From peacekeeper to harbinger of terror? – Firstpost

Hardly anyone expects anything at all from the United Nations, especially given its irrelevance in Ukraine or Gaza or anywhere else. But this week it outdid itself in its utter mediocrity. Recently, Pakistan was chosen to chair not just the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN but will also co-chair the 1373 Counter Terrorism Committee. However, this is far less than Pakistan demanded, it asked to lead four committees and got a single chairmanship of only one.

Consider the irony that the UN was set up after the Second World War to maintain a semblance of peace after the utter failure of its predecessor, the League of Nations, formed after the First War. The UN seems to be headed the same way, as wars break out in all forms and levels of violence.

Pakistan Gets a Chair

Pakistan was elected last year as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council for a period of two years, that is, till it ends its term in 2026. Earlier, it received a comfortable mandate to be part of the Security Council, polling 182 of 193 seats. That’s not a surprise, since the voting in the General Assembly is usually by blocs, with the OIC (Organisation of Islamic States) dominating the Council, while it is also part of the Asia-Pacific Regional Group and the G-77.

Pakistan replaced Japan, who contributed some 8 per cent of the UN budget. Pakistan contributes less than one per cent and is a country with some of the highest concentrations of terrorist groups, with 12 of 15
designated by the US. That tells you much more about what the ‘contribution’ of Pakistan is. Meanwhile, Pakistan is among the top contributors to UN peacekeeping, serving in 46 missions in 29 countries. That means a hefty amount in foreign exchange. No details are available for that figure, which is vital to the Pakistani economy.

Pakistan in the Driver’s Seat

Election to chair any UN SC committee naturally requires the assent of all permanent members of the Council, and as of date, no one has been rejected. Neither does the Council have the power to override the General Assembly in its selection of non-permanent members. So while it’s not a
‘foreign policy collapse’, as the Opposition would have it, it’s certainly a matter of concern, not only to India but to other countries in the crosshairs of Pakistani terrorism.

In the ultimate irony, Pakistan – which has waged war on Afghanistan for more than thirty years – is now in the driver’s seat on the 1988 Taliban sanctions committee which is mandated to
impose an assets freeze, a travel ban, and an arms embargo on individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with the Taliban. In other words, a country that devastated Afghanistan for more than three decades is now in the driver’s seat.

The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Baloch Groups will Take a Beating

That would mean trouble for the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which Pakistan has for long been accusing Kabul of supporting. Now expect that the activities of TTP will be highlighted in this and other reports that are produced by the UN Counter Terrorism Committee.

Islamabad has already been busy. Look at the
March Resolution S/RES/2777 (2025) of the Security Council on Afghanistan. It expresses concern about terrorist groups in the country “condemning in the strongest terms all terrorist activity and all terrorist attacks… that the territory of Afghanistan should not be used to threaten or attack any country, to plan or finance terrorist acts, or to shelter and train terrorists, and that no Afghan group or individual should support terrorists operating on the territory of any country…”

It reads like a Pakistani diplomatic memo, especially since earlier UN reports had noted that the Taliban was steadily pursuing nasty groups like the Islamic State to the best of its ability. Then there are Baloch groups who are understood to be sheltering in Afghanistan. Groups like the Balochistan Liberation Army are, for reasons unknown, listed as ‘terrorist’ by the United States. Even as Kabul accuses Pakistan of faulting it for its own terrible internal policies, relations between the two are being smoothed over by the proverbial “foreign hand”.

China Lends a Hand

An ‘informal’ meeting – as in unscheduled – and therefore convened in a hurry for various reasons – was held of the ‘Trilateral’ between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China.
May 21, where Beijing called for seven points for cooperation that included restoring diplomatic relations – which Pakistan promptly announced a week later – promoting the extension of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor to Afghanistan, and strengthening the building of regional connectivity networks; both China and Pakistan would expand trade and support Kabul’s reconstruction; cooperating on terrorism across the board; and most interestingly, advising that all three “stay vigilant against external interference in the internal affairs of regional countries”.

Expect a crackdown soon on the poor Baloch, with Beijing seriously concerned after a spate of attacks virtually
paralysed Gwadar port, caused containers to pile up, and trucks carrying material for the project were set ablaze, even as India-Pakistan tensions climbed. The Baloch declaration of independence was hardly noticed in India, but it was all over Chinese chats. While there is irritation at Islamabad at not being able to do anything for the Baloch, there is also concern that Beijing’s plans for the Belt and Road Initiative are being thwarted.

Sharing a Chair on a Core Committee

Pakistan is also part of the UN’s Counter Terrorism Committee, in which capacity it is now co-chair of the 1373 committee, which is the basic resolution that established the whole UN counter-terror architecture after the 9/11 attack. A key aspect of the resolution is the ‘decision’ (which in UN language means its legal), which bars any financial assistance to terrorist groups, and also that “all States shall refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists.” For one, Pakistan enabled legislation to criminalise terrorist finance only recently, and that too after pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and for the second, it’s self-evident.

As of now, Pakistan is in violation of all four UN Conventions on terrorism and all UN Resolutions on the subject, including 1267 (freezing assets and banning travel of terror-linked individuals like Dawood Ibrahim), Resolution 1373, which is quoted above, Resolution 1269, which requires states to deny safe havens to terrorists, and all the other resolutions linked to these. And it is this country which is chairing a nodal instrument of the UN, which in turn produces reports that were once regarded as completely reliable. Now no more.

The
newest has no mention of the Lashkar-e-Taiba or the Jaish-e-Mohammad; indeed, attempts to get the LeT-proxy Terrorist Resistance Front by Delhi were frustrated by committee members – but it does mention the Baloch Liberation Army. In sum, the UN system has become a travesty of its original mandate and no longer has any relevance at all. True, its many goof-ups are not linked only to Pakistan but also include its posture on the origins of Covid-19, for instance.

In sum, it might be time to wind up a body that is governed by those most inimical to its original intentions. From the time that Jawahar Lal Nehru went to the UN with the Kashmir question searching for justice, the UN has only shown the duplicity of international politics. But nations are after all made up of people, and what is most worrisome is the total collapse of values, where terrorists turn into administrators and, like in Syria, suddenly turn ‘respectable’ ; so it was with the Taliban, and so it is with Pakistan. Terrorists rule. Those who once stood in the dock accused in the ‘War on Terror’ declared by George W Bush are now in the UN coffee room, and officially, there is no terrorism at all anymore. Times do change, but rarely does it stand on its head. Time to end this.

The author is Director (R&A) at the Centre for Land Warfare Studies. She tweets @kartha_tara. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.