&w=3840&q=100)
Indo-Pak tensions: UNSC urges de-escalation, ask Pakistan 'tough questions'
Greece, president of the UNSC for the month of May, had scheduled the meeting on Monday following a request by Pakistan, which is currently a non-permanent member. The meeting comes days after terrorists killed 26 people, mostly tourists, in Jammu and Kashmir's Pahalgam, triggering outrage in India.
The 15-member UNSC did not issue a statement after the meeting, but Pakistan claimed that its own objectives were "largely served".
Assistant Secretary-General for the Middle East, Asia and the Pacific in the Departments of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and Peace Operations Khaled Mohamed Khiari of Tunisia briefed the Council on behalf of both departments (DPPA and DPO).
Coming out of the meeting, Khiari said there was a call for dialogue and peaceful resolution of the conflict. He noted that the situation is volatile.
Ambassador Evangelos Sekeris, a Permanent Representative of Greece to the United Nations and the current UNSC President, described it as a productive meeting, helpful.
A Russian diplomat said, We hope for de-escalation.
Sources here told PTI that members of the 15-nation Security Council raised "tough questions for Pakistan at its informal session. It was advised to sort out the issues bilaterally with India, they said.
The sources added that there was broad condemnation of the terrorist attack and recognition of the need for accountability.
Some members specifically brought up targeting of tourists on the basis of their religious faith, the sources said.
UNSC members refused to accept the false flag narrative and asked whether Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba was likely to be involved.
The closed-door meeting that lasted about an hour and a half did not take place in the UNSC Chamber where Council members sit at the horse-shoe table, but in a consultation room next to it.
Sources added Pakistan's efforts to internationalise the situation also failed. Many members expressed concern that Pakistan's missile tests and nuclear rhetoric were escalatory factors.
Pakistan's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad told reporters that the country's objectives were largely served and achieved at the meeting.
He said the objectives of the closed consultations included enabling the Council members to have a discussion on the deteriorating security environment and rising tensions between India and Pakistan and to have an exchange of views on how to address the situation, including avoiding confrontation that could have serious consequences and the need for de-escalation.
Ahmad thanked Council members for their engagement and their calls for restraint, de-escalation and dialogue. He said that while Pakistan does not seek confrontation, we are fully prepared to defend our sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Pakistan also raised the issue of India's suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. Water is life, not a weapon. These rivers sustain over 240 million Pakistanis, he said.
Ahmad said at the meeting Pakistan reiterated its commitment to peaceful, cooperative relations with all our neighbours, including India.
We remain open to dialogue based on mutual respect and sovereign equality, he added.
In view of the gravity of the situation, the calls for dialogue, de-escalation and peaceful resolution of disputes, such as by the Secretary-General, and what we also heard from the Council members today are most pertinent, Ahmad said.
Before the UNSC meeting, India's former Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Syed Akbaruddin had told PTI that no consequential outcome" can be expected from a discussion where a party to the conflict seeks to shape perceptions by using its membership of the Council. India will parry such Pakistani efforts." Following the meeting, he said, Pakistan's grandstanding has flopped again today as in the past. As was expected, there was no meaningful response by the Council. Indian diplomacy has yet again successfully parried Pakistani efforts to seek the Security Council's intervention.
Just hours before the closed consultations, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres voiced concern over tensions between India and Pakistan being at their highest in years.
It pains me to see relations reaching a boiling point," he said. He made these remarks to the press from the UNSC stake-out Monday morning.
Guterres said he understands the raw feelings following the awful terror attack in Pahalgam and reiterated his strong condemnation of that attack.
Targeting civilians is unacceptable and those responsible must be brought to justice through credible and lawful means, he said.
The UN chief stressed that it is essential especially at this critical hour -- to avoid a military confrontation that could easily spin out of control.
Now is the time for maximum restraint and stepping back from the brink. That has been my message in my ongoing outreach with both countries. Make no mistake: A military solution is no solution, the UN chief said.
