imposition of sanctions led to widespread demonstrations, the ransacking of UN humanitarian offices in Afghanistan and a temporary exodus of international personnel. Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador in Islamabad, told IRIN on Thursday: “We have always supported an arms embargo, but not a unilateral one. We find reports of additional unilateral measures depressing - the United Nations is giving our enemies once again the opportunity to prolong Afghanistan’s miseries.” Zaeef added that the Taliban would continue to support humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan, which he hoped would continue to be administered impartially. The European Union (EU) also recently expressed support for an arms ban on Afghanistan. Mette Petersen of the EU delegation in Islamabad told IRIN that the European Parliament had issued a resolution in October calling for the UN Security Council to impose an embargo on arms exports to Afghanistan. Afghans themselves have long called for an arms embargo to help end the fighting between the ruling Taliban movement, which controls up to 95 percent of the country, and the opposition United Front. Haneef Atmar of NCA considered that placing an arms embargo only on the Taliban was a skewed approach. “Sanctions must be balanced, and not one-sided. A balanced arms embargo is what Afghan people have, in fact, wanted for the past two decades,” he said. Atmar acknowledged that the proposed one-sided ban could complicate relations with the Taliban but said the authorities would think twice before restricting international assistance. “I don’t think the Taliban would force the UN to leave the country again. This would put them in direct confrontation with the Afghan people by taking the only support mechanism that civilians have.”

This article was produced by IRIN News while it was part of the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Please send queries on copyright or liability to the UN. For more information: https://shop.un.org/rights-permissions

Share this article

Get the day’s top headlines in your inbox every morning

Starting at just $5 a month, you can become a member of The New Humanitarian and receive our premium newsletter, DAWNS Digest.

DAWNS Digest has been the trusted essential morning read for global aid and foreign policy professionals for more than 10 years.

Government, media, global governance organisations, NGOs, academics, and more subscribe to DAWNS to receive the day’s top global headlines of news and analysis in their inboxes every weekday morning.

It’s the perfect way to start your day.

Become a member of The New Humanitarian today and you’ll automatically be subscribed to DAWNS Digest – free of charge.

Become a member of The New Humanitarian

Support our journalism and become more involved in our community. Help us deliver informative, accessible, independent journalism that you can trust and provides accountability to the millions of people affected by crises worldwide.

Join