Masood Azhar proving to be Albatross around China’s neck

China is finding itself increasingly isolated after its blind support to Pakistan by repeatedly thwarting the United Nations efforts to declare Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. The United States’ decision to discuss the issue of Azhar in the open UN General Assembly has put China in a very embarrassing situation. Frustrated by China’s intransigence not to lift the technical hold on the UN listing of Azhar as a global terrorist, the three key members of the P-5 Club in the UNSC have sought explanation from Beijing. There is no doubt that major countries have been exasperated with China for torpedoing the repeated efforts of the United Nations to ban Azhar.

Pix courtesy: the print.in

Rankled by the US decision to take the issue directly to the UN Security Council, China seems to be running out of its options. Sensing that it can no longer protect Jaish chief, China made its all-weather ally Pakistan to bail it out with a statement which exposes the nexus between the two countries. Last week, Pakistan suggested that China could withdraw its technical hold on Azhar if India agreed to military de-escalation along the border and resumed the stalled bilateral talks. It is clearly indicative of the realization on the part of both China and Pakistan that the issue could not be procrastinated further. China has reportedly been rebuked by the US after it made the issue of Indo-Pak military de-escalation and resumption of talks as pre-condition for lifting the technical hold on Azhar, thus allowing later to be listed as a global terrorist.

With the US refusing to play ball with China in linking the two issues and major members of the UN Security Council hardening their position on Azhar, time is running out for Beijing. China is now working to wriggle itself out of the situation and this week’s statement by its foreign office says it all. China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang said in a regular media briefing: “After the application for designation of Azhar was proposed (in the 1267 Sanctions Committee), China is in close communication and coordination with various parties and made positive progress. The US knows that very well.”

“We hope various parties will meet each other half way and continue to properly solve this issue under the 1267 Committee framework. Last Friday, UN Security Council members exchanged views on the US-proposed draft resolution. The majority believes that efforts should be made to solve the issue under the 1267 Committee framework,” the spokesperson added.

The statement is not only significant but self-explanatory as China seems to be feeling the heat. It is matter of time before China falls in line and throws its weight behind the world in declaring Azhar a global terrorist. But it would make every effort to prolong the issue knowing well that India’s ruling party could use it as a major victory ahead of the national elections. Not mentioning US by name, the foreign ministry spokesman went on to add: “We believe under the current circumstances, forcing a draft resolution at the Security Council is not a constructive move and sets a bad example… It is also not conducive for peace and stability in South Asia. China is opposed to this.”

When asked specifically whether the US move to take Azhar’s listing directly to the UN Security Council could benefit the ruling BJP in general election, Geng said: “It is setting a bad example that will only complicate the matter … The general election is the domestic affair of India. We do not comment on that.”

There are three important elements to the statement. One, China has made its displeasure known at US attempts to corner it by referring the issue to the wider Security Council. Once the issue is deliberated in the Security Council, China will find itself isolated in the important forum as all the 15 countries (10 non-permanent members and five members) excluding Beijing are in favour of Azhar being declared a global terrorist in the aftermath of Pulwama attack when a JeM operative rammed an explosive-ridden vehicle into a convoy of CRPF killing at least 40 personnel in February. China is aware of its imminent defeat in the Security Council.

This is the fourth time that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist by putting the proposal on a “technical hold” before eventually terminating it on the grounds that “there is no consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council.  How can there be a consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unprincipled stand on Azhar? In 2017 also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council when the P3 nations – the US, UK and France – sought to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. While the proposal had approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council, it was China which censored it. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.

Second important point which exposes China’s double standards in the war against terrorism is how can listing Azhar as a global terrorist is not conducive for peace and stability in South Asia. One fails to understand the weird explanation offered by China. China’s opposition to proscribing Azhar is baffling 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. The Jaish was blacklisted by the UN Security Council in 2001, a year after its formation, following a deadly attack on Indian parliament in December 2001, which had brought India and Pakistan on the verge of a fourth war. Strangely, China considers JeM an outlawed organization, but not its leader? 

