US condemns China's 'misuse' of UN resolution at Security Council debate
US representative to the United Nations condemned the People's Republic of China (PRC) for "misusing" a 1971 UN resolution to prevent Taiwan from being included in the international organisation, as reported by Taipei Times.
#Pahalgam Terrorist Attack
India pulled the plug on IWT when Pakistanis are fighting over water
What makes this India-Pakistan standoff more dangerous than past ones
The problem of Pakistan couldn't have come at a worse time for D-St
Taiwan's government expressed its appreciation for the criticism.
According to Taipei Times, during a UN Security Council meeting convened by the People's Republic of China (PRC) on Wednesday at UN headquarters in New York, Ting Wu, deputy political counsellor of the US Mission to the United Nations, criticised China for "misusing" UN General Assembly Resolution 2758.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Ahmedabad: The price (& size) of these hearing aids might surprise you
Hear.com
Learn More
Undo
According to a transcript from the US Mission, Wu referred to the meeting's Concept Note, titled, "The Impact of Unilateralism and Bullying Practices on International Relations," which called for opposition to "all forms of unilateralism and bullying." He emphasised that the US opposed China's misuse of the resolution to isolate Taiwan, misrepresent the policies of other countries, and limit their options. Wu pointed out that this resolution does not prevent Taiwan from having meaningful participation in the UN system or other multilateral forums, the Taipei Times cited.
Wu further stated that the US, in collaboration with its allies and partners, would continue to counter Beijing's efforts to impose its authoritarian principles at the United Nations. In response, Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) expressed gratitude for the US statement, marking this as the first time the US had raised the issue during a UN Security Council meeting, according to MOFA. The last instance of US criticism regarding the misuse of Resolution 2758 was in February, during the World Health Organisation's 156th session of the Executive Board, MOFA noted.
Live Events
Resolution 2758, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1971, addressed China's representation at the UN and resulted in the Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan's official name, losing its seat to the PRC. Since then, Taiwan has been excluded from participation in the UN and its affiliates, as the UN and the majority of its member states do not recognise Taiwan as a country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
School Assembly news headlines for June 6, 2025: From sports to education, check 20+ national & international news
School Assembly news headlines for June 6, 2025: Good morning and welcome to the School Assembly News Headlines for June 6, 2025. Today, we have over 20 important news stories. These cover sports, education, business, and current affairs. Highlights include India's election to the UN ECOSOC for 2026-28. Also, phase two of PM Modi's 'Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam' campaign has launched. The goal is to plant 10 crore trees by September. In international news, Ukrainian drone strikes hit Russian air bases. In sports, we remember the tragic stampede outside Bengaluru's Chinnaswamy Stadium during RCB's IPL victory. In business, Tata Advanced Systems plans to manufacture Rafale fighter jet fuselages in India. This will boost aerospace capabilities. Top National news headlines for school assembly June 6, 2025 Government of India has not declared June 6, 2025, as a national public holiday; schools, banks, and offices will remain open except in Kerala where banks are closed for Bakrid. Bakrid (Id-ul-Ad'ha) bank holiday observed in Kerala on June 6, while most other states observe it on June 7, 2025. Misinformation about a mental health national holiday on June 6 has been debunked by official sources. Reserve Bank of India confirms bank holidays on June 6 and 7 in various states due to regional festivals, not a nationwide closure. Tamil Nadu and other states confirm schools will remain open on June 6 despite viral claims of a public holiday. International news highlights for school assembly (June 6, 2025) Eid-ul-Adha (Bakrid), a major Islamic festival, is globally celebrated on June 7, 2025, marking an important religious event internationally. Various countries observe Eid-ul-Adha with public holidays and festivities, impacting international business and travel schedules. Global discussions continue on mental health awareness, with World Mental Health Day observed annually on October 10, not June 6. International efforts to combat misinformation on social media regarding public holidays and events are increasing. Diplomatic and cultural exchanges related to Eid celebrations promote cross-cultural understanding worldwide during this period. Sports