Can China be a trusted ally in the global war against terrorism? The question assumes significance as China continues&nbsp;giving steadfast protection to the chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar. The country has gone so far as to prevent&nbsp;the United Nations Security Council from declaring Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.

India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers, as well as five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase, were killed.

China&rsquo;s opposition to proscribing Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic.

It is high time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority of the five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double standards by some countries.

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China is the lone wolf in the Security Council.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China is the lone wolf in the Security Council.">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

This is the second time in as many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying &ldquo;there is no consensus&rdquo; in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council. &nbsp;Where is the question of consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? Evidently, China is the lone wolf in the Security Council.

Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council to thwart India&rsquo;s bid to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. India&rsquo;s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power.

China&rsquo;s support for Azhar, therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the international community to establish a &quot;genuinely broad&quot; international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security concern in the region.

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country.

India has accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001. Masood Azhar is undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command.

His importance lies in the fact that&nbsp;Pakistan government along with its army and notorious Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian government was forced to release him and two others - Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh -&nbsp;in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan.

<div class="ui-state-default">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets.">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure. Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army.

Therefore, the Pakistani establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the predicament of its all-weather ally. &nbsp;Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. China&rsquo;s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism.

It should be understood that China has its own compulsions as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the latter&rsquo;s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province.

In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of the Amnesty International was highly critical of China&rsquo;s handling of the situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalised &ldquo;what they labelled &lsquo;illegal religious&rsquo; and &lsquo;separatist&rsquo; activities&rdquo; and clamped down on &ldquo;peaceful expressions of cultural identity.&rdquo;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism." target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

As far as terrorism is concerned, China&rsquo;s definition is completely at variant with the world. While the world recognises the exiled Dalai Lama as the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a &ldquo;dangerous separatist&rdquo;. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland.

China is accused of turning a blind eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi&rsquo;s attempts to sanction Azhar to get even with it.

It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with Pakistan. It is high time China realises the perils of differentiating between terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

China risks global isolation if it does not realises the perils of differentiating between the terrorists

Can China be a trusted ally in the global war against terrorism? The question assumes significance as China continues giving steadfast protection to the chief of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad Masood Azhar. The country has gone so far as to prevent the United Nations Security Council from declaring Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. India has accused the JeM and its top leader, Masood Azhar, of masterminding several attacks, including a deadly assault on an Indian air base in January last year. Six Indian soldiers, as well as five gunmen who stormed the Pathankot airbase, were killed. China’s opposition to proscribing Azhar is perplexing given that Jaish-e-Mohammad has already been blacklisted by the 15-nation Security Council of which China is one of the five permanent members. If China is party to the decision to outlaw JeM, then its decision not to let its leader bracket in the same category is beyond any logic. It is high time the United Nations reconsider its original charter which gives veto power to five permanent members under which any one permanent nation can prevent the adoption of any substantive resolution. The rule of the majority of the five permanent members should follow. Otherwise, the international community will always be found wanting in its fight against terrorism due to double standards by some countries. China is the lone wolf in the Security Council. × This is the second time in as many years that China has blocked a combined bid by the United States, France and the United Kingdom to declare Azhar a global terrorist saying “there is no consensus” in the 1267 Committee of the UN Security Council. Where is the question of consensus if one country (read China) continues with its unwavering support for a dreaded terrorist like Azhar just only to please its ally Pakistan? Evidently, China is the lone wolf in the Security Council. Last year also, it was the odd nation out in the 15-member Security Council to thwart India’s bid to place Azhar on the 1267 sanctions list that would have entailed his travel ban and freezing of assets. India’s application had the approval of all the other 14 members of the Security Council. Needless to say, China is misusing its veto power. China’s support for Azhar, therefore, raises suspicion about its commitment to fight terrorism. Barely a few months ago, it was a signatory to the Xiamen Declaration which had called upon the international community to establish a "genuinely broad" international counter-terrorism coalition. Not only that, it was also a party to a decision of the five-member BRICS nations summit which called for decisive action against militant groups based in Pakistan terming them as a security concern in the region. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. × The groups named in the declaration included Taliban, (Islamic State), Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, including Eastern Turkistan Islamic Movement, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, the Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e Mohammad, TTP and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Both Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad are anti-India groups based in Pakistan and have routinely carried out militant attacks in Kashmir and elsewhere in the country. India has accused LeT of carrying out the deadly terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008 in which at least 166 people were killed. JeM is also accused of masterminding the audacious attack on Indian Parliament in 2001. Masood Azhar is undoubtedly the prized asset for Pakistan. Not only has he meticulously planned several terrorist attacks against India, he has succeeded in creating an army of jihadis who are ready to lay down their lives at his command. His importance lies in the fact that Pakistan government along with its army and notorious Inter-Services Intelligence had made several attempts to get him released from a jail after he was arrested in Kashmir in 1994. Five years later, the Indian government was forced to release him and two others - Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar and Omar Sheikh - in exchange for the safe release of passengers of the Indian Airlines flight -814 which was hijacked and taken to Kandahar in Afghanistan. If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. × If Azhar is declared a global terrorist, the government of Pakistan will be forced to arrest him and seize his assets. This is something the government does not want for two main reasons. Azhar has in the past threatened the government of violence if it made any such misadventure. Secondly, he enjoys the support of the Pakistani army. Therefore, the Pakistani establishment is cagey while taking any action against him, because it does not have the spine to challenge its own army. China, too, understands the predicament of its all-weather ally. Therefore, it has been repeatedly blocking any attempt to outlaw Azhar even at the expense of its own image. For, China has in the past made several statements that there should be no double standards on counter-terrorism. China’s action belies its alleged commitment against terrorism. It should be understood that China has its own compulsions as far as protecting Azhar is concerned. It is more to do with returning favours to Pakistan. Pakistan has in the past come to the rescue of China in the powerful Organisation of Islamic Cooperation which was critical of the latter’s repression of the Muslim Uighur community in Xinjiang province. In the last two years, hundreds have died in unrest in Xinjiang. Activists have accused China of curtailing commercial as well as cultural activities of Uighur. In fact, a 2013 report of the Amnesty International was highly critical of China’s handling of the situation in Xinjiang. It said authorities criminalised “what they labelled ‘illegal religious’ and ‘separatist’ activities” and clamped down on “peaceful expressions of cultural identity.” China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. × As far as terrorism is concerned, China’s definition is completely at variant with the world. While the world recognises the exiled Dalai Lama as the Tibetan spiritual leader, China considers him as a “dangerous separatist”. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient, who fled into exile in India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule, has repeatedly said that he is simply seeking genuine autonomy for his homeland. China is accused of turning a blind eye to more than 150 Tibetans who have publicly immolated themselves over the years. Beijing is miffed with New Delhi for allowing Dalai Lama live in India. And that is also one of the reasons why it has been stonewalling New Delhi’s attempts to sanction Azhar to get even with it. It is amply clear that China does not want to walk along with the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. It chooses to define terrorists according to its own understanding as has been the case with Pakistan. It is high time China realises the perils of differentiating between terrorists. Otherwise, it risks global isolation. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: China drags its feet on fight against terror