What is China’s compulsion in protecting Azhar, who is, no doubt, a prized asset for Pakistan? Well, if the United Nations declares Azhar a global terrorist, then Pakistan will be compelled to arrest him and seize his assets.  And this is something the Imran Khan government can’t afford to do fearing violence by an army of militants prepared by Azhar. Most importantly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Does Imran Khan, who himself has been propped up by the army, have the guts to go after Azhar?

Thirdly and lastly, China does not want to give an issue on a platter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi when India is in midst of campaigning to elect its new parliament two months from now. The designation of Masood as a global terrorist and his subsequent arrest will no doubt be a big boost for Modi’s attempts in returning to power.  Therefore, China will keep on prolonging the issue as much as it can, but ultimately, it will be forced to fall in line. Any further attempts by China to stall the move will be seen as its weakening resolve to fight the global war against terrorism. It now needs to take a stand on which side of terror it stands. The world is watching it closely.

WHAT MAKES HAFIZ SAYEED DEARER TO PAKISTAN THAN US?

The international terrorist Hafiz Saeed has been repeatedly thumbing his nose at the Pakistani establishment as well as at the United States, but Islamabad remains obdurate in not taking any action against him and several other terrorists. On several occasions, the US expressed its displeasure and concern, and nudged Pakistan to arrest and charge Saeed for his crimes. But Pakistan has always looked the other way around. What is that which is preventing Pakistan from booking Saeed at the expense of its fragile ties with the US?

There can be only two plausible reasons. Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally. Saeed, who carries a $10 million American bounty on his head for terror activities, is a U.N. and United States designated terrorist. Moreover, India has blamed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) chief for the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans.

tribune.com.pk

Pakistan has been at the receiving end ever since the Donald Trump administration took over in January last year. President Trump has been particularly hard on Pakistan since he was on his campaign trail. There is no doubt that there has been a tectonic shift in American policy of late as the US desperation grows because of Pakistan’s failure to rein in militants ensconced in its backyard.

The ties between Pakistan and the US had started straining during the Barack Obama administration.  It all began with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden by US special forces in May 2011 on Pakistani soil in an operation kept secret from the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif government. The US, which had launched a massive manhunt for Laden, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, was shocked that he was being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan whom it considered a strategic ally in its fight against terrorism. Even though, the US chose to maintain a façade of relationship with Pakistan because of its interests in Afghanistan.

 But all that seems to be over now! "We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I’m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually," Trump had said during electioneering. And true to his words, one can notice a paradigm shift in the new US dispensation as far as the battle against Islamic militants is concerned. From here onwards, one can expect a no-nonsense US policy on terrorism which should be a major cause of worry for Pakistan, which continues to host several militant groups hostile to both India and the US.

asiasentinel.com

Unlike his predecessors, there is an increasing likelihood of Trump seeking to reshape the decades-old policy towards Pakistan by linking US aid to its commitment against terrorism. Today the US administration has announced withholding $255 million in aid to Pakistan.  Though a pittance, the message is loud and clear that the US is dissatisfied with the obstinacy shown by Pakistan in not taking substantive action against terrorist networks that continue to flourish there with the full support of the administration.

 Pakistan has been the recipient of more than $33 billion in aid since 2002. And it has done precious little to rein in militants. The US frustration seems to have reached the point of no return as President Trump in his August address said:  "We have been paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars at the same time they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting."  Since then he has dispatched his top diplomatic and military advisors to Pakistan -- Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis – who read out the riot act to senior officials of Pakistan. But thus far, Pakistan does not seem to have been rattled by such warnings.

 On the contrary, not only did it free Saeed from the so-called “house arrest” with the lame excuse that the Lahore court did not merit his detention, it went on to justify his release. To rub salt into the wound, its foreign office spokesperson Mohammad Faisal said that Islamabad was committed to the implementation of United Nations Security Council 1267 sanctions regime on terrorists and had taken several steps in this regard.

Either Pakistan is impotent and afraid of the might of Saeed or it is a well-thought-out plan of action to get even with its now estranged ally, the US.

 If that was not enough, Pakistan allowed Saeed to open the first office of his political group Milli Muslim League (MML) in Lahore. Saeed has also declared his political ambitions by announcing that his organisation JuD would contest the 2018 general elections under the banner of the MML. Ironically, according to Pakistani government records, the MML is the offshoot of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and JuD. In fact, Saeed was showered with flower petals as he openly toured several areas in full public glare.