news headlines for school assembly June 6, 2025 Novak Djokovic defeats Alexander Zverev to advance to the semifinals, where he will face top-seeded Jannik Sinner. Tamil Nadu Premier League (TNPL) opens with a thrilling match between Dindigul Dragons and Kovai Kings. Simone Inzaghi leaves Inter Milan to become the new coach of Saudi club Al-Hilal. Bengaluru celebrates as Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) IPL champions; fans line the streets in jubilation. Cristiano Ronaldo leads Portugal to the UEFA Nations League final with a 2-1 victory over Germany. Education news headlines for school assembly (June 6, 2025) PM Modi plants sindoor saplings at his home on World Environment Day, promoting environmental awareness in schools. Government emphasises commitment to helping the poor as part of the 11-year NDA governance. Discussions on national interest and political perspectives highlight the importance of civic education. Supreme Court issues notice to Madhya Pradesh regarding police assault allegations, underlining the role of law and justice education. Mizoram records 675 landslides amid Assam floods, stressing the need for disaster management education in schools. State news headlines for school assembly (June 6, 2025) Banks will remain closed in Kerala on June 6, 2025, for Id-ul-Ad'ha (Bakrid), while most other states observe the holiday on June 7. Schools and offices in Tamil Nadu will remain open on June 6 despite viral claims of a national holiday. Madhya Pradesh receives a Supreme Court notice regarding police assault allegations, highlighting law and order concerns in the state. Mizoram reports 675 landslides amid Assam floods, causing significant disruption and emphasizing disaster management needs. Several states observe Bakrid-related bank holidays on June 7, while Kerala observes it on June 6, affecting regional schedules. Top business and economic news headlines for June 6, 2025 Hyundai Motor sells its 2.47% stake in Ola Electric for ₹552 crore. The Indian rupee weakens by 9 paise to 85.96 against the US dollar in early trading sessions. Yamaha's Chennai plant celebrates the production of its fifth millionth unit, a milestone in manufacturing. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) denies relief from asset freeze rulings on Gensol entities. Capgemini forecasts that by 2030, most of India's next-generation high-net-worth individuals will hold over 10% of their assets offshore. Daily word and thought of the day for school assembly, June 6, 2025 Curiosity (noun)Definition: A strong desire to learn or know "Her curiosity about space led her to become an astronaut." Thought of the Day, June 6, 2025 "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing." — Albert Einstein For more informative articles on historical and upcoming events from around the world, please visit Indiatimes Events.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
India will not talk to Pakistan with gun pointed at our head: Shashi Tharoor
US correspondent from US: An Indian parliamentary team tasked with highlighting Pakistan's terrorist depredations has conveyed to US interlocutors that New Delhi will not talk to Islamabad "with a gun pointed to our head" even as a Pakistani delegation tailing the Indian team in Washington DC desperately sought President Trump's mediation between the two sides. Summing up India's stance, delegation leader Shashi Tharoor likened Pakistan to a neighbor who "unleashes a rottweiler to bite your children and do worse and then says 'let's talk." Talks are not possible unless Pakistan locks up the rottweilers (terrorists) or puts them to sleep, Tharoor said. Tharoor also rejected efforts to insinuate US into bilateral issues saying India has enormous respect for the American presidency and the American president, but "we have never particularly wanted to ask anyone to mediate." India can speak all the languages Pakistan speaks and is happy to talk to them in any of them if they roll up their terrorism policy and infrastructure, "but as long as they use the language of terrorism, we will use the language of force. That doesn't require a third party,' Tharoor said, even as the team from Islamabad, in its meetings, rolled out the familiar trope of "Pakistan is a victim of terrorism," which the Indian delegation ridiculed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo In one vivid presentation, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya listed five Pakistanis and five Indians who are famous in the US to highlight the difference between the two countries. For Pakistan: Ramzi Yousuf, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Faisal Shahzad, Tashfeen Malik, and Muhammad Shahzeb Khan -- all of whom conducted terrorist attacks on the US. For India: Indra Nooyi, Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Ajay Banga, Arvind Krishna -- all corporate titans who have generated billions in economic activity in the US. "India gives