Contextual Overview

The global campaign against terrorism is often depicted as a coordinated and principled effort, led by international institutions such as the United Nations (UN). However, recent developments have revealed a jarring contradiction that threatens the very credibility of this framework. Pakistan—a nation long accused of fostering and sheltering terrorist organisations—has been granted leadership roles within UN committees specifically mandated to counter terrorism. This appointment not only calls into question the integrity of the UN but also carries significant implications for regional stability and global security.

Pakistan’s Deep-Rooted Terror Infrastructure

·       For decades, Pakistan has been repeatedly accused of using terrorism as an instrument of state policy. Its role in harbouring and supporting extremist groups is extensively documented. Perhaps the most symbolic example remains the discovery of Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, located just a short distance from Pakistan’s military academy. Beyond this, Pakistan has provided direct support to groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), both of which are involved in repeated cross-border attacks.

·       Notable incidents underscore this pattern. The 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Pulwama bombing in 2019, and the Pahalgam attack in April 2025 all point to a sustained campaign of terrorism emanating from Pakistani soil. India’s response to the latest attack—Operation Sindoor—highlighted the depth of this entrenched infrastructure. Evidence of state complicity is reinforced by the attendance of Pakistani officials at the funerals of militants and the continued public influence of UN-designated terrorists like Hafiz Saeed, who remains politically active despite formal claims of imprisonment. These developments solidify Pakistan’s reputation as a persistent enabler of terrorism rather than a state committed to its eradication.

The UN’s Paradoxical Appointments

·       In stark contradiction to its own mandates, the United Nations has elevated Pakistan to prominent positions within its counter-terrorism apparatus. In June 2025, Pakistan was appointed chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee and vice-chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee. The following month, it assumed the rotating presidency of the UN Security Council. These decisions are reminiscent of previous controversies, such as Libya chairing the Human Rights Commission and Saudi Arabia leading the Women’s Rights Commission—instances where political appointments undermined institutional integrity.

·       Four core issues arise from this dissonance. First, Pakistan’s actions directly contradict the objectives of the committees it now leads, thereby eroding the very purpose of these institutions. Second, the weak standards of vetting are evident in Pakistan’s removal from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list in 2022, despite ongoing concerns about its role in terror financing. Third, geopolitical self-interest—especially among powerful states—continues to eclipse moral imperatives, enabling such appointments in the name of strategic convenience. Fourth, these actions set a dangerous precedent by rewarding duplicity and conveying that diplomatic branding can outweigh actual conduct on the ground.

·       These contradictions were further magnified when, in May 2025, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $1 billion loan to Pakistan. This move raised concerns that international financial assistance could inadvertently be diverted to sustain the very terror networks the UN is tasked with dismantling.

Implications for India and Global Security

·       The elevation of Pakistan within UN counter-terror bodies severely undermines India’s longstanding efforts to expose Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. With new institutional clout, Pakistan is now in a position to reshape global narratives, deflect accusations, and potentially block or weaken sanctions aimed at its proxy networks. It also gains a strategic advantage in influencing international engagement with the Taliban regime, while simultaneously projecting itself as a responsible and cooperative global actor.

·       For India, the challenge is both strategic and diplomatic. It must navigate Pakistan’s institutional leverage within the UN while maintaining pressure through bilateral and multilateral channels. This requires actively engaging with key members of the UN Security Council to counterbalance Pakistan’s influence and continually spotlighting Pakistan’s links to terrorism in international forums. Strengthening diplomatic ties with Afghanistan, particularly through humanitarian and developmental initiatives, may help reduce Pakistan’s leverage over the Taliban. Additionally, India must lead a global information campaign involving media outlets, academic institutions, and diaspora communities to expose Pakistan’s duplicity and demand accountability. On the security front, enhancing intelligence, cyber-defence, and surveillance capabilities is critical to counter asymmetric threats exacerbated by this geopolitical shift.

The UN’s Eroding Credibility

·       The UN’s decision to entrust Pakistan with leadership roles in counter-terrorism efforts reflects a deeper institutional crisis. By overlooking Pakistan’s well-documented ties to terrorism, the UN risks not only damaging its credibility but also alienating nations and individuals who have been victims of extremist violence. More fundamentally, it undermines the moral foundation upon which international governance is supposed to stand.

·       This situation is emblematic of a broader malaise within global institutions: a selective morality where political expediency often trumps ethical coherence. When strategic alignments dictate appointments, irrespective of conduct, the legitimacy of those institutions begins to erode. Victims of terrorism are left disillusioned, while state sponsors of terror are effectively legitimised and emboldened.

Conclusion: The Global Stakes of UN Complicity

·       Pakistan’s ascent to leadership within the UN’s counter-terrorism framework exemplifies the growing chasm between rhetoric and reality in international governance. For India, the immediate task is to resist this diplomatic manoeuvre and continue pressing the global community to acknowledge the security threat such decisions represent. However, the stakes extend well beyond the India-Pakistan equation.

·       This is ultimately a test of the UN’s ability to serve as a credible, impartial institution in the global fight against terrorism. If state sponsors of extremism are permitted to shape the very mechanisms designed to combat terror, then the world risks normalising what it should be trying to eliminate. In such a scenario, extremism is not merely tolerated—it is tacitly legitimised, with potentially catastrophic consequences for global peace and security.