Can it happen in any civilised country that a UN-designated terrorist is allowed to roam free? But anything can happen in a rogue country like Pakistan which even allows a terrorist group to launch its political party and let it contest the elections. The MML-backed candidate had secured the fourth position with 6,000 votes, double than that of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Jamaat- i-Islami combined in a by-election in Lahore's NA-120 constituency last September. The seat had fallen vacant when the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had to resign, following his disqualification by Pakistan's Supreme Court.

It is hard to digest that Saeed would have been allowed to open the office of MML without the consent of the government of the day and that too when the US had expressed its strong concerns and said in a statement that it hopes Pakistan "does the right thing" in not allowing that to happen and added that it "want(s) to make...clear so that everybody knows", that the US has put a bounty of $10 million on Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT).  It is an open secret that Saeed has the full backing of Pakistani army which has been at loggerheads with the government.

The question then arises whether Saeed has the tacit support of the Pakistani establishment or it is too afraid to take action against him as he is being backed by the army. Pakistan Army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa came in full support of the Mumbai terror attack mastermind when he appeared before a parliament forum last month and said that Saeed, like every other Pakistani, had the right to raise the Kashmir issue. It is a known fact that the army enjoys far greater power than the elected government in Pakistan and no government can afford to go against the wishes of the army. Whatever may be Pakistan’s reason to prop up Saeed, but one thing is certain. Pakistan is in for a rude shock in the coming months.

IN RELEASING HAFIZ SAEED, PAKISTAN CHALLENGES INDIA AND US

 Pakistan has been a reluctant player in the global war against terrorism. This is not something which is not known to the world. But the frequent flip-flops by world powers have only emboldened Pakistan to carry out with its state policy of sponsoring terrorism with impunity. With unflinching support from its all-weather ally China, which has often misused its position of veto power at the Security Council, Pakistan does not care too hoots to reported threats or warnings. Pakistan has once again thumbed its nose to India and the United States by releasing terror mastermind Hafiz Saeed from house arrest.

The Desi Times

Pakistan may fend off criticism by saying that it is the court which has decided to free him and not the government. But it surely cannot escape blame for not presenting its case properly in the court, facilitating Saeed’s release from house arrest.  In fact, India has presented voluminous evidences to Pakistan for his role in the deadly 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan’s feeble defence that Saeed’s release could invite economic sanctions did not cut ice with the court.

 Hafiz Saeed’s release is no doubt a setback for India, but it also sets Pakistan on a collision course with the United States which has announced a $10 million bounty on his head over the 2008 Mumbai attack that killed 166 people, including six Americans. It should be recalled that the United States Department of the Treasury had designated Saeed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist under executive order 13224 in May 2008 before the Mumbai attacks happened. And a month later the November 26, 2008 Mumbai attacks, Saeed was also individually designated by the United Nations under UNSCR 1267. Ironically, Saeed had been moving freely in Pakistan ranting against India and the United States for more than eight years before his so-called house arrest in January this year. That Pakistan has allowed him to carry on with his anti-Kashmir agenda speaks volumes about its so-called seriousness as far as the war against terrorism is concerned.

Had the US been really serious about Saeed, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to act. But Saeed is a lesser threat to the US in comparison to India. That explains the reason why the US is not matching its words with action. The case in point is al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden who was smoked out from his safe compound of Abbotabad in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province in May 2011 by the US elite forces.  The US had named Laden as the chief conspirator of the deadly September 11, 2001 attacks.

The US announced the bounty on Saeed in 2012 for information leading to his arrest and conviction four years after he was designated as a global terrorist. But the leader of Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD), which has been a front for the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) militant group, had been roaming free and giving hatred speeches against India and the US. While it took nearly 10 years for the United States to locate and kill Laden, Saeed has presented himself before the media and the people of Pakistan several times. If the US wanted, it could have easily eliminated Saeed. Who is playing the joke as far as bounty on Saeed is concerned? Pakistan or the United States, or both! The US reacted to Saeed’s release by making a supine statement. “The Pakistani government should make sure that he is arrested and charged for his crimes,” U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said.

