Taking collective action against terrorism and globally banned terror entities was among other significant topics discussed during the wide-ranging talks between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese amid their first annual India-Australia Summit.

“They called upon all countries to work together to root out terrorist safe havens and infrastructure, disrupt terrorist networks and their financing channels and halt use of terrorist proxies and cross-border movement of terrorists,” the joint statement said.

Both PMs have also condemned North Korea’s destabilising missile launches violating the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions. They also reaffirmed their commitment to complete denuclearisation of North Korea.

Both countries further assured each other’s support in the candidacies for non-permanent seats on the UNSC for terms 2028-2029 (India) and 2029-2030 (Australia). The Australian PM also confirmed its support for India’s permanent membership candidacy at UNSC.

They also expressed their concerns over the deteriorating situation in Myanmar and called for ‘immediate cessation of violence’.

PM Modi earlier said in a statement that he took up the matter of temple vandalism incidents in Australia with PM Albanese. Calling it a ‘matter of regret’, PM Modi said that reports of attacks on temples have been coming regularly from Australia over the past few weeks and that it is natural that such news worries everyone in India.

Both Prime Ministers also talked about topics ranging from economic and trade cooperation; climate, energy, science, technology and research cooperation; people-to-people ties; Covid-19 cooperation; regional and multilateral cooperation.

The post Indian and Australian PMs agree to take collective action against terrorism appeared first on IMR.

Azhar 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).

China sought to defend its move. “We need more time to assess the application to sanction this individual,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told a media briefing in Beijing while replying to a question. Wang said the 1267 Committee of the UNSC has clear provisions about designating terrorist organisations and officials.

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.

Terror tag against Sajid Mir also blocked

Agian on 17 September, China supported Pakistan by blocking a joint proposal moved by US and India to designate Muridke based Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT)’s chief architect of 2008 Mumbai attacks Sajid Mir as specially designated global terrorist by the 1267 Al Qaida Sanctions committee of the UN Security Council.

This was the third proposal that has was put on hold by China after LeT’s top leader Abdul Rehman Makki, brother-in-law of designated terrorist Hafiz Saeed, and Jaish-e-Mohammed’s operational terror commander Mufti Rauf Azhar, younger brother of Masood Azhar.

Sajjd Mir was the key handler of the ten LeT terrorists who wreaked mayhem in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, in which over 166 Indian and foreigners including US nationals were gunned down. The 26/11 operation was a joint venture between Pakistani ISI and LeT and was controlled from Karachi. Mir was convicted by the Pakistani court in June 2022 for 15 years after Islamabad had declared the terrorist dead for many years.

The conviction was clearly done to seek brownie points with the FATF so that Pakistan is removed from the under watch “Grey List” of the global terror finance tracking watchdog. Since 2008, Mir was under protective custody of Pakistani deep state and was handling recruitment for the proscribed LeT. Intelligence inputs suggest that Mir had undergone facial surgery and was living on the outskirts of Islamabad.

Mir had joined the terror group after a career in Pakistan Army. During his stint in the army, he trained terrorists, expanded Lashkar’s reach across at least three continents, and plotted terror attacks in countries like Australia, Virginia in the United States and France.

Willi Brigitte, the French former naval cadet who joined terror ranks, revealed in an interrogation that Mir had ties to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and had direct access to Lashkar’s military chief Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. The Lashkar terrorist was handling the terror group’s overseas operatives and coordinated with the foreign recruits at the LeT headqua<

According to intelligence officials, Mir had passed himself off as a cricket fan to enter India in April 2005 and conducted reconnaissance of the Indian Military Academy at Dehradun and the National Defence College.

The US intelligence agencies later figured that it was Mir who ordered the Lashkar terrorists to take the head shot at the Holtzberg couple at Chabad House in Mumbai during the massacre.

Abdul Rehman Makki Case

A joint proposal by India and the US to list Pakistan-based terrorist Abdul Rehman Makki as a “global terrorist” was blocked by China in June 2022.

In November 2010, the US Department of the Treasury designated Makki as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist. As a result of this designation, among other consequences, all property, and interests in property, of Makki that are subject to US jurisdiction are blocked, and US persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions with Makki.

The US Department of State’s Rewards for Justice programme is offering a reward of up to USD 2 million for information on Makki, “also known as Abdulrahman Maki”.

Makki has occupied various leadership roles within Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a US-designated Foreign Terrorist Organisation (FTO). He has also played a role in raising funds for LeT operations.

“In 2020, a Pakistani anti-terrorism court convicted Makki on one count of terrorism financing and sentenced him to prison. The United States continues to seek information on Makki because the Pakistani judicial system has released convicted LeT leaders and operatives in the past,” according to information on the Rewards for Justice website.

Masood Azhar Case

In May 2019, India had won a huge diplomatic win at the UN when the global body designated Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar as a “global terrorist”, a decade after New Delhi had first approached the world body on the issue.

A veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council, China was the sole hold-out in the 15-nation body on the bid to blacklist Azhar, blocking attempts by placing a “technical hold”. All decisions of the committee are taken through consensus.

In 2009, India moved a proposal by itself to designate Azhar. In 2016 again India moved the proposal with the P3 – the US, the UK and France – in the UN’s 1267 Sanctions Committee to ban Azhar, also the mastermind of the attack on the air base in Pathankot in January 2016.

In 2017, the P3 nations moved a similar proposal again. However, on all occasions, China, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council, blocked India’s proposal from being adopted by the sanctions committee.

