Selective Accountability: The TTP and its Refugee Reality

Our world is fraught with contradictions, where politics and international relations often present a stark contrast between stated principles and actual practices. One recent incident underscores this troubling reality: the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) has called for an investigation into civilian casualties in Paktika province, allegedly caused by Pakistani airstrikes targeting Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) on December 24. While the sanctity of human life and the importance of international organizations are unquestionable, it is the selective application of principles and interest-driven justice that often causes rational observers to question the integrity and accountability of the system itself.

Selective Accountability in International Law: A Persistent Issue

The history of military conflicts reveals a pattern where civilians often bear the greatest cost, yet international organizations such as the UN have failed to hold all perpetrators equally accountable. Between 480,000 and 507,000 people have died in the United States’ post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Similarly, in Gaza, over 45,000 Palestinians have lost their lives since October 2023, yet the international community largely remains a silent spectator. In Kashmir, an open-air prison, tens of thousands of civilians have died under decades of occupation and violence.

The leaders of the Western “rules-based order” must realize that their inconsistent application of principles is only undermining and eroding the trust of their own people in the “liberal democratic world order” they purport to uphold. Its prominent manifestation is the tens of thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who have marched through cities like Washington, London, Berlin, Milan, Paris, and others across Europe to call a halt to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. Thousands of European and American citizens are urging their governments to call for an immediate ceasefire as violence in the Middle East escalates, but their democratic leaders remain indifferent. Conversely, rules-based institutions tend to take swift action when a single alleged atrocity, confirmed or not, is attributed to a state whose interests may no longer align with theirs. This selective approach to activism highlights inconsistencies in the global order.

Also See: Pakistan’s TTP Challenge: Strikes, Talks, and Solutions

TTP’s Tactics: The Challenge of Civilian Shields

Pakistan’s strikes on TTP hideouts are a strategic response to escalating terrorism threats. Since the Afghan Interim Government (AIG) assumed power in Kabul, Pakistan has witnessed over 1,500 violent incidents, resulting in nearly 1,000 deaths. Islamabad accuses Kabul of harboring TTP militants, despite denials. The TTP has intensified cross-border violence, exploiting tribal and sectarian divisions in regions like Lower Kurram, Balochistan, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. According to Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, these attacks have killed 570 law enforcement personnel and 351 civilians. The Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) reported 856 attacks in 2024, up from 645 the previous year.

In response, Pakistan employed various peaceful conflict resolution methods, including diplomatic engagement, border closures, increased regional taxes, and higher tariffs, and appeals to international institutions for assistance. During a United Nations Security Council briefing last week, Pakistan highlighted that thousands of TTP terrorists have sought refuge in Afghanistan.

“The TTP, with 6,000 fighters, is the largest listed terrorist organization operating in Afghanistan. With safe havens close to our border, it poses a direct and daily threat to Pakistan’s security,” Pakistani diplomat Usman Iqbal Jadoon stated. However, the institution largely ignored Pakistan’s concerns.

Left with no choice, Pakistan resorted to military action. This was complicated by TTP’s old tactic of using civilians as shields. Operating from Afghan soil, these terrorists strategically exploit civilian communities to evade targeting, knowing that the resulting civilian casualties will fuel international condemnation. This tactic has been effective, as evidenced by the coordinated propaganda campaign launched by the TTP and its supporters to deflect attention from their role in causing harm.

Additionally, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who are currently the target of Pakistani military strikes, are frequently referred to as ‘Waziristan Refugees’ by officials from both the Afghan Interim Government and the TTP itself. This raises important questions: Why are these individuals, identified as refugees from Waziristan, present in Afghanistan? Given that there are no active military operations in Pakistan’s areas, why have they not been repatriated, and what justifies their refuge in Afghanistan? Rather than advocating for the return of these individuals to Pakistan, international organizations such as UNAMA seem to focus their efforts elsewhere, raising concerns about the consistency and impartiality of their actions.

Double Standards in the Rules-Based Order

The self-proclaimed champions of human rights and democracy initiated the Global War on Terror, costing countless precious lives and plunging entire regions into the chaos of terrorism and violence. After inflicting such devastation, they silently withdraw, leaving their allies to bear the consequences of their actions. When these abandoned states attempt to address the lingering threat of terrorism—armed with solid evidence that neighboring territories, such as Afghanistan, are harbouring groups undermining their security and sovereignty—the so-called champions of the “rules-based order” reemerge. This time, they offer lectures on human rights, replete with rhetoric but bound to serve nothing.

The uneven application of international law is symptomatic of a broader issue: the weaponization of civilian casualties to advance political narratives. When powerful states or their allies kill indiscriminately, accountability is conveniently overlooked. However, when states like Pakistan confront well-documented terror threats, they face disproportionate scrutiny. This selective accountability undermines the very principles of justice and fairness that international law is supposed to uphold.

Redefining Accountability in International Law

UNAMA’s call for accountability would hold more weight if it were consistent. True accountability demands a holistic approach, addressing all civilian harm, irrespective of the perpetrator. It must include an honest reckoning with the atrocities committed by powerful nations and their allies, not just those by states on the periphery of global influence.

Conclusion: Ending the Selective Outrage

The deaths of civilians in Paktika are tragic and warrant an impartial investigation. However, UNAMA and the global community must recognize the broader context of terrorism, regional instability, and historical injustices. Holding Pakistan accountable for alleged violations, while overlooking the civilian toll of Western-led conflicts or the ongoing violence in Gaza and Kashmir, and engaging in selective accountability reeks of hypocrisy.

If the international community is truly committed to civilian protection, it must address all war crimes and human rights violations, irrespective of the perpetrator’s power or alliances. Anything less is a disservice to the principles of justice and the lives lost in conflicts worldwide.

SAT Editorial Desk

Your go-to editorial hub for policy perspectives and informed analysis on pressing regional and global issues.

South Asia Times

Selective Accountability: The TTP and its Refugee Reality