Latest news with #RuchiraKamboj
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 days ago
- Politics
- First Post
Pahalgam: US terror-tags Pakistan's proxy TRF, will China follow suit now or continue shielding it at UN?
After the United States designated The Resistance Front (TRF), which claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack, as a terrorist organisation, all eyes are on China whether it will follow suit. China has blocked the listing of Pakistan-based groups and leaders at the United Nations (UN) for years. read more The US Department of State added The Resistance Front (TRF) as a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) on July 17, 2025. Representational Image After the United States designated Pakistan-based The Resistance Front (TRF) as a terrorist organisation, all eyes are on China whether it will follow suit. The TRF had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack in which terrorists killed 26 people. It is considered to be a proxy of Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which has been plotting and carrying out terrorist acts against India for years. The LeT was behind the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. For years, China has blocked the designation of Pakistan-based jihadist groups and leaders as terrorists at the United Nations (UN). In its own reports as well, China has refused to mention or has downplayed Pakistani jihadists that attack India. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US Department of State on Friday designated the TRF as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). 'TRF, a Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (LeT) front and proxy, claimed responsibility for the April 22, 2025, Pahalgam attack which killed 26 civilians. This was the deadliest attack on civilians in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks conducted by LeT. TRF has also claimed responsibility for several attacks against Indian security forces, including most recently in 2024,' the Department of State said in a statement. All eyes on China In the past, India has reacted sharply to China blocking moves to list Pakistan-based jihadists as terrorists at the UN. China has blocked terrorist listings without providing reasons and has often resorted to procedural delays instead of a veto. 'This is a disguised veto, but an even more impervious one that indeed merits a discussion amongst the wider membership. For genuine evidence-based listing proposals for globally sanctioned terrorists to be blocked without giving any due justification is uncalled for and smacks of doublespeak when it comes to the council's commitment in tackling the challenge of terrorism,' Ruchira Kamboj, India's then-UN envoy, said last year. Earlier this year, India in May submitted a detailed dossier to the UN Security Counci to seek TRF's designation as a global terror group. Even as the dossier included intelligence findings on the TRF's funding, handlers, and leadership ties to LeT, China blocked the move by putting a 'technical hold', which is a procedural delay used by permanent UNSC members to avoid open vetoes. China is a UNSC permanent member along with the United States, United Kingdom, France, and Russia. Previously, China has also blocked the designation of individual terrorists like Masood Azhar (2009-19), Abdul Rauf Azhar (2022-23), Sajid Mir (2022-23), and Shahid Mahmood (2022-23). In its own report, China excluded TRF from the list of active terrorist groups, but included the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Majeed Brigade of the BLA. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India.com
02-06-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Pakistan Blocking Appointment Of Chairs Of UN Security Council Committees Dealing With Terrorism
United Nations: The UN Security Council committees dealing with terrorism are without chairs halfway through the year because of Pakistan's insistence on getting control of one or more of the three panels. Mainly, the Western countries on the Council have opposed Pakistan becoming the chair of any of the panels – the Counterterrorism Committee, and the committees on sanctions against al-Qaeda and other terrorist actions, and the Taliban, according to diplomatic sources. They said that the countries against Pakistan becoming the chair of any of the committees pointed out that Islamabad had a conflict of interest because it harboured terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed, and its leaders, and had contentious relations with the Taliban ruling neighbouring Afghanistan. Consensus governs many functions of the Council, and taking advantage of it, Pakistan, an elected member, is able to block the appointment of the chairs of the committees. The discussions about these issues are held informally. Greece's Permanent Representative, Evangelos Sekeris, who was the President of the Council last month, conceded that it has not been possible to agree on the leadership of the panels, and said they were working on proposals for a solution. Without chairs in place for the committees, the country holding the rotating presidency of the Council is the interim head of the panels. If the chairs are not in place, Pakistan, which takes over the rotating presidency of the Council next month, will head the panels in July by default. When India was on the Council from 2020 to 2022, it headed the Counter-Terrorism Committee, and India's Permanent Representative Ruchira Kamboj even arranged for the panel to meet in Mumbai at the sites of the 26/11 terror attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists. Pakistan, which cited India's chairmanship of the Counterterrorism Committee, was ruled out as chair of the panel, the sources said. The 1267 Committee, which gets its name from the Council's resolution and deals with the affiliates of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, posed a direct conflict of interest for Pakistan, where organisations and individuals sanctioned by it are based. Pakistan is now insisting that it should at least get the chair of the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee, named for the number of the 2011 Council resolution on sanctions against the Taliban, according to the sources. Pakistan, which has a contentious relationship with the Taliban, expects to use the chair of the committee – if it gets it - to influence Afghanistan. It could then push for tightening sanctions or loosening them to manipulate the Taliban, which it has accused of giving sanctuary to forces operating against Pakistan. As of now, Pakistan faces an uphill task in trying to clinch the deal because of its conflicts with the Taliban.