It was only after India launched a major diplomatic drive against Pakistan for allowing the release of Sayeed that the US tempered its language the next day. A White House statement warned of repercussions for US-Pakistan relations and for Pakistan’s global reputation unless it took action to detain and charge Sayeed. Unlike the US State Department, the White House statement was very critical of Pakistan and warned that the relations between the two countries depended largely on the latter’s conduct. The White House said Pakistan’s failure to charge Saeed sent “a deeply troubling message about Pakistan’s commitment to (combating) international terrorism,” adding that it also was counter to Pakistan’s claim that it did not provide sanctuary to militants.

Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, President Donald Trump has been vociferous in his criticism against Pakistan for its failure to take action against militants engineering attacks on Afghanistan and India from its safe sanctuaries. “We can no longer be silent about Pakistan’s safe havens for terrorist organisations,” Trump said while unveiling his administration’s policy for south Asia in August, adding that Pakistan would have “much to lose” if it did not comply. But such warnings have had little effect on Pakistan.

There is no doubt that Pakistan has, of late, fallen out of favour of the United States which accuses it of pocketing billions of dollars meant for anti-militant operations against Afghanistan. The US is fighting a war in Afghanistan against the very militants who have been trained and financed by Pakistan, and who continue to find safe sanctuary in Pakistan after carrying out attacks in Afghanistan.  The ties between the US and Pakistan have worsened further after the later moved closer to China in the last few years.

slate.com

If President Trump really wants to live up to his image and his words, then he should decide once and for all whether to continue ties with a country which has been playing a double game as far as the war against terrorism is concerned or to amend his administration’s decades-long carrot and stick approach. To begin with, Trump can revoke Pakistan’s non-NATO ally status. Though symbolic, it will deal a big reputational blow to Pakistan. Non-NATO ally status is conferred on countries which have a strategic working relationship with US forces but are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The then George Bush administration had designated the non-NATO ally status to Pakistan in 2004 for helping the US in its fight against al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan. If Pakistan is still unmoved by this action, then President Trump will have to take a final call what Mr Bush famously used the phrase after the 9/11 attacks that “Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”  

CAUGHT, STUMPED, HIT WICKET: RED CARD AWAITS PAKISTAN

The United Nations General Assembly session proved to be a proverbial sticky wicket for Pakistan as it was all at loss, and was out for a duck.

Of late, Pakistan has been failing to read the new pitch laid out by the United States. Accustomed to playing on a placid wicket with straight deliveries, Pakistan has been facing bouncers since the ascendency of Donald Trump as President of the United States. An overly aggressive and intimidatory President Trump has queered the pitch for Pakistan by bowling “Bodyline” deliveries, threatening diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Caught unawares

Taking off from his offensive statements while announcing the US administration’s Afghanistan policy last month, Trump trumped Pakistan again during his maiden speech at the United Nations General Assembly. Though he did not hit Pakistan directly, its inconvenience was obvious.  

 “We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology,” Trump said adding “we must drive them out of our nations. It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups.” No prizes for guessing who was on the firing line. While staving off the bouncer, Pakistan took a body blow and dropped to its knees in agony.

Pakistan might have brazened it out, but Trump had succeeded in inflicting excruciating pain on its no-more ally.  By naming the Taliban and al-Qaeda along with Hezbollah, the message was clearly directed at Pakistan and Iran. That Pakistan has been providing sanctuary to the first two militant groups along with several others who are active in Afghanistan jeopardizing the US interests is now an open secret. Afghanistan has not missed any opportunity in naming and shaming Pakistan at all international forums for aiding and hosting militants who carry out attacks on its territory. Trump’s fresh denunciation of Pakistan came a month after he had singled out it for harbouring Afghan Taliban and other militants while unveiling Afghanistan policy.

Early this year, the US administration had rattled Pakistan when the Pentagon refused to pay $350 million in military aid to it for not doing enough to tackle terrorism. But Islamabad chose to gloss over it as a “wide delivery” as Washington had often suspended and waived off its aid to its once close ally several times in the past.

