United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has released its Human Rights Service paper titled Cross-Border Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan: October–December 2025, alleging that Pakistani military actions resulted in civilian deaths and injuries inside Afghanistan during a period of heightened cross-border tensions. While the report claims adherence to international humanitarian law and a “clear and convincing” evidentiary threshold, its own framing exposes a fundamental flaw: it documents civilian harm inside Afghanistan in isolation, while entirely excluding civilian casualties and terrorism-related fatalities inside Pakistan that are operationally and causally linked to the same conflict dynamics.
This structural limitation is not a minor technicality. It fundamentally shapes UNAMA’s conclusions and produces a partial narrative that lacks strategic and operational context. By design, the report divorces effects from causes, portraying Pakistan’s actions as isolated uses of force rather than responses to a sustained cross-border terrorist campaign emanating from Afghan soil.
Structural Limitations and the Problem of Selective Context
Independent UN mechanisms themselves contradict this narrow framing. The UN Security Council 1988 Sanctions Committee Monitoring Team has repeatedly documented that Afghanistan hosts approximately 20 terrorist organizations, with an estimated 13,000 foreign terrorist fighters, including TTP, Al-Qaida and affiliated regional groups. Its latest analytical reports assess that the Taliban regime continues to provide sanctuaries, freedom of movement and permissive operating space to these entities. This reality confirms that Afghanistan has transformed into a hub for transnational terrorism, a fact UNAMA is obligated to acknowledge explicitly in all its reporting.
Pakistan is not alone in raising these concerns. China, Russia, Iran, Denmark and several other states have repeatedly underscored in UN Security Council debates and multilateral forums the urgent need to dismantle terrorist networks operating from Afghanistan. These concerns have been conveyed directly to the Taliban regime multiple times. By harboring and embedding terrorists among civilian populations, the Taliban have themselves created conditions where civilian harm becomes a foreseeable consequence of their deliberate policy choices. Any civilian suffering resulting from this strategy cannot be analytically separated from the regime’s decision to protect militant infrastructure.
Terrorism Sanctuaries, State Responsibility, and Omitted Realities
UNAMA’s selective lens becomes even more problematic when it overlooks the scale of terrorism Pakistan faces. In 2025 alone, Pakistan suffered 1,957 fatalities and 3,603 injuries due to terrorist violence. During the same period, 3,079 terrorists were neutralized, including over 245 confirmed Afghan nationals. These figures represent an ongoing national security emergency, not a peripheral issue. Yet UNAMA’s report treats this context as largely irrelevant, focusing narrowly on Afghan civilian suffering without addressing why cross-border strikes occurred.
Equally troubling is UNAMA’s reliance on Taliban-supplied narratives and data. In practice, Taliban authorities routinely label killed militants as “civilians” whenever terrorist hideouts are targeted. UNAMA’s continued acceptance of these claims, without rigorous independent verification or systematic incorporation of counterterrorism intelligence, creates a serious methodological distortion. By privileging Taliban assertions while discounting extensive evidence of terrorist activity, UNAMA risks mischaracterizing counterterrorism actions as indiscriminate harm and inadvertently shielding militant networks from scrutiny.
Ideological Incitement and the Normalization of Violence
The report is also silent on the documented involvement of Afghan nationals in terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Between March 2022 and September 2025, numerous suicide bombings and VBIED attacks in Peshawar, Bannu, Besham, Dera Ismail Khan and North Waziristan were carried out by Afghan citizens. High-profile cases, including the Islamabad Imam Bargah attack and the G-11 suicide bombing by Qari Osman alias Zubair, were officially traced to planning, facilitation and direction from Afghanistan, including meetings with senior TTP commanders in Kunar and Kabul.
