Tag Archives: UN Security Council

Simmering borders: Hindu editorials on Pakistan’s ceasefire violations | Instant News

With a series of ceasefire violations by the Pakistan Army targeting civilians, and heavy artillery fire by the Indian Army, LoC is once again boiling over. Six civilians, four Indian Army personnel and a BSF militia were killed in shooting from Pakistan in three sectors, and official Pakistani media said one Pakistani soldier and five civilians were killed by Indian cross-border shelling. The government accuses Pakistan of carrying out the shootings as a means of providing cover for terrorists who infiltrate India before winter snow closes underground routes and routes, and issue démarche to Pakistan’s top diplomat in New Delhi on Saturday condemned “coordinated firing across the LoC using heavy caliber weapons, including artillery and mortars, against Indian civilians” by the Pakistan Army. The temperature was further raised by the political words of the highest level. Prime Minister Modi’s speech, as he stood on a tank during Deepavali’s visit to the Longewala post, warned about “prachand answers (fierce reply) “ to Pakistan, and criticized China’s “expansionist mindset”, albeit without naming any of its neighbors. Hours later, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan tweeted that there must be “doubts” of Pakistan’s ability and “national determination” to defend its borders. Pakistan’s attack on LoC was followed by allegations of terror against India. In a new diplomatic tactic, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi appeared at a joint press conference with the Pakistani military spokesman, claims to have a “dossier” about India’s involvement in the terror attacks inside Pakistan which it says primarily targets the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) infrastructure project. India called the press conference a “futile anti-India propaganda exercise” and said the accusations were fabricated.

The current situation in LoC cannot be normalized and must be taken seriously. Military officials now say 2020 has seen the highest firing rate since the 2003 India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement, with a record number of ceasefire violations of 4,052 by Pakistan since January. Pakistan’s intention is to provoke India ahead of a two-year term at the UN Security Council starting January 2021, as well as to cause trouble before the Financial Action Task Force’s review in February. By calling CPEC, Pakistan also appears eager to deepen India-China ties which have experienced what Foreign Minister Harsh Shringla called the “worst crisis” since 1962, as a result of PLA aggression at LAC in Ladakh and strife. . Studying the current escalation by Pakistan, it must be proven that India’s threat matrix includes the very real likelihood of a two-front situation in which the Army will engage in LoC and LAC simultaneously, along with a possible spike in terrorist activity in Jammu and Kashmir.


image source

The truth and half truth of Moeed Yusuf who was not elected as the advisor to Imran Khan-ANI | Instant News

By Tilak Devasher
New Delhi [India] 19 October (ANI): An interview given by Moeed Yusuf, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s national security adviser and strategic policy planning, provided to an Indian media platform recently, made headlines in Pakistan. In some circles, it was even seen as a much-needed victory against the backdrop of the storm of protest by the Opposition.

What is the real role of Moeed Yusuf? A decision issued by the Chair of the Islamabad High Court in August 2020 stated that non-elected advisers and special assistants to the prime minister cannot exercise executive or administrative powers in carrying out government functions; any executive function performed will be deemed to have been taken illegally, and therefore no longer valid. Most importantly, according to court rulings, special advisers and assistants are not even authorized to speak on behalf of the government.

According to the same assessment, the PM’s advisor has no role in the policy affairs of a ministry. Pakistan has Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ministers for Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan Affairs, so how do non-elected advisers make policy statements?
For example, Yusuf asserted that no decision had yet been made to make Gilgit Baltistan (GB) a province and GB would be included in the vote on the day the voting took place. Such policy statements are not only illegal and invalid but also raise the question of whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Kashmiri Affairs have been dismissed or so incompetent that they are handing over responsibility in foreign policy and Kashmir affairs to unelected advisers?

Yusuf may have tried to avoid this breach by projecting himself the equivalent of India’s National Security Advisor (NSA). Unfortunately, he didn’t. Pakistan’s last NSA was Lt. Gen. Naseer Janjua (retired) who resigned in June 2018 after Imran Khan’s government came to power.