tech titans, Pak gives terrorists," Surya noted. The Indian delegation met US vice-president JD Vance on Thursday morning to convey India's stand after engaging dozens of US lawmakers from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the India Caucus, which has nearly 200 legislators, including 40 Senators, compared to the Pakistan Caucus, which has only around 50 members -- a differential the Indian side mentioned to highlight the breadth of support for India. The Pakistani team meanwhile labored to make an impression on the few meetings its cobbled together on the Hill, insisting that the Kashmir issue was an 'unfinished agenda of the United Nations' despite being outed repeatedly on UN resolutions that seek Pakistan's withdrawal from the territory it has occupied. "Raised concerns over India's recent provocations, the deepening humanitarian crisis in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu & Kashmir," Bhutto posted on X after one such meeting, even though there is no humanitarian crisis in J&K other than terrorist attacks initiated by Pakistan. The Indian delegation in fact told US interlocutors that J&K was seeing unprecedented economic activity and travel boom, "with more tourists than in Aspen, Colorado" before Pahalgam terrorist attack.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
You Cannot Trust Pakistanis: Gen N.C. Vij Explains India's New Military Playbook
Published : Jun 05, 2025 20:30 IST - 12 MINS READ To discuss India's recent military history and the challenges of crucial decision-making, Frontline spoke to General N.C. Vij, who served as the Chief of Army Staff from December 2002 to January 2005 and as Director General of Military Operations during the 1999 Kargil conflict. In his book, Alone in the Ring: Decision Making in Critical Times, General Vij offers an insider's account of pivotal episodes in national security. Edited excerpts: You mention early on in your book that India reacted with more restraint than necessary during Kargil and did not allow military operations across the Line of Control. That won us friends internationally, but 26 years later, how do you balance this restraint with the isolation Pakistan suffered? These are two different times—1999 and now. That time we had just done the nuclear experiment and India wanted to look a very responsible part of the world. I'm telling you only the government's thinking. Not that the army was with that kind of decision. Wars are fought by the government, not by the armies alone. Armies are instrument of war. Secondly, the government didn't want to do anything where perhaps the world thought that India is not a responsible power. And thirdly, they had perhaps somewhere lurking at the back of their mind a fear of nuclear response from Pakistan. As far as today's scenario is concerned, it's entirely different. The government has made up its mind that Pakistanis are using the nuclear threat as an instrument of spreading terrorism. So, they've said, okay, strategic restraint, but controlled escalation. We'll go up the ladder to controlled escalation. The moment we hit the terror camps, we announced very clearly that we have only gone after the terrorism camps, but the escalation was done by Pakistan, not by us. India won many friends during Kargil with its policy of restraint. So, possibly restraint can cut two ways—create problems for military operations, but win friends internationally. How do you look at this? A lot of time has gone by—26 years. The media has changed so much: that everything you do, the moment you do it, is reported. So, we had to make sure that we have a very good narrative because now any war that is being fought has two parts. One is the strategic aspect, which is the war fighting, and second is the story building, the narrative. The narrative has become a very major issue today. Perhaps our narrative somewhere in between, we slackened off. So there was a requirement to wake up for that, and our delegations went. When you saw the response of the world, everybody was sympathetic but kept it quite muted and said you should finish this war, there's a nuclear problem, we must have restraint. These are lectures that don't help us. We want to convey to the world that we are suffering from terrorism at the hands of Pakistanis. Terrorism is also a threat to the world, which Americans must know well. They suffered in 9/11 and fought in Afghanistan for any number of years. Since you saw both Kargil and Operation Sindoor, what are the main changes from Operation Vijay to Operation Sindoor? A lot of changes. That day, the government gave us orders not to cross the Line of Control. We were asked to take Kargil only and not go elsewhere. Given an option, we perhaps wouldn't have gone to the Kargil area. We would have gone to many other areas in the PoK, which would have been far easier to pluck and perhaps then come to Kargil later. Was this proposal made to the government by you? Yes. Everything was