Deconstructing China’s ‘technical hold’ on listing Azhar Masood as global terrorist

China has once again put a ‘technical hold’ on listing Pakistan based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) chief Azhar Masood as ‘global terrorist’ under the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee set up under the UNSC Resolution 1267 of 1999 that would impose a freeze his financial assets, travel ban and censor Pakistan for hosting him. However, repeating its standard iteration China has asked for ‘more time to examine’ this proposal saying all nations must be fully satisfied to make such a decision effective.

 It was in 2009 that, in the backdrop of the 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attacks, India had first moved this proposal at the UN Security Council. In 2016, terrorist attacks on India’s airbase in Pathankot made India move this proposal again; this time with an open support of the P3 i.e. the United Kingdom, the United States and France that hold permanent sea at the UN Security Council and their consent remains a prerequisite for any decision to be adopted.  In 2017, in the backdrop of the biggest terrorist attack on Indian Army’s Brigade headquarters at Uri in Jammu and Kashmir it was the P3 that took lead to bring same proposal before the UNSC Sanctions Committee. Every time the Chinese have put a ‘technical hold’ asking ‘more time to examine’ it.

 Meanwhile continued terrorist attacks around the world have strengthened India’s efforts at building global consensus for addressing terrorism both through its proposed UN Convention for Countering International Terrorism as also on putting Azhar Masood on UN Sanctions List. The 9/11 terrorist attacks had already made the UN Security Council in October 2001 ban several terrorist organisations including JeM as a ‘global terrorist organisation’ and the noose has tightening around Azhar Masood. The unfettered protection of Pakistani state to JeM, however, has allowed it to continue planning and executing terrorist attacks as also every time claim responsibility for these.

 So when last Wednesday, on eve of its taking over presidency of UN Security Council, France along with the United Kingdom and the United States, brought the same proposal to the UN Sanctions Committee, the backdrop of 14th February fidyaein at Pulwama saw even the Chinese making incremental shift in policy. China was part of the February 21 UN Security Council statement unanimously condemning Pulwama attacks as “heinous and cowardly suicide bombing… for which JeM has claimed responsibility.” February 26 saw India’s air action inside Pakistan receiving support from all major powers and at the next day’s pre-scheduled Russia-India-China foreign ministers trilateral meeting in China, moved forward from their standard line of eliminating terrorism in all its forms and manifestation. The final communique of this trilateral meeting at Wuzhen underlined need for international cooperation for eliminating the “breeding grounds” of terrorism saying terrorism “must not be used for political and geopolitical goals.”  Leaders of Russia-India-China had earlier signed a final declaration of their September 2017 BRICS summit in Xiamen devoting five paragraphs to terrorism and naming half a dozen terrorist outfits though it was not repeated in their Johannesberg summit last year.

 This momentum had created anticipations on Beijing finally relenting on its ‘technical hold’ that it had continued from 2011 till the November 2018 meeting of Sanctions Committee. Moreover, last week’s proposal of France had gathered some fresh evidence and was now co-sponsored by the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany. Following 14 February Pulwama terrorist attacks, even Russian president Vladimir Putin was reportedly in close communication with Indian prime minister expressing support to India’s actions and assuring support for declaring Azhar Masood as ‘global terrorist’. Moscow has lately warmed up to China and Pakistan yet historically it has been India’s strongest pillar of support at the UN Security Council debates on Kashmir. Even Pakistan appeared preparing for this eventuality as its foreign minister confirmed to BBC that Azhar Masood lives in Pakistan though he was so sick that it would require some real hard evidence for Pakistani judiciary to initiate any trial against him.

 In face of all this China’s ‘technical hold’ speaks volumes of its compulsions to accepting these ever rising costs of standing for its ‘all weather ally’ which has become notorious for using terrorism as strategic assets for its foreign policy. Conversely, this calls for New Delhi to recalibrate its strategy to incentivise as also further isolate Beijing. The track record shows that China will switch sides once the costs of protecting Pakistan based terrorists far overweight its benefits. For this it is important to avoid overreactions and focus first on China’s linkages with Pakistan based terrorists and what makes Beijing protect them from international mechanisms like the UN Sanctions Committee.

In 1980s, Azhar had begun life by fighting the Soviet forces in Afghanistan and he later founded the notorious JeM. This had coincided with Pakistan’s Islamisation and its Mullah’s raising an army of Talibs (Islamic students) as mujahedeen for fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. China’s linkages to anti-Soviet mujahideen also go back to 1980s. To the discomfiture of Beijing, this also saw China’s Uyghurs joining these Mujahideens in hundreds in turn engendering repeated anti-China agitations in Muslim-majority Xinjiang during 1980, 1981, 1985, 1987 and April 1990 protests in Buren had revived demand for East Turkestan. The Soviet retreat in 1989 released Uyghurs Mujahideen from Afghanistan so these sporadic protests in Xinjiang spread to multiple towns starting from major ones like Urumchi, Kashgar, Khotan, to smaller towns like Kucha, Aksu and Artush.

 This is what pushed China into adopted a rather myopic and self-appeasing strategy towards Pakistan based terrorists. This shift is often traced to the November 2000 meeting of China’s Ambassador to Pakistan Lu Shulin’s meeting with Taliban leader Mullah Omar who is believed to having assured of not allowing Uyghurs to launch attacks in Xinjiang. This was the peak period of Taliban’s repressive rule in Afghanistan that was destroyed by US war on global terrorism starting from 2001. But China was amongst very few countries that had established and sustained informal official contacts with Taliban. China’s appeasement had apparently borne results except one major aberration of riots of 5-6 July 2009 that had resulted in 156 deaths in city of Urumchi alone and President Hu Jintao had to fly back home cutting short his visit to the G-8 summit in Italy which had attracted international attention.

 China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has reinforced the same thesis of China’s appeasement of terrorists. There seems tacit arrangement where as long as these Pakistan based terrorist outfits do not support separatists in China’s Muslim-majority restive Xinjiang and do not disrupt its projects under its flagship CPEC, Beijing would continue to protect them from being censored by international community. Internally, China has sought to manage Xinjiang using surveillance technologies, power display and millions of  Uyghurs are reported to be in internment re-education camps. How can India counter it remains the puzzle that needs serious rethinking on its strategies.

(The author is professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament at School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Aditi Bhaduri

See author's posts