Pakistan categorically rejects ‘gratuitous’ Japan-India joint statement

New Delhi’s ‘cross-border terrorism’ mantra an attempt to divert world’s attention from rights violations in IOK: FO


News Desk December 02, 2019
Foreign Office Spokesperson Dr Muhammad Faisal. PHOTO: FILE

Pakistan has categorically rejected a reference to Pakistan in a recently issued Japan-India joint statement, terming it “gratuitous and completely unwarranted”.

In a foreign and defence ministerial dialogue between India and Japan on November 30, the two countries had referred to the “threat posed to regional security by terrorist networks operating out of Pakistan and called upon it to take resolute and irreversible action against them and fully comply with international commitments including to FATF”.

The Foreign Office, in a statement issued on Monday, strongly rejected the move and conveyed its serious concerns over the unacceptable reference to Pakistan to the Japanese side through diplomatic channels.

Sweden joins chorus to denounce India’s lockdown in occupied Kashmir

“India’s animus towards Pakistan and its smear campaign in the context of alleged ‘cross-border terrorism’ is well-known to the world,” read the statement. “Among other things, these are part of a longstanding design to divert the world’s attention from India’s illegal actions and gross and systematic violations of human rights in Indian Occupied Jammu and Kashmir,” it added.

The Foreign Office said that India’s relentless attempts to politicise the FATF proceedings are also in the knowledge of the international community, including the broader FATF membership.

“It is important that partner countries take an objective and balanced view of the issues of peace and security in South Asia and refrain from endorsing positions that are one-sided and divorced from ground realities,” it said.

“We will continue to firmly counter the Indian smear and propaganda.”

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