BRICS countries strongly condemn Pahalgam terror attack, call for Zero tolerance against terrorism
BRICS countries, in a Joint Declaration at the conclusion of their seventeenth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, called for ensuring zero tolerance for terrorism and also rejected the double standards in countering the scourge.
Expressing strong condemnation of any acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable regardless of their motivation ''whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed,'' the Joint Declaration said terrorism should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group and that all those involved in terrorist activities and their support must be held accountable and brought to justice in accordance with relevant national and international law.
''We express strong condemnation of any acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, whenever, wherever and by whomsoever committed. We condemn in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in Jammu and Kashmir on April 22. We reaffirm our commitment to combating terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, including the cross-border movement of terrorists, terrorism financing and safe havens. We urge to ensure zero tolerance for terrorism and reject double standards in countering terrorism.''
Emphasizing the primary responsibility of States in combating terrorism, the BRICS countries called for global efforts to prevent and counter terrorist threats and said the States must fully comply with their obligations under international law, including the UN Charter and relevant international conventions and protocols, particularly international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law.
They welcomed the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) and its five Subgroups based upon the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan and the CTWG position paper and said they looked forward to further deepening counter-terrorism cooperation.
They called for an expeditious finalization and adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism in the UN framework for concerted actions against all UN designated terrorists and terrorist entities.
The BRICS countries reiterated commitment to preventing and combating illicit financial flows, including money laundering and financing of terrorism, extremism and proliferation, as well as other forms of transnational organized crime like drug trafficking, cybercrimes, crimes that affect the environment, illicit trafficking of firearms, trafficking in persons, corruption and the use of new technologies, including cryptocurrencies, for terrorist purposes.
They underscored the importance of enhancing capacity-building and technical assistance, particularly for developing countries, to support the implementation of relevant international obligations and reaffirmed commitment to the principles of technical and non-politicized nature of international anti-criminal cooperation, including for the purpose of prevention and of financial investigations.
'We note the need to further strengthen such cooperation, including through relevant existing BRICS working groups, meetings of the BRICS countries' competent authorities and other forms of cooperation based on the documents adopted in BRICS, as well as the relevant international legal instruments to which BRICS countries are parties.'
They emphasized the importance of creating conditions for safe development of the younger generation, reducing the risk of their involvement in illegal activities and welcomed the development of relevant international projects with the participation of young people.
UNI RB GNK 1101
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
an hour ago
- United News of India
Iran slams Europe's threats to renew UN sanctions over its nuclear programme
Tehran, July 28 (UNI) Iran has slammed Europe's threats at reimposing UN sanctions on Tehran if the tries to pursue its nuclear programme following the recent negotiations in Istanbul, with the Iranian Foreign Ministry stating that Brussels and London lack the legitimacy to go through with such an action. According to Iran International, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei while addressing the media said 'We have clearly said, and we stress, that the European parties do not have the legitimacy or the authority to invoke the so-called snapback mechanism.' During the first round of negotiations in Türkiye, leaders from the UK, Germany, and France – collectively called the E3 – met at the Iranian Consulate in Istanbul and discussed the nuclear program in its first round of negotiations with foreign parties, following Iran's 12-day war Israel and the bombing of its key nuclear facilities by the US. Iran conveyed its opposition directly to its European counterparts to any snapback effort, according to Baghaei. 'Such a right does not exist for them, and we fundamentally reject the move,' he added. Under the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, known formally as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the snapback clause allows for the reimposition of UN sanctions if a participant claims significant non-compliance. Baghaei also dismissed European narratives of the recent negotiations. 