 |
| fortune.com |
 |
| youtube.com |
China’s opposition to proscribing
Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by
the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent
members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not
to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic. It is high
time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power
to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the
adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority within the
five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community
will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double
standards by some countries.
This is the second time in as
many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France
and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying “there is no
consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council. Where is the question of consensus if one
country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded
terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? China is the lone
wolf in the Security Council. Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the
15-member Security Council to thwart India’s bid to place Azhar on the 1267
sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets.
India’s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the
Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.
China’s support for Azhar,
therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a
few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the
international community to establish a "genuinely broad"
international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party
to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive
action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security
concern in the region.
The groups named in the declaration included Taliban,
(Islamic State)..., Al-Qaeda and its affiliates including Eastern Turkistan
Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network,
Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba
and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely
carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. India has
accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in
which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the
audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001.
Masood Azhar is
undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned
several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army
of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command. His importance
lies in the fact that Pakistan government along with its army and notorious
Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from
a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian
government was forced to release him and two others -- Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and
Omar Sheikh -- in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian
Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in
Afghanistan.
If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of
Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something
the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past
threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure.
Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Therefore, the Pakistani
establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not
have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the
predicament of its all-weather ally.
Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar
even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several
statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism.
China’s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism.
It should be understood that China has its own compulsions
as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning
favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in
the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the
latter’s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province. In the last two years, hundreds have
died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing
commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of
the Amnesty International was highly critical of China’s handling of the
situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalized “what they labeled
‘illegal religious’ and ‘separatist’ activities” and clamped down on “peaceful
expressions of cultural identity.”
As far as terrorism is concerned, China’s definition is completely
at variant with the world. While the world recognizes the exiled Dalai Lama as
the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a “dangerous separatist”. The
Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a
failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply
seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland. China is accused of turning a blind
eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the
years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And
that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi’s attempts
to sanction Azhar to get even with it.
It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along
with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define
terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with
Pakistan. It is high time China realizes the perils of differentiating between
terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation.