But recent developments don’t augur well for Pakistan. The new US dispensation is unlikely to allow itself to be blackmailed as Pakistan has been doing in the past. 

Stumped!

While Pakistan was still smarting from verbal missiles from the US President, the Chinese policy on Kashmir came as a rude shock. China stumped Pakistan by refusing to bat on behalf of its all-weather ally over Kashmir. Pakistan Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s demand that the UN Security Council resolution on Kashmir should be implemented did not curry any favour from China, which instead called upon New Delhi and Islamabad to resolve the Kashmir issue bilaterally. 

Within hours of Abbasi’s address at the UN session, Chinese foreign ministry dismissed calls for implementation of the UN resolution on the Kashmir issue. “The Kashmir issue is left over from history. China hopes India and Pakistan can increase dialogue and communication and properly handle relevant issues and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said.

China has steadfastly maintained its position on Kashmir refusing any sort of intervention. In fact, way back in 2009, it had turned down the demand of the Indian Kashmiri separatist outfit, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, which had claimed that Beijing had a role to play in Kashmir as part of the disputed region was under its control.

Pakistani prime minister’s googly was well read by China as it saw through its game plan of trying to fish in the troubled waters in the wake of mistrust between Beijing and New Delhi over Doklam issue. That the two countries could resolve the over two-month-long Doklam issue peacefully ahead of the BRICS summit, caused more anxiety to Pakistan. China had earlier yorked Pakistan when it along with four other BRICS nations named militant groups based in Pakistan as a security concern in the region and sought decisive action against them. Some of the terror groups named were Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, all hosted by Pakistan.

Dismissed hit-wicket

If that was not enough then Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dr. Maleeha Lodhi got her country dismissed hit wicket by holding aloft a photograph of a severely injured young girl, claiming that she was a Kashmiri victim of Indian atrocities. “This is the face of Indian democracy,” she claimed while showing the photograph. As it appeared, the girl in photograph was not a Kashmiri as claimed by Lodhi but a citizen of Gaza who suffered injuries during Israeli air raids in 2014. The photo was taken by award winning photo journalist Heidi Levine in a hospital in Gaza.

Lodhi’s goof-up not only embarrassed Pakistan, but it invited criticism from all quarters, including people from her own country. Pakistani citizens took to twitter and other social media platforms to lambast Lodhi for bringing disrepute to the country and showing it in a poor light. Her action certainly defaced Pakistani democracy. To make matters worse for Pakistan, UN General Assembly President Miroslav Lajcak has said that he would certainly think about suggestions to prevent the platform from being used to depict fake pictures.

After suffering humiliation from all quarters, the red-faced Pakistan has no option but to surrender. Alas, Pakistan continues to refuse to listen and learn. Even on the back foot, it tried to play to the (domestic) gallery by painting the US as the main villain for the growth of militant groups. In a Q&A session at the Asia Society in New York early this week, Pakistani foreign minister Khawaja Asif said by "wrongly" supporting the US in a "proxy war" in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, Pakistan paid a very high price. Jihadist elements were nurtured by both the US and Pakistan during this conflict. "Don't blame us for Saeed (referring to Hafiz Saeed, the mastermind of the Mumbai terror attack that killed 166 Indians and foreigners), these people were your darlings 20 years ago, they were being dined and wined in the White House. Now you say go to hell, Pakistan," said Asif.

Faces red card

It is high time Pakistan learns its mistakes from the past and joins the global campaign against terror. Times have changed. There is growing clamour against terrorism. If Pakistan does not want to play ball, then it stares at facing red card. The ball is in Pakistan’s court.

WILL CHINA WALK THE TALK ON TERROR?

Unpredictability seems to be the mantra of China’s foreign policy. To everyone’s surprise, China joined hands with the four other BRICS nations recently naming militant groups based in Pakistan as a security concern in the region and sought decisive action against them. It not only shocked Pakistan, but baffled foreign policy experts in China as well. Because it represented a marked departure from China’s long-standing approach towards militant groups active in Pakistan. In the past, China had stonewalled all efforts to censure Pakistan-based militant groups. Therefore, China being party to the Xiamen Declaration, calling upon the international community to establish a "genuinely broad" international counter-terrorism coalition, was something unexpected.

financialexpress.com

Expectedly, there was a sense of disbelief and unease in Pakistani establishment. The next day Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khurram Dastagir Khan categorically rejected the statement and said no terrorist organization had any complete safe havens and was operating freely inside Pakistan. But its nervousness was palpable. The government decided to rush Foreign Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif to Beijing.