Defence experts on Friday slammed China for blocking India&#39;s request at the United Nations Security Council to declare Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.&nbsp;

Defence expert P K&nbsp;Sehgal said that China&#39;s move will weaken its relationship with India. &quot;This shows that the attitude of China is same as it was earlier and there is no change in it. This will weaken India and China relationship.

China will never let down its client state Pakistan. China is misusing its veto power and overlooking the views of all the other countries which are supporting India,&quot; he said. Defence expert Rahul Jalali said that China is adopting the double standard on terrorism.

&quot;China had already said this that they will block this proposal. Earlier also they did this. On one hand China talks about curbing terrorism on other hand they block the proposal to declare Masood Azhar a global terrorist,&quot; he said.

China on Thursday exercised the veto against the United States-backed proposal at the UN Security Council to declare Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, citing a lack of consensus.China had earlier indicated it would block India`s request at the Security Council.

Hua Chunying, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a recent press conference, &quot;As for the listing application by the relevant country [India], there are disagreements. China put the technical hold so as to allow for more time to deliberate on this matter. To our regret, the committee so far has yet to reach consensus. China always maintains that on the listing matter, the 1267 Committee [Security Council Committee] shall uphold the principle of objectivity, impartiality, and professionalism, and make its decisions by consensus among its members on the basis of solid evidence.&quot;

The &quot;technical hold&quot; could not be extended as it expired on Thursday, and hence, China was being expected to block the request permanently.The Jaish-e-Muhammad is designated as a terrorist organization by the US&nbsp;State Department, while India accuses its leader of launching several terrorist attacks on its soil, including the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack.Following the attack, India had initiated the move to include Azhar on the UN&nbsp;terrorist list.

All 15 members of the Security Council, except China, supported India`s bid.China is one of the five veto-holding members of the United Nations other than United States, United Kingdom, Russia, and France.

Defence experts on Friday slammed China for blocking India`s request at the United Nations Security Council to declare Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist.?

Defence experts on Friday slammed China for blocking India's request at the United Nations Security Council to declare Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. Defence expert P K Sehgal said that China's move will weaken its relationship with India. "This shows that the attitude of China is same as it was earlier and there is no change in it. This will weaken India and China relationship. China will never let down its client state Pakistan. China is misusing its veto power and overlooking the views of all the other countries which are supporting India," he said. Defence expert Rahul Jalali said that China is adopting the double standard on terrorism. "China had already said this that they will block this proposal. Earlier also they did this. On one hand China talks about curbing terrorism on other hand they block the proposal to declare Masood Azhar a global terrorist," he said. China on Thursday exercised the veto against the United States-backed proposal at the UN Security Council to declare Masood Azhar as a global terrorist, citing a lack of consensus.China had earlier indicated it would block India`s request at the Security Council. Hua Chunying, the spokesperson of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said at a recent press conference, "As for the listing application by the relevant country [India], there are disagreements. China put the technical hold so as to allow for more time to deliberate on this matter. To our regret, the committee so far has yet to reach consensus. China always maintains that on the listing matter, the 1267 Committee [Security Council Committee] shall uphold the principle of objectivity, impartiality, and professionalism, and make its decisions by consensus among its members on the basis of solid evidence." The "technical hold" could not be extended as it expired on Thursday, and hence, China was being expected to block the request permanently.The Jaish-e-Muhammad is designated as a terrorist organization by the US State Department, while India accuses its leader of launching several terrorist attacks on its soil, including the 2016 Pathankot airbase attack.Following the attack, India had initiated the move to include Azhar on the UN terrorist list. All 15 members of the Security Council, except China, supported India`s bid.China is one of the five veto-holding members of the United Nations other than United States, United Kingdom, Russia, and France.

China's stand on Masood Azhar will weaken its ties with India: Defence experts

North Korea has slammed the latest round of sanctions imposed by the United Nations saying it would not put its nuclear weapons program on the negotiating table.

&quot;We will not put our self-defensive nuclear deterrent on the negotiating table&quot; while it faced threats from Washington, it said, &quot;and will never take a single step back from strengthening our nuclear might&quot;, AFP reported.

Pyongyang termed the UN sanctions as a &quot;violent violation of our sovereignty&quot;, reported the official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA).

The US-drafted resolution was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. The sanctions aim to severely crimp North Korea&#39;s exports.

