On closed-door UNSC meeting on Kashmir & UNSC questioning Pakistan over Pahalgam attack, India's former permanent representative to the UN, Syed Akbaruddin said, "The writing on the wall is pretty obvious, I am not surprised because I am aware of Pakistan's standing in the comity of nations. It's not a credible interlocutor because everybody knows it's aiming at grandstanding, not at seriously advancing negotiations or de-escalating through engagement...So, as I told you, the last time this issue was discussed at the Security Council in a formal meeting was 1965. Sixty years have passed, Pakistan has not been able to get this back onto the agenda and discuss it in a formal meeting. Even in an informal meeting, it could not get traction. So, I rest my case, beyond that I think Indian diplomacy has been able to thwart these efforts by Pakistan. It's not surprising because the world recognises who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this instance. And we need to congratulate our diplomats for their quiet but efficient way in which they have managed to thwart one more effort of Pakistan at the United Nations."
00:00Pakistan's quest to use multilateral organization to attract global attention is not new.
00:08We've seen that on many occasions.
00:11This time what it tried was to use an agenda item which has not been used formally in 60 years.
00:23The India-Pakistan question.
00:25The India-Pakistan question was last time discussed in a formal meeting in 1965.
00:33So Pakistan thought that perhaps it could use a channel of this sort to try and bring the issue between India and Pakistan onto the front burner.
00:48Alas, this is only grandstanding.
00:50We know that Pakistan focuses on public diplomacy rather than serious negotiations.
00:58It uses all platforms primarily to project its image within the country and not outside.
01:05So the effort as have previous efforts faltered.
01:12The grandstanding did not work.
01:15And what happened was once Pakistan made its case, there was no outcome, which means that the council refused to buy its case.
01:26That's a fairly substantial setback for any country which has been working with the 15 countries for several months, but finds that what it wants is not being accepted by them.
01:41Because if something was accepted, what happens is usually the president of the Security Council walks out.
01:50This is the lowest form of response.
01:52The president walks out and makes an oral statement reading out a few points.
01:58It reminds me of 2019 when after Article 370 was abrogated, Pakistan again tried to think that, oh, this happened inside and that happened inside and then we had to respond to it.
02:16So my take is, it's pretty simple, Pakistan's effort at grandstanding have faltered, it has flopped, in fact, and they're making the best of a bad bargain where they couldn't get any purchase among the 15 members and are now trying to sell it for their domestic audience.
02:36Because you would have noticed that they did not even answer a single question from the media because everything would have come out and that's the sad reality of Pakistan's place in the international community today that nobody takes their view into account and there is no resonance for their nuclear bogey or Indus Waters Treaty argument or argument about an imminent attack.
03:05All these three were made repeatedly in the council with no traction.
03:11Sir, do you think that it has lost total credibility?
03:16This shows that Pakistan is not even taken seriously to give a worth statement out of the meeting.
03:23That's what you are pointing at?
03:26Yes, not a statement, but an oral statement.
03:28A written statement is much higher.
03:30Not even an oral statement or a few points to the press were made.
03:37So you can clearly see that's the lowest form of response.
03:41Let me tell you, in the Security Council, the way the responses work is, highest is a resolution.
03:47After that, a presidential statement.
03:50After that, a press statement.
03:53And the last format is a oral statement by the president of the Security Council to the press.
04:02None of these four modalities came into being.
04:06So you can see that it has failed to gain any purchase of a limited nature also, despite all its efforts.
04:13Sir, are you surprised that tough questions, in fact, are asked to Pakistan that is there a complexity between LET and this?
04:22And also the false flag argument which Pakistan made has been totally demolished at the meeting.
04:29Are you surprised or do you think it was writing on the wall?
04:31So the writing on the wall is pretty obvious.
04:35I am not surprised because I am aware of Pakistan standing in the Committee of Nations.
04:41It's not a credible interlocutor because everybody knows it's aiming at grandstanding,
04:49not at seriously advancing negotiations or de-escalating through engagement.
04:55So for 50 years, it's been trying.
04:58So as I told you, the last time this issue was discussed at the Security Council in a formal meeting was 1965.
05:0960 years have passed.
05:10Pakistan has not been able to get this back onto the agenda and discuss it in a formal meeting.
05:15Even in an informal meeting, it could not get traction.
05:19So I rest my case beyond that.
05:21I think Indian diplomacy has been able to thwart these efforts by Pakistan.
05:30It's not surprising because the world recognizes who is in the right and who is in the wrong in this instance.
05:41And we need to congratulate our diplomats for their quiet but efficient way in which they have managed
05:48to thwart one more effort of Pakistan and the United Nations.
05:53Sir, another thing, it is also learned that all the members condemned the Pehalgaum attack.
06:03But how do you look at China's position on this entire scheme of things?
06:07Because they have called, they have in fact asked for,
06:11they have backed Pakistan's demand of an inquiry in this.
06:14So how do you look at this, sir?
06:18So, again, we need to understand multilateral organizations are playgrounds of geopolitics.
06:29And therefore, countries will decide not on the merits of the case,
06:35but in terms of their ties with respective countries.
06:39We know the ties between Pakistan and China.
06:43In 2019, when Pakistan was not even a member of the Security Council,
06:47it was China which tried to bring this agenda item for a discussion,
06:53similar to what Pakistan has done here.
06:55And it failed then.
06:57And that was after Article 370 was abrogated.
07:01Yet a permanent member could not succeed.
07:04So the Chinese and Pakistani relationship is well known to the world.
07:12And people quickly understand.
07:14For example, you are aware that recently Pakistan was touting that it has been able to delete the reference to the resistance front.
07:25Do you think that other members don't realize what Pakistan is doing?
07:28That it is, what is Pakistan's link with a terrorist entity that it is trying to delete its name?
07:35Because I remember when we were there in 2019, when I was there,
07:39we had been able to put J.S. Muhammad's name there.
07:42Because it claimed, similar to TRF, which had claimed that it is responsible.
07:49Similar to what J.S. Muhammad did then, after a few days, J.S. Muhammad said,
07:53we were not involved.
07:55Exactly the same playbook is being played by Pakistan.
07:58So old-timers like me know that this is a game that Pakistan plays regularly.
08:04It's a game that it falters at.
08:06It's a game that its only ally in such thing is its all-weather friend, China.
08:13But the rest of the world has moved on.
08:15It recognizes Pakistan for what it is.
08:17Sir, don't you think that by doing this, Pakistan has shortened its leg on its own
08:22by defending a terrorist organization?
08:26Sure, I agree with you that no state would want to be seen as trying to be on the same side
08:33of a terrorist organization.
08:35On the one hand, you condemn a situation.
08:38You condemn the act of an entity.
08:41And on the other hand, through a slate of hand, you try and remove the reference to the entity
08:50which is claiming that it has done.
08:52Because when the statement came out, the press statement came out, the written format, Pakistan,
08:58the TRF had by then not acknowledged that it hadn't done.
09:04It was saying that it had done it.
09:05And after that, only after Pakistan removed its name, did it then recant that it was responsible.
09:13So it's pretty clear.
09:14And that's about the last success that Pakistan is going to get in the Security Council.
