) |
|
The article dissects the United Nations Security Council's (UNSC) response to the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 Hindu holidaymakers were killed. It argues that the UNSC's failure to explicitly name The Resistance Front (TRF), a known proxy of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), in its condemnation statement represents a deliberate cover-up orchestrated by Pakistan and facilitated by China's obstructionist tactics. The author contends that this omission undermines the credibility of the UNSC and its counter-terrorism efforts, sending a dangerous message of impunity to terrorist organizations worldwide. The core of the argument revolves around the UNSC's reluctance to hold Pakistan accountable for its support of LeT, a group already designated as a terrorist entity by the UN itself. LeT, identified in UN files as Entity QDe.118, has a long and bloody history of attacks in India, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, and the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. Its emir, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, is listed as Individual QDi.263, subject to sanctions including an asset freeze, travel ban, and arms embargo. The author highlights the hypocrisy of the UNSC, which readily acknowledges LeT's terrorist status in its official documents but refuses to explicitly link the group to the Pahalgam attack through its proxy, TRF. This reluctance, the author argues, stems from political maneuvering within the UNSC, where Pakistan, with the support of China, successfully lobbied to remove any direct reference to TRF from the condemnation statement. The article details how Pakistan attempted to obfuscate the crime by portraying it as a shapeless "incident" in a "disputed" territory, rather than a clear act of cross-border terrorism. The United States, according to the author, reportedly compromised by agreeing to drop the perpetrator's name and Pakistan's preferred adjective describing the territory, while China amplified Pakistan's claims of a lack of evidence and calls for an "independent probe." This diplomatic maneuvering allowed TRF to subsequently retract its initial claim of responsibility, blaming hackers and Indian cyber-warriors for the confusion. Pakistan's foreign-office spokesperson furthered the deception by labeling the massacre a "false-flag operation." The author emphasizes the absurdity of this situation, where a terrorist organization already blacklisted by the UN is allowed to operate under a different name and evade accountability for its actions. The dissonance between the UN's condemnation of LeT as an Al-Qaeda collaborator and its reluctance to acknowledge LeT's involvement in the Pahalgam attack is stark and damaging to the organization's credibility. The author points out that the UNSC's failure to name TRF undermines its own Resolution 2610, the flagship legal instrument against terrorism, and signals to victims that international law is merely performative rhetoric. The article further highlights China's role in shielding Pakistan's terrorist proxies. Beijing has repeatedly used its veto power on the UNSC to block the listing of Pakistan-based terrorists, including Masood Azhar, Abdul Rauf Azhar, and Sajid Mir, the commander of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. While China eventually lifted its block on Abdul Rehman Makki, the deputy chief of LeT, this only occurred after significant international pressure. The author argues that this pattern demonstrates China's willingness to protect Pakistan's jihadi franchises until the political cost becomes too high. The article criticizes those who dismiss the UNSC's press statement as "merely symbolic," arguing that symbols are crucial in counter-terrorism messaging. The author contrasts the UNSC's explicit condemnation of the Balochistan Liberation Army for an attack inside Pakistan with its vague statement regarding the Pahalgam attack, highlighting a perceived hierarchy of victims based on whose blood is shed and which patrons occupy the veto chairs. The author argues that naming TRF would have simply reminded Pakistan of its obligation to prosecute or extradite the murderers it continues to shield. The article concludes by arguing that the UNSC's hypocrisy erodes the credibility of multilateralism beyond South Asia. The author questions how the UNSC can effectively lecture Africa on sanctioning Islamic State offshoots or criticize Kabul for harboring Al-Qaeda remnants when it refuses to hold Pakistan accountable for supporting LeT. The author suggests that the UNSC has become a marketplace of vetoes where terror designations are bartered like commodities, undermining its role as a guardian of collective security. Ultimately, the author calls on the UNSC to find the courage to speak the names it has already recorded in its own ledgers, arguing that until it does so, its marble halls will be seen as symbols of selective silence rather than effective action.
The incident in Pahalgam serves as a microcosm of the larger geopolitical dynamics at play within the UN Security Council. The deliberate obfuscation of TRF's involvement, despite its undeniable ties to LeT, exposes the extent to which political considerations outweigh the pursuit of justice and accountability. This calculated silence not only emboldens terrorist organizations but also undermines the very foundations of international law and the principles upon which the UN was founded. The author rightly points out that the UNSC's failure to explicitly condemn TRF sends a dangerous message to victims of terrorism worldwide, suggesting that their suffering is secondary to the political interests of powerful member states. This perception erodes trust in the international system and fuels a sense of injustice, potentially leading to further radicalization and violence. Furthermore, the article effectively highlights the detrimental role played by China in shielding Pakistan's terrorist proxies. Beijing's repeated use of its veto power to block the listing of Pakistan-based terrorists demonstrates a clear disregard for international norms and a willingness to prioritize its strategic relationship with Pakistan over the fight against terrorism. This obstructionist behavior not only undermines the UNSC's counter-terrorism efforts but also raises serious questions about China's commitment to global security. The author's comparison of the UNSC's response to the Pahalgam attack with its condemnation of the Balochistan Liberation Army is particularly insightful. This stark contrast reveals a disturbing double standard, where the severity of the condemnation appears to depend on the location of the attack and the identity of the victims. This perceived bias further erodes the UNSC's credibility and fuels accusations of hypocrisy. Moreover, the article effectively dismantles the argument that the UNSC's press statement is "merely symbolic." Symbols, as the author rightly argues, are powerful tools for conveying messages and shaping perceptions. The UNSC's failure to name TRF sends a clear signal that terrorism is not always treated equally, and that some victims are more worthy of justice than others. This message is not only insensitive and offensive to the victims of the Pahalgam attack but also undermines the broader effort to combat terrorism worldwide.
The ramifications of the UNSC's inaction extend far beyond the immediate context of the Pahalgam attack. By failing to hold Pakistan accountable for its support of LeT, the UNSC inadvertently emboldens other state sponsors of terrorism and undermines the global effort to combat violent extremism. The author's concerns about the UNSC's ability to effectively address terrorism in other regions, such as Africa and Afghanistan, are particularly valid. How can the UNSC credibly lecture other countries on the need to combat terrorism when it is unwilling to confront a clear case of state-sponsored terrorism within its own ranks? The article's conclusion that the UNSC has become a "marketplace of vetoes" is a harsh but ultimately accurate assessment. The increasing politicization of the UNSC, where veto power is used to protect narrow national interests rather than uphold international law, threatens to render the organization increasingly irrelevant in addressing global security challenges. In order to restore its credibility and effectiveness, the UNSC must overcome its internal divisions and prioritize the fight against terrorism above political considerations. This requires a willingness to hold all member states accountable for their actions, regardless of their political or economic influence. The UNSC must also reform its decision-making processes to prevent individual member states from blocking consensus on critical issues such as counter-terrorism. The author's call for the UNSC to find the courage to speak the names it has already recorded in its own ledgers is a powerful and poignant reminder of the organization's fundamental responsibility to uphold justice and accountability. Until the UNSC demonstrates a genuine commitment to these principles, its pronouncements on terrorism will continue to ring hollow and its actions will be viewed with skepticism and distrust. The crimson grass of Pahalgam now serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of political expediency and the urgent need for the UNSC to live up to its stated ideals.
Source: Pahalgam terror attack: UN Security Council’s cover-up for Lashkar-e-Taiba