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that the sanctions have put Kim Jong Un &quot;on notice&quot;. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Pyongyang termed the UN sanctions as a "violent violation of our sovereignty", reported the official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA)

North Korea has slammed the latest round of sanctions imposed by the United Nations saying it would not put its nuclear weapons program on the negotiating table. "We will not put our self-defensive nuclear deterrent on the negotiating table" while it faced threats from Washington, it said, "and will never take a single step back from strengthening our nuclear might", AFP reported. Pyongyang termed the UN sanctions as a "violent violation of our sovereignty", reported the official Korea Central News Agency (KCNA). The US-drafted resolution was unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. The sanctions aim to severely crimp North Korea's exports. Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said that the sanctions have put Kim Jong Un "on notice".

North Korea stays defiant in face of fresh UN sanctions

The UN Security Council on Friday expanded targeted sanctions against North Korea after its repeated missile tests, adopting the first such resolution agreed by the United States and Pyongyang&#39;s only major ally China since President Donald Trump took office.

The Trump administration has been pressing China aggressively to rein in its reclusive neighbor, warning that all options are on the table if Pyongyang persists with its nuclear and missile development programs.

The United States has struggled to slow those programs, which have become a security priority given Pyongyang&#39;s vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the US mainland.

&quot;The United States will continue to seek a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this situation,&quot; US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the council after the vote.

But she added: &quot;Beyond diplomatic and financial consequences, the United States remains prepared to counteract North Korean aggression through other means, if necessary.&quot;

Adding names to the UN blacklist - a global travel ban and asset freeze - was the minimum sanctions measures the Security Council could have taken and comes after five weeks of negotiations between Washington and Beijing.

&quot;The Security Council is sending a clear message to North Korea today - stop firing ballistic missiles or face the consequences,&quot; Haley said.

The resolution, adopted unanimously by the 15-member council, sanctions four entities, including the Koryo Bank and Strategic Rocket Force of the Korean People&#39;s Army, and 14 people, including the head of Pyongyang&#39;s overseas spying operations.

North Korea&#39;s Koryo Bank handles overseas transactions for Office 38, a shadowy body that manages the private slush funds of the North Korean leadership, according to a South Korean government database.

&#39;Critical window&#39;

The measures adopted on Friday could have been agreed by the council&#39;s North Korea sanctions committee behind closed doors, but Washington convinced China to back a public vote on the blacklist, amplifying the council&#39;s unhappiness with Pyongyang&#39;s defiance of a UN ban on ballistic missile launches.

The UN Security Council first imposed sanctions on Pyongyang in 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programs and has ratcheted up the measures in response to five nuclear tests and two long-range missile launches. North Korea is threatening a sixth nuclear test.

&quot;There is a critical window of opportunity for the nuclear issue of the peninsula to come back to the right track of seeking a settlement through dialogue and negotiations,&quot; Chinese UN&nbsp;Ambassador Liu Jieyi told the council.

&quot;It is incumbent on all parties concerned to exercise restraint and to do more to help ease the tension and build mutual trust.&quot;

He again proposed a simultaneous freeze of North Korea&#39;s nuclear and missile programs and South Korea and the United States&#39; joint military exercises. Russia said the suggestion merits &quot;serious consideration.&quot;

Haley said: &quot;We want a negotiated solution, but North Korea must fulfill its basic obligations by first stopping all ballistic missile launches and nuclear weapons testing and taking concrete steps towards getting rid of its nuclear weapons program.&quot;

US secretary of state Rex Tillerson told the Security Council on April 28 that it needed to act before North Korea does. Just hours after the meeting - chaired by Tillerson during his first visit to the United Nations as the top US&nbsp;diplomat - Pyongyang launched yet another ballistic missile.

&#39;Unfriendlky steps&#39;

Within days the United States proposed to China that the Security Council strengthen sanctions on North Korea over its repeated missile launches. Traditionally, the United States and China have negotiated new sanctions before involving the other council members.

Pyongyang has launched several more ballistic missiles since then, including a short-range missile on Monday that landed in the sea off its east coast.

Diplomats said it appeared China was still only likely to consider additional strong new UN&nbsp;sanctions measures, such as an oil embargo, a ban on Pyongyang&#39;s airline or tougher economic sanctions, if North Korea conducted a long-range missile launch or another nuclear test.

The last round of complex sanctions imposed by the Security Council took three months to negotiate following Pyongyang&#39;s fifth nuclear test in September. Those measures aimed to cut North Korea&#39;s annual export revenue by a quarter.

China has also been infuriated by the US deployment of an advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea, saying it was a threat to its security and would do nothing to ease tension with Pyongyang.

Security Council veto power Russia backed the UN measures on Friday. Moscow&#39;s support had been unclear after the United States imposed its own sanctions on Thursday on Russian firms for their support of North Korea&#39;s weapons programs.

&quot;This step is something that is very puzzling and deeply disappointing,&quot; Deputy Russian UN&nbsp;Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said of the US sanctions amid battered US-Russia relations.

&quot;Instead of trying to work through the bilateral backlog in our work, Washington is doing exactly the opposite and undertaking unfriendly steps, which make it more difficult to normalize our dialogue and make it more difficult to cooperate in international affairs,&quot; he told the Security Council.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Saturday voiced support for the unanimous UN decision and called on North Korea to refrain from repeated nuclear tests and missile launches.

The United States is encouraged by China&#39;s efforts to restrain North Korea, US&nbsp;defence secretary Jim Mattis said in Singapore on Saturday, adding the threat from North Korea was &quot;clear and present&quot;.

