By News
Desk
The
United Nations Security Council has rejected a politically motivated proposal
by India seeking sanctions against Pakistan over terrorism, the Foreign
Office said on Sunday.
“UN
Security Council’s 1267 Sanctions Committee related to Islamic State (IS) and
al Qaeda has rejected a politically motivated proposal by India,” FO
spokesperson Nafeez Zakaria said in a statement. “Replete with frivolous
information and baseless allegations, the Indian proposal had no merit and was
aimed at advancing its narrow national agenda,” the spokesperson added.
India will set dangerous precedent by violating IWT: Chaudhry
Slamming
India’s policy of state sponsored terrorism, Zakaria said New Delhi was itself
involved in perpetrating, sponsoring, supporting, and financing terrorism.
“Pakistan has been a direct victim of India’s state sponsored terrorism and
confessions of RAW’s agent Kulbhushan Jadhav about his involvement in terrorist
activities in Pakistan proves this fact,” he said.
The
spokesperson went on to say that more evidence of India’s involvement in
stoking terrorism inside Pakistan will be share with the UN and international
community. “It is clear that India’s unfounded allegations against Pakistan are
in fact aimed at masking its own terrorist activities in Pakistan.”
Islamabad snubs discriminatory NSG membership proposal
Zakaria
also reiterated Islamabad’s commitment to continue close cooperation with
international community in its collective endeavours for elimination of
terrorism. “Pakistan has made significant contribution and rendered enormous
sacrifices in success of international community’s efforts against terrorism,”
he said.
Relations
between the two nuclear-armed arch rivals have plummeted in recent months, with
India blaming Pakistani militants for a raid on an army base in its part of
Kashmir in September that killed 19 soldiers. India said it responded by
carrying out strikes across the heavily-militarised border, although Islamabad
denies these took place. The neighbours have been engaged in a diplomatic
tit-for-tat ever since.
No comments:
Post a Comment