Latest news with #ComprehensiveConventionagainstTerrorism
India Gazette
07-07-2025
- Business
- India Gazette
At BRICS, strong support for India's global terror convention
Rio de Janeiro [Brazil], July 7 (ANI): The leaders' joint statement, issued after the 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, resonates with Prime Minister Narendra Modi's views in very broad terms, including the condemnation of terrorism in all its forms, MEA Secretary Dammu Ravi said. Addressing a press conference here on Sunday (local time) the MEA Secretary (Economic Relations) said the BRICS group of countries have extended their strong support for a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), which has been India's intitiative in the United Nations. The treaty proposed by India within the UN framework aims to provide a comprehensive legal basis for combating terrorism. It aims to define and criminalize various terrorist actions, ensuring that individuals who commit these acts can be prosecuted or extradited. The MEA Secretary said that the leaders' Joint Statement, issued after the the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday condemns manifestation of terrorism, including financing of it. 'Para 34 (of BRICS declaration) says that condemnation of terrorism in all its manifestations, including those who abet, who finance either covertly or overtly. There is also a reference to the cross-border movement of terrorists and the listing of terror groups. There is also strong support for the Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism, which was India's initiative in the UN for a long time... That message is very clear to our neighbours...' They expressed solidarity and strong condemnation in that was very well captured in that,' he said. 'We have other pillars, but many of India's ideas that we've been negotiating over a period of time have been well brought out, and in today's discussion, what we noticed is most of the ideas and views exchanged during all the sessions resonate with the honourable Prime Minister's views in very broad terms,' he added. The BRICS statement also, without explicity referring to Pakistan, reaffirmed the group's commitment to addressing the cross border movement of terrorists, terror financing and safe havens . 'Let me articulate some of the most important questions that came up in the context of Pahalgam. If you look at the para 34, it 's very clear. One is there is unanimous condemnation of all the leaders. I think you need to know that. And it also says that condemnation in all its manifestations and including those who abet, who finance and either openly, covertly or overtly in both ways, it has been condemned. There is also a reference to the cross border movement of terrorists,' he said. Ravi said that the declaration is a strong message to India's 'neighbours.' 'It's also coming out very clearly and the listing of terrorist groups, and there is also a strong support for Comprehensive Convention on against terrorism, which was India's formulation and India's initiative in the UN for a long time. So the message is very clear. For anyone who understands the dangers of terrorism and how it can be, how it needs to be condemned, tackled not by just us, it's there is a solidarity, there is a universal condemnation, which means all the countries are against it in any form. So that message is very clear to our neighbours,' the MEA Secretary said. The BRICS leaders' declaration statement strongly condemned the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu & Kashmir which killed 26 innocent people. '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,' the statement read. The leaders of BRICS nations welcomed the activities of the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Working Group (CTWG) and its five Subgroups, based on the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Strategy, the BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan, and the CTWG position paper. Prime Minister Modi, speaking deuing a session at the BRICS Summit asserted that condemning terrorism must be a 'principle' rather than a matter of 'convenience', describing it as the 'most serious challenge' for humanity in the current global scenario. Putting the spotlight on the terror attack in Pahalgam, PM Modi termed it reminder of terrorism's threat to global peace and called for unwavering international solidarity. He stated that the attack was a blow to the 'soul, identity, and dignity' of India, acknowledging the international support that the nation received in solidarity. PM Modi called for decisive sanctions against such acts, stating that victims and supporters of terrorism cannot be weighed on the same scale. 'For personal or political gain, giving silent consent to terrorism and supporting terror or terrorists should not be acceptable under any circumstances,' he said. The BRICS summit, hosted by Brazil, brought together leaders from Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, as well as new members Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, the UAE, and Indonesia. (ANI)
The Hindu
10-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
The hazards of going global on India-Pakistan issues
