Pakistan’s Case At The UN On Syria – OpEd
The Pakistani nation in the Security Council at the UN on Syria and chemical weapons can be described as simply a stand, which is locally grounded on a whim, chemical weapons is a red line that cannot be crossed by anyone as a political tool that can be used at the right moment. The position of the Acting Permanent Representative of the Pakistan to the UN (Middle East) (Syria and chemical weapon) tried to have two truths simultaneously. Firstly, the international community should be merciless towards chemical weapons. Second, because the application of the principle is consequential, because selective pressure, politicized research and military development can be detrimental to verification and peace.
The first and the most evident argument of the Pakistani is categorical, the use of chemical weapons is not admissible under any circumstances and at any time. Those wording matters. It rejects the attempt to make the condemnation soft on either side whether the condemned person is on oneself or an enemy of oneself, whether the scene of the battle is on oneself or an enemy of oneself, whether loyalty is to the condemned person or to the self itself. In a controversial war as with Syria, where accusations are sometimes said to be being pushed as high as the facts, Pakistan has opted to transform the very norm into a sacred one. The use of a chemical weapon is not a weapon, it is a blotch on the international security, a threat to the civilians and sheer challenge to the broad international system prohibition that had spent decades to achieve.
It is due to the latter that Pakistan is now a firm advocate of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and the Organisation of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Once again, it is the element that many states talk and fail to practice, in other words, the element of impartiality that Pakistan underlines. The credibility of OPCW is anchored on the fact that it is considered a technical institution that follows the evidence, applies the standards to all the standards equally, and is not influenced by the political pressure. Pakistan message is that the convention is not to be turned into a club and this should be applied on certain states and others should be left scot-free. The treaty should not be applied non discriminately, but it is the only way that the treaty can be legitimate. When countries feel that the mechanism is one sided, then the degree of cooperation decreases and rather than becoming easier to confirm, it becomes harder.
In the meantime, there is a warning positively positive signal on the diplomatic route to Syria by Pakistan. The mere presence of welcoming new political action including the visit of the Security Council to Damascus is a credit shown to one of the most fundamental realities that wars come to an end when politics starts to do its true task once again. The Security Council visit is not a panacea, yet it could heal the line, reduce the misinterpretation and give room to execute the technical development of the sensitive files like the chemical weaponry. The broader case of Pakistan seems to consist in the fact that diplomacy is not a sort of side show to verification: it is often the precondition of it.
Other elements that create the policy of Pakistan on Syria are sovereignty and territorial integrity. By supporting Syria unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity, and insisting that, no political process should be alien-owned and alien-led, places Pakistan at a more favourable position to join those states that are averse to externally imposed outcomes. It is not just a stand of principles, but stability. The broken states are becoming the centres of proxy wars, smuggle weapons and extremists. More fissure of Syria would not only cause more misery to the Syrians, but would also spread insecurity to other states. In the case of Pakistan, the framing of Syria that was spearheaded by the Syrian is to avoid the risk of turning the peace talks to a contest over foreign preference.
Pakistan may be regarded as having its own grievances regarding the uninterrupted Israeli occupation and military attacks on Syria, as it is the way to undermine the security of Syria and hinder the technical activities of OPCW. The link is practical. The verification teams are not effective in the setting whereby the airstrikes, escalation or controlled control results in a threat and limited access. Though the stated aim of a strike is not going to be of a chemical nature, imbalance is also likely to intervene in the actions, slack down the check-ups and cement the political arguments. In other words, an attempt to scale Syria into a permanent war position pulls the Asian world in the vice versa direction in the event that the target is to close the chemical weapons file.
The other threat indicated by Pakistan is the existence of terrorism and foreign terrorist fighters. It is not an ordinary or generic line of talking. In Syria, terror group has been operating in an unorganized setting, in which accountability is minimal and citizens at the end of the receiving side. Terrorism complicates it in the case of the chemical weapons. It enhances the likelihood of the threat of dangerous material being intercepted, carried, or packed. It creates impetus to deceive. It makes chain of custody a hard task. The taken focus is that of Pakistan that means there is belief that verification cannot be outside of the larger framework of security as armed non state entities are able to destroy not only peace but also technical endings.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