And lo! China sprang another surprise. Within days of BRICS leaders demanding that patrons of militant groups based in Pakistan be held to account, China extolled Pakistan’s role in the fight against terrorism. Soon after meeting his Pakistani counterpart, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi had this to say at a press conference. "The government and people of Pakistan have made huge sacrifices in the fight against terrorism and such efforts and sacrifices are there for everyone to see," adding “the international community should recognise that... and give Pakistan the full credit it deserves."

By revisiting its position on Pakistan’s involvement in terror activities twice in four days, China has only managed to send confusing signals to the international community about its intent to walk the talk on terror.

If China were to give a clean chit to Pakistan, then why did it agree to sign the Xiamen Declaration in the first place? China has always come to the defence of Pakistan whenever India tried to isolate it at various international fora. It has repeatedly rebuffed India’s attempt to get the chief of Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar added to a U.N. blacklist of groups linked to al Qaeda. India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers and five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase were killed.

The political pundits were also baffled as the Xiamen Declaration came within days of India and China agreeing to defuse a crisis over Doklam where the forces of the two countries were engaged in a dispute for more than two months. Given the bitter rhetoric the two countries were involved in, it was nothing more than a surprise that China agreed to name several terror groups based in Pakistan. 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. Other than Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement and Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the groups named in the declaration are engaged in terror activities both in Kashmir as well as in Afghanistan. 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. Indian investigating agencies have blamed LeT for the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed and hundreds others wounded. JeM is accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001.

The censure of the groups came as a rude shock to Pakistan which was rattled by US President Donald Trump who singled out it for harbouring militants fighting against US military forces in Afghanistan. In a televised speech last month, Trump came down heavily on Pakistan as a fickle ally while announcing a new policy on Afghanistan. In the last few years, the relations between the United States and Pakistan have muddied and Washington has linked its military aid to Islamabad on its commitment to take action against the Haqqani network militants. The US has often accused Pakistan of hosting Haqqani group militants who are helping the Taliban in launching attacks in Afghanistan. Pakistan denies the accusation and portrays itself to be the biggest victim of terrorism claiming that it has suffered more than 60,000 casualties since 2001. Pakistan’s claims that Afghan Taliban militants do not enjoy a safe haven on its soil flew in the face last year when the then adviser to the Prime Minister on foreign affairs, Sartaj Aziz, admitted that Islamabad had considerable influence over the Taliban because its leaders live in the country.

What added to discomfiture of Islamabad was the inclusion of Pakistan-based Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, which China accuses it of fomenting trouble in Xinjiang, home to the Muslim Uighur people. In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. China has often pressured Pakistan to take action against Uighur militants who are believed to be hiding in a tribal belt bordering Afghanistan.

Beijing is also facing heat back home after the abduction and killing of a Chinese couple in southwestern Pakistan. The Chinese were outraged as the killing came at a time when Beijing was pumping billions of dollars under the One Belt, One Road initiative, also known as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, in Pakistan. Earlier also, several Chinese engineers involved in the project have been attacked and abducted, and later released by militants active in the restive Balochistan. There is apprehension among the people in the restive Balochistan, the resource-rich province of Pakistan, that the project will change the demography of the region and reduce the locals to minority in their homeland. The killings, though claimed by the Islamic State, led to souring of ties between the two countries.

Pakistan faces a diplomatic dilemma. The BRICS declaration, in a way, has supported India’s stand that Pakistan-based terror outfits pose a serious threat to regional security and that the world cannot afford to have double standards in the fight against terror. Washington has for long been ticking off Islamabad for not doing enough against militants ensconced there. Now with China also expressing its concern about JeM and LeT, the pressure on Pakistan to act against these groups is likely to build. However, it remains to be seen whether China will really put pressure on Pakistan to act against the terror groups active in Kashmir and Afghanistan. China’s flip-flops within a week on the issue do not inspire much confidence. 

