Recalling Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s emphasis to Russian President Vladimir Putin that “this cannot be an era of war”, Jaishankar said: “Let me emphasise that even in conflict situations, there can be no justification for violation of human rights or of international law.

Where any such acts occur, it is imperative that they are investigated in an objective and independent manner. This was the position we took with regard to the killings in Bucha, and this is the position we take even today. The Council will also recall that we had then supported calls for an independent investigation into the Bucha incident.”

He also flagged that the “nuclear issue is a particular anxiety”, in the backdrop of Putin’s thinly-veiled threat of nuclear options.

In a reference to Beijing’s decision to block the listing of terrorists, Jaishankar said: “The fight against impunity is critical to the larger pursuit of securing peace and justice. The Security Council must send an unambiguous and unequivocal message on this count. Politics should never ever provide cover to evade accountability. Nor indeed to facilitate impunity. Regrettably, we have seen this of late in this very chamber, when it comes to sanctioning of some of the world’s most dreaded terrorists. If egregious attacks committed in broad daylight are left unpunished, this Council must reflect on the signals we are sending on impunity. There must be consistency if we are to ensure credibility.”

The session, which was chaired by French Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Catherine Colonna, was attended by UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, UK Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly, and foreign ministers of other UNSC members.

Earlier this month, China put a hold on a proposal moved at the United Nations by the US and co-supported by India to designate Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Sajid Mir, wanted for his involvement in the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, as a global terrorist.

In August, China had put a hold on a proposal by the US and India to blacklist Abdul Rauf Azhar, the brother of Jaish-e Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar and a senior leader of the Pakistan-based terror organisation. Abdul Rauf, born in 1974 in Pakistan, was sanctioned by the US in December 2010.

And, in June this year, China had put a hold, at the last moment, on a joint proposal by India and the US to list Pakistan-based terrorist Abdul Rehman Makki under the 1267 Al-Qaida Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council.

On the situation in Ukraine, Jaishankar said: “The trajectory of the Ukraine conflict is a matter of profound concern for the entire international community. The future outlook appears even more disturbing. The nuclear issue is a particular anxiety.”

 “In a globalised world, the impact of the conflict is being felt even in distant regions. We have all experienced its consequences in terms of surging costs and actual shortages of foodgrains, fertilisers and fuel. On this score too, there are good grounds to be worried about what awaits us. The global south, especially, is feeling the pain very acutely. We must therefore not initiate measures that further complicate the struggling global economy and that is why India strongly reiterates the need for an immediate cessation of all hostilities and a return to dialogue and diplomacy. Clearly, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasised, this cannot be an era of war. On our part, we are also providing both humanitarian assistance to Ukraine and economic support to some of our neighbours under economic distress.”

He underlined that the “need of the hour is to end this conflict in Ukraine and return to the negotiating table”. “This Council is the most powerful contemporary symbol of diplomacy. It must continue to live up to its purpose. The global order that we all subscribe to, is based on international law, UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all States. These principles too must be upheld, without exception,” he said.

The post India takes tough stand against Russia on Ukraine, targets Beijing on terrorism appeared first on IMR.

Azhar, referred to as Abdul Rauf Asghar in UN documents, was involved in the planning and execution of several terror attacks, including the hijacking of Indian Airlines flight IC-814 (1999), attack on Parliament (2001), and attack on the Indian Air Force base in Pathankot (2016), government sources said.

“A proposal was moved by India, co-sponsored by the US, to list Abdul Rauf Asghar in the UN Security Council 1267 Sanctions Committee. China has, however, placed a technical hold on the proposal. All other 14 member states of the UN Security Council were supportive of the listing proposal,” said a source. Listing him as a global terrorist would subject him to assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo.

This is not the first time that China has obstructed the listing of terrorists in the 1267 Sanctions Committee. In June this year, China placed on hold a joint proposal by India and the US to list the deputy chief of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Abdul Rehman Makki, in the sanctions list. Makki was involved in raising funds, recruiting and radicalising youths to resort to violence and planning attacks in India, including the Mumbai terror attacks (2008), according to sources.

The post China blocks India, US bid to list Jaish terrorist as ‘global terrorist’ appeared first on IMR.

World politics and eco-nomics at present seems to be dictated by the Russian-Ukraine conflict. A war that no one thought would last this long is continuing despite sanctions, and the US, European Union (EU), China, Russia and India seem to be combatting the common conundrum of planning their next move. While it would be unfair to the devastating wars and humanitarian conflicts plaguing the global south, it would still not be wrong to say that the Russia–Ukraine War has put the perceived prowess and influence of international institutions to the test. The complete refusal by Russia to buckle under international pressure and, later, the sanctions imposed on the country is emblematic not just of the need to re-assess the working of international institutions but also a greater geopolitical shift in the accepted standard procedures of global politics.

