Introduction

The global fight against terrorism is rooted in credibility, trust, and collective responsibility. Yet, the United Nations’ recent decision to entrust Pakistan with leadership positions in the Taliban Sanctions Committee and as Vice-Chair of the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Committee has sparked disbelief. For a country long accused of sheltering terrorists, from Osama bin Laden to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad, this appointment is not just ironic but deeply unsettling. Coupled with financial support such as the IMF’s billion-dollar loan to Pakistan despite concerns of terror financing, these developments expose critical vulnerabilities in the UN system. For India, which continues to suffer from cross-border terrorism, this represents a significant diplomatic and security challenge.

Why is this in the news?

Pakistan, accused for decades of harbouring terrorists and backing attacks on Indian soil, has been elevated to leadership in global counter-terrorism mechanisms. The timing is striking: the move came just weeks after the April 2025 Pahalgam attack where terrorists killed Indian tourists, followed by India’s Operation Sindoor against terror launchpads. To add to the irony, Pakistan also assumed the UNSC Presidency in July 2025. This is not the first time the UN has made such questionable appointments (Libya on Human Rights, Saudi Arabia on Women’s Rights), but Pakistan’s case is especially alarming given its record of state-sponsored terror. The decision casts doubt on the UN’s integrity, raises questions about its vetting process, and undermines India’s global campaign to expose Pakistan as a terror sponsor.

How has Pakistan’s role in terrorism been established?

1. Osama bin Laden Shelter: Found in Abbottabad, near Pakistan’s military academy.
2. Cross-border attacks: From the 2008 Mumbai attacks to the 2019 Pulwama bombing and the 2025 Pahalgam attack, evidence points to Pakistan-backed groups.
3. Terror groups supported: Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), and networks across Afghanistan and Balochistan.
4. Public protection of terrorists: Hafiz Saeed, despite being a UN-designated terrorist, continues to appear at PoK launchpads and public events under the watch of Pakistan’s security forces.

Why is Pakistan’s UN role a paradox?

1. Contradiction with objectives: Pakistan’s terror links directly undermine the goals of the Counter-Terrorism Committee.
2. FATF leniency: Removal from the FATF grey list in 2022 despite unresolved financing concerns highlights weak vetting.
3. Geopolitical trade-offs: Powerful nations enable Pakistan’s elevation to secure their own strategic and economic interests.
4. Dangerous precedent: It signals that state-sponsored terror can be diplomatically whitewashed.

What loopholes in the UN system does this expose?

1. Selection flaws: No stringent vetting for compliance with counter-terrorism standards.
2. Inconsistent moral compass: Earlier cases include Libya chairing the UNHRC and Saudi Arabia heading UN Women’s Rights Commission.
3. Financial contradictions: IMF’s $1 billion loan in May 2025, just after the Pahalgam attack, raises ethical red flags.
4. Rewarding duplicity: Pakistan even announced ₹14 crore compensation to families of terrorists, including kin of JeM chief Masood Azhar.

How does this affect India’s security and diplomacy?

1. Narrative war: Pakistan may use its position to shift blame for regional instability onto India.
2. UNSC power play: As vice-chair, Pakistan can obstruct India’s efforts to sanction Pakistan-based terrorists.
3. Taliban equation: Pakistan could derail India’s outreach to the Taliban regime.
4. Increased threats: Likely escalation of infiltration, asymmetric warfare, and cyber-attacks on India.

What counter-measures can India adopt?

1. Diplomatic alliances: Leverage partnerships with UNSC members to balance Pakistan’s influence.
2. Narrative building: Intensify global campaigns via media, academia, and diaspora to expose Pakistan’s duplicity.
3. Engage Taliban directly: Humanitarian missions in Kabul to weaken Pakistan’s monopoly.
4. Security strengthening: Bolster intelligence and counter-infiltration mechanisms.
5. Push for accountability: Advocate for periodic reviews and performance audits of UN counter-terrorism bodies.

Conclusion

The UN’s decision to entrust Pakistan with counter-terrorism roles is more than a diplomatic anomaly, it is a strategic failure with global repercussions. For India, it signifies a heightened threat environment, a greater diplomatic challenge, and a call for proactive global engagement. What begins as “a seat at the table” could soon translate into control over the agenda. The real danger is not Pakistan’s presence in UN committees but the global community pretending it does not matter.

UPSC Relevance

[UPSC 2015] Terrorist activities and mutual distrust have clouded India-Pakistan relations. To what extent the use of soft power like sports and cultural exchanges could help generate goodwill between the two countries? Discuss with suitable examples.

Linkage: Pakistan’s elevation to UN counter-terrorism roles despite its proven terror links deepens mutual distrust with India, underscoring why soft power avenues like sports and cultural exchanges remain fragile yet essential tools to rebuild limited goodwill.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now