Latest news with #Resolution1373
Indian Express
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Pakistan secures key roles in UNSC committees: Should India worry?
Pakistan in early June, roughly a month after Operation Sindoor, secured key roles as an elected non-permanent member for 2025-26 in two significant subsidiary bodies of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). It is now the Chair of the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee (TSC, established as a distinct committee in 2011), Vice Chair of the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), and a Co-Chair in two informal working groups of the UNSC. India, during its last UNSC non-permanent membership (2021-2022), served as the Chair of three committees — the 1988 TSC, the 1970 Libya Sanctions committee, and the 1373 CTC. While Sanctions Committees are set up to monitor and implement a specific sanctions regime against individuals and entities (such as the 1988 Committee) or states (such as the 1970 Committee), the CTC is the product of the Security Council's Resolution 1373. Adopted unanimously by the UNSC after the 9/11 terror attacks, the Chapter VII Resolution — these are binding on all UN member states — extensively laid down the responsibilities of states to counter terrorism. How did Pakistan secure these positions? What do they mean substantially? And does India need to worry? Pakistan's Chairmanship/Vice-Chairmanship of these Committees was procedurally inevitable. Each of these committees are considered 'subsidiary organs' of the Council, according to Article 28 of the UN Charter. Hence, both the 1988 TSC and 1373 CTC comprise all 15 members of the Council at any given time. By virtue of its two-year UNSC membership, any elected non-permanent member invariably takes the helm of at least one of the Council's several subsidiary bodies, at some point in their tenure. This possibility is made more inevitable statistically, since the UNSC's permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the US) do not chair sanctions committees, to avoid conflicts of interest — given their significant roles in enforcing key sanctions against designated individuals and entities. For instance, the United States holds significant influence over the international financial system which is crucial for sanctions implementation. and has its own extensive unilateral OFAC sanctions on the Taliban. But it has never Chaired the 1988 Committee. However, this design of non-permanent members as Chairs has also resulted in an overburdened system. The 2018 Annual Briefing of the UNSC (by Committee Chairs) for instance, emphasised the need for 'a new system that ensures a fair distribution of chairmanships among permanent and elected members'. While this older system continues, the Council also looks to select its Committee Chairs in a 'balanced, transparent, efficient and inclusive way' — an effort explicitly acknowledged in a UNSC Presidential Note from July, 2016. Pakistan being voted as a UNSC non-permanent member from the Asia-Africa grouping in June 2024 already set it up for eventual committee chairmanships. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that the capabilities, willingness, and political positions of a state influence the decision of the Council (expressed through its President) to appoint a member as the Chair of a certain committee. It would thus seem that Pakistan has the confidence of the current Council to serve as the Chair of the 1988 Committee — and thus to hold the power to propose and prepare (with consultations) the Committee's agenda. That said, the position of Chair does not bring with it any special substantial powers, and Pakistan's space to harm India's interests is limited. Here's why. One, the 1988 Committee has had to work with a significant change in context vis-à-vis its list of sanctioned individuals and entities. Unlike in 2011, the Taliban have been Kabul's de-facto rulers for at least four years, and are working hard to gain international legitimacy. And unlike in 2022, when India (as 1988 Committee Chair) oversaw the cancellation of waivers to key Taliban leaders such as Amir Khan Muttaqi (currently Acting Foreign Minister), New Delhi now engages the same individuals directly as it attempts engagement-without-recognition with the Taliban. The group's own relationship with Pakistan has also significantly deteriorated, but remains steady, with Muttaqi meeting both Indian and Pakistani officials since August, 2021. Strictly within the context of the 1988 Committee — which oversees just over 130 Taliban-linked sanctioned individuals — the Chair's role is to monitor sanctions verification and consider modifications of the list. In any case, even without a consensus-based model, Pakistan would not be able to unilaterally push through the listing or de-listing of new individuals. Two, unlike the UNSC itself, its subsidiary bodies like the CTC, are technical bodies with an ambit to ensure implementation by member states of UNSCR 1373 and linked resolutions. A majority of the CTC's tasks, along with that of its assisting body, the Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate, are focused on building states' capacity to counter terror, offer technical assistance, and promote best practices to ensure the implementation of UNSCR 1373. The Global Implementation Surveys that the CTC conducts, show that the Committee has no role in investigating terror attacks, recommending sanctions on entities, or designating any individual or entity for