Operation Sindoor and subsequent events thereafter have, once again, highlighted the futility of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy in resolving differences between India and Pakistan. An entangled web of frozen ideas has enveloped the situation making it impossible to separate the different strands. The developments following the Second World War and the evolution of the Cold War have also impacted heavily on the situation. Thus, any initiative, however sincere and logical it may be, will be hampered by the existing literature formulated by the United Nations and other international bodies, not to speak of Pakistan's stubborn position that Kashmir is the core issue. It is for this reason that Pakistan finds the smokescreen of resolutions and concepts relating to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), terrorism, self-determination, non-proliferation and peaceful settlement of disputes spread over the last 70 years or more. For instance, in the briefing given to India's seven teams of special envoys sent out to various countries after Operation Sindoor, the very first point they were asked to assert was that J&K is an integral part of India. Most countries, particularly those which do not follow developments closely, would look up the literature and the UN maps and find that there is an inscription on UN maps depicting the India-Pakistan border, particularly in the region of J&K. The inscription says, 'Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.' Sometimes, there is a more general disclaimer regarding boundaries on the map such as: 'the boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.' Therefore, most countries would not make a commitment on the question of borders. At best, they would tell us that a bilateral solution, as envisaged in the Simla Agreement, would be desirable. India's stand on terror Equally complex is India's position on terrorism. More than 30 years ago, India introduced in the UN General Assembly, a draft for a Comprehensive Convention against Terrorism, which was dismissed as an anti-Pakistan move in which others were not interested. A one man department against terrorism in Vienna was nothing more than a research post. It did not even define terrorism because of the dictum that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. The support that India had given to fighters in Africa and Sri Lanka was pointed out as an example of the difficulty in defining terrorism. The only thing that the UN could do was to keep the definition of terrorism as vague as possible. The shocking events of 9/11 (2001) brought terrorism, which was considered to be confined to West Asia and South Asia, centre stage in the United States and Europe and it appeared that decisive action would be taken to deal with the menace globally. But after hectic activity in the political and legal bodies of the UN to finalise binding laws, the focus shifted to U.S. military action in Afghanistan, which resulted in the ouster of the Taliban government. The war in Afghanistan was meant to root out terrorism, but after decades of conflict, the U.S. fled the country, leaving the Taliban in power. The UN's approach The UN Security Council has established several mechanisms to combat international terrorism, that are primarily centred around the various resolutions. Under these all member-states are obliged to take various economic and security measures to prevent the commission of terrorist acts. The Counter-Terrorism Committee of the Security Council was authorised to monitor the implementation of the overall plan. As for action against terrorists, this can be covered under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which recognises the inherent right of self defence if an armed attack occurs against a member-state. Though the application of this right in the case of terrorist attacks is complicated, it can provide a basis for a state to take action against terrorist groups that have attacked it. India's position about surgical strikes on terrorist infrastructure will be judged as to whether such action is proportionate and in accordance with international humanitarian law. The Security Council's approach to counter-terrorism recognises that it requires a comprehensive 'whole-of-society' approach that respects human rights and the rule of law. It emphasises international cooperation, the importance of addressing the conditions conducive to terrorism, and the need to prevent and counter violent extremism. In these circumstances, it will be hard for India to get a clear endorsement of its actions against terrorism. India does bring up terrorist attacks to the Security Council, but the Counter Terrorism Committee has not taken a clear position on the right of nations to treat a terrorist attack as an act of war — the new doctrine advanced by India. The ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC) and India's restraint in crossing the LoC even in conflict situations are the other factors which are likely to come into play in any discussion in the Security Council or other international fora on India's strategic strikes. India's special envoys may have faced these questions in discussions even with friendly countries. The issue of hyphenation When India took the issue of Pakistan's invasion of Kashmir to the UN, it was a pure case of aggression which should have been considered under Chapter VII of the Charter. But as it happened , the issue was discussed under Article VI on Pacific Settlement of Disputes. Consequently, several extraneous ideas were incorporated in the agenda. leading to western countries hyphenating India and Pakistan on every issue. When Pakistan and India acquired nuclear weapons, Kashmir was considered a nuclear hot spot. India has a non-first use doctrine, while Pakistan threatens to multiply its conventional military capability. India has an established position that any bilateral discussion would only be on terrorism and the status of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. Therefore, diplomacy at the bilateral level or multilateral level is unlikely to be effective. Pakistan will continue to internationalise the Kashmir issue, but India should refrain from seeking international intervention or support. The reports of the special envoys will indicate, if anything, that such efforts are futile, given the history of the evolution of 'the India-Pakistan question' in the Security Council. India has nothing to gain by raising its concerns internationally as its narrative has got entangled in several controversial concepts in the UN. India's only option is to ensure its security by appropriate military action as long as Pakistan continues its policy of inflicting a thousand cuts on India to gain Indian territory. T.P. Sreenivasan is a former Ambassador of India, who has specialised in multilateral diplomacy. He is the only Indian diplomat who has served at the Ambassadorial level at the United Nations in New York, Vienna and Nairobi and headed the UN Division in Ministry of External Affairs