(Reuters)

The UN Security Council expanded targeted sanctions against North Korea after its repeated missile tests

The UN Security Council on Friday expanded targeted sanctions against North Korea after its repeated missile tests, adopting the first such resolution agreed by the United States and Pyongyang's only major ally China since President Donald Trump took office. The Trump administration has been pressing China aggressively to rein in its reclusive neighbor, warning that all options are on the table if Pyongyang persists with its nuclear and missile development programs. The United States has struggled to slow those programs, which have become a security priority given Pyongyang's vow to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the US mainland. "The United States will continue to seek a peaceful, diplomatic resolution to this situation," US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley told the council after the vote. But she added: "Beyond diplomatic and financial consequences, the United States remains prepared to counteract North Korean aggression through other means, if necessary." Adding names to the UN blacklist - a global travel ban and asset freeze - was the minimum sanctions measures the Security Council could have taken and comes after five weeks of negotiations between Washington and Beijing. "The Security Council is sending a clear message to North Korea today - stop firing ballistic missiles or face the consequences," Haley said. The resolution, adopted unanimously by the 15-member council, sanctions four entities, including the Koryo Bank and Strategic Rocket Force of the Korean People's Army, and 14 people, including the head of Pyongyang's overseas spying operations. North Korea's Koryo Bank handles overseas transactions for Office 38, a shadowy body that manages the private slush funds of the North Korean leadership, according to a South Korean government database. 'Critical window' The measures adopted on Friday could have been agreed by the council's North Korea sanctions committee behind closed doors, but Washington convinced China to back a public vote on the blacklist, amplifying the council's unhappiness with Pyongyang's defiance of a UN ban on ballistic missile launches. The UN Security Council first imposed sanctions on Pyongyang in 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programs and has ratcheted up the measures in response to five nuclear tests and two long-range missile launches. North Korea is threatening a sixth nuclear test. "There is a critical window of opportunity for the nuclear issue of the peninsula to come back to the right track of seeking a settlement through dialogue and negotiations," Chinese UN Ambassador Liu Jieyi told the council. "It is incumbent on all parties concerned to exercise restraint and to do more to help ease the tension and build mutual trust." He again proposed a simultaneous freeze of North Korea's nuclear and missile programs and South Korea and the United States' joint military exercises. Russia said the suggestion merits "serious consideration." Haley said: "We want a negotiated solution, but North Korea must fulfill its basic obligations by first stopping all ballistic missile launches and nuclear weapons testing and taking concrete steps towards getting rid of its nuclear weapons program." US secretary of state Rex Tillerson told the Security Council on April 28 that it needed to act before North Korea does. Just hours after the meeting - chaired by Tillerson during his first visit to the United Nations as the top US diplomat - Pyongyang launched yet another ballistic missile. 'Unfriendlky steps' Within days the United States proposed to China that the Security Council strengthen sanctions on North Korea over its repeated missile launches. Traditionally, the United States and China have negotiated new sanctions before involving the other council members. Pyongyang has launched several more ballistic missiles since then, including a short-range missile on Monday that landed in the sea off its east coast. Diplomats said it appeared China was still only likely to consider additional strong new UN sanctions measures, such as an oil embargo, a ban on Pyongyang's airline or tougher economic sanctions, if North Korea conducted a long-range missile launch or another nuclear test. The last round of complex sanctions imposed by the Security Council took three months to negotiate following Pyongyang's fifth nuclear test in September. Those measures aimed to cut North Korea's annual export revenue by a quarter. China has also been infuriated by the US deployment of an advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-missile system in South Korea, saying it was a threat to its security and would do nothing to ease tension with Pyongyang. Security Council veto power Russia backed the UN measures on Friday. Moscow's support had been unclear after the United States imposed its own sanctions on Thursday on Russian firms for their support of North Korea's weapons programs. "This step is something that is very puzzling and deeply disappointing," Deputy Russian UN Ambassador Vladimir Safronkov said of the US sanctions amid battered US-Russia relations. "Instead of trying to work through the bilateral backlog in our work, Washington is doing exactly the opposite and undertaking unfriendly steps, which make it more difficult to normalize our dialogue and make it more difficult to cooperate in international affairs," he told the Security Council. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Saturday voiced support for the unanimous UN decision and called on North Korea to refrain from repeated nuclear tests and missile launches. The United States is encouraged by China's efforts to restrain North Korea, US defence secretary Jim Mattis said in Singapore on Saturday, adding the threat from North Korea was "clear and present". (Reuters)

UN expands North Korea blacklist in first US, China sanctions deal under Trump

The UN Security Council on Monday strongly condemned North Korea&#39;s latest missile test and vowed to push all countries to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang.

In a unanimous statement backed by China, Pyongyang`s ally, the council instructed its sanctions committee to redouble efforts to implement a raft of tough measures adopted last year.

The council also agreed to &quot;take further significant measures including sanctions&quot; to force North Korea to change course and end its &quot;highly destabilizing behavior&quot;.

The Security Council will hold a closed-door emergency meeting Tuesday at the request of Japan, South Korea and the United States to discuss further action in response to the latest missile test.

The US-drafted statement was nearly identical to one adopted last week after the launch of an intermediate-range missile that Pyongyang said was capable of carrying a &quot;heavy&quot; nuclear warhead.

The council demanded that North Korea &quot;conduct no further nuclear and ballistic missile tests&quot;.

North Korea on Sunday fired the Pukguksong-2, which uses solid fuel that allows for immediate firing, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said.

It was the latest test-firing in a series this year as Pyongyang steps up its efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States.

(AFP)

In a unanimous statement backed by China, Pyongyang`s ally, the council instructed its sanctions committee to redouble efforts to implement a raft of tough measures adopted last year

The UN Security Council on Monday strongly condemned North Korea's latest missile test and vowed to push all countries to tighten sanctions against Pyongyang. In a unanimous statement backed by China, Pyongyang`s ally, the council instructed its sanctions committee to redouble efforts to implement a raft of tough measures adopted last year. The council also agreed to "take further significant measures including sanctions" to force North Korea to change course and end its "highly destabilizing behavior". The Security Council will hold a closed-door emergency meeting Tuesday at the request of Japan, South Korea and the United States to discuss further action in response to the latest missile test. The US-drafted statement was nearly identical to one adopted last week after the launch of an intermediate-range missile that Pyongyang said was capable of carrying a "heavy" nuclear warhead. The council demanded that North Korea "conduct no further nuclear and ballistic missile tests". North Korea on Sunday fired the Pukguksong-2, which uses solid fuel that allows for immediate firing, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said. It was the latest test-firing in a series this year as Pyongyang steps up its efforts to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the United States. (AFP)

UN Security Council takes tough stand against North Korea's latest missile test

India and other G4 members -- Brazil, Germany, and Japan -- have offered to forgo veto powers initially if they are made permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The G4 group -- formed to support each other&rsquo;s bids for permanent seats on the UNSC -- has made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving, agencies reported.

