India successfully countered Pakistan’s attempts to leverage its presidency at the United Nations Security Council, demonstrating strategic clarity and diplomatic maturity in the face of Islamabad’s narrative on Kashmir.
General Asim Munir, the de facto ruler of Pakistan, recently issued a stark warning on American soil, threatening that Pakistan could take half the world down with its nuclear weapons. This statement came shortly after Pakistan’s foreign ministry struggled to defend the nation’s peace credentials at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), highlighting the paradox of a military dictatorship attempting to present itself as a democratic state.
In the wake of India’s precision strikes under Operation Sindoor, which were a response to the Pahalgam terror attack, Pakistan sought to use its presidency of the UNSC to shed its label as the “epicentre of global terrorism.” This presidency marked a significant moment, as it was the only opportunity during its two-year term as a non-permanent member to occupy this rotating office.
Pakistan aimed to project itself as a champion of international law, multilateralism, and peace-making. Its presidency focused on three primary themes: the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, cooperation between the UNSC and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the situation in the Middle East. However, the overarching goal was to advance its distorted narrative regarding Kashmir.
Despite not holding a seat at the UNSC’s horseshoe table, India effectively shaped the discussions and ensured that the procedural and political landscape did not favor Pakistan’s agenda. This situation exemplified how strategic clarity and mature diplomacy can triumph over tactical posturing.
Pakistan’s first significant event during its presidency was a High-Level Open Debate on “Promoting International Peace and Security through Multilateralism and Peaceful Settlement of Disputes.” However, it refrained from explicitly mentioning Kashmir in the Zero Draft circulated to Council members, aware that such a reference would not gain support. Instead, Pakistan attempted to invoke Chapter VI to seek “effective enforcement” of past UNSC resolutions, trying to insert its narrative into the Council’s agenda.
Chapter VI of the UN Charter emphasizes the need for parties to resolve disputes through peaceful means such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Notably, the resolutions under this chapter, including those from 1948 regarding Kashmir, are recommendatory and not binding. India has consistently maintained that these resolutions are superseded by the 1972 Simla Agreement, which commits both nations to settle their differences through bilateral negotiations.
Following Operation Sindoor and India’s suspension of the Indus Water Treaty, Pakistan announced its own suspension of adherence to the Simla Agreement. Its push to reshape UN “jurisprudence” for third-party mediation through UNSC Resolution 2788 was less about genuine peaceful settlement and more about repackaging a discredited agenda. However, procedural privilege could not replace geopolitical credibility.
India’s diplomatic outreach ensured that the resolution adopted on July 22 remained firmly anchored in Chapter VI. It urged all Member States to utilize mechanisms for peaceful dispute resolution as outlined in Article 33 of the UN Charter. The resolution requested the Secretary-General to provide recommendations for strengthening these mechanisms one year after its adoption, but it ultimately added nothing binding or case-specific.
Despite its efforts, Pakistan attempted to align the resolution with its Kashmir agenda, mentioning it alongside Palestine. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar claimed that the country remained “steadfast in its desire for peace” and reiterated that Jammu and Kashmir is an “internationally recognized disputed territory.” He also highlighted principles that Pakistan sought to include in the resolution but failed to do so.
In contrast, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN, P. Harish, effectively dismantled Pakistan’s claims of being a peace-loving nation. He contrasted India’s democratic values, economic growth, and inclusive society with Pakistan’s history of fanaticism and terrorism. Harish emphasized that conflicts have evolved, often involving non-state actors supported by cross-border funding and radical ideologies.
He reminded the Council that it is the “parties to a dispute” who must first seek peaceful solutions and that there should be consequences for states that engage in cross-border terrorism. Citing the UNSC’s statement following the Pahalgam attack, he noted that India acted in accordance with the call for justice against perpetrators and sponsors of terrorism.
India’s role as a significant contributor to UN peacekeeping efforts and its status as a founding member of the United Nations were acknowledged during the discussions. As a leading voice for the Global South, India raised concerns about the potential ineffectiveness of an unreformed Security Council and asserted the necessity of zero tolerance for terrorism.
Pakistan’s second attempt to influence the UNSC came on July 24 with a “Briefing on Cooperation between the UN and OIC.” This aligned with Pakistan’s ongoing campaign to position the OIC as a regional organization that could intervene in UNSC deliberations. However, India successfully blocked these efforts, asserting that the OIC lacks the geographic scope and specific peace-and-security mandate necessary for such a role.
Through strategic engagement with key partners, India ensured that the Presidential statement issued by the UNSC remained neutral and did not affirm the OIC as a regional organization. The statement merely requested the Secretary-General to include recommendations for cooperation with the OIC in future reports, without establishing any new processes or mechanisms.
On July 23, Pakistan convened a “Quarterly Open Debate on the Middle East,” focusing on Gaza. India took a principled humanitarian stance, calling for restraint and condemning terrorism while reaffirming support for a negotiated two-state solution. This approach preempted any claims to moral high ground from Pakistan and demonstrated India’s capacity to contribute meaningfully beyond its immediate region.
In parallel, India showcased a positive agenda, emphasizing its role in global peace and development. Just before Pakistan’s presidency, India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar inaugurated a digital exhibition on “The Human Cost of Terrorism,” documenting attacks worldwide, thereby making a strong case against state-enabled terrorism without naming specific countries.
Ultimately, while Pakistan’s presidency was rich in symbolism, it lacked substantive impact. Its attempts to internationalize the Kashmir issue and project a peaceful image were effectively countered by India, which employed legal precision and strategic restraint. As geopolitical dynamics continue to evolve, India must remain vigilant against any attempts to introduce partisan agendas into UNSC discussions, ensuring the primacy of bilateral frameworks in its relations with Pakistan.
Source: Original article