discussed behind the door. They felt that our case will be stronger if we take Kargil. Those who have been to those areas will see that these hills are absolutely straight up and there are no approaches. Very difficult objectives. But this time the government gave us free hand. Every time we have upgraded the response. We did a surgical strike just a few kilometers across the Line of Control. After that, Balakot happened. We have now multiplied that by nine times and gone straight for terrorist targets not only in PoK but in the heart of Punjab. We have used aircraft. First time, we did it only with foot troops. So we have upgraded our response. Also Read | India and Pakistan are still very much on the razor's edge: Ramanathan Kumar Would you say air power, unmanned aerial vehicles, drones are the instruments of modern warfare, like in Ukraine? Yes, these are very much instruments of the future and will be used heavily. But that does not reduce the importance of the Army and Navy. Our Navy was in a very good position to take on Karachi. They didn't do it because there was no requirement. All three services will remain important. But yes, drones and stand-off weapons are major additions. Some people use the terminology of 'no contact' war. Well, I am infantry and I don't believe in that. It's no contact at the initial stage. But ultimately, if you have to fight, contact is inevitable. There will be ultimately army on the ground because only then you can capture areas. All these conflicts took place under the nuclear umbrella. How much rationality should we give to the other side that they will not use the ultimate option? Pakistanis have not changed their nuclear threshold. But their Director General, Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, who was advisor to the National Command Authority, has mentioned four things. One is territorial integrity—any part of their country lost will be a problem. Second, destruction of their forces—if you destroy their main strike forces, that will be a problem. Third, if you destabilise that country politically. Fourth, if you economically strangle them. So these four are very well stated. There is a threshold, but you can operate below that threshold. That's what we did. We had started the Cold Start doctrine. We said we'll make shallow incursions so that we remain below their nuclear threshold. India has put the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance. Pakistan's Joint Chiefs chairman said this constitutes existential threat. Is this a nuclear trigger? Pakistan has always considered India as an existential threat. That has been their approach all along. As far as the Indian armed forces are concerned, from my younger days, we were told that a stable Pakistan is in our interest. But Pakistan has always felt they are under an existential threat. Water is definitely a threat. I'm glad that for the first time after discussing for many years, Indus Water Treaty needs to be changed. It was drawn 60 years back under different circumstances. The population profile has changed, our requirements have changed. The Prime Minister has put it on the table and said we will do it. We are open to discussion, but it has to be resolved. They don't listen. So somewhere you have to change the rules. During the first days of Operation Sindoor, Pakistanis claimed they downed our jets. Reuters also claimed three jets came down. But our Air Marshal took days to confirm losses. Did this delay give Pakistan propaganda advantage? There are two aspects. Firstly, losses are part of any operation. You can't fight a war without losses. We also did it under certain conditions and restraint. Perhaps we didn't want to suppress their air defense, which we should have done. Yes, perhaps we should have mentioned it on day one. But during war, you are not discussing your losses. During the Kargil War, during the operation, we were not mentioning losses either. You were talking of bodies coming back to Delhi through proper channels. But during Kargil, we lost two MiG aircraft, and Squadron Leader Ajay Ahuja was killed, and Flight Lieutenant Kambampati Nachiketa was captured. Doesn't it serve purpose to be upfront? Then I will tend to agree with you that on the first day itself, perhaps we could have done it. It would have served our purpose better. When the Air Marshal spoke, he made it very clear that all pilots are safe. So obviously, the unspoken part was that some aircraft have been lost. Perhaps we could have mentioned number of aircraft. Pakistanis have also not mentioned their losses. They have also lost aircraft, which they have not mentioned. [Ed Note: This has not been verified yet by any source.] But our side has started talking about it. When MiGs came down in Kargil, was there pressure on armed forces to hit back that day? At that time, the aircraft came down. First, we used helicopters, an easy target. Then we were flying at low heights. The Air Force changed their tactics. Not