Pakistan demands immediate UN action to Haiti gang crisis
Pakistan has called for immediate and united action by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to help restore political stability in Haiti as gang violence escalates in the Caribbean nation.
Addressing the Council's first formal meeting under Pakistan's presidency this month, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, Pakistan's permanent representative to the UN, said that the time for 'half measures' in Haiti is over.
'The gangs' stranglehold has turned Haiti's streets into battlegrounds,' he said. 'Vigilante killings are on the rise, children are being recruited by armed groups and the breakdown of basic services is forcing hundreds of thousands to live in fear and face acute food shortages.'
Read: Pakistan advances peace at UNSC
Ambassador Asim, presiding over the 15-member Council in his national capacity, said Haiti's crisis requires both political unity and international resolve, calling for a Haitian-led solution backed by firm global support.
He expressed Pakistan's support for the Multinational Security Support (MSS) mission, led by Kenya and other troop-contributing nations, and urged UNSC to ensure the mission is 'robust, well-resourced, and effective'.
'Anything less risks collective failure tomorrow,' Ahmad cautioned. 'The people of Haiti deserve to live in peace and dignity, free from fear and want. Pakistan stands ready to help forge consensus in the Council to deliver hope and security to Haitians.'
Miroslav Jenca, UN Assistant Secretary-General for the Americas, told the Council that state authority in Haiti had eroded sharply since January. He said gangs had virtually paralysed Port-au-Prince, cutting it off with the ongoing suspension of international commercial flights.
Read more: Pakistan urges UNSC to stop Israeli 'aggression'
Gangs now influence every commune in the capital and surrounding areas, he said, warning that 'the total collapse of state presence could become a real scenario'.
Ghada Fathi Waly, Executive Director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), said from Vienna that gang control over trade routes was stifling legal commerce and worsening food insecurity and humanitarian need.
'The state's capacity to govern is rapidly shrinking,' she said. 'This erosion of state legitimacy has cascading effects.'
Kashmir dispute
Earlier, Ambassador Asim had held a news conference at UN headquarters to highlight the long-standing Kashmir dispute.
'It is time that this is addressed,' he said, referring to the conflict between India and Pakistan. 'And I would say this is not only a responsibility of Pakistan, we are here temporarily for two years as a non-permanent member.'
He added that UNSC, and particularly its permanent members, must 'take certain steps to actually get their own resolutions implemented'.
The comments come just a day after Pakistan formally assumed the UNSC presidency for July, which rotates monthly among member states.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Punjab governor prays for Iranian martyrs
Punjab Governor Sardar Saleem Haider Khan has said that unity and solidarity of the Ummah is crucial in countering efforts to destabilise Muslim countries. During a meeting with Consul General of Iran Mehran Mowahid Far at the Iranian Consulate in Lahore, the governor Punjab offered Fateha for those martyred in Israeli aggression and paid tribute to them. The Iranian consul general thanked the Pakistan government and nation for their support against the Israeli aggression. He also expressed his condolences over the loss of lives due to the recent rains and floods. Governor Saleem Haider Khan said Pakistan has a deep bond of love with Iran. He said that the relations between the two countries are rooted in shared religion, culture and history. The Punjab governor emphasised the strengthening of trade relations between Pakistan and Iran. He expressed his determination to take the bilateral relations to new heights. He said Pakistan has always raised voice for the sovereignty and integrity of Islamic countries.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Should Iran have the bomb?