&quot;The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself,&quot; said India&#39;s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms.

Akbaruddin said that in principle, the new permanent members would have veto powers that the current five have but they would not exercise them &quot;until a decision on the matter had been has been taken during a review&quot;.

The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms as non-permanent members on the UNSC by their respective regional groups.

The G4 said the allocation of non-permanent seats had outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and its subsequent reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10.

Italy&#39;s Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi opposed the addition of permanent members and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years.

G4, which lobbies for Council reforms on an expanded body, rejected the suggestions as a ploy to block adding new permanent members.

Syed Akbaruddin said expanding the non-permanent categories would only worsen the imbalance of influence in the Council and reinforce an outdated set-up.

Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan and has been blocking the reform process since decades.

The UfC had suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms.

Deriding the UfC proposal as &quot;old hat&quot;, Akbaruddin cited the the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference in Washington which had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership.

He said any proposal for reforms without expanding the number of permanent membership would do injustice to Africa&#39;s aspirations for equality.

The five permanent members with veto powers at the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.&nbsp;

Akbaruddin said that the 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group had only two elected seats on the UNSC while the 26-member Western Europe group also had the same number. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

India and other G4 countries have made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving

India and other G4 members -- Brazil, Germany, and Japan -- have offered to forgo veto powers initially if they are made permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). The G4 group -- formed to support each other’s bids for permanent seats on the UNSC -- has made the offer as a bargaining chip to get the reform process moving, agencies reported. "The issue of veto is important, but we should not allow it to have a veto over the process of Council reform itself," said India's Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin on behalf of the G4 at the Inter-Governmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reforms. Akbaruddin said that in principle, the new permanent members would have veto powers that the current five have but they would not exercise them "until a decision on the matter had been has been taken during a review". The G4 nations are regularly elected to two-year terms as non-permanent members on the UNSC by their respective regional groups. The G4 said the allocation of non-permanent seats had outlived their relevance since the UN was formed and its subsequent reform in 1965 when the number of non-permanent members was increased from six to 10. Italy's Permanent Representative Sebastiano Cardi opposed the addition of permanent members and instead suggested creating a new category of elected membership with longer terms than the current two years. G4, which lobbies for Council reforms on an expanded body, rejected the suggestions as a ploy to block adding new permanent members. Syed Akbaruddin said expanding the non-permanent categories would only worsen the imbalance of influence in the Council and reinforce an outdated set-up. Cardi made the proposal on behalf of Uniting for Consensus (UfC), a 13-member group that includes Pakistan and has been blocking the reform process since decades. The UfC had suggested adding 11 seats to the Council, with nine of them having longer terms. Deriding the UfC proposal as "old hat", Akbaruddin cited the the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks conference in Washington which had rejected suggestions for the longer-term Council membership. He said any proposal for reforms without expanding the number of permanent membership would do injustice to Africa's aspirations for equality. The five permanent members with veto powers at the UNSC are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Akbaruddin said that the 53 members of the Asia-Pacific group had only two elected seats on the UNSC while the 26-member Western Europe group also had the same number. (WION with inputs from agencies)

India offers to forego veto powers initially to become permanent member of UNSC

About 10 Syrian rebel groups announced Monday they were suspending talks about planned peace negotiations this month in the Kazakh capital Astana, due to &quot;violations&quot; by Damascus of a four-day old truce.

&quot;As these violations are continuing, the rebel factions announce... the freezing of all discussion linked to the Astana negotiations,&quot; they said in a joint statement, referring to talks planned for late January organised by Russia, which supports the Syrian regime, and Turkey which backs the rebels.

(AFP)

The four-day old peace plan was brokered by Russia and Turkey

About 10 Syrian rebel groups announced Monday they were suspending talks about planned peace negotiations this month in the Kazakh capital Astana, due to "violations" by Damascus of a four-day old truce. "As these violations are continuing, the rebel factions announce... the freezing of all discussion linked to the Astana negotiations," they said in a joint statement, referring to talks planned for late January organised by Russia, which supports the Syrian regime, and Turkey which backs the rebels. (AFP)

Syrian rebels suspend peace talks over 'violations' by government forces

The United States circulated on Thursday to the 15-member United Nations Security Council a draft resolution to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan and further targeted sanctions amid warnings by a senior UN&nbsp;official of possible genocide.

Political rivalry between South Sudan&#39;s President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, and his former deputy Riek Machar, a Nuer, led to civil war in 2013 that has often followed ethnic lines. The pair signed a shaky peace deal last year, but fighting has continued and Machar fled the country in July.

Adama Dieng, UN special adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, last week visited South Sudan, which gained independence from Sudan in 2011.

&quot;I saw all the signs that ethnic hatred and targeting of civilians could evolve into genocide if something is not done now to stop it. I urge the Security Council and member states of the region to be united and to take action,&quot; Dieng told the council.

&quot;There is a strong risk of violence escalating along ethnic lines with a potential for genocide. I do not say that lightly,&quot; he said, urging the council to impose an arms embargo.

Samantha Power, US&nbsp;ambassador to the United Nations, told the council that Dieng&#39;s warning should serve as a wake-up call. &quot;None of us can say we did not see it coming,&quot; Power said.

