Context

• The global fight against terrorism is often portrayed as a unified front, spearheaded by international bodies such as the United Nations (UN).
• Yet recent developments have exposed troubling contradictions at the heart of this struggle.
• Pakistan, a country long accused of sponsoring and sheltering terrorist organisations, has been granted leadership positions within the very UN committees designed to combat terrorism.
• This paradox not only undermines the credibility of the UN but also poses serious risks to regional and global security.

Pakistan’s Terror Infrastructure

• For decades, Pakistan has been accused of nurturing terrorism as a tool of state policy.
• From harbouring Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, just a short distance from its military academy, to providing direct support for groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), its role is well documented.
• High-profile incidents such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the 2019 Pulwama bombing, and the April 2025 Pahalgam attack highlight a sustained pattern of cross-border terrorism nurtured on Pakistani soil.
• India’s response to the latest attack, Operation Sindoor, underscored the entrenched nature of this terror infrastructure.
• Further evidence came from the presence of Pakistani officials at the funerals of slain militants, demonstrating institutional complicity.
• The continuing prominence of UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed, who remains politically and socially active despite his supposed imprisonment, reinforces Pakistan’s status as a terror shelter.

The UN’s Contradictory Decisions

• Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s elevation to leadership roles in the UN’s counter-terrorism mechanisms is deeply troubling.
• In June 2025, Pakistan was appointed to chair the Taliban Sanctions Committee and serve as vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
• By July, it even assumed the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council.
• These decisions echo earlier controversies, such as Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission or Saudi Arabia leading the Women’s Rights Commission.
• Four key issues emerge:
  • Contradiction of Mandates: Pakistan’s sponsorship of terror groups directly violates the objectives of the UN committees it now leads.
  • Weak Vetting Standards: Its removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in 2022 despite ongoing concerns about terror financing reflects systemic leniency.
  • Geopolitical Bias: Major powers often prioritise strategic or economic interests over moral imperatives, enabling Pakistan’s ascent.
  • Dangerous Precedent: Rewarding duplicity legitimises state-sponsored terrorism and sends the message that diplomatic packaging can outweigh security realities.
• The situation was compounded when the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $1 billion loan for Pakistan in May 2025, sparking concerns that the funds might be diverted to sustain terror networks.

Implications for India and Global Security

• The UN’s decisions undermine India’s efforts to highlight Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
• With a foothold in UN counter-terrorism bodies, Pakistan can shape global narratives, deflect accusations, and even obstruct sanctions against its proxy groups.
• It also gains leverage to weaken India’s diplomatic engagement with the Taliban regime and project itself as a responsible international actor.
• For India, the challenge is twofold: neutralising Pakistan’s diplomatic manoeuvres while simultaneously reinforcing its own security.
• Countermeasures must include:
  • Leveraging alliances with UNSC members to balance Pakistan’s influence.
  • Highlighting Pakistan’s terror links in global forums and pushing for stringent accountability.
  • Deepening engagement with Afghanistan, including humanitarian aid missions, to reduce Pakistan’s sway over the Taliban.
  • Launching a global information campaign through media, academia, and diaspora networks to expose Pakistan’s duplicity.
  • Strengthening intelligence and cyber-security frameworks to mitigate asymmetric threats.

The UN’s Crisis of Integrity

• The UN’s willingness to overlook Pakistan’s terror links raises profound questions about its moral compass and credibility.
• By placing Pakistan in charge of counter-terrorism, the UN risks undermining its own authority, alienating victims of terrorism, and emboldening state sponsors of extremism.
• The appointment also reflects a larger pattern of selective morality in international governance, where political convenience trumps ethical consistency.

Conclusion

• The paradox of Pakistan’s elevation to UN counter-terrorism leadership illustrates the dangerous gap between rhetoric and reality in global governance.
• For India, the challenge lies not just in managing Pakistan’s duplicity but also in ensuring that the international community recognises the threat such decisions pose to collective security.
• Ultimately, the issue is larger than India or Pakistan: it is about whether the UN can remain a credible arbiter in the fight against terrorism.
• If state sponsors of terror are allowed to dictate the global counter-terrorism agenda, the world risks legitimising extremism instead of eradicating it.