It’s a disgrace: Terrorist Masood Azhar finds a friend in China

March 14, 2019, 12:59 pm IST in TOI Editorials | India, World | TOI

China has come to Masood Azhar’s rescue for the fourth time in a decade. As a veto-wielding permanent member of the UN Security Council it has repeatedly put a ‘technical hold’ on the proposal to ban Jaish-e-Muhammed chief Masood Azhar.

Masood Azhar (AP file photo)

But this time there were reasons to hope that it would correct its ways. JeM claimed responsibility for the heinous terror attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel in Pulwama, following which France backed by US and Britain moved to designate Azhar a global terrorist. Non-permanent members also joined as co-sponsors. At a time when the world was holding Pakistan’s feet to the fire on the issue of terrorism, China was expected to do its bit too as an aspiring world leader.

Instead, it has sent out the message that it will not join the world in demanding that Pakistan roll up the terrorists there that initiate attacks against India with impunity and indeed even with state patronage. India must now consider options to push back against China for its support for Pakistan’s asymmetric warfare against us. The dragon, of course, is doing itself no favours either, because all the evidence is that every state that pampers terror ends up being the worst for it.

 

Author

Quick Edit
TOI Quick Edits are written by a team of seasoned journalists from the Times of India's Edit Page and TOI-Online who respond to important news stories as th. . .

more
Kersi Chesan

ITS HIGH TIME. ALL INDIA FRANCE N U. S. SHOULD BAN ALL GOODS MADE IN CHINA. SHOULD BE BANNED. AMERICA SHOULD STOP CHINA ENTERING PAKISTAN.

Reply
Kamalmani Gulati

Now it\'s a turn of countrymen to ban use of Chinese goods in India till China understands the value of their misdeeds to protect a global terrorist f...

Reply
Subramaniyam Alooru

Declare china also a terrorist. stateIs it not possible to amend the constitution of the UN to remedy this situation. One permanent member with a veto...

Reply