As Afghanistan moves towards elections in two weeks, the U.N. has released numbers suggesting progress in a critical area—the disarmament of Afghanistan's militias of their heavy weapons. On September 26, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) announced that U.N. disarmament programs had now secured almost half of all heavy weapons in Afghanistan, showing rapid if belated progress. As the disarmament program enters its most crucial stage in the coming weeks, however, two big questions remain: what weapons are being turned in, and by whom?

On September 26, UNAMA spokesman Manoel de Almeida e Silva noted that in its first eight days, the Afghanistan New Beginnings Programme had secured 130 of the 286 known heavy weapons in Herat and 86 of the 337 heavy weapons in Kandahar.

While this is impressive progress at first glance, the true tests are yet to come. First, as the media has frequently pointed out, militia leaders are reluctant to part with their best weapons and most loyal troops. The first waves of firearms impressed antique gun collectors far more than disarmament officials. When militia leaders comply with disarmament orders, they have typically done so by culling their weakest arms and least effective soldiers.

The second critical question—which has not been asked often enough—is: where is the disarmament occurring? Notably absent from the UN reports were the figures from the Panjshir Valley, stronghold of the country's most powerful militia leader and Defense Minister Mohammad Qasim Fahim. That's because no disarmament has occurred there yet.

Fahim's militia is nominally loyal to Kabul, but is comprised primarily of ethnic Tajiks, and has not readily integrated into the Afghan National Army. Fahim has admitted to stockpiling heavy weaponry at his home base in the Panjshir Valley, but claimed these arms were for the national army, not for the Panjshiri militia faction. Leaders from other regions and ethnicities are understandably skeptical.

The current disarmament process highlights the classic security dilemma: even if reducing everyone's arms makes everyone more secure, it's hard to make these cuts because each side fears its rivals won't comply. If disarmament leaves one group's forces more intact than others, or is perceived as doing so, it will often heighten instability. Asymmetries in the disarmament process, coupled with the perception in Afghanistan that military strength remains the backbone to political influence, could prove volatile as the country approaches presidential and parliamentary elections.

According to UNAMA, the process of securing the Panjshir Valley's heavy weapons begins this week. Stay tuned—this is the most critical test of the disarmament program yet.

Carl Robichaud is a program officer at The Century Foundation. This article originally appeared in Afghanistan Watch.