The economic sanctions that have been imposed on Russia had a two-fold objective. While the foremost aim was to disrupt Russian economy and destabilise its logistical support to the troops, the additional aim was to deter nations from toeing the Russian line and send a message to countries, who continue to maintain a working relationship with Russia. Russian aggression against the erstwhile Soviet nation of Ukraine and the western reaction to it is being translated by some scholars as return to Cold War politics; however, the romanticisation of that bygone era fails to take into account some pertinent realities of the present geopolitical scenario.

The world that has so long been governed by the political and economic systems of the West is now witnessing and acknowledging a world that has multiple poles of power. This shift has led to a feeling of a relative levelling of the proverbial playing field. As the dynamics of geopolitics register a change, the reaction to the Russia–Ukraine conflict by the rest of the world is not all that the US had hoped it would be.

India’s abstentions in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and later in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on the Russia-Ukraine conflict have not gone unnoticed by the US and the EU. Earlier, in April 2022, India played host to the foreign ministers of the UK and Russia along with a surprise visit by their counterpart from China, as well as dignitaries from the US. Such a reaction was elicited by India’s choice to continue their relationship with the Russians. While the US and EU want a democracy like India to openly condemn the aggression and invasion by Russia, it is in India’s strategic favour to continue a cordial working relationship with Moscow.

If one was to take lessons from history, India has been a non-aligned country and a move against the Russians could be viewed as a step towards the US and its allies. More importantly, the Indian armed forces depend primarily on Russia and Russian technology for their arms, vehicles, helicopters and frigates to mention a few. Conventional knowledge, which would be derived from instances in the past would also lead one to believe that Russia has proven to be a better strategic partner of India than the US. There is also the issue of geographical propinquity – Russia and India are geographically proximate countries that can potentially play a role in border disputes in the region. At the same time, it cannot be disregarded that Russia and India are also a part of multilateral platforms like Russia-India-China (RIC), Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa (BRICS), which play a pivotal role in evening the keel of global politics.

The Indian decision to abstain from voting against Russian aggression is a decision quite congruent with RealPolitik. The proverb about all politics being domestic holds true for the current scenario as India is holding its national interest supreme. As Russia and India come to an understanding that India would be able to import crude oil and gas from Russia at pre-war prices. it is in Indian strategic interest to continue energy trade with the country.

To circumvent the sanctions, India and Russia and the rest of the world are also exploring options of trade based on alternative currencies in place of the US dollar (USD). A similar agreement is being attempted between India and Iran to reduce the dependency upon the USD; it is also indicative of the greater shift towards a post-dollar world.

However, as the Indian stance has been condemned by the US and the EU; it has also been postulated that there could be rifts within the Quadrilateral Security Organisation (QUAD) as a repercussion of the Indian refusal to toe the American line. The QUAD is a derivative of the multinational group that was formed to lead the Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster R operations in the Indian ocean after the 2004 tsunami. The QUAD however, has evolved from a Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HADR) group to a strategic grouping in the Indian ocean primarily focused on containing the growing presence of China in the region.

Out of the four countries that make up the QUAD, the US, Japan, and Australia are allies and tend to follow a similar pattern when it comes to geopolitical decisions; however, for India there are no security guarantees from the US and, therefore, very little incentive for India to prioritise its national interests below the US diktat.

It is also imperative to understand that the purpose of the QUAD has no direct relation with Russia and the fact that its primary objective of containment of the Chinese expansion is a very real concern for QUAD member countries. The compulsion of reducing Chinese sphere of influence is the diving force behind the joint QUAD exercises and summits. Hence, the scenario of the threat of sanctions against India or a definitive rift in the QUAD seems like a distant possibility. It has been argued that the Australia-UK-US (AUKUS) could replace the QUAD; however, that also has limited feasibility. India is an extremely important nation in Asia and its economic and military prowess outweighs that of Japan and/or Australia. India also has a network of well-established and long-term relationships in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and is a major player in the Indo–Pacific. The recent sale of the BrahMos missiles by India to Philippines and the interest that it has garnered from other countries of the region are emblematic of India’s significance in the Indian Ocean.