So, Yusuf doesn’t have the standi locus to make statements like he does to speak on behalf of the Pakistani government. On this basis alone, entire interviews can be discarded and are best viewed as individual views.

This article could end here but it is necessary to expose the untruth and half-truths that Yusuf made with the full knowledge and support of Imran Khan and through him in the army.

For starters, the interviews, which were conducted at the highest levels in Pakistan, pegged the lie that India was sending messages to Pakistan showing a desire to engage in dialogue. After painting India as the applicant, the interview allowed Yusuf to name the Kashmir-centered prerequisites Pakistan considered necessary for initiating dialogue.
It allows a cheap pulse for its domestic audience that Pakistan is not desperate for dialogue but is laying down difficult conditions before talks can take place. Yusuf must have recognized the absurdity of this condition and the logical conclusion is that if the offer of talks is not basically a bluff, then in a convoluted manner it is an indication that Pakistan is seeking talks.
In short, trying to convey the message that Pakistan was not too interested in dialogue with India, he was just the opposite. However, Yusuf’s efforts were in vain when a spokesman for the Indian MEA later denied claims that India was sending any messages for dialogue.

The more nasty board in the interview tries to force equality between Pakistan and India on the issue of terrorism. He tried to do this by linking to India, the individual who carried out specific attacks in Pakistan such as the Army Public Schools in 2014. Although Yusuf thought this would be sensational, it actually failed because it was not supported by any evidence nor was he convinced why the information was not was revealed before.

In Kashmir, Yusuf said that India has scored its own goals with the change of 05 August 2019, staring at the explosion, must save itself from embarrassment and reverse the course. This raises the question that if India is in a swamp, Pakistan should rejoice, then why should Yusuf be concerned?
Obviously, it is because India has handled the situation with maturity, belying Pakistan’s hopes and Yusuf articulates Pakistan’s frustration so that the situation doesn’t explode.

Yusuf’s underlying argument is that India has become a ‘rogue state’ because it never complied with the UN Charter and UN resolutions and now India has officially violated them. Yusuf clearly hasn’t read the UN resolutions and the step-by-step approach they have put in place for holding the vote. Perhaps it would be good for him to reread the resolution carefully and realize that it was Pakistan that did not follow the resolution and violated the UN resolution and not India.

The extraordinary assertion that Yusuf made was that Pakistan did not recognize the instrument of accession because it was signed under pressure. He, like others before him, had completely ruled out a Pak-sponsored invasion of the so-called muggers on 22 October 1947 which created the Kashmir problem in the first place.
Pakistan had directly planned and carried out the invasion despite having a Standing Agreement with the Maharaja. There is documentary evidence to suggest that Jinnah and Liaquat Ali were on board.
The options before the Maharaja were striking – accept the plunder and destruction of his kingdom or ask for help. He chose the last option but according to Yusuf, he made the suspect’s accession instrument !!! What Yusuf implied was that faced with an invasion, the Maharaja had to agree to Pakistan and then the instrument would become valid.

In Kulbhushan Yadav, Yusuf was also very weak. He claims that the two consular accesses granted are unhindered but they are just that. He insisted that India should choose Pakistani lawyers even after it was shown to him that as far back as April 2017, the Lahore High Court Bar Association had said that action would be taken against Pakistani lawyers defending Kulbhushan Jadhav.
Against such setbacks, how can India expect Pakistani lawyers to defend Jadhav? Joseph could not answer it well.

Regarding the Mumbai terror attacks, which realized Pakistan was buying time, Yusuf accused India of deliberately delaying sending witnesses and sharing evidence.
According to him, this was done to continue to accuse Pakistan of terrorism. This is indeed an absurd argument

The escape door that Yusuf uses is to claim a lofty moral ground, that at the instructions of his prime minister, he wants to talk about the future – ‘to talk to you how we can move forward, how can we solve our problems, not to bring up past matters . ‘
In other words, India should sweep Pakistani terrorist activity under the carpet and forget about it. Joseph had to realize that this was not going to happen. The precious lives of Indians have been lost that the country does not want to forget. Pakistan must accept that regardless of its terrorist activity in India there will be no movement forward and India will bring up its past with full satisfaction.

