UN Humanitarian Intervention in Afghanistan
Introduction
The basic idea behind humanitarian response and assistance appears to be a simple concept. However, there is still an extensive debate surrounding the best operational approach to adopt when offering aid to conflict-ridden countries and regions (De Torrenté, 2004). In Afghanistan, despite over fifteen years of UN humanitarian operations, the country still exhibits some of the world's most troubling social indicators, such as the highest infant mortality rate, the second-highest maternal mortality rate, and it is the only country where women have a lower life expectancy than men (Donini, 2010). This is because humanitarian action in Afghanistan was always subject to some degree of political instrumentalization from the mid-1980s until the present and even more so after September 2001 (Donini, 2004). The Afghanistan case shows how the definition of “humanitarian” has evolved to suit various political contexts.
This article examines research related to international efforts, the role of the UN during the war in Afghanistan, and its humanitarian intervention. The purpose is to unravel and make sense of the complex and large body of literature on the topic, and to possibly identify a feasible plan of action for an adequate humanitarian response. This paper aims to consider three critical inquiries: a) how the UN's humanitarian response adapted in parallel with the evolving conflict, b) how UN humanitarian action can be understood in the international context, and c) the implications of an understanding of differences in humanitarian actions. This article will therefore answer the following research question: What has been the role and the response of the UN during the war in Afghanistan in improving the living conditions of the Afghan people?
The first part of this paper will focus on establishing a framework by providing a general context of international humanitarian law and UN rules on humanitarian intervention. It will continue with a general examination of the Afghanistan war and then proceed by presenting and analyzing the current literature on the UN humanitarian response in Afghanistan. Finally, a conclusion will be drawn.
UN Humanitarian intervention
The United Nations was founded in the shadow of the two World Wars with the purpose of maintaining international peace and security, and mandating strict prohibitions against the use of violence between states (Lu, 2007). During the Cold War, states never used humanitarian reasons as a way of justifying their use of force in certain areas, even though, in those cases, the use of force succeeded in preventing mass atrocities (Lu, 2007). The post-Cold War era saw an increase in Western leaders embracing a customary norm of humanitarian intervention as a response to humanitarian emergencies (Collins, 2001). But what is humanitarian intervention exactly? According to Catherine Lu (Lu, 2007) “Humanitarian interventions would constitute global law enforcement, implying the disinterested and impartial use of force in the service of universal humanitarian interests” (Lu 2007, p.943). However, given contemporary global conditions, it is not realistic to think that states will use military force in an impartial and disinterested manner (Lu, 2007). Even though the basic idea behind humanitarian intervention is neutrality, the definition of what is “humanitarian” has expanded and contracted to suit particular political goals (Donini, 2004). Indeed, during its first 45 years, the UN was predominantly associated with non-intervention in the internal matters of sovereign states (Roberts, 2003). However, in the post-Cold War period, the UN became associated with a “pattern of interventionism” that was frequently justified on humanitarian grounds (Roberts, 2003, p.72). Thus, the UN transformed from an institution created to prevent the use of force, to a tool employed for the application of force.
Since the issue of humanitarian intervention typically arises in connection with internal state matters, the most relevant aspect of international humanitarian law is that which pertains to non-international armed conflicts (Roberts, 2003). However, this part of international law offers little support for interventionism (Roberts, 2003). The 1977 Geneva Protocol II Article 3, entitled ‘Non-intervention’ states:
1. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the State.
2. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs. (Refworld - UNHCR’s Global Law and Policy Database, 2024)
To add to the international law, the UN regulates itself according to the UN Charter. The UN Charter dictates the general duties of both the "Security Council" and the UN Member States (Lillich, 1995). Under Article 24(1) of the Charter, members “confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility, the Security Council acts on their behalf”. In carrying out these duties, the Security Council “shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations” (United Nations, n.d.).
Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Article 39 then defines the specific powers granted to the Security Council: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace[…] and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken[…] to maintain and restore international peace and security”. Finally, Article 48(1) of Chapter VII, grants the Security Council with the power to determine whether the action required to carry out its decisions is to be taken by all or only some of the UN Member States.
Essentially, the Charter limits the right of states to use force internationally to cases of self-defense and assistance in controlled military operations or UN-authorized interventions.
Finally, it is important to take great care to regulate that these domestic conflicts are not used as an excuse for the intervention of big power states in domestic affairs of small states, or that human rights issues are not used for different purposes other than destabilizing other governments (Lillich, 1995).
Afghanistan Case
Considering the case of Afghanistan within the humanitarian intervention framework is not an easy task (Ayub et al., 2008). Indeed, the US intervention in Afghanistan was not framed around humanitarian intervention grounds, but rather as a response to the 9/11 attacks (Ayub et al. 2008). In other words, Afghanistan was a target under the counterterrorism context and not the humanitarian one. However, the initial US plan to quickly overthrow the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership transformed into the complex issue of long-term state-building and stabilization (Ayub et al. 2008). Therefore, in this particular case, the definition of humanitarian action was wide and included rehabilitation and development activities. During this period, dangerous contradictions undermined the application of the UN’s basic principles, as nation-building activities favored political agendas (Donini 2004). In this context, the UN’s principles of coherence and integration became loaded terms.
