Pakistan complaint to UNSC against India is sound and fury signifying nothing

Pakistan lodging a complaint to the United Nations Security Council against India for India’s alleged attempt to construct a wall along the 197-km-long Working Boundary in the Jammu region is the familiar din from Pakistan, signifying nothing. Pakistan has complained to the UNSC against India hundreds of times in last 68 years but has always failed to get any traction. Any of the 193 member states of the UN are free to approach the world body for lodging complaint against another member and UN charter makes it clear that only UNSC is the competent authority to deal with matters of peace and security. That explains why the UNSC was brought into the frame. It is important to understand this procedural matter as the common perception generally associates UNSC as something big because it involves five veto-wielding permanent members (US, UK, France, Russia and China) and therefore people may think that taking a matter to UNSC is something very serious. There are three ways that the UNSC can be approached: (1) by the deemed affected member state; (2) by another third-party state; and (3) by the UN Secretary General himself. The last two scenarios happen only when the threat to world peace or security is deemed to be serious. Since this has not happened it means that it is nothing serious. That is why India has not even bothered to come up with a formal response to the UNSC though India has trashed Pakistan’s charge and reserved its right to take it up at an appropriate time. [caption id=“attachment_2446516” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. AFP[/caption] Another interesting thing is that Pakistan’s all-weather friend China could have raised the issue on behalf of Pakistan but did not do so. This in itself is significant. It is inconceivable to even think that Pakistan wouldn’t have consulted China before lodging its complaint with the UNSC. It is highly likely that Pakistan may have even made discreet inquiries from the Chinese if they were willing to do the honours. Had China done so it would have been serious from diplomatic viewpoint, but this is only for the argument sake. China has a vibrant relationship with India and knows the importance of this relationship. Moreover China knows in the hearts of its heart that Pakistan is habitual of playing the broken record of Jammu and Kashmir. Yes, China had recently bailed out Pakistan by stonewalling India’s efforts at the UN to take action against Pakistan for sheltering terror fountain Hafiz Saeed, but that doesn’t mean that China will always prop up Pakistan at the UN. In fact, the UN charter also provides that once a member state (read Pakistan) lodges a complaint against another member state (read India), a third member state (read China) can pursue the complaint. But in this case it is highly unlikely that China will do even that. Therefore, Pakistan’s complaint to the UNSC against India is nothing but sound and fury, signifying nothing. However, from the perspective of India-Pakistan bilateral ties the episode is important as it demonstrates yet again how India continues to be an anathema for Pakistan. Interestingly, it also shows the hand in glove nature of ties between Pakistan’s state and non-state actors. This is because Pakistani complaint to the UNSC against has come by way of two letters written by Pakistan’s Ambassador to UN Maleeha Lodhi to the President of the UN Security Council, Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin in which one of the letters quotes notorious terrorist Syed Sakahuddin for making the allegation. The letters written by Lodhi on 4 and 9 September alleged that India was planning to construct a 10-metre high and 135-feet wide wall along the Working Boundary to convert the LoC “into a quasi international border”. The 9 September letter quotes Syed Salahuddin, who is looked upon by India as “global terrorist”, for making the charge against India. This speaks volumes about Pakistan’s policy on not only India but so terrorism.