By Dr. Assem Akram
As the United Nations General Assembly is opening in
New York, one important question needs to be asked: Is
the United Nations direct cooperation with US forces in
Afghanistan in accordance with the letter and the spirit
of its own Charter?
When the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was asked
whether the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq broke
international law, he said: Yes, if you wish. I have
indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. Charter
from our point of view, and from the charter point of
view it was illegal. (News Agencies, Sept. 17, 2004).
Annans remark prompts this question: Is the United
Nations direct cooperation with US expeditionary forces
in Afghanistan legal and does it fit the frame set by
the United Nations Charter?
It would appear that nobody seems to be really bothered
by this issue, but when I hear or read that UN election
workers or other UN expatriate staffs in Afghanistan are
being escorted by the US military to this or that
location to perform their duty, I raise eye-brows.
Almost three years after the fall of the Taliban, the
American expeditionary force (more than 20, 000 now) has
no legal basis for its continued presence in
Afghanistan. The only texts that provide legitimacy to a
foreign military presence in Afghanistan are the UN
Security Council Resolutions that are voted on a cyclic
basis (the latest being Resolution 1536 of March 26,
2004) giving mandate to a number of UN approved
initiatives with the aim to bring peace, stability and
recovery to Afghanistan. Resolution 1536 bears no
mention of the US contingent in Afghanistan and
therefore signals by default that its action is not
being approved by the world body.
The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is
the only ad hoc military force that has been created and
mandated by the UN (Resolutions 1386, 1413, 1444 and
1510). It is a multinational coalition contingent acting
under a clearly defined mission in Afghanistan. This
force, strong of about 6,500 men originating from a
variety of contributing countries, has a conditional
existence that is prolonged every six months after a
formal review of its action by the Security Council.
Conversely, the American forces in Afghanistan are not
part of the ISAF and do not respond to the worries and
the goals set by the International Community through the
UN; rather they are there to pursue particular strategic
and policy goals molded in Washington by the Bush
Administration. The American expeditionary forces in
Afghanistan do not report to the Interim Afghan
Government led by Hamed Karzai - though a man they
helped put in place -, and are solely reporting to their
own higher hierarchy in Washington. In essence, no
matter what its motivation may be, the American
contingent on Afghan soil is an occupation force in a
country that is officially sovereign, independent and a
full member of the United Nations.
The question is therefore to wonder if, in Afghanistan,
the United Nations by collaborating with an occupation
force to implement a policy and an agenda that are
designed in Washington is not clearly violating its own
Charter and discrediting itself by setting a dangerous
precedent. Did Kofi Annan understand the implications of
blurring the line between UN-approved programs of action
and those outlined by the US-led expeditionary forces in
Afghanistan? Did the Secretary General realize that by
allowing, for example, the ISAF to take part in the
Pentagon-engineered Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT)
scheme, he was not only putting in jeopardy the
credibility of the very institution he represents but
also that he was putting at risk the lives of hundreds
of NGO workers as well as UN staff members operating in
Afghanistan and perhaps elsewhere?
A result of this miscalculated promiscuity can very
unfortunately be viewed in the events of Herat where,
earlier this month, a mob of demonstrators protesting
Governor Ismail Khans dismissal attacked UN flagged
offices while chanting Death to America and Karzai
Puppet. This is only the last striking event in a
string of unfortunate incidents where UN and
humanitarian workers have been targeted. It is indeed
very dangerous to give the perception that US military
and the UN are working hand in hand in Afghanistan and
that the US military, the UN and NGOs are likewise
cooperating in a common humanitarian and reconstruction
task in Afghanistan. Whereas the NGOs have repeatedly
denounced this amalgam because of the risk their
personnel is undergoing, the UN has been silently
accepting the blurring of the lines and has been
collaborating on a daily basis with the US expeditionary
forces in Afghanistan, perhaps adopting a too pragmatic
attitude.
I believe that in order to retain its credibility and
assert its positive neutrality, the United Nations in
Afghanistan should distinguish its action from that of
the American expeditionary contingent. Each entity has
its own mission, obey to different rules and pursue
different objectives. The only alternative would be that
Washington puts its troops under the UN umbrella and
integrates the ISAF, which it is reluctant to do because
it would tie its hands and it would then no longer be
able to do what ever it pleases, as it does now. Outside
an explicit mandate voted by the UN, any foreign
military presence in Afghanistan violates international
law and, consequently, any collaboration with such a
force infringes the spirit and the letter of the UN
Charter: one would have expected that the last to do so
would have been the UN itself, guarantor of the
international legality!