History of Afghanistan
The history of modern Afghanistan dates back to 1919 when the Afghan state gained sovereign independence after the two Anglo-Afghan wars (Barnett 2007). However, its independence did not necessarily mean unity, indeed the country remained ethnically diverse and the differences between the rural and poorer areas as opposed to the urban and richer areas, were still prevailing (Ayub et al., 2008). All these factors left Afghanistan vulnerable to the machinations of more powerful countries that led to the first three out of the four major cycles of violence that paradoxically shaped Afghanistan as it is today: the Communist coup in 1978, the Soviet invasion in 1979 and the subsequent war of resistance against the Soviet Union in the 1980s (Ayub et al., 2008). The Soviet Union devastated most of the Afghan land but the Afghan guerrilla forces, with the help of the United States, were able to defeat the Soviets. However, with the defeat of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Western countries withdrew their interest in Afghanistan, leaving the state at a time when the Afghan population needed it the most to recover and rebuild after the violence (Ayub et al. 2008). This, consequently, led to a civil war in which the Taliban played a central role. From this moment onward, a series of domestic clashes between the Taliban and the capital initiated a conflicted history of violence and human rights abuses against not only the opposition factions but also towards the civilian population (Ayub et al. 2008). It was in this period that Osama Bin Laden consolidated his power by establishing the Taliban government. Despite the UN efforts to mediate a series of peace negotiations, Taliban forces continued to control most of the country (Ayub et al. 2008). In September 2001, the fourth phase of violence began.
UN humanitarian response
The UN's response to this conflict has been “profoundly imperceptive” (Saikal 1996, p.19) and has demonstrated an incapacity to tackle the conflict in an unconventional manner different from the usual consolidated approach to conflict resolution (Saikal 1996). The adopted UN approaches have proved to be inadequate in the understanding of the nature of Afghan politics and society and this failure has had a great impact on the future UN humanitarian operations (Saikal 1996). However, this lack of success cannot only be attributed to the UN but rather to a combination of “forgetfulness” of the UN’s basic principles of neutrality and impartiality and the politicization and instrumentalization of the humanitarian aid on the part of the state donors (Donini, 2004).
It is important to note that humanitarian action in Afghanistan has always been subject, to a certain degree, to political instrumentalization (Donini 2010). During the Soviet period in the 1980s, UN humanitarian action was used as a tool for military objectives during which the United States and other Western countries sponsored and founded the UN humanitarian agencies to provide humanitarian assistance for their troops and to try to impose their political agendas (Donini, 2004).
The UN operation in Afghanistan (UNAMA) was established in March 2002 as a civilian-only operation aiming to incorporate all the basic UN principles and elements in the Afghanistan case (Ayub et al., 2008). The operation focused on implementing the Bonn Agreement, an international accord created in 2001 by Afghan leaders and global powers after the fall of the Taliban. This agreement established an Interim Authority to govern Afghanistan temporarily until a new government could be selected through an emergency Loya Jirga, a traditional grand assembly of Afghan tribal, political, and religious leaders. The Bonn Agreement also laid out the framework for how the Interim Authority would operate and required all armed groups to be brought under the control of the newly formed Afghan Armed Forces. The UN played a key role, helping to build a national army and making sure the agreement was followed. At the same time, the operation worked on creating a plan that prioritized human rights and included programs that specifically supported women and vulnerable groups. As time went on, UNAMA started to turn its attention towards structural issues to ensure population security and peace (Ayub et al., 2008). Therefore, protection of vulnerable populations, development of livelihoods, legitimization of the transnational government, and equal distribution of assistance, began to be taken into consideration in the UN operation.
Thus, the UN made a clear policy decision, the Strategic Framework, that prioritized the Afghans in the transitional process (Kreczko, 2003). However, by positioning the central government as the key player in establishing a future transitional government, UNAMA's impartiality was called into question, which ultimately undermined the effectiveness of its efforts (Hasegawa, 2008). In other words, the UN humanitarian actions came to be seen as antagonistic due to this political side of the UNAMA. Thus, unfortunately, the UNAMA partially lived up to the initial objective of addressing micro-level protection gaps and functioned more indirectly, such as by monitoring the overall situation, addressing some human rights concerns, and contributing to forming a legal and political system (Hasegawa, 2008).
According to Antonio Donini, ultimately the failure of the UN humanitarian intervention can be understood as the result of the politicization of the humanitarian aid that did not allow the UN to work according to humanitarian principles and, therefore, devote an adequate priority to addressing humanitarian needs (Donini, 2004). This, combined with popular anger and the overall slow pace of the reconstruction efforts, endangered also future UN humanitarian intervention operations (Donini, 2004).
Conclusion
The purpose of this work is to review the UN humanitarian response and, more specifically, its intervention during the Afghanistan war and, therefore, answer the research question: what has been the role and the response of the UN during the war in Afghanistan in improving the living conditions of the Afghani?
