Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, a former diplomat with experience at the United Nations, highlighted the “sad reality” of Security Council discussions following a meeting last night where members addressed the tensions between India and Pakistan and the Pahalgam terror attack.
The closed-door meeting was attended solely by member countries, resulting in uncertainty about what occurred during the discussions. However, reports indicate that UNSC members asked challenging questions to Pakistan. Mr. Tharoor, drawing on his understanding of UNSC operations, stated that the Security Council will not adopt any resolution targeting either India or Pakistan.
“I am quite confident that the Council will not pass a resolution criticising Pakistan because China will veto it, (and) they will not pass a resolution criticising us as many countries will object to it and probably veto it. It is going to be more of a call for peace and concern about terror in a general kind of language,” the Congress leader told ANI.
He said he does not expect anything specific out of the Council, either through formal meetings or informal consultations, that will directly affect either of the two countries.
“That is the sad reality of the way these things function,” he added.
The April 22 killing of 26 civilians in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, ranks among the most lethal terrorist assaults in recent decades, eliciting broad condemnation. Reports indicate that the Council members interrogated Islamabad regarding the involvement of the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba in the attack and demanded accountability.
Pakistan is one of the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council and attended the meeting, whereas India did not.
“In these circumstances, Pakistan would have thought they had an advantage, but the impression we are getting is that a number of delegations asked very tough questions, and particularly about the Lashkar-e-Taiba and its initial claim of responsibility,” said Mr Tharoor.
Based on what is being reported, he said there appears to be some criticism of the terror attack in Pahalgam, and that nothing much can be expected from this platform.
“The concerns that have come out largely are that terrorism is extremely dangerous and that it can understandably provoke an Indian reaction, which in turn can lead to further escalation. So, there was a certain willingness, from what I can gather, to a very critical of what happened in Pahalgam,” added the MP from Thiruvananthapuram.
At best, the Security Council may issue an informal statement after consulting with the members or convene an official meeting, he said.
“Some members may well say that, given Pakistan is a party to the dispute, to come up with an agreed position having heard only the Pakistani view and not the Indian view would not be right. Therefore, some member states may suggest a meeting of the council,” added the former diplomat who has also been a junior foreign minister.
No official statement has yet been issued either by the Security Council or India regarding the closed-door talks.