Apart from the five veto-wielding permanent members China, France, Russia, the UK and the US the 10 non-permanent members in the Council are Algeria, Denmark, Greece, Guyana, Pakistan, Panama, South Korea, Sierra Leone, Slovenia and Somalia.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
8 minutes ago
- India Today
Putin remains doubtful of Trump's ultimatum to end war, sources say
Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to bow to a sanctions ultimatum expiring this Friday from U.S. President Donald Trump, and retains the goal of capturing four regions of Ukraine in their entirety, sources close to the Kremlin told has threatened to hit Russia with new sanctions and impose 100% tariffs on countries that buy its oil - of which the biggest are China and India - unless Putin agrees to a ceasefire in Russia's war in determination to keep going is prompted by his belief that Russia is winning and by scepticism that yet more U.S. sanctions will have much of an impact after successive waves of economic penalties during 3-1/2 years of war, according to three sources familiar with discussions in the Kremlin. The Russian leader does not want to anger Trump, and he realises that he may be spurning a chance to improve relations with Washington and the West, but his war goals take precedence, two of the sources goal is to fully capture the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which Russia has claimed as its own, and then to talk about a peace agreement, one of the sources said."If Putin were able to fully occupy those four regions which he has claimed for Russia he could claim that his war in Ukraine had reached his objectives," said James Rodgers, author of the forthcoming book "The Return of Russia".The current talks process, in which Russian and Ukrainian negotiators have met three times since May, was an attempt by Moscow to convince Trump that Putin was not rejecting peace, the first source said, adding that the talks were devoid of real substance apart from discussions on humanitarian says it is serious about agreeing a long-term peace in the negotiations but that the process is complicated because the two sides' stances are so far apart. Putin last week described the talks as stated demands include a full Ukrainian withdrawal from the four regions and acceptance by Kyiv of neutral status and limits on the size of its military – demands rejected by a sign that there may yet be an opportunity to strike a deal before the deadline, Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff is expected to visit Russia this week, following an escalation in rhetoric between Trump and Moscow over risks of nuclear war. On Monday, Russia said it was no longer bound by a moratorium on short- and medium-range nuclear Kremlin did not respond to a request for comment for this story. All the sources spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the who in the past has praised Putin and held out the prospect of lucrative business deals between their two countries, has lately expressed growing impatience with the Russian president. He has complained about what he called Putin's "bullshit" and described Russia's relentless bombing of Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities as "disgusting".The Kremlin has said it noted Trump's statements but it has declined to respond to Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko last week called on the world to respond with "maximum pressure" after the worst Russian air strike of the year killed 31 people in Kyiv, including five children, in what she called Russia's response to Trump's deadline."President Trump wants to stop the killing, which is why he is selling American-made weapons to NATO members and threatening Putin with biting tariffs and sanctions if he does not agree to a ceasefire," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said in response to a request for ADVANCEThe first source said Putin was privately concerned about the recent deterioration of U.S. ties. Putin still retains the hope that Russia can again befriend America and trade with the West, and "he is worried" about Trump's irritation, this person with Moscow's forces advancing on the battlefield and Ukraine under heavy military pressure, Putin does not believe now is the time to end the war, the source said, adding that neither the Russian people nor the army would understand if he stops the author, said Putin has invested his political reputation and legacy in the war in Ukraine."We know from his previous writings and statements that he sees himself as part of a strong tradition of standing up to the West and the rest of world to defend Russia's interests," he Kremlin leader values the relationship with Trump and does not want to anger him, however, "he simply has a top priority - Putin cannot afford to end the war just because Trump wants it," the second Russian source said.A third person familiar with Kremlin thinking also said Russia wanted to take all four regions and did not see the logic in stopping at a time of battlefield gains during Russia's summer has suffered some of its biggest territorial losses