Global Policy Forum

By Ewen MacAskill

Britain privately opposed the fresh round of United Nations sanctions imposed against Afghanistan this week, according to a security council source yesterday. Although Britain voted for the sanctions, in private British diplomats in New York worked up until the last minute to try to block them. The security council source said that the only outcome of the sanctions would be to make the already appalling humanitarian situation in Afghanistan even worse.

The ruling Taliban reacted to the sanctions by pulling out of UN peace talks aimed at ending the civil war, and ordering a boycott of US and Russian goods - a largely meaningless gesture as few can afford such items. America and Russia, which formerly occupied Afghanistan, unusually joined forces in the security council to push through the sanctions, aimed at the Taliban government in Kabul. UN staff were pulled out on the orders of the New York headquarters fearful of Taliban retaliation.

The security council source said: This was all predictable. The Taliban reaction was predictable. Whether it is the fault of the Taliban or our action, the people who are going to be hurt on the ground are the people of Afghanistan.'

UN sanctions were imposed against the Taliban government last year. The latest round includes a ban on arms to the Taliban and more flight restrictions. The sanctions are largely symbolic: the Afghan economy is in such disrepair that they will have little impact.

The US is keen to keep up pressure on Afghanistan to hand over Osama bin Laden, the terrorist accused of bombing US embassies in east Africa in 1998 and suspected of involvement in the recent attack on USS Cole in Yemen. The sanctions will come into force if Bin Laden is not handed over by next month, but the Taliban government claims there is insufficient evidence against him.

Britain was joined in its scepticism about the value of the sanctions by Canada and the Netherlands. If it had not been put on the table, we would not have dreamt it up,' one of the diplomats involved said. The security council source said that, in addition to worries about the humanitarian impact, the big question was: How can we possibly implement these sanctions? '

The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, took the unusual step on Tuesday, the day the resolution was passed, of warning that it would harm the UN's humanitarian work and do little to help the peace process.

The World Food Programme said yesterday that it had begun to ship food aid through Iran to Afghanistan to fight a potential famine brought on by the worst drought in 30 years. It said up to 12m Afghans were affected by the four-month-old drought, 3-4m of them severely, with thousands forced to migrate to urban centres.

The office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees expressed disappointment yesterday that its staff had had to leave. Yusuf Hassan, the senior regional external relations officer for the south-west and central Asian region, said the presence of UN staff was a must: I think we need to have presence inside (Afghanistan) to monitor the condition and to continue to support the refugees coming back.' He quoted the high commissioner, Sadako Ogata, as saying: The vast majority of Afghans face a constant struggle to survive the effects of armed conflict, grinding poverty, displacement and the worst drought in living memory.'

The International Committee of the Red Cross said it would keep its staff in Afghanistan.