For
Afghanistan in
2015, Is A New
UNSC
Resolution
Needed by Some
Countries?
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
December 3, more
here --
Given the new
bilateral
agreements
between
Afghanistan
with NATO, and
separately
with the US,
is a new UN
Security
Council
resolution
needed?
Back on
October 9,
German Defense
Minister
Thomas de
Maiziere said,
“We would want
to have a UN
resolution, a
resolution of
the U.N.
Security
Council.”
Now as the
deadline draws
near, and it
emerges that
contrary to
what was
previously
announced the
US does
envision
conducting
some combat
operations in
Afghanistan
after the end
of the year,
the question
is whether a
resolution
will be
adopted in the
UN Security
Council.
Inner City
Press on
December 3
asked the
ambassadors of
both Russia
and the United
Kingdom about
it. Russia's
Vitaly Churkin
told Inner
City Press,
“there is
anther
complicating
element. The
American
operations in
Afghanistan on
basis of the
bilateral
agreement with
Afghanistan
are not
covered by
this NATO
Afghanistan
arrangement,
and therefore
will not be
covered by
this possible
Security
Council
resolution.”
He said, “the
American seem
to have
changed their
minds.
Originally
they announced
that after
this year they
would not
engage in
combat
operations.
Now there are
reports that
after all they
do envision
the
possibility of
some combat
operations. I
think that in
that context
there also
needs to be a
concern, will
NATO be able
to stay within
announced
scope of just
training and
supporting the
Afghani
forces?”
Churkin
said that some
in NATO now
says that a
resolution is
not absolutely
necessary but
that “this is
required by
some counties,
both members
of NATO and
non members of
NATO who
theoretically
would like to
participate.
But they have
their
requirements
and we have
our
requirements
on the
Security
Council,”
including a
substantive
end of mission
report, and
future
reporting to
the Security
Council.
He concluded
that there are
too many
unanswered
questions to
say with
certainty that
the Security
Council will
be able to
adopt a
resolution. He
said, “there
are curtain
requirements,
we believe,
which need to
be met. The
first
requirement is
that before we
encourage in
any way a new
operation we
need to be
updated on the
results of the
previous
operation. At
this point
there is no
assurance that
we’ll receive
a substantive
report. Not
just a short
sentence that
they have
completed
their mission,
but one
containing an
analysis of
what has been
accomplished
and what has
not. This is
the first
requirement.
Another
requirement is
that we
believe that
the Security
Council cannot
simply produce
a text of a
resolution and
let the
process go
into the blue.
We need
reports to the
SC. And for
some reason
NATO countries
are reluctant
to give us
assurance that
they are going
to report
their
activities to
the SC.
Without
periodic
reports to the
SC we believe
it’s rather
strange to
endorse
something and
than to forget
all about it.”
Moments later,
Inner City
Press asked UK
Ambassador
Mark Lyall
Grant about
it, as he
headed to the
Permanent Five
members'
meeting room,
into which his
Australian
counterpart
Gary Quinlan
had already
gone in. Lyall
Grant told
Inner City
Press that
some do want
such a
resolution,
and that
there'll be a
discussion.
Watch this
site.
, 
