Calling the Global Bluff: How the World Ignores Pakistan’s State-Sponsored Terrorism

Introduction

For decades, the global community—including the United Nations, United States, United Kingdom, China, and even institutions like the World Bank—has adopted a willful blindness toward one of the world’s worst-kept secrets: the Pakistani state’s patronage of terrorism. Despite overwhelming evidence, repeated transgressions, and catastrophic consequences, the world’s major powers and supranational bodies have consistently shielded or enabled Pakistan, often citing geopolitical compulsions. This article dissects the hypocrisy and provides a factual account of Pakistan’s record, the world’s duplicity, and the dangerous precedent it sets.

I. The Evidence: Pakistan’s State-Sponsored Terrorism

A. The Genesis: Afghan Jihad and the Birth of the “Deep State”

• The seeds of Pakistan’s support for terrorism were sown during the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), when the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan’s ISI collaborated to arm and train mujahideen fighters. This covert alliance gave birth to a vast militant infrastructure within Pakistan.
• After the war, these networks were repurposed—often with ISI’s active involvement—to wage asymmetric warfare in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

B. Safe Haven for Global Terrorists

• Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, was found living in Abbottabad—less than a kilometer from Pakistan’s elite military academy. The U.S. operation Neptune Spear in May 2011 exposed not just bin Laden’s location, but the sheer improbability that Pakistan’s military-intelligence complex was unaware of his presence.
• Taliban leadership, including Mullah Omar and later the “Quetta Shura,” operated openly from Pakistani cities. The Haqqani Network, responsible for some of the deadliest attacks in Afghanistan, has long enjoyed Pakistani sanctuary.

C. India-Specific Terror Groups

• Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), and Hizbul Mujahideen—responsible for attacks from Mumbai 2008 to Pulwama 2019—have operated training camps, offices, and fund-raising operations in Pakistan with the active complicity (or, at best, neglect) of Pakistani authorities.
• Numerous UN Security Council resolutions have listed individuals like Hafiz Saeed (LeT founder) as terrorists, yet they continue to address public rallies and even contest elections in Pakistan.

II. The Global Response: Duplicity and Double Standards

A. The United States: From “Major Non-NATO Ally” to Frustrated Partner

• Despite being attacked by terrorists harbored in Pakistan, the U.S. has lavished billions in military and economic aid on Islamabad, citing its “indispensable” role in counterterrorism and Afghan stabilization.
• While American officials, including ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have openly accused Pakistan of “keeping snakes in the backyard,” there has rarely been sustained punitive action.
• Even after discovering bin Laden in Abbottabad, the U.S. response was muted—no sanctions, no international isolation, just “concerns” and more aid.

B. China: The Enabler-in-Chief

• China has repeatedly blocked efforts at the United Nations to sanction Pakistani-based terrorists, especially when the proposals have been led by India or Western powers.
• China’s economic and military support is strategic—using Pakistan as a counterbalance to India and a client for the Belt and Road Initiative.

C. The United Nations: Toothless and Tactful

• The UN Security Council has failed, time and again, to enforce its own resolutions against Pakistani terrorist entities and individuals.
• Pakistan remains on the FATF “grey list” for terror financing but has avoided blacklisting, largely due to political lobbying by China and sympathetic Western states.

D. The World Bank and IMF: Turning a Blind Eye

• Despite clear evidence that funds are diverted to sustain militant infrastructure, global financial institutions continue to extend loans and support to Pakistan, sometimes even lauding its “reform” efforts.

III. Why the Blind Eye?

A. Geopolitics Trumps Principles

• For the U.S., Pakistan is a “frontline ally” in Afghanistan—never mind its double game.
• For China, Pakistan is the “all-weather friend” to counter India and expand influence.
• For Western Europe, it’s about “stability”—fearing nuclear proliferation, refugee flows, and the spread of terrorism beyond South Asia.

B. The Nuclear Blackmail

• Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is often cited as a reason for restraint: too much pressure, the argument goes, might push a “fragile state” over the edge.
• This is, in effect, nuclear blackmail—a rogue state threatening chaos if held accountable.

IV. The Consequences: Enabling Terror, Weakening Multilateralism

• Every time a Hafiz Saeed walks free, or a JeM leader resurfaces, or another terrorist attack is traced back to Pakistan, the world’s inaction sends a dangerous message: State-sponsored terrorism pays if you are geopolitically useful.
• The credibility of the United Nations and global counterterrorism frameworks is eroded.
• Victims in India, Afghanistan, the West, and indeed, ordinary Pakistanis themselves, are left with no justice.

V. Calling the Bluff: What Should Change?

1. Honest Naming and Shaming: The UN and major powers must publicly acknowledge Pakistan’s double game and end the practice of “constructive ambiguity.”
2. Conditional Aid: All financial aid and IMF/World Bank support must be explicitly tied to verified, irreversible actions against terror groups.
3. Targeted Sanctions: The global community should impose real costs—travel bans, asset freezes, and diplomatic isolation for Pakistani officials linked to terrorist support.
4. Civil Society Mobilization: Indian and global civil society must keep up the pressure, ensuring that state-sponsored terrorism is not normalized or justified for “strategic reasons.”

Conclusion: History Will Remember

History is replete with instances where moral failure by the international community has enabled immense human suffering. The world’s inability—or unwillingness—to confront Pakistan’s state sponsorship of terrorism is not just a diplomatic miscalculation, but a profound ethical failure. As the world grapples with new forms of terror and asymmetric warfare, it is time to call the global bluff and demand real accountability—from Pakistan, and from those who shield it.

Opinion: It is high time that major powers and institutions stop sacrificing principles at the altar of “strategic interests.” The cost is paid in blood—by innocents from Mumbai to Kabul, and by the stability of the world order itself.