Pakistan: Afghanistan’s ambassador from ousted government should vacate U.N. seat: FM Qureshi

Qureshi

NEW YORK, Sep 26 (APP): Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, said in an interview with The New York Times published Sunday that the Afghanistan’s ambassador in the United Nations from Afghanistan’s toppled regime had no standing and that the war-torn country’s seat at the U.N. should remain vacant for now.

Ghulam Isaczai, who so far remains the officially recognized envoy of Afghanistan at the U.N., is listed to speak in the General Assembly on Monday when the 193-member body concludes its high-level debate.

Isaczai was appointed by former Afghan president Ashraf Ghani a couple of months before the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Taliban have requested that Suhail Shaheen, the Taliban spokesman in Doha replace Isaczai and be permitted to speak at the General Assembly.

In the interview, FM Qureshi said it remained to be seen whether the Taliban’s request was justified. But he also said Isaczai’s right to represent Afghanistan at the United Nations was not defensible because his government had collapsed and its president, Ashraf Ghani, had fled abroad.

“Who is he speaking for?” FM Qureshi asked about Isaczai. The best short-term solution for Afghanistan’s U.N. seat, he said, is “keep it empty.”

He also dismissed the idea of even talking to Isaczai. “What good would it do?” he said. “To me he’s of no use.”

U.N. Spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in an emailed message that “as for now, the Afghanistan representative inscribed on the list for Monday is H.E. Mr. Ghulam M. Isaczai.”

The question over who should be Afghanistan’s rightful representative at the United Nations is to be taken up by the General Assembly’s Credentials Committee, a nine-member group that includes China, Russia and the United States.

The Committee is not expected to address the question until October or later, according to the report. “While Pakistan is not on the committee, Mr. Qureshi’s views on the matter are important because his country is one of Afghanistan’s most influential neighbours, with significant impact on its trajectory under Taliban control,” wrote correspondent Rick Gladstone, who interviewed the foreign minister before his departure for London on Saturday.

While not endorsing the Taliban’s request for U.N. representation, FM Qureshi told the newspaper that he had seen indications of improved stability in Afghanistan since the American withdrawal nearly a month ago after 20 years of war and occupation.

He further said that, to his surprise, there had been no sign of a feared descent into civil war in Afghanistan over the Taliban’s victory — at least not yet. Nor had Pakistan seen an influx of Afghanistan citizens surge across the border, he said, while offering the reminder that Pakistan already houses millions of refugees from the protracted upheaval in its western neighbour.
“We do not have the capacity to absorb more,” he said.

Although Pakistan has erected a security fence along the frontier with Afghanistan, Qureshi said, “the border is open at the moment,” and that “because of that improved situation, people have started to move back.”

Still, the foreign minister allowed for the possibility that a humanitarian and economic collapse in Afghanistan remained a real threat.

Qureshi, who has been attending the United Nations General Assembly this week, spoke with The Times, not just about the crisis in Replying to questions, the foreign minister described Pakistan as a “supportive ally” of the United States — both during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and the abrupt American pullout. Any notion that Pakistan had worked against the United States, Qureshi said, was misinformed.

The U.N. Security Council has said that the Taliban must form an inclusive government, protect the rights of women, girls and minorities, prevent terrorist groups from using Afghanistan as a base, allow the free flow of humanitarian aid and permit the exit of all who wish to leave.

FM Qureshi said Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers “are not unaware” of the international community’s expectations concerning their standard of behaviour.

“Obviously they’ll be judged,” he said. “I think they are beginning to understand.”