New Delhi, June 24: India has sharply criticized Pakistan, stating that it has misused its position as co-chair of a United Nations platform, failing to fulfill its responsibilities impartially. Instead of maintaining neutrality, Pakistan has politicized the platform, India claims.
During an informal meeting of the Security Council, India’s Permanent Representative P. Harish emphasized, “The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is entirely an internal matter for India. It has always been a part of India, is now, and will remain so.”
Harish expressed surprise that a co-chair, expected to act with balance and fairness, chose to politicize the platform. The meeting, themed “Bridging the Implementation Gap: Security Council Resolutions and the Preservation of International Peace and Security,” was jointly organized by China and Pakistan, with ambassadors from both countries co-chairing the session.
During the meeting, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative Asim Iftikhar Ahmed raised the Kashmir issue, a frequent topic for Pakistan on international platforms. India indicated that the biggest obstacle to implementing Security Council resolutions has been Pakistan itself. India asserts that Pakistan has not complied with the UN Security Council Resolution 47 from April 1948, which called for the withdrawal of its military, security forces, and civilians from the territories it occupied in Kashmir.
India also noted that Pakistan’s security agencies are attempting to forcibly suppress protests in the areas of Kashmir under its control.
This meeting was held under the so-called Aria Formula, an informal arrangement of the Security Council named after Venezuelan diplomat Diego Aria, who initiated this format for dialogue outside the Council’s formal procedures.
P. Harish stressed the need to review the mandates of the Security Council as part of the ongoing UN-80 review process, coinciding with the UN’s 80th anniversary. He argued that if all General Assembly mandates are being reviewed, there is no reason to exclude the Security Council’s mandates.
He also suggested a review of the provisions related to mediation and dialogue under Chapter 6 of the UN Charter. According to him, these measures are created in response to the circumstances of the time, and their validity cannot be considered indefinite. It is essential to reassess them according to changing conditions and contexts.
Using Palestine as an example, Harish noted that despite decades of various mediation efforts, no resolution has been achieved. He stated that there is a strong basis for reviewing outdated and irrelevant mediation frameworks, arguing that it is unreasonable to assume that any mediation arrangement under Chapter 6 will always be applicable.
Leave a Comment