Pakistan eyes chair of UNSC panel dealing with Taliban sanctions
Pakistan is vying for the chairmanship of the UNSC 1988 Committee, which oversees sanctions against the Taliban, as it seeks to improve relations with Kabul. Despite likely missing out on the 1267 Al-Qaeda sanctions committee, Pakistan aims to leverage the 1988 committee to potentially ease restrictions on the Taliban.
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Tired of too many ads?
Remove Ads
Pakistan is eyeing chairmanship of the UNSC 1988 Committee, which focuses on the sanctions' regime against the Taliban amid Islamabad's attempt to improve ties with Kabul.Pakistan, which is unlikely to get chairmanship of 1267 Al-Qaeda sanctions committee of the UNSC, has been lobbying hard to get chairmanship of 1988 committee, hoping to play a role in getting relief for Taliban, ET has learnt.Pakistan, a non-permanent member of UNSC, will hold UNSC's rotating presidency this July and is expected to utilise it to push its narrative against India, sources hinted.Put on the backfoot by India-Taliban bonhomie that also resulted in Afghanistan's acting foreign minister condemning the Pahalgam terror attacks, India relaxing medical visa rules for Afghans and Kabul seeking to use Chabahar Port and INSTC, Islamabad with Beijing's assistance stepped up efforts to regain its influence in Kabul.Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi played the role of a peacemaker by bringing the foreign ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the same table last month. China is also keen to include Afghanistan into CPEC The 1988 committee aims to ensure that individuals and entities associated with the Taliban are not allowed to participate in activities that threaten peace, stability and security in Afghanistan. It monitors the implementation of sanctions, ensuring that they are effectively enforced.The goal is to support a peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan by deterring support to terrorist entities and promoting peace and reconciliation. The panel reviews and approves listing and delisting of individuals and entities on the sanctions list.The committee approves travel ban exemptions for individuals on the list when necessary, such as for medical treatment or meetings related to regional security. The committee monitors the implementation of asset freezes for individuals and entities on the list.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
19 minutes ago
- Time of India
'To thank our armed forces': INDIA bloc writes letter to PM Modi for special Parliament session on Operation Sindoor
INDIA bloc leaders NEW DELHI: The INDIA bloc has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi demanding a special session of Parliament to discuss the Pahalgam terrorist attack and related issues, the Congress-led opposition alliance announced on Tuesday. Speaking at a press conference, after their meeting in New Delhi's Constitution Club, the representative Congress MP Deepender Singh Hooda, emphasised the need for a special session to "thank the armed forces and discuss strategies to eradicate terrorism." "16 political parties of our alliance have written a letter to PM Modi that a special session must be called. During the Pahalgam terrorist attack and the conflict between India and Pakistan, all the opposition parties stood in support of our armed forces and the government. When America announced a ceasefire, we again demanded that a special session of the Parliament be held so that all the parties could thank our armed forces," Hooda said. "We should have discussions on them in the Parliament. We should also discuss how to eradicate terrorism and our further strategies. Now that the government is putting forward its views in front of the world , I think they should do the same in the Parliament as well," he added. According to Trinamool Congress MP Derek O'Brien, the parties which are signatories to the letter to the prime minister, besides his party and the Congress, are Samajwadi Party, DMK, Shiv Sena (UBT), RJD, National Conference, CPI (M), IUML, CPI, RSP, JMM, VCK, Kerala Congress, MDMK, and Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation O'Brien further informed that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which is also a part of the opposition group, will write its separate letter to the prime minister on Wednesday, supporting the demand for a special session. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Artsen ontdekken: Het geheim van snel gewichtsverlies Verbrandhetvet Undo The INDIA bloc meeting was held after more than 200 MPs from the Lok Sabha signed a letter to PM Modi calling for a special session of Parliament to discuss the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor, and US President Donald Trump's repeated claim that the United States brokered the India-Pakistan ceasefire. In the early hours of May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor as a decisive military response to the April 22 attack by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists. The Indian armed forces targeted terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in a military confrontation with the neighbouring country. On May 10, Islamabad reached out to New Delhi requesting cessation of hostilities. A ceasefire has been effect since that day.
The Hindu
32 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Can India's MP Missions Shift Global View on Pakistan Threat?