NDTV
09-05-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
"You Can't Defend The Indefensible": India's Ex UN Envoy On Pak
New Delhi: India's former top diplomat Ruchira Kamboj has demolished Pakistan's lies on the global stage that it has no connection with terror attacks in India. Ms Kamboj, the former permanent representative and ambassador of India to the United Nations, told NDTV today that Pakistan stood exposed "before the full glare of the international media" as the sponsor and enabler of terrorism. "At the very outset, Pakistan has made India's task simpler by openly admitting before the full glare of the international media that they are the financiers, perpetrators and abettors of terrorism," she said. Ms Kamboj's comments come as Indian diplomats and the leadership engaged in hectic communication with the global community at the United Nations to inform them of Pakistan's hand in state-sponsored terrorism. "In the recent [informal] meeting of the UN Security Council, Pakistan did not get any support. On the contrary they were grilled at the meeting, and the question of accountability was raised. Nobody believed in Pakistan's narrative," she told NDTV, explaining India's huge win at the UN. "The UN Secretary General unequivocally condemned Pakistan. You can't defend the indefensible. The world does not have an appetite for terror." The killing of 26 tourists in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam on April 22 by terrorists with cross-border linkages led to India's decisive missile strikes at terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK). To a question whether the US and Saudi Arabia, the longtime 'friends of Pakistan', would apply pressure on Pakistan to end sponsoring terror, Ms Kamboj said it is her hope that the world will continue to condemn this [Pakistan-sponsored terror] in the strongest terms. "Today, it happened in India. But it can happen in any part of the world. Terrorism is a transnational issue. Importantly, the message that India sent is that there must be zero tolerance, terrorism is pure evil. This has been India's position," she said. This was the same policy India had communicated when it headed a committee on security in the UN Security Council in 2022, the former diplomat said. She said the New Delhi Declaration which contained this policy was adopted "despite the polarisation of the times we live in". "So, the world feels very strongly against terror and it should be condemned in no unequivocal terms." With making Pakistan accountable for supporting terror as the main goal, Ms Kamboj called for brining more diversity of voices at the UN Security Council. "The role of international organisations is now at the proverbial inflection point unless we reform the system, bringing a greater diversity of voices particularly from the Global South, and address the opaque working methods of the UNSC including the misuse of veto [power]," Ms Kamboj said, alluding to China, which has always stood by Pakistan at the UN. Only a representative and multilateral system can deliver justice in today's world, she added. "We need new voices on the table. We need a council that is more representative so that this [veto misuse] doesn't happen that easily... While Pakistan may have been getting away with impunity, at the same time the informal meeting of the UNSC would have been a win for Pak, but it was a dramatic failure for them," Ms Kamboj said. "While Pakistan may have got away quite a bit in the past, the world does recognise them for what they are. End of the day what is the UN? The UN is the sum total of its member states. And member states must have the will to act. That's where Indian diplomacy and leadership have been very active and we shall continue to do that," she said.