Comments

Beijing’s move makes the communist nation a tacit supporter of terror groups based in Pakistan. It is now quite evident that any move by India with the support of P-5 sponsors will be blocked by China in support of Islamabad. The quid pro quo in this case is evidently the total silence from Pakistan over Chinese human rights violations and atrocities against Sunni Muslims in restive Xinjiang or East Turkestan province.

India has every reason to condemn China’s attempts to shield Pakistan, a notorious abettor of cross-border terrorism, on global platforms. The onus is on the international community to call out Beijing for its tacit support to Pakistani-origin terror, which poses a constant threat to peace and stability in South Asia.

The post China Blocks Bid to list Jaish Terrorist in UNSC appeared first on IMR.

At the same time, a lot of work needs to be done in this matter, the official told reporters on Wednesday on condition of anonymity.

“We have historically continued to stand behind the idea that Germany, Japan and India should be permanent members of the Security Council,” the official said in response to a question.

Earlier on 21 Septemebr, President Joe Biden in his address at the UN General Assembly reiterated his commitment to reforming the UN Security Council.

Biden said he believes the time has come for the institution to become more inclusive so that it can better respond to the needs of today’s world.

Members of the UN Security Council, including the United States, should consistently uphold and defend the United Nations Charter and refrain from the use of veto, except in rare and extraordinary situations, to ensure that the Council remains credible and effective, he said.

“That is also why the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council. This includes permanent seats for those nations we’ve long supported,” Biden said.

The post Biden supports Germany, Japan, India as permanent members of UN Security Council 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.

India said in a UN Security Council (UNSC) debate, on 25 January,  that member states are fully aware that Pakistan has a long history of harbouring, helping, and actively supporting terrorists during a UNSC debate on “Protection of civilians in armed conflict.” Underscoring the threat of terrorism to civilians, Counsellor in India’s Permanent Mission to the UN, R Madhu Sudan said that the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai terror attack continue to have Pakistan’s support.

The Indian Counsellor made these remarks after a Pakistani diplomat misused the platform provided by the UN to “propagate false and malicious propaganda” against India. “This is not the first time that a Pakistani representative has used a UN platform to spread false and malicious propaganda against my country, attempting in vain to divert the world’s attention away from the sad state of his country where terrorists have free reign and the lives of ordinary people, particularly minorities, are turned upside down,” he said.

“This is a country that has been identified as a global terrorist sponsor and holds the world record for hosting the most terrorists sanctioned by the Security Council.” So much so that today’s terrorist attacks all around the world have their origins in Pakistan in some way or another,” he claimed.

Madhu Sudan reminded the Security Council that Pakistan’s prime minister and foreign minister had been chastised for aiding terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden, but they continue on their merry way.

“Today, we’re talking about civilian protection. Terrorists pose the greatest threat to civilians. As we previously stated, the perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai terror incident continue to enjoy the support of the state she represents,” he continued.

The Indian Counsellor reaffirmed that “the entire Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh were, are, and always will be an integral and inalienable part of India, irrespective of what Pakistan representation feels… We call upon Pakistan to promptly quit all regions under its unlawful occupation.

“Madhu Sudan stated that India wishes to have normal and friendly ties with all countries, including Pakistan, and that it is committed to amicably resolving any unresolved concerns, as per the Shimla Agreement and the Lahore Declaration.

“However, any genuine debate can only take place in a free of terror, animosity, and violence environment. Pakistan is responsible for creating such an environment. India would continue to take robust and decisive action until then.

On the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, Madhu Sudan reiterated that the entire J&K and Ladakh were, are and will always be an integral and inalienable part of India, irrespective of what Pakistan representative believes. “We call upon Pakistan to immediately vacate all areas under its illegal occupation,” the Indian Counsellor said. .

“However, any meaningful dialogue can only be held in an atmosphere free of terror, hostility and violence. The onus is on Pakistan to create such a conducive atmosphere. Till then, India will continue to take firm and decisive steps to respond to cross border terrorism,” he added.

No Common Definition of Terrorism

The United Nations member states have failed themselves by continuing to procrastinate on concluding a comprehensive convention against international terrorism, India has said, voicing concern that the global body has neither agreed on a common definition of terrorism nor crafted a well-coordinated policy to tackle the global scourge and dismantle its enabling networks.

Speaking in the UNGA meeting to consider the Report of Secretary-General on the work of the Organisation, Second Secretary in India’s Permanent Mission to the UN Dinesh Setia, on 24 January, said: “Our inability to seriously address terrorism, the most dangerous of scourges faced by states and societies since the World War II, casts doubt on the relevance of the organisation for the very people whom the Charter of the United Nations obliges us to protect”.

“The United Nations has yet to agree on a common definition, let alone craft a coherent well-coordinated policy to tackle terrorism and dismantle its enabling networks. We have failed ourselves by continuing to procrastinate on concluding a comprehensive convention against international terrorism,” he said.

India proposed a draft document on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at the UN in 1986 but it has not been implemented yet as there is no unanimity on the definition of terrorism among the member states.

The Indian diplomat further said that the effectiveness, relevance and longevity of any institution lie in its dynamic character and ability to adapt itself to the changing times.

“As long as the key organs of the organisation remain anchored in a governance structure frozen in the past, the crisis of legitimacy and performance will persist,” Setia said.

Lamenting that four decades have gone by since the inscription of the item on the reform of the Security Council on the agenda of the General Assembly, Setia called on member states to strive to ensure that this year is the one that finally delivers some concrete progress with regard to a Security Council and a United Nations that reflect the realities of the contemporary world.

The post Debate on Protection of civilians in armed conflict appeared first on IMR.