India slams UN for ambiguity in dealing with terror issues

“The fact that the leader of Taliban — a proscribed entity — is not yet designated as a terrorist individual remains a mystery to us. Can we know the rationale for such an approach,” Deputy Permanent Representative Ambassador Tanmaya Lal said at a Security Council debate on Afghanistan. The Taliban had named Mawlawi Haibatullah Akhundzada, a conservative cleric in his 50s, as its new leader after Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour was killed in a US drone strike in May. Akhundzada is not on any terrorist designated list. 

Lal questioned how, by not designating the head of a banned entity, the world body intends to address one of the biggest threats to peace and security. “Is it now the thinking that leaders of proscribed entities will not be held accountable for the deeds of the listed groups that they head? Is this how we now intend to address one of the most serious threats to international peace and security,” he said in his remarks. 

Lal questioned whether the response to India’s queries on the functioning of the UN sanctions regime will be a “deafening silence” as was the case when the Security Council Committee 1988, which deals with issues relating to Afghanistan, had met last month, with no information about what was discussed in the meeting. In an apparent reference to Pakistan, Lal said groups and individuals that perpetrate violence against the people and government of Afghanistan “must not be allowed safe havens in Afghanistan’s neighbourhood.” 

While the Afghan government has made efforts to combat terrorism, “others have callously looked the other way” when Afghanistan is targeted by Taliban, Haqqani Network, ISIS, al-Qaeda, LeT and JeM, Lal said and called for effective implementation of the Security Council’s sanctions regime, including the 1267 ISIL/ Al-Qaeda Sanctions and the 1988 Taliban regime.