Dual stance on terrorism

China again this week blocked a proposal to blacklist a terrorist with ties to Pakistan. This time the subject is a Pakistan-based terror outfit, one of India’s most wanted terrorists in this regard. But this is not just about India. He has been involved in many terrorist attacks in different parts of the world, including the terrorist attack on a Danish newspaper. The United States not only announced a $5 million bounty on his head, but the Pakistani court also sentenced him to eight years in prison. Now he is serving the same sentence in a prison in Pakistan. Interestingly, before he was arrested and the court confirmed his prison sentence, the Pakistani government claimed he was dead. But the West, instead of accepting this claim at face value, asked Pakistan to produce such evidence that it could be considered beyond doubt that Sajid Mir was dead. Unable to produce such evidence, Pakistan is desperately trying to get off the gray list of the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF). So his U-turn on Sajid Mir’s death is understandable. But the key question here is China’s attitude. Despite knowing everything, China is obstructing efforts to blacklist terrorists. This is the third time in the past four months that China has blocked such a resolution at the United Nations. Last month, he blocked a proposal to blacklist Abdul Rauf Azhar, the terror outfit’s chief and a senior leader of the terror outfit, before saving Lashkari’s brother-in-law Abdul Rehman Makki in June. Tayba chief Hafiz Saeed removed from blacklist. Obviously, such an attitude of China on an issue like terrorism raises serious questions, but this time the matter is special for another reason. Chinese President Xi Jinping was present in Uzbekistan along with other leaders last week. In the presence of all of them, a resolution was passed to proceed unitedly against terrorism and make a special list of SCO countries. It was emphasized that all the member countries of the SCO fully agreed with the resolution. The question is how can the commitment made at the SCO summit be considered valid if China has taken a completely opposite position in the UN after giving such a consent?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.