of 2025 in the past three months, including 502 square kilometres in July, according to Black Bird Group, a Finland-based military analysis centre. In total, Russia has occupied around a fifth of military General Staff has told Putin that the Ukrainian front will crumble in two or three months, the first person Russia's recent gains remain relatively minor in purely territorial terms, with only 5,000 square kilometres (1,930 square miles) of Ukraine taken since the start of last year, less than 1% of the country's overall territory, according to a June report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think and Western military sources, acknowledge that Russia is making gains, but only gradually and with heavy casualties. Russian war bloggers say Moscow's forces have been bogged down during its current summer offensive in areas where the terrain and dense urban landscape favoured Ukraine, but assess that other areas should be faster to take.'HE'S MADE THREATS BEFORE'Trump's sanctions threat was "painful and unpleasant," but not a catastrophe, the second source said. The third source said there was a feeling in Moscow that "there's not much more that they can do to us".It was also not clear if Trump would follow through on his ultimatum, this person said, adding that "he's made threats before" and then not acted, or changed his source also said it was hard to imagine that China would stop buying Russian oil on instructions from Trump, and that his actions risked backfiring by driving oil prices a consequence of previous rounds of sanctions, Russian oil and gas exporters have taken big hits to their revenues, and foreign direct investment in the country fell by 63% last year, according to U.N. trade data. Around $300 billion of central bank assets have been frozen in foreign Russia's ability to wage war has been unimpeded, thanks in part to ammunition supplies from North Korea and imports from China of dual-use components that have sustained a massive rise in weapons production. The Kremlin has repeatedly said that Russia has some "immunity" to has acknowledged Russia's skill in skirting the measures. "They're wily characters and they're pretty good at avoiding sanctions, so we'll see what happens," he told reporters at the weekend, when asked what his response would be if Russia did not agree to a first Russian source noted that Putin, in pursuing the conflict, was turning his back on a U.S. offer made in March that Washington, in return for his agreement to a full ceasefire, would remove U.S. sanctions, recognise Russian possession of Crimea - annexed from Ukraine in 2014 - and acknowledge de facto Russian control of the territory captured by its forces since source called the offer a "fantastic chance," but said stopping a war was much more difficult than starting it.- EndsMust Watch
India.com
8 minutes ago
- India.com
Can A Country Survive Without America? These Nations Already Already Do Without U.S. Ties
New Delhi: The global order has long revolved around the United States. Its economic weight, military power and diplomatic reach have shaped how countries operate. But a handful of nations have taken a different path. They have either walked away from Washington or never entered the room. And despite years of pressure, sanctions and isolation, they continue to function. Among them, Iran stands out. For decades, Tehran has maintained one of the most antagonistic relationships with Washington. The rift deepened after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, which led to sweeping sanctions that strangled its economy. But Iran did not collapse. Instead, it shifted its focus inward, developed its oil and gas sector and invested in domestic industries. It strengthened ties with countries like Russia, China and Turkey to keep its economy running. In 2024, U.S. President Donald Trump intensified tariff threats against several countries. India found itself on Washington's radar. He accused New Delhi of buying large quantities of crude oil from Russia and selling it in global markets at a profit. He announced a 25% tariff on Indian trade and lashed out on Truth Social, claiming New Delhi had no concern for the war in Ukraine. India issued a strong rebuttal. Responding to the threat, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) made it clear that India would act in its national interest. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal explained that India had to turn to Russian oil because European suppliers had redirected their energy exports in the aftermath of the Ukraine conflict. At that time, Washington had supported India's decision. 