Diplomacy before democracy: ‘Pakistan should have supported China in UN Syria vote’

Senator Salim Saifullah says the Pakistani envoy should have considered the brotherly Sino-Pak relations.


Our Correspondent February 12, 2012

PESHAWAR: In the United Nations Security Council’s vote on Syria, Pakistan should have supported China keeping in view its brotherly relations with the neighbour, Senator Salim Saifullah has said.

Saifullah, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters at his residence in Peshawar on Sunday that when China vetoed the resolution on Syria, the Pakistani envoy should have supported China instead of voting against Syria. He said that as the committee chairperson, he would call a meeting and discuss the matter with other panel members.

The senator also spoke about the US Congressmen’s hearing on Balochistan, saying his party the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (Likeminded) condemned the move as it amounted to direct interference by the US in Pakistan’s affairs. He also took the opportunity to reiterate condemnation of drone strikes, calling them in complete violation of international rules, and reaffirming the view that Nato supplies must remain suspended until drone attacks are halted completely.

However, he used US as a positive example when discussing election of the president and Senators. Saifullah also suggested that to avoid “horse-trading”, presidential and Senate polls should be reformed and the ordinary Pakistani should be given the opportunity to elect the president and members of the Senate, similar to the pattern followed for general elections.

COMMENTS (9)

Abdul Majeed | 12 years ago | Reply

Arab Allies? Arab lies,

Riaz Haq | 12 years ago | Reply

Pakistan did the right thing. Pakistanis' and Chinese interests do not always align on every issue. In this instance, Pakistan's interests are better served by joining its Arab allies in the Arab League.

VIEW MORE 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