Where Yusuf is perhaps most self-destructive is his rejection of the Uighur genocide. He stated that the Uighurs were not a problem, ‘… I tell you as a responsible official, we know everything we need to know about the Uighurs and everything in China as they do about us. We have no worries, no worries at all. ‘This is not just an outright lie given the growing body of credible evidence, but it will haunt Joseph for a long time.

Defending the boss is admirable, but for Yusuf to claim that Imran Khan is a strategic thinker is ridiculous and humorous. Imran Khan’s track record is none other than being a strategic thinker while statements like that make Yusuf’s credibility too bad.

Overall, the most striking thing about the interview is the series of untruths and half-truths that Yusuf peddled. In the process, however, he uncovers Pakistan’s strategy to try to damage the Indian brand before India takes a seat on the UN Security Council.
(Disclaimer: The author of this opinion article is Tilak Devasher, who is the author of three well-known books on Pakistan and Member of the National Security Advisory Council) (ANI)

Rejection: The views expressed in the above articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publisher. Unless otherwise noted, the author writes in his personal capacity. They are not intended and should not be considered to represent the ideas, attitudes or official policies of any agency or agency.


image source

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: German Merkel urges a ceasefire as violence escalates | News | DW | Instant News

Fighting between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces in the Caucasus continued until Tuesday, after that two days of escalation and many casualties reported in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Armenian troops reportedly attempted to launch a counterattack on the third day of the conflict to restore several villages that fell to the Azerbaijan military on Monday.

Both sides had used heavy artillery with both military and civilian targets under attack.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for an immediate end to the violence after speaking with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on Monday and Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, on Tuesday.

“The Chancellor … immediately called for an immediate ceasefire and returned to the negotiating table,” his spokesman Steffen Seibert wrote on Twitter.

World leaders urge new negotiations

Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian enclave that is officially part of Azerbaijan but is currently controlled by Armenian forces. Azerbaijan has repeatedly threatened to reclaim the territory by force.

The current battle has gotten worse since the early 1990s, when a A Russian-brokered ceasefire in 1994 ended the Nagorno-Karabakh War, which killed 30,000 people.

The violence has damaged military and civilian infrastructure in Nagorno-Karabakh

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tuesday that “both sides need to stop the violence” and “return to substantive negotiations as quickly as possible,”

The US and France have both said negotiations should be mediated by the so-called Minsk Group, which was set up in the early 1990s to resolve ongoing disputes. It is co-chaired by France, Russia and the US.

The Minsk Group’s last push for peace collapsed in 2010.

Read more: The Armenian-Azerbaijan clash left several people dead in the worst hostilities in years

“We will trigger in the coming days the Minsk Group coordination to clarify what happened, who is responsible and find a way out,” an official at French President Emmanuel Macron’s office said Tuesday.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov called on Turkey to try to end the clashes with “political and diplomatic means,” adding Turkey should not provide weapons to its ally Azerbaijan.

The UN is trying to end the crisis

So far, at least 84 people have died in the latest violent attacks.

Lilit Makunts, a member of the Armenian parliament from the ruling My Step alliance, wrote on Twitter calling Azerbaijan’s aggression an “attempt at ethnic cleansing.”

The UN Security Council called an emergency meeting on Tuesday afternoon to discuss the escalating crisis.

Azerbaijan Defense Ministry spokesman Vagif Dargyakhly dismissed the Armenian forces’ claims that they had recaptured the territory overnight.

“The Armenian side continues to spread misinformation which is suspected of having succeeded in returning the previously lost territories. I would like to state that all the territories liberated from Armenian occupation during the fighting are held and controlled by the Azerbaijan military,” Dargyakhly told Interfax-Azerbaijan on Tuesday.

wmr, ab / dr (AFP, dpa, Reuters, Interfax)


image source

Germany’s UN reform bid revives old ambitions | Germany | News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | Instant News

Prior to his speech at the UN on Tuesday, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas told public broadcaster ARD that while many UN members are ready to become more accountable in 2020, “this applies in a most specific way to Germany.”