The UN&nbsp;Security Council has long-threatened to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, but veto powers Russia and China are skeptical whether such a move would make a difference as the country is already awash with weapons.

&quot;We think that implementing such a recommendation would hardly be helpful in settling the conflict,&quot; Deputy Russian UN ambassador Petr Iliichev said. &quot;Introducing targeted sanctions against South Sudanese leaders would be the height of irresponsibility now.&quot;

China also voiced its opposition to embargoes.

&quot;As a matter of principle, China&#39;s position is that it consistently does not agree with the use of or threat of sanctions,&quot; said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a regular press briefing on Friday.

&quot;On the issue of South Sudan, the United Nation&#39;s actions should send the right signal, encourage both parties to reach an agreement and respect the ceasefire, to move the situation towards stability rather than further complicating matters,&quot; he said.

The Security Council set up a targeted sanctions regime for South Sudan in March 2015 and has blacklisted six generals - three from each side of the conflict - by subjecting them to an asset freeze and travel ban.

&quot;An arms embargo is effective if there is a broad and robust commitment to its enforcement,&quot; Power told the council.

&quot;Imposing new targeted sanctions designations will isolate the individuals who have consistently been responsible for the acts that have brought South Sudan to this moment and which have caused so much suffering,&quot; Power said.

South Sudanese soldiers and rebels said on Thursday they had clashed in a state bordering Sudan, killing at least 15 people.

(Reuters)

US special adviser to UN told the council that there is a 'strong risk the ethnic violence in South Sudan may escalate to genocide'

The United States circulated on Thursday to the 15-member United Nations Security Council a draft resolution to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan and further targeted sanctions amid warnings by a senior UN official of possible genocide. Political rivalry between South Sudan's President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, and his former deputy Riek Machar, a Nuer, led to civil war in 2013 that has often followed ethnic lines. The pair signed a shaky peace deal last year, but fighting has continued and Machar fled the country in July. Adama Dieng, UN special adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, last week visited South Sudan, which gained independence from Sudan in 2011. "I saw all the signs that ethnic hatred and targeting of civilians could evolve into genocide if something is not done now to stop it. I urge the Security Council and member states of the region to be united and to take action," Dieng told the council. "There is a strong risk of violence escalating along ethnic lines with a potential for genocide. I do not say that lightly," he said, urging the council to impose an arms embargo. Samantha Power, US ambassador to the United Nations, told the council that Dieng's warning should serve as a wake-up call. "None of us can say we did not see it coming," Power said. The UN Security Council has long-threatened to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan, but veto powers Russia and China are skeptical whether such a move would make a difference as the country is already awash with weapons. "We think that implementing such a recommendation would hardly be helpful in settling the conflict," Deputy Russian UN ambassador Petr Iliichev said. "Introducing targeted sanctions against South Sudanese leaders would be the height of irresponsibility now." China also voiced its opposition to embargoes. "As a matter of principle, China's position is that it consistently does not agree with the use of or threat of sanctions," said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a regular press briefing on Friday. "On the issue of South Sudan, the United Nation's actions should send the right signal, encourage both parties to reach an agreement and respect the ceasefire, to move the situation towards stability rather than further complicating matters," he said. The Security Council set up a targeted sanctions regime for South Sudan in March 2015 and has blacklisted six generals - three from each side of the conflict - by subjecting them to an asset freeze and travel ban. "An arms embargo is effective if there is a broad and robust commitment to its enforcement," Power told the council. "Imposing new targeted sanctions designations will isolate the individuals who have consistently been responsible for the acts that have brought South Sudan to this moment and which have caused so much suffering," Power said. South Sudanese soldiers and rebels said on Thursday they had clashed in a state bordering Sudan, killing at least 15 people. (Reuters)

US seeks to impose UN arms embargo on South Sudan

As the world leaders gather at United Nations (UN) next week to attend the 71st General Assembly&#39;s high-level meet, Syria war would remain the talking point with the United States and Russia trying to shore up a fragile truce deal, Reuters reported today.&nbsp; 
 
US President Obama, who is likely to push for a boost in global refugee aid in the coming week, would be among the 135 heads &nbsp;of state attending the General Assembly.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;While many conflicts are causing enormous pain, none is causing so much death, destruction and widespread instability as the worsening war in Syria,&quot; &nbsp;UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who will step down at the end of 2016 after a decade in the job, told reporters on Wednesday.&nbsp; 
 
&quot;Major countries with influence have a duty to use their influence and seize this latest opportunity to pursue a political solution.&quot; 
 
About 5 million Syrians have fled the country, and some 6.5 million have been internally displaced during the conflict that has spanned for more than five years, according to Reuters.&nbsp; 
 
Differences crop up&nbsp; 
 
At the high-level meet, &nbsp;Russia had wanted the council to endorse its Syria truce deal with the United States. However, on Friday, it said a resolution was unlikely because &quot;Washington did not want to share the documents detailing the &nbsp;Syria ceasefire agreement with the 15-member UN security council.&quot; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
 
The ceasefire outlined a joint agreement, signed by the US secretary of state John Kerry and his foreign counterpart Sergey Lavrov on September 9, aims at halting the fight in Syria. 
 
Disagreements over the joint deal between the two countries led to an abrupt cancellation of a council meeting that was supposed to happen on Friday. 
 
Russia, Syria&#39;s main ally, had been pushing for a resolution to endorse the agreement, but the United States has been reluctant to release the details of the agreement, citing security concerns for some US-backed groups fighting in Syria. &nbsp; 
 
&quot;Most likely we are not going to have a resolution at the Security Council because the United States does not want to share those documents with the members of the Security Council,&quot; Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. 
 
Churkin said he had presented two separate draft resolutions endorsing the deal, but said the American side had tried to introduce changes. 
 