Listen to article Ten days after the ceasefire between Iran and Israel the consensus among most observers, including the IAEA, is that Iran has saved enough fissile material and the capacity to enrich it to weapons-grade in a matter of weeks and months than years. Should it? Why would she do so? Considering that two nuclear powers collaborated to attack Iran in an unprovoked war lends itself to a widespread opinion in the global South that Iran must have all it needs to defend itself. North Korea is invoked as an example of a state largely labeled rogue, yet because of its known inventory of a dozen nuclear bombs escapes the wrath despite its pariah status. When weaponised Iran too would be able to ward off any aggression, goes the rationale. Iran, though, continues to be viewed with suspicion especially by Israel and its principal backer, the US. Iran's regime of the Ayatollahs displaced the Pahlavis, friends to the US, and in its wake earned the perpetual disdain of US. Her stance and declarations against Israel and support of those who lie in proximity in a struggle against Israel rankles and irks every living moment of the Israeli state. Traditionally, Iran has been looked at with suspicion by its littoral neighbours across the Persian Gulf — the Arab sheikhdoms. Sect-based differences are reinforced with ethnic exclusivity, as indeed does the revolutionary streak of Iran's regime. History of Iranian civilisation shadows what has only recently begun to be realised as an Arab civilisation stoking civilisational wariness. Recent strides in wealth through oil and material prosperity have enhanced Arab significance at the global level accentuated through close alignment with the West. Most Gulf sheikhdoms house US military bases perceptively oriented against any threat from Iran. Arabs and Iran therefore lie in two different camps rendering relations tenuous and speculative. Were Iran to go nuclear, Saudi Arabia is sure to follow. It is widely reported that Saudi Arabia has been in talks with the US to acquire nuclear power plants — the drive for clean energy is a perfect garb. Russia is helping Iran set up a Heavy Water Plant at Bushehr, an Iranian town in its South, which though under IAEA safeguards can be a perfect veil for collecting residual Plutonium. The UAE has four Korean nuclear reactors supplying a quarter of its energy — Qatar has already objected to the UAE nuclearising Gulf. Once in the field of enrichment and nuclear energy even if ostensibly for electrical power, a nation will inevitably chart a nuclear-weapon path over time. Iran is almost there though it needs serious consideration if it should. If Saudi Arabia follows, initially though on a declared peaceful path, there is no stopping from Gulf becoming the most rampantly nuclearised region of the world. With Pakistan and India already declared nuclear powers, all of littoral Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean Region will be the most nuclearised region with inherent flashpoints which can rapidly and uncontrollably escalate to the point of annihilation. What this region instead needs is denuclearisation. Arab-Israel dissonance needs to be repaired somehow. The US instituted the Abraham Accords to include and encourage Arab nations ready to formally accept Israel with a plan to advance the arrangement to those who remain on the fringe. Saudi Arabia has declared that she could consider the proposal only if Israel could cease its war in Gaza and accept the two-state solution where Palestinians could also have a separate homeland. Most Muslim nations will subscribe to that stand. Middle east needs a comprehensive and wholesome settlement of open issues and conflicts that invariably involve Israel. Israel-Iran enmity too has roots in the same conflict. A viable and a lasting solution can greatly appease the discomfort and unease in the middle east. If Israel is not at war with the rest of the middle east as has been the case since its inception as a separate state, should it still need nuclear weapons for its security and safety? What if both Israel and Iran together could be convinced to give up their nuclear weapons and aspirations and coexist as two responsible nations each with its own strength to contribute to the world? Brazil, Argentina, South Africa and Ukraine have all given up nuclear weapons and nuclear-weapon programmes in the past to subscribe to a denuclearised world. With conflict as rampant, profusion of nuclear weapons in and around Gulf can only advance Armageddon. Following recent conflicts which almost pushed us to the brink of a widespread, total regional war, it is only imperative that peace is cemented with palpable, substantive and abiding solutions. In another scenario imagine a link of continuum where adjoining states pursue the path to nuclear weaponisation in response to their threat assessment: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran are all contiguous to one another and form what must be the chain of devastation. A nuclear war anywhere in the chain is sure to immerse adjoining states either in effect or in unison if not in extended conflagration. With Iran will follow Turkey. As will Saudi Arabia and the UAE already on the path to that horrifying ultimate inevitability. USA is a virtual and a real neighbour to this region with its most dominating nuclear arsenal. Israel of course will only add to this fire. If this is not Armageddon, what is? The entire Eurasian landmass will be obliterated under an expanding engorgement