Answer

Introduction

The recent inclusion of Pakistan in prominent UN counter-terrorism bodies exposes the paradox in global counter-terrorism governance, where states with documented links to terror networks can shape international counter-terror policy. This not only undermines the credibility of the UN system but also complicates India’s efforts to address cross-border terrorism, highlighting the need for robust national and multilateral strategies.

Body

Credibility Gaps in the Global Counter-Terrorism Framework

• Appointment of States with Terror Links: Allowing Pakistan to participate in counter-terrorism decision-making undermines the legitimacy of UN committees.
  Eg: UN reports and FATF grey-listing have cited Pakistan for supporting groups like Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba.
• Inconsistent Enforcement of Sanctions: Global bodies often fail to implement punitive measures uniformly, weakening deterrence.
  Eg: Despite UN resolutions, Pakistan-based entities like Hafiz Saeed’s Jamaat-ud-Dawa continue operations.
• Political Influence Overrides Merit: Geopolitics often outweighs counter-terrorism credibility in committee appointments.
  Eg: China’s support for Pakistan in UN bodies has allowed Pakistan to occupy strategic positions despite FATF grey-listing.
• Limited Accountability Mechanisms: UN committees lack robust follow-up to ensure compliance by member states.
  Eg: Pakistan continues cross-border terrorism in Kashmir despite repeated UNSC resolutions (Resolutions 1267, 1373).
• Fragmented Global Cooperation: Disagreements among key powers hinder collective action against terror networks.
  Eg: Divergent US-China positions have stalled effective global sanctions against Pakistan-based terror outfits.

Countermeasures India Should Adopt

• Diplomatic Advocacy: Intensify lobbying within the UN, FATF, and G20 to expose Pakistan’s state-sponsored terrorism.
  Eg: India successfully led efforts to keep Pakistan on FATF grey-list (2018–2022).
• Strengthening UNSC & UN Collaboration: Push for reforms in counter-terrorism committees to enhance accountability and merit-based membership.
  Eg: India’s campaign for a permanent UNSC seat emphasizes responsible participation in global security matters.
• Leveraging Intelligence & Multilateral Platforms: Share credible intelligence with international partners to prevent terror financing and proliferation.
  Eg: India’s MEA coordinated with the US and UAE to freeze accounts linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed funding.
• Targeted Counter-Terror Operations & Border Security: Enhance counter-terrorism preparedness and monitoring along vulnerable borders.
  Eg: Surgical strikes (2016) and cross-border intelligence operations in Kashmir have mitigated Pakistan-based threats.
• Strengthening Domestic Legal & Financial Frameworks: Tighten anti-money laundering, terror financing laws, and ensure robust enforcement of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
  Eg: Indian authorities froze accounts linked to terror funding via NGOs or hawala networks.
• Strategic Alliances: Deepen security cooperation with like-minded countries for intelligence sharing, joint exercises, and counter-terrorism technology.
  Eg: India–US, India–Israel, and India–France collaborations in intelligence and counter-terror tech.
  

Conclusion

Pakistan’s elevation to UN counter-terrorism committees underscores the credibility deficit in global counter-terrorism efforts. India must adopt a multi-pronged approach combining diplomatic advocacy, intelligence sharing, legal measures, and regional alliances to protect its security and uphold the integrity of international counter-terrorism norms.

DOWNLOAD PDF