 |
|
The United Nations Security Council's recent statement condemning the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, while a necessary gesture, falls short of addressing the severity and complexities of the situation. While the statement expresses condolences to India and Nepal, acknowledges the threat of terrorism, and calls for bringing perpetrators and sponsors to justice, it omits crucial details that significantly undermine its impact. The omission of The Resistance Front (TRF), the group that initially claimed responsibility for the attack, and its links to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a UNSC-designated terrorist organization, is a glaring oversight. Furthermore, the statement's failure to explicitly mention cooperation with the Government of India, a practice observed in previous similar situations, raises concerns about the level of commitment from the international community. The absence of any reference to the terrorists' intention to target non-Muslims, an act intended to incite communal tensions, is another significant deficiency. The watered-down language of the statement, particularly when compared to previous UNSC pronouncements on similar matters, strongly suggests the influence of Pakistan, currently a non-permanent member of the Council (2025-26), and the support it receives from China. China has a history of vetoing statements critical of Pakistan, and its potential influence likely contributed to the weakening of the resolution. The article expresses disappointment that the statement, negotiated by France's envoy, the current UNSC President, lacked stronger inputs from other influential members of the Council, including the U.S., Russia, and the U.K., suggesting a missed opportunity for a more robust and impactful response. This perceived weakness of the UNSC statement necessitates a re-evaluation of India's strategies in addressing terrorism emanating from Pakistan and operating within Jammu and Kashmir. The incident underscores the limitations of relying solely on multilateral forums when geopolitical considerations and strategic alliances impede decisive action.
Given the perceived inadequacies of the UNSC statement, India must explore alternative avenues to address the Pahalgam attack and the broader issue of cross-border terrorism. The government and security forces are undoubtedly engaged in discussions regarding counter-terrorism operations within Jammu and Kashmir to apprehend the terrorists involved and are considering potential military options across the border. However, India's diplomatic options extend beyond immediate military responses. One viable strategy is to pursue a more strongly worded statement at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), following the precedent set by various countries in addressing the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. The UNGA offers a platform for broader international consensus and can potentially garner more support for condemning the attack and holding Pakistan accountable. Furthermore, the Indian government should prioritize the designation of the terrorists identified in the attack and the TRF itself as terrorist organizations by the UNSC. The successful designation of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a terrorist after the Pulwama attack serves as a testament to India's ability to navigate the complexities of the UNSC and achieve its objectives through persistent diplomatic efforts. In addition to leveraging the UN system, India should actively build its case at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental body that combats money laundering and terrorist financing. Pakistan's previous placement on the FATF's 'greylist' from 2012-15 and 2018-22 demonstrates the effectiveness of this mechanism in exerting pressure on Pakistan to curb terrorist financing. India should work towards reinstating Pakistan on the greylist or even moving it to the blacklist if sufficient evidence of its support for terrorist groups can be presented. Finally, India should revive its long-standing efforts to pass a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at the United Nations. The CCIT, if adopted, would provide a universal legal framework for combating terrorism and could significantly enhance international cooperation in this area.
On the bilateral front, expecting meaningful assistance from Pakistan in addressing cross-border terrorism has historically proven to be futile. Despite repeated promises made after the Mumbai (2008), Pathankot (2016), and Pulwama (2019) attacks, Pakistan has consistently failed to take concrete action against terrorist groups operating on its soil. Given the current state of bilateral relations, characterized by deep mistrust and a lack of diplomatic engagement, any expectation of cooperation from Pakistan is even less realistic. Therefore, India must focus on a multi-pronged approach on the global stage, combining diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and intelligence sharing to isolate Pakistan and compel it to dismantle its support network for terrorist groups. India's patient pursuit of the extradition of Tahawwur Rana from the U.S., a key figure in the Mumbai attacks, exemplifies the long-term commitment and strategic patience required to bring terrorists to justice. By diligently following all the threads in the Pahalgam attack and the broader network of cross-border terrorism, India can enhance its chances of holding those responsible accountable and establishing a more durable peace in the region. This requires a combination of robust counter-terrorism measures within Jammu and Kashmir, proactive diplomacy at international forums, and a relentless pursuit of justice for the victims of terrorism. The key lies in unwavering determination and a comprehensive strategy that leverages all available tools to achieve its objectives.