The article has indeed illustrated the main plan of action that the UN adopted, the UNAMA, and the following Strategic Framework. The paper has examined how the UNAMA objectives were strictly connected to the idea of implementing a transitional government by supporting the central one and trying to negotiate peace. However, this political nature of the plan has compromised the principle of neutrality and made it impossible for the UN to pursue its peace-building agenda.
It must be said that the failure of the UN humanitarian intervention cannot only be attributed to the intended plan of action. Afghanistan is a crucial case in the global war on terror and therefore much more forces are at play. Moreover, the intervention in Afghanistan, despite its failure, provides at least a useful way and optimistic experimentation for a humanitarian approach that can be improved and undertaken in other at-risk areas, and a useful attempt to meet the enormous needs of Afghan civilians equitably.
Bibliographical References
Ayub, F., & Kouvo, S. (2008). Righting the course? Humanitarian intervention, the war on terror and the future of Afghanistan. International Affairs, 84(4), 641–657. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00730.x
Bellamy, A. J., & Wheeler, N. J. (2008). Humanitarian intervention in world politics. The globalization of world politics, 5, 479-496.
Benelli, P., Donini, A., & Niland, N. (2012). AFGHANISTAN: Humanitarianism in Uncertain Times. Feinstein International Center. https://fic.tufts.edu/assets/Afghan-uncertain-times.pdf
Cohen, R. (2002). Afghanistan and the challenges of humanitarian action in time of war. DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals). https://doaj.org/article/e74f1f6e3b1946e289242ca48095a1f0
Collins, J. (2011). Understanding war in Afghanistan. https://doi.org/10.21236/ada546476
Crawshaw, R., & Holmström, L. (2010). 16. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed
Conflicts (Protocol II). In Martinus Nijhoff Publishers eBooks (pp. 213–224). https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004164819.i-520.69
De Torrenté, N. (2004). Humanitarianism sacrificed: integration's false promise. Ethics & International Affairs, 18(2), 3-12.
Donini, A. (2010). Afghanistan: Humanitarianism Unraveled?. Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
Hasegawa, Y. (2008). The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan: Impartiality in new UN peace operations. Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2(2), 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/17502970801988123
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36b4.html
Kreczko, A. J. (2003). The Afghan Experiment: the Afghan support group, principled common programming and the strategic framework. Disasters, 27(3), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7717.00231
Lillich, R. B. (1995). The Role of the UN Security Council in Protecting Human Rights in Crisis Situations: UN Humanitarian Intervention in the Post-Cold War World. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 3, 1-18.
Lu, C. (2007). Humanitarian intervention: Moral ambition and political constraints. International Journal, 62(4), 942-951.
Magnus, R. H. (2019). Humanitarian response to an inhuman strategy. In Routledge eBooks. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429039669-8
Olson, L. (2006). Fighting for humanitarian space: NGOs in Afghanistan. Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, 9(1).
Roberts, A. (2003). The United Nations and humanitarian intervention. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 71–97). https://doi.org/10.1093/0199267219.003.0005
Rubin, B. R. (2007). Saving Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs, 86(1), 57–78. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20032211
Saikal, A. (1996). The UN and Afghanistan: A case of failed peacemaking intervention? International Peacekeeping, 3(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533319608413592
Saving Afghanistan on JSTOR. (n.d.). https://www.jstor.org/stable/20032211
Sharp, T. W., Burkle, F. M., Vaughn, A., Chotani, R. A., & Brennan, R. (2002). Challenges and opportunities for humanitarian relief in Afghanistan. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 34(Supplement_5), S215–S228. https://doi.org/10.1086/340706
Stockton, N. (2002). The failure of international humanitarian action in Afghanistan. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 8(3), 265–271. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-00803002
United Nations. (n.d.). United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
Visual Sources
Cover Picture: Admin. (2024, January 10). The role of the United Nations in military peacekeeping - NotransmilitaryBan. Notransmilitaryban. https://notransmilitaryban.org/the-role-of-the-united-nations-in-military-peacekeeping/
Figure 1: Afghanistan: Humanitarian crisis threatens basic human rights. (2021, December 17). UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/1107902
Figure 2: Amidst new challenges, Geneva Conventions mark 70 years of ‘limiting brutality’ during war. (2019, August 17). UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/08/1044161
Figure 3: Afghanistan - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. (2024, September 3). Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. https://www.globalr2p.org/countries/afghanistan/
Figure 4: BBC News. (2022, August 12). Who are the Taliban? https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718
Figure 5: Ordinary Afghans ‘broke and broken’, warns UN migration agency chief. (2021, November 8). UN News. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1104862
Figure 6: 郭蓉. (n.d.). Afghanistan facing profound humanitarian crisis, UN warns. Chinadaily.com.cn. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202112/15/WS61b95a32a310cdd39bc7b7b6.html
Figure 7: Briefing by acting head of UNAMA Markus Potzel to the Security Council. (2022, September 22). UNAMA. https://unama.unmissions.org/briefing-acting-head-unama-markus-potzel-security-council
Comments