India Gazette
07-05-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
This is the Russia-Ukraine lesson India has to learn from its standoff with Pakistan
From Ukraine to Kashmir: The old laws of power still apply There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere - and provides some useful lessons. Since the start of Russia's military operation against Ukraine, India's official stance has generally aligned with Moscow's interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace. While many in India's political and media elite - especially the pro-Western crowd - have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles. India's official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India's Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said: "India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence." Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added: "The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability." And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums: "Wars are not the way to settle disputes." The consistent refrain at countless conferences about "peace in Europe" boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some "public intellectual" would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope - advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today. It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov's 2005 movie Dead Man's Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: "Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now." It wasn't just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called "rising powers" repeated similar mantras. Now, let's be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about "wisdom" and peace as if it's a fresh insight is banal - and, frankly, vulgar. Because when real danger arrives - when an enemy or existential threat targets your home - there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That's not bloodlust; it's the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today's global order. You can deny it, but you can't make it disappear. Western propaganda's greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia's offensive was a "war of choice" rather than a "war of necessity" - which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise. When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will - without even realizing it - abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life. As the Bible reminds us: "While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape" (1 Thessalonians 5:3). What should Russia do now? Stay the course - finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed. Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second. Happy World War Two Victory Day - to us, and to peace.
Russia Today
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Russia Today
This is the Russia-Ukraine lesson India has to learn from its standoff with Pakistan
There is plenty to say about the chaos unfolding in Washington these days, but the sudden military escalation between India and Pakistan shifts our attention elsewhere – and provides some useful lessons. Since the start of Russia's military operation against Ukraine, India's official stance has generally aligned with Moscow's interests. Yet it has consistently stressed the importance of peace. While many in India's political and media elite – especially the pro-Western crowd – have criticized Russia, their views have been shaped by alignment with the West, not by deeper national principles. India's official line, however, has always been dressed in polished diplomatic language, designed to project wisdom and balance. Early in the conflict, India's Ambassador to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said: 'India has consistently called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and an end to violence.' Fast forward to 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi added: 'The conflict in Ukraine is a matter of deep concern for all of us. India firmly believes that no problem can be solved on the battlefield. We support dialogue and diplomacy for early restoration of peace and stability.' And of course, External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar offered a soundbite which was repeated endlessly in international forums: 'Wars are not the way to settle disputes.' The consistent refrain at countless conferences about 'peace in Europe' boiled down to this: Russia was old-fashioned, clinging to outdated great power logic. The world had moved on, they insisted. And inevitably, some 'public intellectual' would spice things up with a quote from Chanakya, Confucius, or even the Pope – advising Russia on how real diplomacy should look today. It was all reminiscent of a famous scene in Aleksei Balabanov's 2005 movie Dead Man's Bluff, where a bandit from the polished 2000s lectures his 1990s Russian counterparts: 'Why do you keep shooting? Business is done differently now.' It wasn't just the Indians who pushed this line. The Chinese, Brazilians, Turks (yes, them too), and other so-called 'rising powers' repeated similar mantras. Now, let's be clear: no one should gloat. War is a terrifying and extreme manifestation of unresolved contradictions. However, to pontificate about 'wisdom' and peace as if it's a fresh insight is banal – and, frankly, vulgar. Because when real danger arrives – when an enemy or existential threat targets your home – there is no high-minded choice left. States, like individuals, take up arms and fight for victory in order to restore peace. That's not bloodlust; it's the basic logic of international relations, from ancient kingdoms to today's global order. You can deny it, but you can't make it disappear. Western propaganda's greatest success over the past three years was convincing much of the world that Russia's offensive was a 'war of choice' rather than a 'war of necessity' – which it was. Many in the so-called rising powers naively believed that every conflict offers a choice, and that they themselves would never resort to arms. But history teaches otherwise. When survival and national security are truly at stake, even the most idealistic states will – without even realizing it – abandon their slogans and do whatever is necessary. That, too, is a timeless law of international life. As the Bible reminds us: 'While people are saying, 'Peace and safety,' destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape' (1 Thessalonians 5:3). What should Russia do now? Stay the course – finish what we started. And be prepared for new challenges on other fronts. At the same time, we should follow diplomatic protocol and call on India and Pakistan to resolve their crisis peacefully. We can even offer to host peace talks, if needed. Because while the reality of conflict remains unchanged, so too must our commitment: Victory first. Peace second. Happy World War Two Victory Day – to us, and to peace.