WHY US CURBS AGAINST HIZBUL NOT A BIG DEAL?

Does India have any reason to rejoice after the United States added Hizbul Mujahideen to its blacklist of nearly 60 terrorist organizations and designated it as a foreign terrorist organization? Will it any way help India in its fight against terrorism in Kashmir where Hizbul, one of the largest and oldest militant groups, is fighting against Indian security forces?

How does it make any difference if the US freezes any assets of Hizbul Mujahideen it may be holding there, and barring US citizens from engaging in any transactions with the group? The US move is nothing but to please the Indian leadership while doing little to put pressure on Pakistan to rein in militants operating from its soil.

Moreover, how does the US’ latest action help India in its fight against terrorism? Do terrorist organizations maintain bank accounts in their names? It’s a known fact that most of the terror activities are financed through cash and that too through illegal hawala transactions.

Also there is a widespread practice among Muslims of donating money to charities which have over the years played a major role in financing terrorist groups. Charities based in Saudi Arabia for long were involved in sponsor and financing of terrorist organizations before the government launched a crackdown against them under pressure from the US. There is no denying the fact that several charity organizations in the Muslim world diverted “zakat” to finance “jihad” (the so-called holy war).” “Zakat, considered to be one of the five pillars of Islam, was meant to giving alms to the poor and needy and spread the message of Islam. But the money was grossly misused by charities in the Middle East.

Then there is drug money. Reams of reports are available to link the billions-dollar opiate trade to terror groups. Al-Qaeda’s rapid growth in Afghanistan was directly linked to the illegal opium trade.  According to a report by the United Nations, Afghanistan’s poppy crops were the major source of terror funding and Al-Qaeda was the main beneficiary from the illegal drug trade in the late nineties before the collapse of the illegitimate Taliban government in 2001.

Of late, the Islamic State has emerged as the wealthiest terror group by engaging in illicit trade in oil after it occupied vast tract of territories in Iraq and Syria. According to conservative estimates, the group makes as much as $ 3 million a day, a huge amount compared to a paltry amount needed to carry out acts of terror.

Therefore, it is amply clear that the US move claiming “such designations are aimed at denying individuals and entities access to the US financial system” will have any impact as far as the insurgency in Kashmir is concerned.

Had President Donald Trump lived up to promises which he made during electioneering, the war against terrorism could have taken a paradigm shift? "We will defeat radical Islamic terrorism when I’m president. We will stand shoulder to shoulder with India in sharing intelligence and keeping our people safe mutually," Trump had said during electioneering. But all those promises seem hollow now.

Pakistan made a mockery of the US by allowing Syed Salahuddin, the head of Hizbul Mujahideen, to address a press conference at Muzaffarabad’s Centre Press Club soon after he was named as a specially designated global terrorist by the US department of state on June 26 this year.

Both Salahuddin as well as India’s most wanted terrorist, Hafiz Saeed, who also carries a $10 million bounty on his head by the US, have been openly holding rallies spewing venom against India and the US. Had the US been serious in its fight against terrorism, it could have easily put pressure on Pakistan to take action against them. If the US could enter Pakistani territory and smoke out al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011, mastermind of the deadly September 11 attacks, could not it do the same with Salahuddin and Saeed? It is not that the US can’t, but it won’t do it. For, Laden was a direct threat to the US as his jihadis were fighting against the US military forces in Afghanistan. As far as Salahuddin and Saeed are concerned, they don’t pose any threat to the US as both have been carrying out terrorist operations in Kashmir.

The US is more concerned about Afghanistan than Kashmir where its forces are in direct line of fire. And it knows it very well that it cannot ensure a decisive victory in Afghanistan without the help of Pakistan. Otherwise what explains the US decision to continue patting Pakistan occasionally in spite of Laden being provided a safe sanctuary by Pakistan?

Therefore, India should do well not to rejoice at such theatrics and sharpen its own strategy to meet with the challenge. Militancy in Kashmir is India’s own headache and it has to win this war without anybody’s help.