terrorism. Pakistan's Vice Chairmanship of the CTC itself serves as proof of the Committee's design — one focused on working with states directly for capacity building rather than implementing punitive measures against violating parties. This is especially as Pakistan has evidently continued to violate multiple operational clauses of UNSCR 1373, including those provisions obligating states to deny safe haven to terrorists or to ensure that those involved in terrorism are brought to justice. Three, in the UNSC's subsidiary committees, Pakistan's instrument of influence has primarily been disabling and indirect — to prevent Indian efforts at designating key Pakistan based terrorists, with China's backing. This was recently evident in 2022, when India proposed sanctions on Abdul Rauf Azhar (then JeM Deputy Chief) in the 1267 Al Qaeda Sanctions committee. The proposal fell through with China the only hold out among the 15 UNSC members. On the other hand, Pakistan has limited enabling or direct influence. It holds neither the Chairmanship nor the Vice Chairmanship of the 1267 Committee, where at least 50 sanctioned individuals are linked to Pakistan. So, should India worry? Pakistan's willingness and intent to leverage UN positions for its own ends, has long been evident. However, Pakistan's Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship roles at the UNSC's subsidiary bodies do not represent a direct diplomatic threat to Indian interests at the UN. Rather, Pakistan's continued preference for cross-border terrorism as a policy instrument against India, reflects the larger structural failures of both the Council and its subsidiary committees as effective instruments to check terrorism. Moreover, the lack of substantial debate in these committees, as well as its consensus model — where every member has to agree for a proposal to go through — has been cited even by past Chairs, such as Gerard van Bohemen of New Zealand in 2016, as the 'single biggest inhibitor to Committee effectiveness'. It is Pakistan's membership in the Council as a whole — especially when it takes over the rotational Presidency in July — which presents a larger issue. In 2013, Pakistan attempted to use its rotational Presidency of the UNSC to redirect the UN's focus towards Kashmir. It also sought to gloss over its own inadequacies in countering terrorism, by successfully initiating a ministerial debate on counter-terrorism presided over by then Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, less than two years after US Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad. Again, while the UNSC Presidency does not give Pakistan any special substantive powers, there are procedural advantages which Pakistan can use to its benefit. For example, the Presidency can bolster Pakistan's ability to convene closed door/informal consultations of the Council, given the UNSC President's sole authority to convene meetings in the Council's Provisional Rules of Procedure.
Indian Express
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Pakistan's UNSC posts present diplomatic challenge for India's fight against terror
Written by Shivam Shekhawat On June 5, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Pakistan's appointment as chair and vice chair of two important United Nations Security Council (UNSC) committees: The Taliban Sanctions Committee formed through Resolution 1988 and the Counter-Terrorism Committee, which monitors the implementation of Resolution 1373, formed after 9/11. Islamabad is now also a co-chair of two working groups: One on documentation and procedural issues with Denmark and another, newly formed one with Greece tasked with analysing the effectiveness of UN sanctions. Pakistan is also set to preside over the council next month. In the aftermath of Operation Sindoor and India's efforts to engage with the international community to highlight Pakistan's nefarious role in fomenting terrorism, the appointments have raised concerns about their possible implications for New Delhi. After being elected to the UNSC in June last year, Pakistan started its tenure as a non-permanent member on January 1. Its term will end on December 31, 2026. Marking its eighth stint at the UNSC, Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the UN, Asim Iftikar Ahmad, restated the country's commitment to utilise the platform to highlight the Kashmir issue and work towards preventing the adverse impacts of terrorism. There can be no doubt that Islamabad will leverage its membership to further its anti-India agenda. The statement released by the Security Council condemning the Pahalgam terror attack was relatively watered down from previous iterations of support to India. Then, on May 5, the UNSC held a closed-door consultation on the 'India-Pakistan Question', the first time after 2019. Thus, cognisant of the possible role Pakistan can play in the UNSC, India's post-conflict outreach to the world focused on reaching out to permanent and non-permanent members except Pakistan, China and Somalia. Similar to India's outreach, Pakistan also sent its delegation to the UN headquarters in New York, as well as to Washington DC, Moscow, Brussels and London. These delegations, led by senior current and former ministers, are urging for the immediate resumption of the Indus Waters Treaty. While the all-party delegations sent by New Delhi have made a clear case for India's imperative to target terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and the threat it faces from its western neighbor, the road