He hopes for a greater role in the organization, after Germany took a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for a two-year period in April 2019.

“Given the input we are giving, and which I mean not only financially but also in terms of the foreign and security policy responsibilities we currently fulfill, we are a country that, in my opinion, has secured a fixed place on this table,” said Sorry.

Read more: German Merkel calls for reforms as the United Nations marks its 75th anniversary

“The Security Council needs reform because currently it no longer reflects the world and the balance of power in the world as we want,” he concluded.

Chancellor Angela Merkel still views the United Nations as an important organization

Chancellor Angela Merkel made a similar appeal in her video address on the day marking the UN foundation’s 75th anniversary last week, saying Germany was “ready to do more, also as part of an expanded Security Council.”

Changing world order

The story of Germany at the United Nations has long been one of the outside, looking inward.

With the United Nations born from the ashes of World War II, and forged in the heat of the Cold War, neither East nor West Germany became full members of the organization until 1973.

UN Security Council New York 2016 |  Libyan arms embargo (Imago Images / Xinhua)

Germany has held a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council since April 2019

The two eventually joined together, but only after the Security Council veto-wielders were the US and USSR willing to allow it.

For decades, especially since reunification, politicians in Berlin have considered pushing for permanent membership in the Security Council in New York, along with the US, Russia, China, France and the UK. What clearer way to demonstrate the return of a rehabilitated and reunited Germany to the world stage than to join this table?

“Germany took a back seat globally for a long time for very good reason after World War II,” Martin Bialecki, editor-in-chief of the magazine International Politics, said DW. “That Germany was even brought back into the international community is a real miracle in fact. But now we are in a position where I would like to see Germany take on a more leadership role, because of its financial strength, because of its position in Europe as one of the most important western democracies. . ”

The ‘expanded’ Security Council

However, Berlin’s bid to expand the Security Council has changed to reflect time.

Back in 2004, Chancellor Merkel once said, “It is in Germany’s interest to secure a full seat at the United Nations. It is not in Germany’s interest to have a second-class Security Council seat. And if you ask me personally, I clearly said I want our country. take advantage of the opportunity. It also means first-class responsibility. “

Trying to become the sixth permanent member, and a third of Western Europe is no longer the stated goal. Larger countries or big players from underrepresented territories might rightly ask why they aren’t next in line.

Read more: After 75 years, the UN underwent a stress test

In contrast, Germany has lobbied the United Nations and the five veto-holders, in particular, to consider expanding the security council more broadly. This push was spearheaded by a group calling itself the G4 – India, Brazil, Germany and Japan.

The expansion plan estimates six additional permanent places on the Security Council – two for the continent of Asia, two for Africa, one for western countries, and one for Latin America and the Caribbean. The G4 plan proposes that they refrain from exercising their veto power for at least 15 years, suggesting a conference be held to review the changes. It also calls for a further “four or five” non-permanent slots to be made available on the Security Council, in addition to the 10 currently in existence.

The plans of Germany and its partners are not without criticism, even at home. Bialecki said he was not interested in the prospect of Brazil gaining a permanent seat under “neo-Nazis like Javier Bolsonaro,” also noting that India, under Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi, was “an autocratically ruled country.”

USA |  UN Security Council 2004 |  Accession negotiations (Don Emmert / AP Photo / picture-alliance)

Even in 2004, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer met with the leaders of India, Japan and Brazil to discuss permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

A ‘very difficult’ goal

Even after nearly a decade of unsolved conflict in Syria and amidst a global pandemic, the chances of convincing the two-thirds of the UN General Assembly and the veto power of the five permanent Security Council members to agree to this seem increasingly small, even to Maas.

“Talks with China are very difficult,” the foreign minister acknowledged.

