- Ambassador Bilal Ahmad says India’s ‘reckless actions’ brought region to brink of a nuclear conflict in May
- Emphazsizes Pakistan exercised self-defence under UN Charter after downing seven Indian aircraft
- Envoy calls for revival of dialogue, arms control, and Strategic Restraint Regime to prevent escalation
NEW YORK/ISLAMABAD:: Pakistan on Friday urged the United Nations to take note of India’s continuing threats to launch fresh strikes against Pakistan despite its “humiliating defeat” in the May conflict, warning that such belligerence undermines regional peace, stability, and global efforts toward risk reduction.
Speaking at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee, which deals with disarmament and international security matters, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva, Ambassador Bilal Ahmad, said South Asia was once again brought to the brink when India launched an unprovoked military assault against Pakistan in May — using dual-capable missiles, autonomous loitering munitions, and fighter aircraft in violation of the UN Charter and international law.
“This marked the first-ever use of such capabilities by one nuclear-armed state against another,” Ambassador Ahmad said.
He said Pakistan had exercised its right of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, responding precisely by downing seven Indian aircraft and compelling India to seek a ceasefire facilitated by US President Donald Trump and supported by several other friendly countries.
“Notwithstanding this humiliating defeat, the Indian leadership persists in describing these reckless actions as the ‘new normal’ in South Asia, vowing to strike Pakistan again whenever it chooses,” he cautioned.
The envoy noted that Indian political and military leaders continue to make provocative statements about “changing geography” and “erasing Pakistan from the map,” warning that such rhetoric reflects a dangerous delusion that one nuclear-armed state could annihilate another. “Is this ‘new abnormal’ acceptable in a region where two nuclear powers live side by side?” he asked.
Ambassador Ahmad said India continues to evade dialogue on nuclear and missile restraint, ignoring proposals for risk-reduction measures and demonstrating conduct “unbecoming of a responsible custodian of nuclear weapons.” The last formal talks on nuclear and conventional confidence-building measures, he said, were held more than a decade ago.
“Since then, emboldened by its perceived military and technological asymmetry, India has treated dialogue not as a responsibility, but as an instrument of coercion and leverage,” he remarked.
Reaffirming Pakistan’s commitment to peace, Ambassador Ahmad reiterated Islamabad’s readiness for a composite, comprehensive, and result-oriented dialogue with India on all outstanding issues—including Jammu and Kashmir—in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions.
He said Pakistan’s longstanding proposal for a Strategic Restraint Regime (SRR) aimed at preventing an arms race in South Asia “remains on the table.”
Turning to global concerns, Ambassador Ahmad condemned the increasing resort to the unilateral use of force, citing the ongoing war in Gaza as “a stain on the collective conscience of the international community.” He welcomed the announcement of an agreement on the first phase of peace efforts, expressing hope that it would lead to a permanent ceasefire and lasting peace.
At the global level, he warned that nuclear arsenals are being modernized, destabilising technologies developed, and new domains weaponized, while the world’s arms control architecture continues to erode. “Even the last remaining bilateral arms control agreement is set to expire early next year,” he cautioned.
Calling for a durable and equitable international peace and security framework, Ambassador Ahmad rejected the proposal for a treaty banning only the production of fissile materials, saying it would perpetuate existing asymmetries by ignoring several metric tonnes of existing stockpiles capable of producing thousands of new nuclear weapons.
“Such proposals that are cost-free for their proponents but disregard the legitimate security needs of others will remain a non-starter,” he concluded.