Published : Jun 03, 2025 14:18 IST - 8 MINS READ The seven MPs' delegations the Narendra Modi government has despatched to some 32 countries worldwide include some of the best and most articulate of our Members of Parliament. They have proceeded to their respective destinations with detailed briefings by the Foreign Secretary and loads of background papers. Yet, a number of questions remain about what exactly they are supposed to accomplish. The capital cities the delegations are visiting have been diligently chosen, concentrating on those member-States who are permanent members and either currently elected or prospectively elected to serve the next term as non-permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC). However, one serving non-permanent member, and the one who will be the most vocal in the UNSC, has been deliberately excluded—Pakistan. We have had virtually no contact with the Pakistan government in the last 11 years that the Modi government has been in office. For the last six years, we have not even had High Commissioners in place in Islamabad or New Delhi. This renders it more, not less, relevant that we should have at least tried to compensate for the decade's absence of governmental contact by promoting parliamentary contact. It would have generated invaluable information of what to expect from the Pakistani onslaught at the UN. Also Read | The war has paused—will peace get a word in? Moreover, none of our immediate neighbours in South Asia is scheduled to be visited. Such exclusions raise eyebrows as one would have thought they would be mobilised under our government's 'Neighbourhood First' policy to present a united regional front to the international community. Doubtless they are not on the parliamentarians' itinerary because none of them has openly and unambiguously come out in our support despite being the most informed, and most affected by, war in their vicinity. If our neighbours are not persuaded, what hope is there of distant Panama even beginning to understand our argument? Making a bilateral issue multilateral By prioritising the existing and potential UNSC members for acquainting them with the issues at stake, are we not multilateralising issues that Indira Gandhi had ensured at Shimla in 1972 would be limited to bilateral settlement? Is that not the principal reason that, for half a century, the international community has not agitated the Jammu and Kashmir issue in the UN despite the question being on the UN's agenda? True, there have often been clashes between Indian and Pakistani representatives in international forums, but by and large, the permanent members have kept themselves off the substance of the issues and limited themselves to urging both countries to use bilateral channels to address outstanding bilateral issues, as mandated by the Simla Agreement of July 1972. This we have failed to do, especially since the seismic 2014 general election. From scanty news reports on the reception being accorded to our MPs, it would also appear that while they are pressing our case with whoever chooses to meet them, few of their interlocutors are of sufficient influence to determine the stand these countries' representatives will take in the UN. More worryingly, these reports do not carry any ringing endorsement of our point of view. Of course, they do deplore terrorism, but specifically, has any of them gone public about Pakistan-sponsored, Pakistan-supported, Pakistan-financed, or Pakistan-armed terrorism? And were they to do so, what answer would our delegations, constrained by the briefings they have received, give to difficult questions such as: how could we not intercept the terrorists deep on our side of the Line of Control? And why have we apprehended none of them a whole month and more after they committed their dastardly deed? And as three of the six alleged terrorists are Kashmiris, does this reflect 'normalisation'? Even if many of those interacting with our MPs know little of India-Pakistan relations, most would want to know the outcome of the first air battle ever between highly sophisticated Western aircraft like Rafale and little-known Chinese military aircraft. Would they be satisfied, as Indians apparently are, by being blandly told that 'losses are expected in combat' and detailed information will be made available at the 'right time'? Even assuming that our MPs have been vouchsafed the information of our losses, can they share such information with foreigners while it is being denied to Indians? Will our interlocutors not feel short-changed at their distinguished visitors not imparting to them the vital military information they seek, perhaps even to evaluate for themselves how far China has developed in advanced military technology vis-à-vis the West? The nuclear option And will the absence of answers from the Indian MPs make them wary of the answers they get about the one question on which our interlocutors are anxious to satisfy themselves: the nuclear weapons option? After all, even the US Vice President J.D. Vance was distancing himself from involvement so long as it was a question of India acting against cross-border terrorism. But the moment we went beyond terrorist camps in Pakistan and escalated to attacking Pakistan airbases, President Donald Trump took upon himself the task of knocking Indian and Pakistani heads together to halt the escalatory prospect before it crossed the nuclear threshold. But so long as Operation Sindoor remains open-ended—and not terminated—the possibility remains of another terror attack provoking a resumption of armed conflict at a level higher than what Uri and Pathankot or Pulwama and Pahalgam provoked and taking the world closer to a nuclear confrontation. At that point, the issue remains no longer bilateral but of global concern, for any use of nuclear weapons will have global consequences not limited to national frontiers. Little practical purpose is served by our MPs intoning parrot-like that we will not succumb to Pakistani 'nuclear blackmail'. 