EDITORIAL: Pakistan’s warnings about militancy operating from Afghan soil have long been contested by Kabul and obscured by competing narratives, even as violence linked to cross-border groups continued to rise. The latest monitoring report submitted to the United Nations Security Council changes that balance. It does not merely echo Pakistan’s concerns; it validates them in unambiguous language. The Taliban’s claim that Afghan territory is not being used by terrorist groups is described as “not credible”, and the continued presence and activity of outfits such as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) is laid out in stark detail. That matters, because it shifts the debate from competing narratives to documented assessment. The report’s findings are not subtle. Multiple militant organisations remain active inside Afghanistan, with TTP identified as the most immediate and persistent threat to Pakistan. The scale of violence attributed to the group during 2025, running into hundreds of attacks, underlines that this is not a residual problem or a question of isolated cells slipping through cracks. It is an entrenched reality. The assessment that many of these attacks are planned or facilitated from Afghan territory directly supports Pakistan’s longstanding position that sanctuaries across the border remain intact. Equally significant is the report’s treatment of Taliban assurances. Since returning to power, Kabul has repeatedly promised that Afghan soil would not be allowed to threaten other states. Pakistan relied heavily on those assurances, particularly after it played a facilitative role in ending the long war by helping bring the United States and the Taliban to a truce. The UNSC monitoring team’s conclusion that these assurances lack credibility is therefore not a diplomatic slight; it is an indictment of unfulfilled commitments. It also explains why trust between Islamabad and Kabul has steadily eroded. What emerges from the report is not just a security failure, but a political one. The monitoring team points to divisions within the Taliban leadership over how to deal with the TTP, with some recognising the damage it causes to relations with Pakistan and others remaining reluctant to act. That internal hesitation has consequences beyond bilateral ties. Border tensions, repeated closures, and disrupted trade are estimated to be costing Afghanistan’s own economy substantial sums daily. The report makes clear that instability is not a cost borne by Pakistan alone. The international dimension is just as important. Al Qaeda’s continued low-profile presence in Afghanistan, alongside ISIL-K and other regional groups, reinforces the argument that the problem is systemic. While the Taliban may have reduced the visibility of some actors, the environment remains permissive enough for regrouping, training and planning. This is precisely the scenario the region feared when foreign forces withdrew. The UNSC report confirms that those fears were not misplaced. For Pakistan, the findings amount to vindication, but not resolution. Being proved right does not neutralise the threat. Nor does it automatically compel Kabul to act. What it does provide is leverage. When a UN-mandated body formally questions Taliban claims and documents the persistence of cross-border militancy, the space for denial narrows. The issue can no longer be framed as a bilateral dispute or a matter of perception. It is now an international concern backed by evidence. The urgency, therefore, lies in what follows. Pakistan’s demand has been consistent and limited: Afghan territory must not be used by any group to launch attacks across the border. This is not an unreasonable expectation; it is a basic obligation under international norms. The UNSC report strengthens the case for sustained pressure on Kabul to meet that obligation. Engagement, incentives and regional cooperation all have a role; but so does accountability. Promises without enforcement have clearly failed. There is also a lesson here for those who argued that time alone would moderate Taliban behaviour. Four years on, the report suggests otherwise. Militancy has not withered away through benign neglect. It has adapted. The cost of inaction is now measured not only in lives lost, but in deepening regional mistrust and economic damage on both sides of the border. In that sense, the UNSC report should be seen as a pivot point. It confirms what Pakistan has been saying, but it also raises the stakes. Kabul has been put on notice, not by a neighbour it often accuses of bias, but by the international system itself. If this assessment does not translate into concrete steps to rein in militant outfits, the question will no longer be whether Pakistan’s concerns are valid, but how long the region can afford to absorb the consequences of ignoring them. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025