'The European side has presented its own version of events, but this account does not align with the facts and differs from the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic of Iran,' he said. France has further threatened Iran, and said it will call for a sweeping global embargo on Iran, unless it doesn't reach a deal by the end of August covering not jut its nuclear program, but also its missile program and regional activities. Baghaei stated that Iran's nuclear negotiations with European powers remain narrowly confined to sanctions relief and atomic issues, rejecting the statements on any other matters or broader deals being put to table. 'These talks have a clear and limited focus: the lifting of sanctions and matters related to the nuclear program,' Baghaei said. 'Any attempt by some Western states to introduce unrelated issues only reflects their confusion and lack of coherence.' \\\\ The Foreign Ministry official said that Iran's defence issues are non-negotiable and can't put to table. 'Especially under current conditions, Iran is more determined than ever to maintain and enhance its deterrent capability.' Tehran has further ruled out any talks with Washington currently, stating that there are no negotiations are planned for the recent future as well, with Foreign Ministry adding that the Islamic Republic will take whatever action it deems appropriate, as demanded by its national demands. UNI ANV SSP
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
From Putin to Quad: Jaishankar dispels doubts on global support to India over Operation Sindoor
External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Monday answered questions about the international support during Operation Sindoor, India's military strikes targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and and PoK in retaliation to the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack. Jaishankar also mentioned BRICS, which he said also includes China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and Egypt. (PTI) EAM Jaishankar underlined the statements given by international groupings like the Quad and BRICS in the aftermath of the attack, wherein they condemned the act of terrorism. He said that the Quad had given a statement saying it 'unequivocally condemns all acts of terrorism or violent extremism in all its forms and manifestations, including cross-border terrorism.' The Quad had specifically condemned the Pahalgam terror attack and called for the perpetrators, organisers, and financers of the 'reprehensible act to be brought to justice', Jaishankar said. Jaishankar also mentioned BRICS, which he said also includes China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Iran and Egypt. 'BRICS also condemned the attack, reaffirmed its commitment to combating terrorism,' Jaishankar said. He further said that if any country condemns cross-border terrorism at a time when India has been attacked, the meaning of the statement should be 'obvious to everybody'. Jaishankar said that Central Asian countries had also opposed 'providing safe haven' to, and using terrorist proxies for cross-border terrorism and terror financing. Jaishankar cites Putin The EAM cited statements from the Indian Ocean Rim Association countries. 'President Putin, for example…has said that this brutal crime has no justification whatsoever, and its perpetrators will face a deserved punishment," he said The President of Paraguay has said he expresses solidarity and recognises India's right to self-defence, Jaishankar added. He said that countries like Germany, France and the European Union had also taken similar positions on the issue. The EAM also informed the House that a 'number of leaders' from different countries had held conversations with Indian diplomats and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He said that they wanted to understand India's thinking, adding that the common message given to the leaders was that India was exercising its right to self defence. Jaishankar also highlighted that the countries were told that there would be no mediation, and that anything between India and Pakistan was bilateral.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Only 3 of 190 nations which are part of UN opposed Operation Sindoor, says Jaishankar
NEW DELHI: External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Monday made a detailed speech in the Lok Sabha on the government's diplomatic response following the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor . Speaking firmly, Jaishankar speaking in Lok Sabha at the Monsoon Session debate took aim at both past governments and present Opposition critics, asserting India's zero-tolerance policy on terrorism and listing the foreign policy actions undertaken in the wake of the April 22 attack. Here are the top quotes from Jaishankar's speech Only 3 of 190 UN nations opposed India: "At no stage in any conversation with the US was there any linkage of trade with Operation Sindoor," Jaishankar said, adding that the request to pause action came through the Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) communication channel from Pakistan . The foreign minister emphasised the massive global backing India received post-attack, underlining the effectiveness of India's diplomatic outreach. "The result of that diplomacy was that out of the 190 nations of UN only three, besides Pakistan, opposed Operation Sindoor. Overwhelmingly, there was recognition that terror was unacceptable and the country which has been attacked has the right to defend itself and India was doing exactly that." Jaishankar reiterated that India's red lines had been crossed with the Pahalgam incident, necessitating a firm and visible response. "It was important to send a clear, strong and resolute message after the Pahalgam attack as our red lines had been crossed and we had to make it very apparent that there would be serious consequences," he said. 