“Firm and decisive measures” will be taken against cross-border terrorism: from India to Pakistan
The United Nations: India has warned Pakistan that it will continue to act with firmness and determination against cross-border terrorism while pledging to resolve issues bilaterally in an atmosphere free from terror.
Madhu Sudan, counselor at the Permanent Mission of India, said on Tuesday: “Any meaningful dialogue can only take place in an atmosphere free from terror, hostility and violence. It is Pakistan’s responsibility to create such a conducive atmosphere. »
“Until then, India will continue to take firm and decisive action to respond to cross-border terrorism,” he warned as he responded to an attack on India by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative, Munir Akram, at the Security Council.
“India wishes normal neighborly relations with all countries including Pakistan and is committed to resolving outstanding issues, if any, bilaterally and peacefully in accordance with the Simla Agreement and the Declaration of Lahore,” Sudan said.
The Shimla Agreement signed in 1972 by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, then President of Pakistan, committed the two neighbors to resolve their differences bilaterally.
In the 1999 Lahore Declaration signed by Prime Ministers Atal Behari Vajpayee of India and Nawaz Shari of Pakistan, the two countries pledged to resolve Kashmir and other disputes through bilateral dialogue.
Sudan said that given Islamabad’s history as a patron of terrorists, “most terrorist attacks around the world have their origins, in one form or another, in Pakistan.”
Illustrating Sudan’s perspective, in the most recent US terrorism case, a Pakistani-Briton held a Jewish synagogue in Texas hostage to demand the release of convicted Pakistani terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, whose Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan had asked for freedom.
Sudan said Pakistan “is a country that has been globally recognized as a country that openly supports, trains, finances and arms terrorists as part of state policy. It holds the dastardly record of hosting the largest number of terrorists proscribed by the UN Security Council.
The subject of debate in the Security Council was “The protection of civilians in armed conflict: wars in cities – the protection of civilians in urban settings”, but Akram deviated in a lecture on Kashmir repeating the accusations against the India of occupation and human rights abuses there.
Whatever the subject, Pakistan raises Kashmir at the UN and Sudan compared Akram’s speech to a Pavlovian reaction.
Speaking earlier in the debate on behalf of India, an elected member of the Security Council, Permanent Representative TS Tirumurti, said: “Any discussion on the protection of civilians in urban areas would be incomplete without taking the carnage wrought by terrorist forces, especially those backed by state actors.
“We are already seeing the effects of urban warfare and terrorist attacks in cities,” he said.
The 2008 terrorist attack in Bombay, which killed 166 civilians from 15 countries, “illustrates the scale and scope of the urban warfare we had to wage against jihadist terrorists when our police officers had to risk their lives to secure the security of the city,” Tirumurti said.
Sudan stressed that “the perpetrators of the heinous Mumbai terrorist attack in 2008 continue to enjoy the patronage of the state he (Akram) represents.”
Akram returned to give an answer to Sudan, demagogic on two points which were not sequential.
He asked whether India would abide by Article 25 of the UN Charter which states that members agree to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
But a Security Council resolution passed on April 21, 1948 actually demands a Pakistani withdrawal from all of Kashmir, which Islamabad continues to defy.
The resolution calls on Pakistan “to ensure the removal from the State of Jammu and Kashmir of members of the tribes and nationals of Pakistan who do not normally reside there and who have entered the State for the purpose of fighting, and to prevent any intrusion into the State of such items and any furnishings”. material aid to those fighting in the state.
Akram asked if Indian leaders would denounce the December 17 statements in Haridwar calling for genocide of Muslims.
However, two of the leading figures in this meeting of Hindu fringe elements, Yati Narsinghanand Giri and Jitendra Narayan Tyagi, have already been arrested and are being prosecuted for hate speech.
Tyagi was known as Wasim Rizvi before his conversion to Hinduism.
In his speech, Tirumurti referred to the genocide committed by Pakistani forces in Bangladesh.
While there are contemporary examples of the devastation caused by urban conflict in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, Tirumurti reminded the Council of the experience of the civilian population of Bangladesh, which celebrated the 50th anniversary of its final liberation on last month.
“There are also other countries that are still reeling from military actions in the past, either without due regard to the protection of the civilian population, or deliberately targeting civilians amounting to genocide, as has was the case in the former East Pakistan in 1971, now Bangladesh.”,
Norway, which holds the Council Presidency this month, hosted the debate.
Its Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, who chaired the session, and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres focused on war or civil war-type situations, but Tirumurti drew attention to the devastation wrought mainly in urban areas by terrorists and the civilian toll.
António Guterres said that to deter attacks on civilians, UN members “must demonstrate the political will to investigate and prosecute alleged war crimes to the fullest, whenever they occur.”
He said parties to conflicts “should adapt their choice of weapons and tactics when waging war in cities, recognizing that they cannot fight in populated areas as they would on battlefields. open”.
He added, “The facts on the ground underscore the need for warring parties to avoid the use of explosive weapons with wide area effect in populated areas.”
Norwegian Prime Minister Store said: “Civilians must be protected whether individual military attack is considered lawful or not. It is not only a question of respecting IHL, international humanitarian law.
He added: “The choice of weapons and methods of warfare must be adapted to the urban context. The use of weapons designed for the open battlefield, including heavy explosive weapons, should be kept to a minimum in urban areas.
(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by Sambad’s English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)