India Intelligence Report

   UN Resolution Condemns Blasts

  • UN Condemns Blasts in Mumbai and India on July 11
  • Analysts say that this means that UNSC is recognizing Jammu & Kashmir is part of India
  • Truth is that US representative in UN is a Cold Warrior who does not want to offend Pakistan

The UN Security Council (UNSC) passed a resolution “Reaffirming that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constituted one of the most serious threats to international peace and security” but did not name Pakistan or its terror infrastructure. Read by rotational French President of the UN Security Council Jean-Marc de la Sablière the statement “condemned in the strongest terms the 11 July bombs attacks in India, including Mumbai.”

Some writers have been quick to jump to the conclusion that the UN is recognizing that Kashmir is part of India and that the statement is a major departure from 1948 positions that called for a plebiscite for there were only two explosions on 11 July and the unnamed one is in Kashmir. However, the reality is that while there was overwhelming support to condemn the terror incident, the US representative and Cold Warrior John Bolton was more concerned about what his friend and ally Pakistan Pervez Musharraf would say. So, he blocked a statement that linked the two terror incidents and allowed the current statement only on being overruled by the State Department which saw a lot of pressure from Japan to support the draft.

This strong support from Japan is a result of changing Indo-Japanese strategic equation which has included several exchanges and searches for upgrading their relationship. Japan agreed with India that condemnation of the Mumbai blasts should not ignore the terrorist violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Supported by Japan, most countries, except the US’s representative Bolton, in the UNSC agreed that there should be no double standard for judging terror in Jammu and Kashmir and Mumbai.

Bolton’s baseless argument was any mention of Jammu and Kashmir in the statement would lead to political complications. In previous positions working on Nuclear proliferation, he had developed an image of a Nuclear Ayatollah in the State Department often any nuclear or high technology co-operation with India.

While the State Department in Washington leaned on him to water down his opposition, the statement itself did not mention Jammu & Kashmir by name but referred to “different parts of India.”

Related News Analysis

United Nations




Home Page
Subscribe to receive this page daily by email
Unsubscribe from the mailing list