&quot;They in their typical way came up with a completely different thing -- which is trying to interpret and re-interpret the agreement,&quot; he said adding that &ldquo;they are not doing the right thing&rdquo;. 
 
More Syria meetings next week&nbsp; 
 
John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov will attend a special council meeting on Syria on Wednesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting. 
 
&quot;We believe the Security Council can play an important role in the resolution of the crisis in Syria,&quot; the US spokesman said. 
 
&quot;However, right now we are focused on the implementation of the agreement brokered by Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, particularly the urgent need for humanitarian aid to reach Syrians in need.&quot; 
 
Obama expresses concern over deal&nbsp; 
 
Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama on Friday voiced &quot;deep concern&quot; that key elements of a Syria ceasefire are not being upheld. 
 
The White House has said that despite decreased violence across the war-ravaged country, the Syrian regime continues to block the flow of critical humanitarian aid.&nbsp; 
 
Obama reportedly told aides that the next steps in the deal, closer military coordination with Russia, &nbsp;will require &quot;seven continuous days of reduced violence and sustained humanitarian access.&quot; 
 
Some within the Pentagon have expressed deep reservations about the agreement forcing Obama to referee disputes. 
 
White House has repeatedly argued that the ceasefire will offer the desperately needed respite from a brutal five-year civil war that has killed 300,000 people. 
 
It says that talks are the only way the Syrian war will come to an end. 
 
(WION with inputs from Reuters, AFP) 
 
 
&nbsp;

About 5 million Syrians have fled the country and some 6.5 million have been internally displaced during the five-year conflict

As the world leaders gather at United Nations (UN) next week to attend the 71st General Assembly's high-level meet, Syria war would remain the talking point with the United States and Russia trying to shore up a fragile truce deal, Reuters reported today. US President Obama, who is likely to push for a boost in global refugee aid in the coming week, would be among the 135 heads of state attending the General Assembly. "While many conflicts are causing enormous pain, none is causing so much death, destruction and widespread instability as the worsening war in Syria," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who will step down at the end of 2016 after a decade in the job, told reporters on Wednesday. "Major countries with influence have a duty to use their influence and seize this latest opportunity to pursue a political solution." About 5 million Syrians have fled the country, and some 6.5 million have been internally displaced during the conflict that has spanned for more than five years, according to Reuters. Differences crop up At the high-level meet, Russia had wanted the council to endorse its Syria truce deal with the United States. However, on Friday, it said a resolution was unlikely because "Washington did not want to share the documents detailing the Syria ceasefire agreement with the 15-member UN security council." The ceasefire outlined a joint agreement, signed by the US secretary of state John Kerry and his foreign counterpart Sergey Lavrov on September 9, aims at halting the fight in Syria. Disagreements over the joint deal between the two countries led to an abrupt cancellation of a council meeting that was supposed to happen on Friday. Russia, Syria's main ally, had been pushing for a resolution to endorse the agreement, but the United States has been reluctant to release the details of the agreement, citing security concerns for some US-backed groups fighting in Syria. "Most likely we are not going to have a resolution at the Security Council because the United States does not want to share those documents with the members of the Security Council," Russian ambassador Vitaly Churkin said. Churkin said he had presented two separate draft resolutions endorsing the deal, but said the American side had tried to introduce changes. "They in their typical way came up with a completely different thing -- which is trying to interpret and re-interpret the agreement," he said adding that “they are not doing the right thing”. More Syria meetings next week John Kerry and Sergei Lavrov will attend a special council meeting on Syria on Wednesday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting. "We believe the Security Council can play an important role in the resolution of the crisis in Syria," the US spokesman said. "However, right now we are focused on the implementation of the agreement brokered by Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov, particularly the urgent need for humanitarian aid to reach Syrians in need." Obama expresses concern over deal Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama on Friday voiced "deep concern" that key elements of a Syria ceasefire are not being upheld. The White House has said that despite decreased violence across the war-ravaged country, the Syrian regime continues to block the flow of critical humanitarian aid. Obama reportedly told aides that the next steps in the deal, closer military coordination with Russia, will require "seven continuous days of reduced violence and sustained humanitarian access." Some within the Pentagon have expressed deep reservations about the agreement forcing Obama to referee disputes. White House has repeatedly argued that the ceasefire will offer the desperately needed respite from a brutal five-year civil war that has killed 300,000 people. It says that talks are the only way the Syrian war will come to an end. (WION with inputs from Reuters, AFP)

World leaders to discuss Syria war at UN next week as US, Russia try to shore up 'fragile' truce deal

The United Nations Security Council failed on Saturday to condemn the violence and unrest in Turkey, after Egypt objected to a statement that called on all parties to &quot;respect the democratically elected government of Turkey,&quot; diplomats said. 
 
The US-drafted statement, seen by Reuters, also expressed grave concern over the situation in Turkey, urged the parties to show restraint, avoid any violence or bloodshed, and called for an urgent end to the crisis and return to rule of law. 
 
Statements by the 15-member Security Council have to be agreed by consensus. 
 
&quot;We proposed different language that respects democratic and constitutional principles, but the Americans refused to engage,&quot; Egypt&#39;s UN ambassador Amr Aboulatta told Reuters. 
 
?Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is a former general who overthrew elected President Mohamed Mursi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, in 2013 after mass protests against Mursi. Turkey provided support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. 
 
Diplomats said Egypt asked for a call for all parties to &quot;respect the democratically elected government of Turkey&quot; to be removed from the draft statement, saying the council is &quot;in no position to qualify, or label that government - or any other government for that matter - as democratically elected or not&quot;. 
 
After the United States and Britain objected to the proposed change to the text, Egypt proposed that the council call on the parties in Turkey to &quot;respect the democratic and constitutional principles and the rule of law,&quot; diplomats said. 
 
Negotiations on the text ended at this point, diplomats said. 
 
