Pakistan has mounted a defence of terrorism asserting that when “people living under foreign occupation” resort to it, that is “legitimate” and it tried to mix Kashmir with Palestine.
India dismissed the remarks at the UN Security Council on Tuesday “with contempt”.
India’s Deputy Permanent Representative R. Ravindra said: “There was a remark of habitual nature by one delegation referring to union territories that are integral parts of my country. I will treat these commands with contempt and not dignify them with a response in the interest of time.”
Regardless of the topic at hand, Pakistan brings up the Kashmir issue at the UN, but finds no traction.
While “Pakistan condemns terrorism in all its forms and manifestations”, Islamabad’’s Permanent Representative Munir Akram said that “under international law, the struggle of people living under foreign occupation for self-determination and national liberation is legitimate and cannot be equated with terrorism”.
He took an apparent swipe at the US and other that countries that have taken a strong universal stand against terrorism and supported India when it came under terrorist attacks from Pakistan or Israel when terrorism struck the nation from many sides.
“Some in this council have offered protection to their allies who are oppressing occupied people in Palestine and in Kashmir,” he said.
Earlier, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken mentioned the 26/11 Mumbai attack naming the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) while pointing out that the Council and the General Assembly “have repeatedly affirmed, all acts of terrorism are unlawful and unjustifiable”.
Akram said that “under the UN Charter, states have the right of self-defence against attacks on their sovereignty and territorial integrity”, but “a state which is in forcible occupation of a foreign territory cannot invoke the right to self-defence against those whose territory it has illegally occupied”.
It is this facile logic of Pakistan and some other countries that terrorists deemed by a country to be “freedom fighters” are not terrorists that has impeded the adoption of an international convention against terrorism proposed by India.
“Any attempt to create a false equivalence between Israel, the occupying power, and the Palestinians, the victims of this occupation, is untenable legally morally and politically,” Akram asserted.
While vehemently condemning Israel’s air strikes on Hamas-held Gaza, Akram did not condemn Hamas for its terrorist attacks on Israelis that killed 1,400 people, most of them civilians, and resulted in more than 200 taken hostage.
Without naming Washington, Akram directed another criticism at it for its veto of the Council resolutions calling for a ceasefire or a humanitarian pause in the Israel-Hamas conflict.
“We regret that the Security Council has been unable to issue a call for a ceasefire,” he said.
“A heavy responsibility rests on those who contribute to the prolongation of this conflict.”