While the US would have liked an unequivocal denunciation of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and a complete debilitation of the Russian economy due to their sanctions, the reality is that nations have found ways to circumvent sanctions and continue international trade by moving on from the American dollar. As the world becomes more multi-polar, nations have begun to prioritise their national interests, and the US is now stuck in the reactionary cycles of an extremely globalised world where straightforward and uncomplicated actions have ceased to exist. The exigency of limiting China’s growth is as important as stopping Russia at the moment for the US. To balance the two, it must move in ways that forces Washington to make more concessions to nations as the “with us or against us” approach has become redundant.

The dynamics at play between the US, Russia, India and China are a precursor to what can be expected from global politics in the near future.

The post India’s UN Abstentions and Their Impact on the QUAD appeared first on IMR.

In his report released, on 3 February, on ‘The situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security’, the secretary general said the “best way” to promote stability and future international support was for the Taliban to avoid the isolation that characterised its previous experience in power.

“The Taliban are showing efforts to present itself as a caretaker government. The movement, however, has yet to form governing structures that reflect the country’s ethnic, political and geographic diversity and include women. Efforts are constrained by the lack of resources and capacity, as well as an ideology that clashes in many ways with international norms of governance,” he said.

The report added that Afghanistan was experiencing a massive economic contraction. “The best way to promote stability and future international support is for the Taliban to avoid the isolation that characterised its previous experience in power,” Guterres said.

Al Qaeda Still Present

In another report “The 29th edition of the UNSC’s Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team” the United Nations Security Council said that terror group al-Qaeda’s Indian subcontinent affiliate has retained a presence in at least six provinces of Afghanistan and has approximately 200-400 fighters, including Indian nationals.

The report, which was released, on 7 February, was prepared by a UNSC group that monitors counter-terrorism sanctions targeting al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.

“[Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent] retains a presence in Afghanistan, in the provinces of Ghazni, Helmand, Kandahar, Nimruz, Paktika and Zabul, where the group fought alongside the Taliban against the ousted government. AQIS is estimated to have between 200 and 400 fighters, mainly from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Myanmar and Pakistan,” it said.

The 22-page report, signed by UNSC Committee Chair and Norwegian national Trine Heimerback, also stated that contrary to media reports, Aslam Farooqi, former leader of the Islamic State faction Islamic State — Khorasan Province (ISKP), and alleged mastermind of the March 2020 terror attack on a gurdwara in Kabul, had “escaped” from an Afghanistan prison and “subsequently rejoined the group in a senior capacity”.

Terror Groups Have More Freedom Now

“There are no recent signs that the Taliban has taken steps to limit the activities of foreign terrorist fighters in the country. On the contrary, terrorist groups enjoy greater freedom there than at any time in recent history. However, Member States have not reported significant new movements of foreign terrorist fighters to Afghanistan,” the report said. “Primary kinetic threat” in the eyes of the Taliban, contextualising some of the conflicting reporting on ISKP attacks in Afghanistan and the alleged killing of Farooqi. The Uyghur extremist group East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM) has also backed the Taliban government, the report added.

Islamic State Gaining Ground in West Africa

The report also broadened its focus beyond Afghanistan to track terrorist activity and developments on a global scale, with West Africa representing a particular region of concern where the Islamic State is gaining ground, and Southeast Asia a “bright spot” with ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates suffering defeats. In conflict zones like Iraq, ISIS “has evolved into a primarily rural insurgency” while al-Qaeda allies and affiliates continue to control northwestern Syria.

“Both Indonesia and the Philippines reported significant gains in countering threats from ISIL and Al-Qaida affiliates in the South-East Asia region, leading to an overall decline in terrorist activity and some optimism that the operational capability of the groups may be significantly degraded,” the report revealed, adding that lone-wolf attacks are still an ongoing risk.

The post UN Report: Afghanistan Situation Precarious appeared first on IMR.

India’s Bid for the Permanent Seat on the Council

This is for the eighth time that India has been elected to serve on the Security Council. Previously, it was elected in 1950-1951, 1967-1968, 1972-1973, 1977-1978, 1984-1985, 1991-1992 and most recently in 2011-2012.

PM Modi has set the 5 “S” guidelines for India, namely, Samman (respect) Samvad (dialogue), Sahyog (cooperation), Samriddhi (prosperity) and Shanti (peace). Accordingly, India intends a multi-pronged approach to contribute towards adoption of innovative development programs, increased involvement of women and youth, an integrated response to terrorism, enhanced professionalism in UN Peacekeeping forces, and harnessing technological innovations for humanitarian challenges. Most importantly, Delhi will initiate a paradigm shift with the NORMS (New Orientation for a Reformed Multilateral System) theme for a “responsible’ and ‘inclusive’ United Nations. This includes a determined effort for the representation of the neglected states as well as to stake a claim to the Permanent seat at the UNSC.