The Egyptian foreign ministry said that it was &quot;surprised that its proposed amendment was not taken up, and with the claim that it is obstructing the release of the statement.&quot; 
 
Turkish forces loyal to President Tayyip Erdogan largely crushed an attempted military coup on Saturday after crowds answered his call to take to the streets in support of the government and dozens of rebels abandoned their tanks. 
 
(Reuters)

Egyptian diplomats said the UN council is in no position to qualify or label any government as democratically elected or not

The United Nations Security Council failed on Saturday to condemn the violence and unrest in Turkey, after Egypt objected to a statement that called on all parties to "respect the democratically elected government of Turkey," diplomats said. The US-drafted statement, seen by Reuters, also expressed grave concern over the situation in Turkey, urged the parties to show restraint, avoid any violence or bloodshed, and called for an urgent end to the crisis and return to rule of law. Statements by the 15-member Security Council have to be agreed by consensus. "We proposed different language that respects democratic and constitutional principles, but the Americans refused to engage," Egypt's UN ambassador Amr Aboulatta told Reuters. ?Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is a former general who overthrew elected President Mohamed Mursi, of the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, in 2013 after mass protests against Mursi. Turkey provided support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Diplomats said Egypt asked for a call for all parties to "respect the democratically elected government of Turkey" to be removed from the draft statement, saying the council is "in no position to qualify, or label that government - or any other government for that matter - as democratically elected or not". After the United States and Britain objected to the proposed change to the text, Egypt proposed that the council call on the parties in Turkey to "respect the democratic and constitutional principles and the rule of law," diplomats said. Negotiations on the text ended at this point, diplomats said. The Egyptian foreign ministry said that it was "surprised that its proposed amendment was not taken up, and with the claim that it is obstructing the release of the statement." Turkish forces loyal to President Tayyip Erdogan largely crushed an attempted military coup on Saturday after crowds answered his call to take to the streets in support of the government and dozens of rebels abandoned their tanks. (Reuters)

Egypt blocks UN call to respect 'democratically elected' government in Turkey

Pakistan has raised the issue of the recent US drone strike that killed the Afghan Taliban chief, in the UN Security Council (UNSC), describing it as an &quot;unacceptable and blatant violation of its sovereignty&quot; and of the UN charter and international law. 
 
Speaking in the quarterly debate on Afghanistan in the UNSC, Pakistan&#39;s Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said the Afghan peace process was undermined by the US drone attack of May 21 which killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan province close to the Afghan border. 
 
This action has dealt &quot;a blow to the Afghan peace process&quot; and added to the intensity and complexity of the Afghan conflict, she added. 
While expressing Pakistan&#39;s readiness to support a genuine Afghan peace process, Lodhi warned that her country will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty and its territorial integrity, &quot;from whatever source&quot;. 
 
She asked whether the international community wanted a negotiated peace or a military solution in Afghanistan. She warned that those seeking a renewed recourse to a military solution need to think through its consequences. 
 
&quot;Is it ready to invest in war rather than peace in Afghanistan?&quot; she asked the 15-member UNSC. 
 
Referring to the secretary general&#39;s report on Afghanistan, the Pakistani envoy said that this reinforced the firm international consensus that &quot;only by a negotiated political agreement will Afghans achieve sustainable peace&quot;. 
 
She said Pakistan agreed to facilitate the first-ever direct peace talks between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban in Murree in June 2015. 
 
Depicting these talks as a &quot;promising start&quot;, she regretted that days before the second round in which the two sides were to also consider a de-escalation of violence, the talks were scuttled by developments &quot;well known to all&quot;. 
 
She argued that for the past 15 years the use of military force has failed to stabilise Afghanistan. 
 
&quot;Continued resort to military means will further destabilise the situation in Afghanistan and the region,&quot; she said, adding Pakistan would advice against such a strategy. 
 
Urging the Afghan government and the international coalition to take action against Pakistani Taliban elements, which have sought refuge in Afghanistan, she emphasised that the elimination of these sanctuaries was essential to peace and security. 
 
(PTI)

It called the drone strike that killed the Afghan Taliban chief on May 21 a blatant violation of its sovereignty

Pakistan has raised the issue of the recent US drone strike that killed the Afghan Taliban chief, in the UN Security Council (UNSC), describing it as an "unacceptable and blatant violation of its sovereignty" and of the UN charter and international law. Speaking in the quarterly debate on Afghanistan in the UNSC, Pakistan's Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi said the Afghan peace process was undermined by the US drone attack of May 21 which killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan province close to the Afghan border. This action has dealt "a blow to the Afghan peace process" and added to the intensity and complexity of the Afghan conflict, she added. While expressing Pakistan's readiness to support a genuine Afghan peace process, Lodhi warned that her country will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty and its territorial integrity, "from whatever source". She asked whether the international community wanted a negotiated peace or a military solution in Afghanistan. She warned that those seeking a renewed recourse to a military solution need to think through its consequences. "Is it ready to invest in war rather than peace in Afghanistan?" she asked the 15-member UNSC. Referring to the secretary general's report on Afghanistan, the Pakistani envoy said that this reinforced the firm international consensus that "only by a negotiated political agreement will Afghans achieve sustainable peace". She said Pakistan agreed to facilitate the first-ever direct peace talks between the Afghan government and the Afghan Taliban in Murree in June 2015. Depicting these talks as a "promising start", she regretted that days before the second round in which the two sides were to also consider a de-escalation of violence, the talks were scuttled by developments "well known to all". She argued that for the past 15 years the use of military force has failed to stabilise Afghanistan. "Continued resort to military means will further destabilise the situation in Afghanistan and the region," she said, adding Pakistan would advice against such a strategy. Urging the Afghan government and the international coalition to take action against Pakistani Taliban elements, which have sought refuge in Afghanistan, she emphasised that the elimination of these sanctuaries was essential to peace and security. (PTI)

Pakistan raises US drone strike issue at UN Security Council