China’s veto on Azhar shouldn’t bother India
Clearly, Beijing has only itself to blame for its present predicament: Is it for or against terrorism?
Someone in Beijing is not thinking things through. Every time China has blocked the designation of Masood Azhar by the United Nations, it has seemed more and more like its terrorism-loving ally Pakistan. The Jaish-e-mohammad, stands sanctioned by the same UN committee that the Chinese are protecting him from. Azhar also been designated by the United States, whose proposal it was that Beijing blocked on Thursday, to beat a procedural deadline. Having forced China to hold a knife to its own throat, India has no intention of letting up the pressure, especially when it also has the moral high ground on the issue, and the backing of the world. “The process is going to continue,” an official said, speaking on condition of anonymity, so as to be able to speak freely about India’s options and strategy, in the face of China’s cynical cussedness.
Option One, “go after the same guy”: India could file another application before the ISIL (Da’esh) and al-qaeda Sanctions Committee of the UNSC, start the process all over again for Azhar, secure the support of 14 members, which works on the principle of unanimity (all 15 members must vote for the proposal to be adopted, no one has a super-veto), and kick the ball back to China.
Option Two, “go after the same guy, with another country”: Terrorism has fewer friends around the world than enemies. Pakistan, which has been under the scanner for a while, recognises that. China, a relatively new player as both a victim and purveyor of it, doesn’t. India could wait for or look for another sponsor of a proposal to designate Azhar. Britain or France, backers of the earlier proposals, could be a candidate, in consultation with the United States and India. Or, may be a third country.
Option three, “another guy, proposed by India”: Dump Azhar. There are plenty more to choose from. How about Chhota Shakeel? There are currently 256 individuals on the UN list. There is scope for plenty more.
Option four, “another guy, but proposed by US, France or Britain”. A proposal moved by one of the three permanent members of the Security Council to proscribe another terror suspect. How about Shakeel again? Or, a completely different individual. The effect would be the same: China in the box again as the only country to come to the rescue of those viewed as terrorists by the rest of the world, twice. A rare dishonour for a country which has incipient problems with terrorism.
Option five, “proscribe a terrorist group”: There are 80 terrorist organisations, and affiliates, on the UN list already. But it can take a few more, challenging Beijing to now prove it can go beyond Azhar if it really did have issues with him, and not terrorism. A smile is the most potent weapon to disarm even the most hardened criminal. The other day, a guru was preaching, and he had the habit of asking questions repeatedly. At one point, he asked his followers whether they could tell him what was the “most beautiful” five-letter English word? Many gave different answers, but one of them said it was the word ‘smile’. The guru agreed that there was no other word more potent, more beautiful and more infectious