ALSO READ: Pakistan’s Lies Nailed at the UN Security Council

For several decades, India has been a strong advocate of the reforms for the UN to adopt an inclusive and representative character towards strengthening international peace and security. New Delhi is determined to capture the permanent seat as it is the world’s largest democracy, second most populous country, an emerging economy and has been the largest contributor to the UN peacekeeping forces. Most importantly, India is realizing its role as a responsible stakeholder in the international forum. It has created a momentum along with its other G-4 members to bring about the change.

Possible Scenarios

• Delhi will proactively engage with G4, L69 and African Union states to establish the momentum to achieve long pending reforms in the UNSC, including securing a permanent seat in the UN SC.

• The opposing forces will also be active such as U of C (Union of Consensus) led by Italy/Pakistan to stall the addition of the Permanent Members to the Council or extension of the veto to the new powers.

• China will attempt to derail or delay the process and will exercise veto to stall India from gaining the permanent seat.

• India will harness soft power to design the momentum for gaining access to the UNSC as a permanent member.

• India will proactively engage the General Assembly members and UNSC members to counter-balance China so that the latter can ill-afford to use veto.

Roadblocks

There are several roadblocks to India achieving the Permanent seat at the UNSC. Hitherto, competing models with varied objectives have been proposed to reform the UNSC.

ALSO READ: INDIA – U.S.: Indo-US Defence Cooperation Enters New Phase

Delayed Progress: Since 2009, discussions are ongoing in the purview of an informal plenary at the Intergovernmental Negotiation (IGN) in the General Assembly. The discussions have not led to any substantial achievement, therefore, the G-4 countries are insisting to include a document for negotiations. In this regard, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador T.S. Tirumurti has reiterated that the progress of the IGN is “unsatisfactory” and India “will intensify engagement with all reform-minded states and groups” such as G-4 bloc, the Africa Group, L-69 group of developing countries, the African Union Committee of 10 (C-10).

Competing Models: The delay in reaching a proposal for amendment can mainly be attributed to the competing models of reforms proposed by different groups-G4, U of C, Africa Unions, ACT. Since 2005, G-4 consisting of India, Japan, Germany and Brazil are focused on attaining permanent membership of the UNSC as well as expansion of the non-permanent member category as well. They argue that the expansion is required in both categories. G-4 advocate veto powers for the permanent members, but in the given circumstances are open to delaying it for the period of 15 years. On the contrary, Uniting for Consensus (U of C) group (Italy, Pakistan, Canada) is proposing that any proposal for the reform of the UNSC should not be based on the two-thirds majority, rather there be a consensus among the members of the General Assembly.

The Power of Veto: There is a lack of agreement on whether new states should be given the power of veto. It is argued that the Veto power is granted to new members it will stall the process of action. As the ACT group has been trying to enforce that on the actions towards the genocide etc., there should be no veto. To accommodate this concern as well as overcome any opposition for the addition of new members, the G-4 Group are proposing to hold on to the veto power for the new members for 15 years.

Regional Rivalries: China is opposing the G-4 proposals as it has two of its rivals, Japan and India staking claim to the UN Security Council. China is further abetted by Pakistan, which is willing to stall India’s progress to the permanent seat in the Security Council. As a member of U of C, Pakistan is acting to stall India’s progress to the permanent seat.

Institutional Process: The reform of the Security Council entails an amendment to the UN Charter. It is a two-stage process, first, it requires the approval of the proposal by two-thirds majority in the General Assembly, that is 128 out of 193 states. (In this regard, the U of C groups is seeking consensus-based approval) Then, in the second stage, the amendment needs to be ratified by the two -thirds member states, including the five permanent Council members. It is crucial for all five members to ratify the amendment, or else, it lapses. Here, the use of veto can be crucial. China can use its power to veto to stall the process of amendment to halt the addition of India and Japan to the Security Council.

Thus, among the UN member states there is general agreement on the expansion of the membership of the council, but it is proving to be a contentious process. The lack of agreement is evident on issues of membership, veto, and representation. Regarding membership, whether there should be increase in the non-permanent members only or permanent members (PM) as well. Next, the question of Veto arises, should new PMs enjoy the privilege of veto or not. Relatedly, there are questions of regional representation and this has brought the regional rivalries to the surface. For instance, China and Pakistan are apprehensive of India’s candidature, Italy opposing Germany’s candidacy etc. Its emerging as a winner and losers’ situation-our gain or loss at what cost.

The post India’s Stint at UN Security Council: 2021-2022 appeared first on IMR.