“I do not believe that the current veto has any major importance in bringing Germany to the Security Council,” said Martin Bialecki. “If you look at the current constellation, there are actually very few allies. You could even make the case that under Donald Trump, the US is no longer a real ally to Germany. On that basis, I think the chances of success are almost nil.”

The UN itself may have some concerns about diluting its most central power structure.

Notably, its predecessor, the League of Nations, granted effective veto power to each member state, meaning the organization could not approve anything imported during its existence between wars.

Diplomats at the UN are not short of stories about how difficult it was to get approval from just five veto holders.


image source

Pakistan relies on China to remove terrorists from the UNSC sanctions list – world news | Instant News

Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s government has approached the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the elimination of six terrorists approved by the world’s top security panel, a senior government official in Delhi told the Hindustan Times.

Islamabad is likely to submit more removal requests so this can be processed by the UNSC before the end of the year.

Islamabad last month told the sanctions monitoring team that visited the UNSC unable to find most of the terrorists approved by the security council for years because UNSC did not have complete and accurate information about them. The team then told Pakistan to submit a name removal request if the entry was “inappropriate”.

Islamabad only confirmed that 19 of the 130 terrorists who were sanctioned by the UNSC were in Pakistan. Of these 19, it has asked the UNSC to remove the names of 6 terrorists.

Diplomats in Delhi and New York told the Hindustan Times that Pakistan’s strong push to improve its track record at UNSC was based on the belief that China would support his request. “We have not been able to find out whether the move was in consultation with Beijing but it would not be surprising,” one of them said.

Beijing has blocked India-led international efforts to appoint the head of the terror group Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar as global terrorists for years. Beijing finally had to surrender last year after Jaish was involved in the Pulwama bombing of 40 CRPF soldiers who provoked India to launch an air strike at a terror training camp in Balakot Pakistan.

China is trying to improve Pakistan for the Masood Azhar terror tag with its support Islamabad’s efforts to get four Indian professionals working in Afghanistan designated as terrorists under Al Qaeda sanctions UN Security Council 1267. All four Indians were evacuated from Afghanistan by Indian security agents for fear that Pakistan could kidnap them and claim to arrest them from its territory.

As Islamabad did with former Navy officers Kulbhushan Jadhav who was kidnapped from Iran and appeared in the custody of Pakistani security agencies, the anti-terror operator said. Sentenced to death in a secret trial called India “premeditated murder”, Jadhav is still in Pakistani jail despite an International Court ruling last year asking Islamabad for the sentence to be “effectively” reviewed by an independent body.

News of an attempt to cut the list of Pakistani terrorists approved by the UN Security Council committee in 1267 came a few weeks after it emerged that Islamabad had secretly removed names from its domestic terror watch list. On April 20, US technology company Castellum.AI said Pakistan had removed nearly 3,800 names from its Forbidden People List it had defended. Around 1,800 of these names have been removed from the terror surveillance list after March 9.

Indian diplomats believe that Pakistan’s efforts to reduce the list of terror oversight are linked to a meeting of terror financing watchdogs, the Financial Action Task Force scheduled for June. Now it has been suspended.

At this meeting, the FATF must assess the actions taken by Pakistan to decide whether to continue to be on the gray list, placed on the blacklist, or released. Islamabad has been on the FATF gray list since 2018 for not doing enough to fight fundraising by al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Since then, they have missed several deadlines to implement action plans that have been committed to being fulfilled but have managed to avoid being blacklisted. Diplomats in Delhi believe this has something to do with Beijing’s influence. That is the FATF presidency has been with Xiangmin Liu from China since July 1, 2019 also helped escape by doing less, one of them said.

For example, of the 19 names accepted by Pakistan on his land, he only sentenced two – Lashkare-Taiba founder Hafiz Saeed and colleague Malik Zafar Iqbal – in front of the last FATF plenary in mid-March, an Indian official said. In addition, it has acknowledged that of the 222 cases filed in this country in the terror case, only 60 were sentenced and that too, each for several days. Because the prison sentence is less than the minimum prison sentence set by FATF (one year), this shows a lack of seriousness in meeting FATF requirements, he added.


image source