crossing the Line of Control to remain within conditionality. They started going beyond 20,000 feet, where missiles couldn't reach. We also had got guided munitions. Pressure was there. Loss of aircraft and helicopters was not welcome news and had demoralising effect at that point. But that was only for a couple of days. After that, the Air Force changed tactics and flew 550 sorties with no loss. So operation was great success. You mentioned in 2004 an effort to resolve a dispute with Pakistan about coordinated withdrawal from Siachen Glacier, and you quote Prime Minister Manmohan Singh telling you, 'General, you're being very hawkish.' What was the context? After the Congress government came to power, they held a meeting in our military operations room. The government was considering pulling back troops a little on both sides to reduce tension. Our point was that if you pull back, say five kilometres on our side and five kilometres on the Pakistan side, there's a world of difference. For us to get back to those five kilometres may take more than day. Pakistanis will be there in an hour or two. We said Pakistanis cannot be trusted. We had experienced them enough to understand that whatever they say is a pack of lies and they will do what they want to do. We suggested to the Prime Minister that we should not do that. Siachen is far too important. We don't want to risk Siachen, and it's very difficult to recapture any part of Siachen once occupied. We gave two reasons. One, even when Prime Minister Vajpayee was in Lahore in February '99, Pakistanis were already intruding into Kargil. The Lahore Declaration was being signed, and that is the audacity with which they operate. Number two, infiltration was still taking place. We were having 3,000 odd terrorists inside the Valley and Jammu. Infiltration cannot take place unless Pakistan army is actively supporting it. When I told this to Dr Manmohan Singh, he said, 'You are being very hawkish.' Coming from Dr. Manmohan Singh, who was so polite and soft spoken, it was many degrees more than that. We said, 'Sir, we are professionals. It is our duty to tell you the truth without mincing any words so that there is no lack of understanding as to what we are playing with.' Did he take your advice? He said, 'Where can we discuss this further? We want to discuss amongst ourselves.' I took him to the DGMO's [Director General of Military Operations] office. They sat for half an hour, came back and said, 'We have thought over it. We'll drop the idea.' He very much took the suggestion we had given. Here is a very important point. Between the government and the Armed Forces, there must be a very good professional rapport. It is duty of the Armed Forces to tell them the absolute truth without mincing any words. And it is the job of the government to listen to that professional advice very seriously. What they decide ultimately is their choice. But this rapport and understanding must exist. Also Read | Operation Sindoor blurred the lines between security and showbiz In Iraq, there were pressures from Americans for India to deploy troops. You make interesting points that our troops would have been mercenaries, Americans were looking for cheap soldiers, and there was no UN sanction. You wrote letters to political leadership saying this was bad idea. Did your letters swing the decision? We were told by the government. The Secretary of Defense made two visits to India. We had meetings in the Defence Minister's office. The point was, firstly, we were operationally very heavily occupied. We were building a fence that was 740 km long. We had no time. Number two, we had experience in Sri Lanka, where we felt that operating in somebody else's country is a different ball game altogether. Number three issue was why should we fight under anybody else's flag, where we have no control, we are only instruments to be used. I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister before the CCS meeting. The strategic community was very strongly in favour of sending troops to Iraq. They had their reasons. One, India will increase its influence in the world. Two, an opportunity to get into the Security Council. Three, [US President George] Bush had told [Lal Krishna] Advani he will tell General Musharraf to lay off Kashmir. But we stuck to our issues and mentioned we should not go. After the CCS meeting where we all gave our views, the Prime Minister said only one word—chintan karenge—and the meeting broke up. After month and half, decision was taken that no troops will be sent. I cannot say for sure whether it was our recommendation that swung the issue, but I'm sure they would have given credence to it. We did our duty. We told them what we felt was right and stuck to it. We have dealt with the Pakistanis at length. We must learn one thing that you cannot trust them. Amit Baruah was The Hindu's Islamabad-based Pakistan correspondent from 1997 to 2000. He is the author of Dateline Islamabad.
