Pakistan, a nation with evidence of terror links, has been allowed to oversee global counter-terrorism efforts at the United Nations.

Pakistan’s History and Evidence of State-Sponsored Terror

• Sheltering Terrorists: Osama Bin Laden was found near Pakistan’s military academy.
• Support for Groups: Pakistan supports and trains groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
• Major Attacks: Links connect Pakistan to the 26/11 Mumbai attacks (handled by Lakhvi), the 2019 Pulwama attack, and the 2025 Pahalgam attack (which prompted India’s Operation Sindoor).
• Rewarding Terrorists: Hafeez Saeed (UN designated terrorist) roams freely. 
  • Pakistani Army/Police attended terrorist funerals after Operation Sindoor, and the government announced 14 crore compensation for terrorist families (including relatives of Masood Azhar), providing terrorists with the status of martyrs.

Pakistan’s Role in UN Anti-Terror Bodies (June–July 2025)

• Taliban Sanctions Committee (UNSC): Pakistan was included and made its Chairman. This committee monitors sanctions on the Taliban.
• Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC): Pakistan was appointed Vice Chair. This committee sets a global anti-terrorism policy.
• UNSC Presidency: Pakistan assumed the Presidency of the UN Security Council for the month of July 2025.
• International Monetary Fund (IMF) Loan: The IMF provided Pakistan with $1 billion in May 2025 despite fears of terror financing.

Reasons Behind the UN’s Decisions on Appointments

• Geopolitical Priorities: The UN prioritized geopolitical considerations (potentially due to support from powerful countries like China) over moral dilemmas and security records.
• Weak Vetting: International bodies lack sufficient waiting processes to properly scrutinize counter-terrorism records.
• Strategic Gain: Major powers (like the US and China) often support Pakistan based on their own economic or strategic advantage.
• Diplomatic Duplicity: Pakistan is skilled at using diplomatic language to sugar-coat its actions and portray itself as a victim, even claiming victory in wars it lost (1965, 1971, Kargil).

India’s Strategic Response to Pakistan’s Global Diplomacy

• Impact on India: Pakistan may use these platforms to present itself as a responsible nation and label India as an aggressor (e.g., alleging India supports terror in Balochistan). This can undermine India’s efforts to label Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism.
• Building Alliances: India must collaborate with like-minded countries (e.g., France, UK) to influence international decisions.
• Active Participation in UN Bodies: India should engage actively in UN bodies to expose Pakistan’s record and counter its narrative.
• Engagement With Taliban: India should deepen ties with the Taliban regime — e.g., through humanitarian aid missions in Kabul — to counter Pakistan’s influence in the Taliban Sanctions Committee.
• International Awareness Campaign: India must proactively launch a global campaign involving media, academia, and the diaspora to expose Pakistan’s terror links and demand accountability.
• Strengthen National Security: Pakistan’s diplomatic gains may encourage asymmetric warfare, infiltration, and cyber-attacks; hence, India must bolster its national security and intelligence networks.
• Proactive Diplomacy: While caution has guided India’s response to appointments, proactive diplomacy is essential to maintain India’s narrative on the global stage.

Conclusion

As EAM S. Jaishankar emphasized, the true threat lies not in the existence of terrorism sponsors, but in the world’s indifference—pretending it does not matter that Pakistan occupies these roles, thereby undermining global security and accountability.

DOWNLOAD PDF