Perhaps most alarming is UNAMA’s complete omission of the public glorification and ideological normalization of terrorism under Taliban oversight. Funerals and condolence ceremonies for killed TTP militants are openly held in Kabul and Kunduz, while extremist narratives have even been exported abroad, including ceremonies in Europe. Incendiary speeches by TTP commanders in Kabul in early 2026, openly calling for regional violence, further demonstrate that ideological incitement thrives unchecked.
Finally, UNAMA underplays Pakistan’s exhausted diplomatic avenues. Since 2021, Pakistan has pursued extensive engagement through high-level visits, joint coordination mechanisms, hundreds of border meetings and formal demarches. Only after these measures failed, and terrorist attacks continued unabated, did Pakistan conduct limited, intelligence-driven precision strikes against confirmed TTP hideouts. Subsequent escalations were retaliatory and defensive, a sequence UNAMA’s report omits entirely.
By isolating civilian harm from its root causes, UNAMA presents an incomplete account. A credible human rights assessment cannot ignore the central driver of cross-border instability: the continued use of Afghan soil by terrorist proxies. Without this acknowledgment, UNAMA’s narrative remains selective, misleading, and strategically deficient.
Also See: Zalmay Khalilzad’s Distortion of Pakistan’s Security Realities
A Context-Deficient Assessment: Structural Gaps in UNAMA’s Civilian Casualty Reporting
United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has released its Human Rights Service paper titled Cross-Border Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan: October–December 2025, alleging that Pakistani military actions resulted in civilian deaths and injuries inside Afghanistan during a period of heightened cross-border tensions. While the report claims adherence to international humanitarian law and a “clear and convincing” evidentiary threshold, its own framing exposes a fundamental flaw: it documents civilian harm inside Afghanistan in isolation, while entirely excluding civilian casualties and terrorism-related fatalities inside Pakistan that are operationally and causally linked to the same conflict dynamics.
This structural limitation is not a minor technicality. It fundamentally shapes UNAMA’s conclusions and produces a partial narrative that lacks strategic and operational context. By design, the report divorces effects from causes, portraying Pakistan’s actions as isolated uses of force rather than responses to a sustained cross-border terrorist campaign emanating from Afghan soil.
Structural Limitations and the Problem of Selective Context
Independent UN mechanisms themselves contradict this narrow framing. The UN Security Council 1988 Sanctions Committee Monitoring Team has repeatedly documented that Afghanistan hosts approximately 20 terrorist organizations, with an estimated 13,000 foreign terrorist fighters, including TTP, Al-Qaida and affiliated regional groups. Its latest analytical reports assess that the Taliban regime continues to provide sanctuaries, freedom of movement and permissive operating space to these entities. This reality confirms that Afghanistan has transformed into a hub for transnational terrorism, a fact UNAMA is obligated to acknowledge explicitly in all its reporting.
Pakistan is not alone in raising these concerns. China, Russia, Iran, Denmark and several other states have repeatedly underscored in UN Security Council debates and multilateral forums the urgent need to dismantle terrorist networks operating from Afghanistan. These concerns have been conveyed directly to the Taliban regime multiple times. By harboring and embedding terrorists among civilian populations, the Taliban have themselves created conditions where civilian harm becomes a foreseeable consequence of their deliberate policy choices. Any civilian suffering resulting from this strategy cannot be analytically separated from the regime’s decision to protect militant infrastructure.
Terrorism Sanctuaries, State Responsibility, and Omitted Realities
UNAMA’s selective lens becomes even more problematic when it overlooks the scale of terrorism Pakistan faces. In 2025 alone, Pakistan suffered 1,957 fatalities and 3,603 injuries due to terrorist violence. During the same period, 3,079 terrorists were neutralized, including over 245 confirmed Afghan nationals. These figures represent an ongoing national security emergency, not a peripheral issue. Yet UNAMA’s report treats this context as largely irrelevant, focusing narrowly on Afghan civilian suffering without addressing why cross-border strikes occurred.