of nuclear fires and radiation. Where to, will Europe escape? Germany, which gave up nuclear power plants has already indicated going back into the fold of nuclear energy after her gas pipelines from Russia were blown away. It will do so on a gallop under any right-wing government; it barely escaped having one in the last elections. Together, such an eventuality is humanity underwriting its own annihilation. Yet humanity must benefit and not overlook what peaceful nuclear use can bring. Existing route to destruction of the climate comes from the use of fossil fuels. Humans, conscious of their misdeeds, are navigating a path to cleaner energy to save the planet. Nuclear power is an important cog in this plan. What it will need though to ensure disarmament is appeasement if not total elimination of conflict — especially where issues stand as explosive flashpoints — with resolution mechanisms that can be seen to be fair and equitable. The world must believe in the value system which is rule-based and egalitarian. Estrangement and dismissiveness to project displeasure as is the wont of most global South is injurious. Instead, as a recourse the world at large must encourage Russia, China and the US to seize the moment and underwrite what must chart the path of coexistence for humanity in the next millennia. Collectivism than unilateralism must guide our responses to what threatens humanity. To that end pervasive peace remains the first step.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Middle power, major impact
Listen to article In between the headlines and breaking news on the Iran-Israel ceasefire, one country stayed largely out of the spotlight but played its part with quiet confidence: Pakistan. While global attention was fixed on the power moves of Washington and Tehran, Islamabad chose the path of working steadily behind the scenes. It didn't chase headlines or dramatic gestures, but its calm and calculated approach became a case study on how a middle power can still make a meaningful difference when it sticks to smart, steady diplomacy. For all the noise made about great power politics, the Middle East remains a region where missteps by even peripheral actors can have oversized consequences. Nonetheless, in a climate where strikes and bluster existed, Pakistan opted to move with caution and calm. It denounced Israeli aggression at a remarkably early stage, supported Iran and, most importantly, did not fall into the trap of escalating its discourse so that it was beyond use in terms of diplomacy. This was not sitting on the fence. It had a calibrated positioning. The fact that Pakistan nominated US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was initially treated with ridicule by some of the critics. Yet as hindsight has shown, it also had a definite purpose to paint Trump as a possible peacemaker, not an actor in escalation. It was, in many ways, a diplomatic gambit and the kind which paid off when Trump, after the US strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, chose not to retaliate further following Iran's missile response. While it's impossible to draw a straight line between Islamabad's messaging and Washington's decisions, the timing and tone of Trump's remarks after his meeting with the Field Marshall were telling. He credited Pakistan with "knowing Iran very well". That's not flattery — it's influence. The reason why the approach that Pakistan used was different was that it never attempted to play bigger than it actually was. It was not pursuing headlines or courtship of domestic populism. Rather, it used all the resources it had through quiet diplomacy with regional partners such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar as well as maintaining contact with Iran and co-sponsoring a UN ceasefire resolution together with China and Russia. Stated shortly, Pakistan behaved as it is becoming a responsible regional stakeholder. What many observers missed is how much this crisis tested Pakistan's ability to juggle conflicting interests. Domestically, the nomination of Trump triggered backlash yet Pakistan stuck to its line, not because it was blindly committed to the US, but because it saw a window for de-escalation and took it. At the same time, Pakistan made it clear that it would not be dragged into Iran's internal or military calculations. False reports that Pakistan had offered nuclear backing to Tehran were swiftly and firmly denied. That wasn't just damage control but a signal to the international community that Islamabad's strategic doctrine remains narrowly defined and regionally focused. This matters. This is a region where states have a tendency of making passionate and emotional statements of will, and then failing to do much in its implementation, but Pakistan did not waver. Its sure hand may have not been the determinant effect in terminating enmity, but it definitely helped form the environment where a ceasefire became a reality. Pakistan has longstanding ties with Gulf countries, historical tension with Israel, and a border with Iran. But perhaps that is precisely why its balanced posture was so impactful. By refusing to act as a proxy for anyone, and by staying within the lines of international law and diplomatic engagement, Pakistan elevated its position. This wasn't flashy diplomacy, but it was effective. In a global environment where credibility is hard to earn and easy to lose, Pakistan may have just strengthened its standing by doing something refreshingly rare: keeping its cool.