'This is not a matter of choice. It was a response to the global market's limitations,' he said and pointed out the irony that countries that continue to criticise India are themselves engaged in trade with Russia, even when they face no strategic compulsion to do so. This debate has brought up a question: can a nation survive without engaging with the United States? Are there countries that have built an economic and political existence independent of American support? There are. Iran, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela have managed to chart out such paths. Their experiences are far from smooth. Each of them has faced significant hardships. Still, they have not collapsed under pressure. Instead, they have sought out new alliances, developed local industries and found ways to adapt. After decades of sanctions, Iran signed a 25-year strategic agreement with China. The deal covers Chinese investments in Iran and steady oil purchases. Tehran also expanded military and economic ties with Moscow. Its domestic defence and technology sectors have grown despite external isolation. Its missile and drone programmes are homegrown. The country's education and healthcare systems, while strained, continue to function. Cuba has followed its own model. Since the 1960s, it has faced stringent U.S. sanctions. After embracing communism under Fidel Castro, the country was cut off from American trade. But it built a healthcare system that earned global praise. Cuban doctors and vaccines have been exported to countries across Latin America and Africa. Its tourism and biotechnology have brought in revenue. Partnerships with Russia, Venezuela and other regional allies have helped it remain afloat. North Korea offers a different case. There are no direct economic ties between Pyongyang and Washington. The two countries remain adversaries. Under Kim Jong Un, North Korea has prioritised its nuclear weapons programme and missile development. It has relied heavily on China for energy, food and essential supplies. Russia has also provided limited support. Despite economic difficulties, North Korea has continued to function under its rigid political system. Venezuela, too, has faced American sanctions, especially targetting its oil exports. But Caracas responded by strengthening its ties with Iran, China and Russia. It used its vast oil reserves as leverage, exchanging energy for investment and support. Each of these countries has followed a different model. Some turned to authoritarianism, while others leaned on regional alliances. But all have demonstrated that an economic existence without the United States, while difficult, is not impossible. These examples do not suggest that global engagement with Washington lacks value. The United States remains the world's largest economy and a central force in international diplomacy. But these nations show that with the right strategies, strong internal planning and alternative partnerships, survival outside the American orbit is not only possible, but it is already happening.
Time of India
8 minutes ago
- Time of India
From Russia…
Washington is no slouch when it comes to buying from Moscow. So what's India doing wrong When Russia annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014, US punished it with sanctions. US-Russia trade, which was worth over $38bn in 2013, slipped to under $35bn in 2014, $23bn in 2015, less than $20bn in 2016, and then started rising again from 2017, although Crimea remained with Russia. What changed was that Obama left White House and Trump came in. In 2021, the last year before Putin invaded Ukraine wholesale, Russian exports to US amounted to $29.6bn – almost the same as in 2012. This recap is important when Trump is threatening to make an example of India with 'substantially' higher tariffs for buying Russian oil. The same Trump who, in Feb, said Ukraine 'should have never started' the war. Look at Europe, too. EU's own data shows it supplied 10.3% of Russian imports last year, and bought 7.3% of its exports. Total goods trade between the 'virtuous' and the sanctioned amounted to a not insignificant $78bn – much more than the $69bn India-Russia bilateral trade last year. And data from the nonprofit CREA shows EU's spending on Russian energy last year – $25.3bn – was more than its financial assistance to Ukraine – $21.6bn. That's why the West's moral grandstanding on the Ukraine war fails to convince. For Trump officials to accuse India of financing Putin's war, while ignoring EU's Russia trade, and America's own $3bn worth of Russian imports, is nothing but hypocrisy. How is it kosher for US to continue buying enriched uranium from a sanctioned Russia to meet its energy needs, while frowning upon India's purchase of Russian oil to fuel its growing economy? MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal pointed out in a tweet on Monday that US had nudged India to buy more Russian oil at the start of the war 'for strengthening global energy markets' stability'. Europe was the biggest buyer of Russian oil and gas then, and for it to take a righteous stand, 'traditional supplies were diverted to Europe'. India at that time sourced less than 1% of crude from Russia. By making the switch, it spared the world an inflationary wave so soon after the pandemic. As things stand, India's saving not more than $2bn a year by buying discounted Russian oil. It can pivot to West Asian suppliers again, but everybody – including US – will then feel inflationary pain. Trump shouldn't forget that while trying to armtwist India into a trade deal. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
