Diplomacy Over Justice: How Pakistan and China Weakened the UNSC's Response to the Pahalgam Terror Attack

Recently, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) issued a formal statement condemning the horrifying terrorist attack that took place in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir. In this tragic incident, 26 innocent people lost their lives, causing widespread shock, anger, and sadness both within India and internationally. Normally, when an attack of this nature occurs, the UNSC issues a strong and direct condemnation, and their language is usually firm and leaves no room for confusion about their support for the victims and the government affected. However, this time, the tone and wording of the UNSC’s statement were noticeably softer and more ambiguous — and that’s not by accident.

Behind the scenes, Pakistan played a significant role in making sure that the language of the statement was diluted. Pakistan, currently serving as a non-permanent member of the Security Council, worked actively to weaken the directness of the condemnation. And they didn’t act alone — they had the support of China, a permanent UNSC member and one of Pakistan’s strongest allies on the global stage. Together, Pakistan and China influenced the negotiations around the wording of the statement, ensuring that certain phrases were either removed or changed to be less specific.

One clear example of this is the shift in how the statement refers to cooperation with authorities. After the 2019 Pulwama attack, the UNSC had clearly stated that all countries should cooperate with the Government of India to bring the perpetrators to justice. That direct mention of India strengthened India's position internationally and made it clear that the UNSC was siding with India's right to investigate and respond. In contrast, this time, the UNSC avoided mentioning India altogether. Instead, the statement vaguely referred to "all relevant authorities," which can be interpreted in many ways and leaves room for Pakistan to argue that an independent or international investigation, not an Indian-led one, is necessary.

The way this unfolded was interesting. The United States had originally proposed a much stronger statement, one that was similar in tone to the Pulwama condemnation. But because the UNSC operates largely by consensus — meaning all members must agree on the wording — and because Pakistan and China raised objections, the U.S. and other members had to compromise to avoid deadlock. The result was a watered-down version that still condemned the attack but lacked the strong backing for India that might have been expected, especially given the severity of the attack.

Even though the statement still emphasized the need for all countries to cooperate in holding terrorists accountable, and underlined that terrorism is a serious threat to international peace and security, it felt much more neutral compared to past UNSC responses. Another major difference was the absence of any reference to a specific terrorist organization. In 2019, the UNSC explicitly named Jaish-e-Mohammed as being behind the Pulwama attack. This time, no group was named, which again made the statement less pointed and easier for countries like Pakistan to accept without feeling directly accused.

On Pakistan’s side, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif responded by saying that Pakistan was open to a “neutral and transparent” investigation into the Pahalgam attack. However, he carefully avoided offering direct cooperation with Indian authorities or acknowledging any Indian-led investigation. His words suggested that Pakistan wants some kind of third-party involvement, rather than letting India control the narrative or investigation process. This stance fits with Pakistan’s broader strategy of pushing for internationalization of issues related to Kashmir, rather than treating them as purely bilateral matters between India and Pakistan.

Overall, what happened with the UNSC statement shows the complicated and sometimes frustrating reality of international diplomacy. Even when there is agreement that terrorism must be condemned, political alliances, rivalries, and strategic interests still play a huge role in shaping how that condemnation is expressed. In this case, despite the loss of innocent lives and the outrage that followed, the influence of Pakistan and China meant that India did not get the clear and strong support from the UNSC that it might have hoped for. It’s a reminder that in global politics, even something as seemingly straightforward as condemning terrorism can become a battleground for influence, power, and narrative control.