Equally troubling is UNAMA’s reliance on Taliban-supplied narratives and data. In practice, Taliban authorities routinely label killed militants as “civilians” whenever terrorist hideouts are targeted. UNAMA’s continued acceptance of these claims, without rigorous independent verification or systematic incorporation of counterterrorism intelligence, creates a serious methodological distortion. By privileging Taliban assertions while discounting extensive evidence of terrorist activity, UNAMA risks mischaracterizing counterterrorism actions as indiscriminate harm and inadvertently shielding militant networks from scrutiny.
Ideological Incitement and the Normalization of Violence
The report is also silent on the documented involvement of Afghan nationals in terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Between March 2022 and September 2025, numerous suicide bombings and VBIED attacks in Peshawar, Bannu, Besham, Dera Ismail Khan and North Waziristan were carried out by Afghan citizens. High-profile cases, including the Islamabad Imam Bargah attack and the G-11 suicide bombing by Qari Osman alias Zubair, were officially traced to planning, facilitation and direction from Afghanistan, including meetings with senior TTP commanders in Kunar and Kabul.
Perhaps most alarming is UNAMA’s complete omission of the public glorification and ideological normalization of terrorism under Taliban oversight. Funerals and condolence ceremonies for killed TTP militants are openly held in Kabul and Kunduz, while extremist narratives have even been exported abroad, including ceremonies in Europe. Incendiary speeches by TTP commanders in Kabul in early 2026, openly calling for regional violence, further demonstrate that ideological incitement thrives unchecked.
Finally, UNAMA underplays Pakistan’s exhausted diplomatic avenues. Since 2021, Pakistan has pursued extensive engagement through high-level visits, joint coordination mechanisms, hundreds of border meetings and formal demarches. Only after these measures failed, and terrorist attacks continued unabated, did Pakistan conduct limited, intelligence-driven precision strikes against confirmed TTP hideouts. Subsequent escalations were retaliatory and defensive, a sequence UNAMA’s report omits entirely.
By isolating civilian harm from its root causes, UNAMA presents an incomplete account. A credible human rights assessment cannot ignore the central driver of cross-border instability: the continued use of Afghan soil by terrorist proxies. Without this acknowledgment, UNAMA’s narrative remains selective, misleading, and strategically deficient.
Also See: Zalmay Khalilzad’s Distortion of Pakistan’s Security Realities
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
A Context-Deficient Assessment: Structural Gaps in UNAMA’s Civilian Casualty Reporting
UNAMA’s October–December 2025 report on cross-border civilian casualties presents a narrowly framed humanitarian narrative that isolates consequences from causes, overlooking the entrenched terrorist infrastructure operating from Afghanistan and its direct role in destabilizing Pakistan.
US Backs Pakistan as Violence Escalates in Balochistan
US support for Pakistan following Balochistan violence reframes the conflict as a global counter-terrorism challenge, not a separatist struggle.
The Journey of a WWI Memorial in Islamabad
For years, the World War I memorial near Rehara village stood quietly above the surrounding land, a small but enduring reminder of local soldiers who
Zalmay Khalilzad’s Distortion of Pakistan’s Security Realities
Zalmay Khalilzad’s recent tweets portray Pakistan as collapsing, criticizing counterterrorism operations while ignoring the real drivers of instability in Balochistan: foreign-backed terrorism, criminal networks, and the civilian and security force toll. By conflating state action with militancy, he misrepresents ground realities and obscures the failures of his own Afghan diplomacy. This commentary exposes the gap between his rhetoric and Pakistan’s efforts to maintain law, order, and development under complex security challenges.
The Indo-Israel Nexus and Proxy Insurgency: Challenges to Pakistan’s Stability in Balochistan
Israel and India’s active support for Baloch militias confirms Pakistan’s long-standing concerns about foreign interference. Through proxy insurgency and narrative campaigns, external actors seek to destabilize Balochistan, undermine Pakistan’s internal security, and disrupt regional connectivity.