India’s long-running quest for justice for victims of the 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai has been stymied by lack of cooperation from Pakistan in bringing the accused to book. Now it has received another blow. This time it comes from the Chinese decision >to block India’s request in the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee seeking a clarification from Pakistan on the release of Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi. India has >rightly contended that the freeing of the Lashkar-e-Taiba commander violates UN Resolution 1267 that deals with designated entities and individuals with links to al-Qaeda and that has listed Lakhvi since December 10, 2008. The Chinese action is in contrast to broad support from countries such as the U.S. in asking Pakistan to rearrest Lakhvi. The U.S. State Department has released a report indicting Pakistan for not acting against the LeT. The >Chinese decision is unfortunate, and belies its own stated commitment to fight terror, as reiterated in its joint statement with India following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s state visit to China in May. This is also in line with earlier Chinese actions blocking or delaying India’s attempts at the UN to file separate proposals on Pakistan-based terrorists. China, which has itself faced terror attacks in Xinjiang province, should exert pressure on its “all-weather” friend to take action against sources of terror rather than buying Pakistan’s inconsistent reasoning that it is also a victim of terrorism. The twin-track, contradictory policy of the Pakistan establishment, especially its security wing, towards terror should not be lost on China. After all, Islamabad is at loggerheads with forces such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban, while maintaining a close relationship with some anti-India and anti-Afghanistan forces.
India has done the right thing in raising the Lakhvi issue in a multilateral forum, as it has done thus far in seeking justice for 26/11. A thorough case was built up against the apprehended gunman Ajmal Kasab, leading to his conviction. India sought cooperation from U.S. and Pakistan while diligently compiling proof of the involvement of the conspirators, including links in Pakistan’s security establishment. With the U.S. supporting India’s position and with the well-established global antipathy for terrorism, the use of multilateral institutions to raise concerns is warranted — although India in the past has generally avoided seeking the aegis of the UN to resolve bilateral issues. Pakistan will not be able to continue its lackadaisical response towards Indian concerns about the conspirators who are on its soil, provided there is sufficient international pressure. It is to be hoped that the External Affairs Ministry’s response to the Chinese action, making it clear that it would raise the issue at the highest levels of that government, would bear fruit. Terrorism is, after all, well-recognised by the U.S. and China as a global challenge.