ahead, to win the narrative war, will not be easy. India has been urging a rethink of the financial support offered to Pakistan by the IMF and the World Bank, and its possible utilisation by Rawalpindi to fund activities against India. India has also decided to revamp its push for Pakistan's re-inclusion in the FATF's grey list after it was removed in 2022. For India, this is important to prevent Pakistan from strengthening its terror-military scaffolding further. While ties between Kabul and Islamabad plummeted in the last few months, they have now decided to elevate their relationship to the ambassadorial level, the agreement for which was reached during the informal meeting between the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Afghanistan and China, further changing the dynamics in the region. Both sides have had continued communications, even when the conflict between India and Pakistan broke out. While the Taliban is trying to play both sides, China's close strategic partnership with Pakistan and its openness to engaging with Kabul makes the situation difficult for India. There has been a close synchronisation between Islamabad and Beijing against India at the UNSC and other international platforms. Pakistan will leverage the platform to propagate false claims of India's support for terrorist attacks in the country, particularly the attacks by Baloch outfits. Islamabad has also tried to pin the blame for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's actions on both Afghanistan and India. While the UNSC posts will not offer Pakistan a lot of leeway directly, it will give it more space to bring up issues that align with its own interests and deflect attention from India's concerns. Pakistan will also vehemently oppose India's permanent membership bid at the UNSC. The writer is a junior fellow with ORF's Strategic Studies Programme
Business Recorder
06-06-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
High-profile United Nations bodies: PM hails Pakistan's appointment
ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Thursday welcomed Pakistan's appointment to several high-profile United Nations committees, calling it a sign of the international community's confidence in the country's counterterrorism record. On Wednesday, Pakistan was named chair of the UN Security Council committee established under Resolution 1988 (2011), which oversees sanctions against the Afghan Taliban. The country was also appointed vice chair of the council's Counter-Terrorism Committee, responsible for monitoring the implementation of Resolution 1373 (2001), a key component of the UN's counterterrorism framework. In addition, Pakistan will serve as co-chair of two subsidiary bodies: the Informal Working Group on Documentation and the newly formed Working Group on Sanctions. 'These key appointments validate the international community's confidence and trust in Pakistan's counterterrorism credentials,' Sharif said in a post on X. He described the recognition as a source of national pride, emphasising Pakistan's long and costly battle against terrorism. Sharif cited more than 90,000 casualties and economic losses exceeding $150 billion since Pakistan joined the global war on terror. The Pakistani Mission to the United Nations hailed the appointments as a significant diplomatic achievement, noting that they reflect the country's active engagement with the UN and its current role as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. Pakistan began its eighth two-year term on the Security Council on January 1, representing the Asia-Pacific group. It is scheduled to assume the council's rotating presidency in July. While non-permanent members do not hold veto power, they often wield considerable influence in sanctions-related bodies, where decisions are made by consensus. The appointments come as the international community grapples with intensifying conflicts in Gaza, Kashmir and Syria – regions where the Security Council's effectiveness continues to face scrutiny. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Indians fume as Pakistan secures key UN counter-terror roles
Indians erupted in outrage after Pakistan secured leadership roles on two pivotal UN Security Council committees this week despite New Delhi's years-long campaign to isolate it internationally. The diplomatic blow for India came Wednesday when Pakistan was named: Vice Chair of the UNSC's Counter-Terrorism Committee (established post-9/11 under Resolution 1373), which oversees global anti-terrorism compliance. Chair of the committee monitoring Taliban sanctions (Resolution 1988). The appointments cap a string of failures for India's isolation strategy, following similar setbacks at the IMF and ADB. BJP-linked figures lashed out, with some calling the UN's credibility into question. 'The UNSC has become a joke' fumed one BJP linked journalist, Smita Prakash. Others called on the Indian leadership to leave the UN. Major Indian outlets, including The Hindustan Times, blasted the UN's decision with provocative headlines. The diplomatic firestorm erupts mere weeks after the rivals teetered on the brink of war during their most dangerous military confrontation in decades. The flashpoint came in late April when a brutal attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir left 26 dead—a massacre New Delhi pinned squarely on Pakistan. Islamabad's furious denials fell on deaf ears as the incident triggered cross-border airstrikes and brought the nuclear-armed neighbors to the edge of full-scale conflict.