'The real measure of the MPs' success or failure would ensuring that cross-border terrorism, and not the threat of nuclear war, is the core issue.' And let us not forget that Pakistan is not sitting with its hands folded. Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto is leading a seven-member delegation of diplomatic and military experts to some of the key capitals our MPs are visiting. In these cities, the Bhutto team will receive a careful and informed hearing. The Pakistani experts are well versed in diplomacy and, unlike our parliamentarians, with no constraints on answering the questions put to them. The very frankness of their replies—contrasting with our reticence—will enable them to carry the day with at least some of those with whom they interact. They will tend to endorse Trump's claim to have successfully intervened in bringing the fighting to a halt. We will have a difficult time explaining that it was not Trump's threats to cease trade with us both, but our taking out of Pakistan's air force bases that led to Pakistan's Director General of Military Operations suing for an end to hostilities; that it was bilateralism and not third party intervention that carried the day. Cross-border terror as core issue While most of the countries being visited will take their cue at the UN from the prevailing general atmosphere there, many will focus on the nuclear option. Will they accept that the core issue is cross-border terrorism rather than the threat of nuclear war? Will they not want to know whether keeping Operation Sindoor open-ended does not mean Pakistan reserving the nuclear weapons option? They might even make the argument that the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is seized of the issue of terrorism and has brought Pakistan to heel. So, the core issue before the international community is not Pakistani cross-border terrorism but the nuclear question. In the aftermath of the 1999 Kargil War, it was that which persuaded then US President Bill Clinton to give Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif a dressing down. But is anyone calling out Field Marshal Asim Munir? And if not, why not? The FATF record shows that notwithstanding all the Pakistan-based terror attacks that India has been subjected to since Prime Minister Modi suddenly went to Raiwind near Lahore to bless Nawaz's granddaughter on the eve of her wedding in December 2015, the FATF have not placed Pakistan on the black list but have, in fact, removed it from the 'gray list'. Far from endorsing the Indian view that Pakistan is a prime mover of cross-border terrorism, the international community regards Pakistan more as a victim of terrorism than a sponsor. Also Read | What should we peace advocates do now? Will the MPs' delegations be able to carry conviction where a decade of Indian diplomacy and the Prime Minister's tireless peregrinations have failed to secure what we so ardently desire—the condemnation of Pakistan as a terrorist hideout? Or to stop regarding the real threat to world peace as the unique spectacle in the history of nuclear confrontation between two nuclear weapons-armed neighbours sharing the same subcontinent? For over a decade, neither the Ministry of External Affairs nor the PMO and the Prime Minister himself have succeeded in persuading the international community of our view of Pakistan. Therefore, it is not the number of banquets to which our parliamentary delegations are entertained, but the extent to which they change international perceptions to endorse the Indian view that Pakistan deserves condign punishment for its ill deeds, and we cannot be expected to submit to Pakistan's 'nuclear blackmail'. That will be the real measure of the MPs' success or failure: ensuring that cross-border terrorism, and not the threat of nuclear war, is the core issue. The prospects are not reassuring. Mani Shankar Aiyar served 26 years in the Indian Foreign Service, is a four-time MP with over two decades in Parliament, and was a Cabinet Minister from 2004 to 2009. He has published nine books, the latest, A Maverick in Politics, the second part of his memoir.
The Hindu
37 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Opposition parties come together to demand special session of Parliament, write letter to PM
Leaders from 16 opposition parties demanded a special session of Parliament on Operation Sindoor in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as INDIA bloc parties held a meeting on the issue in the national capital on Tuesday (June 3, 2025). Leaders from several parties, including the Congress, Trinamool Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Samajwadi Party, and Shiv Sena (UBT) were part of the meeting. INDIA bloc MPs have signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister raising the demand for a special session of Parliament, opposition leaders said. Congress' Jairam Ramesh and Deependra Hooda, TMC leader Derek O'Brien, SP's Ramgopal Yadav, RJD's Manoj Jha, and Shiv Sena (UBT)'s Sanjay Raut attended the meeting. The DMK is also among the signatories, but could not join the meeting as it coincided with Karunanidhi's birth anniversary. National Conference, CPI(M), IUML, CPI, Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), Kerala Congress, MDMK, CPI(ML) Liberation are also among those who have signed the letter, opposition leaders said. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) skipped the meeting but will write a separate letter to the prime minister with the demand. Nationalist Congress Party (SP), however, is not among the parties demanding a special session. Several Opposition parties have been demanding a special session of Parliament since the Pahalgam terror attack. The demand was also raised in an all-party meeting held to inform the lawmakers about Operation Sindoor. Trinamool Congress has suggested that the session should be held in June, after the multi-party delegations which are travelling to different countries to convey India's stand against terrorism return to the country.