'India sent a strong, clear message after Pahalgam attack': "... It was important to send a clear, strong and resolute message after the Pahalgam attack. Our red lines had been crossed. and we had to make it very apparent that there would be serious consequences as a result. The first step, which was taken, was that a meeting of the Cabinet Committee of Security took place on 23rd April. That meeting decided that- The Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 will be held in abeyance with immediate effect until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. The Integrated Check Post Attari would be closed with immediate effect. Pakistani nationals who are travelling under SARC visa exemption scheme will no longer be allowed to do that. The Defence, Naval and Air advisors of the Pakistani High Commission would be declared Persona non grata The overall strength of the High Commission would be brought down to 30 from the number of 55." "It was very clear that, after the first set of steps approved by the Cabinet Committee on Security, India's response to the Pahalgam attack would not stop there. Our task from a diplomatic perspective, from a foreign policy approach, was to shape the global understanding of the Pahalgam attack. What we tried to do was to bring out to the international community Pakistan's long-standing use of cross-border terrorism. We highlighted the history of terrorism in Pakistan and how this particular attack was meant to target the economy of Jammu and Kashmir and to sow communal discord among the people of India." UN Security Council and global outreach: "The focus for our diplomacy was the UN Security Council. The challenge for us was that at this particular point, Pakistan is a member of the Security Council and we are not... Our goals in the Security Council were two: 1- to get an endorsement from the Security Council of the need for accountability, and 2- to bring to justice those who perpetrated this attack. I am glad to say that if you look at the Security Council statement of 25th April, the members of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack. They affirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security. And most importantly, the Council underlined the need to hold the perpetrators, organisers, financers and sponsors of this reprehensible act of terrorism accountable and bring them to justice." On global support and coordination before Operation Sindoor: "From 25th April till the commencement of Operation Sindoor, there were a number of phone calls and conversations. At my level, there were 27 calls; at PM Modi's level, almost 20 calls. About 35-40 letters of support came in, and what we tried to do was to create a narrative, prepare the diplomacy for the launch of Operation Sindoor... There are 193 nations in the United Nations, only 3 countries apart from Pakistan opposed Operation Sindoor. .." All-party parliamentary delegations defended India's stance globally: "...We had seven parliamentary delegations which went to 33 countries. Some comments were made about those delegations. I have to tell Arvind Savant ji that you are completely misinformed. Those delegations were received with great honour. Please look at the tweets of people sitting next to you. These seven delegations did the nation proud. Every member, members of opposition, members of the government, public spirited citizens, retired diplomats, they were able to explain to the whole world our posture of zero tolerance against terrorism. .." On China visit and stapled visa controversy: "Yes, I went to China to make our opposition very clear about de-escalation, trade restrictions and terrorism. I did not go to China for the Olympics. I did not go to China for secret agreements. The House should know that people were watching the Olympics when China was issuing stapled visas for people from Arunachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir..." Criticism of UPA's inaction post 26/11: "We were asked, why did you stop at this time? Why did you not go further? This question is being asked by people who, after 26/11, felt that the best action was inaction...26/11 happened in November 2008. What was the reaction? The reaction was Sharm-el-Sheikh. In Sharm-el-Sheikh, the then government and the Pakistani Prime Minister agreed that terrorism is a main threat to both countries. Now, today, people are saying America is hyphenating you, Russia is hyphenating you, that is what I heard Deepender Hooda ji say. You are hyphenating yourself. You did not need a foreign country to say please link India to worst of all, they accepted a reference to Balochistan in that..." India's stronger regional ties: "...We have just come back from Maldives. The day before yesterday, PM Modi was the Guest of Honour at their Independence Day. It is the same country that, during their (Congress) time, forced an Indian company to leave an airport, that country today has invited India to build two new airports..." Amit Shah's rebuke to Opposition: Union home minister Amit Shah also intervened during Jaishankar's speech, slamming the Opposition for repeated disruptions. "...I have an objection that they (Opposition) don't have faith in an Indian Foreign Minister but they have faith in some other country. I can understand the importance of foreign in their party. But this doesn't mean that all the things of their party should be imposed here in the House. This is the reason why they are sitting there (opposition benches), and will remain sitting there for the next 20 years..."
