Is China Quietly Supporting Terrorism Through Its Friendship With Pakistan?

For years, China has insisted that it maintains a clear, consistent policy on terrorism — calling it a “common enemy of humanity” and asserting its commitment to global peace. But behind this diplomatic veneer lies a pattern of selective silence and strategic shielding, especially when it comes to Pakistan. With India repeatedly pointing to Pakistan’s support for cross-border terrorism, China’s refusal to condemn or act against such entities raises a troubling question: Is China quietly supporting terrorism — not directly, but through its unwavering friendship with Pakistan?

The answer lies not in rhetoric, but in a long trail of vetoes, diplomatic shields, and historical alignments. China has used its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) to block or delay international action against Pakistan-based terrorists multiple times:

• Masood Azhar Case: For over a decade, China repeatedly blocked India’s and other countries’ attempts to designate Masood Azhar, the head of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), as a global terrorist at the UNSC. Despite JeM claiming responsibility for major attacks like Pulwama (2019), China shielded Azhar until 2019 — when global pressure finally forced its hand.
• FATF Greylisting: While Pakistan has repeatedly been greylisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for failing to curb terror financing, China has consistently pushed to protect it from being blacklisted. This diplomatic shielding has allowed Pakistan to avoid stricter economic sanctions that could force real action on terror.

These are not isolated incidents — they reflect a broader strategic choice to insulate Pakistan from international consequences. China and Pakistan’s relationship goes far beyond friendship — it’s a deep, strategic alliance forged during the Cold War and cemented through decades of mutual geopolitical need.

• 1963 Boundary Agreement: China ceded part of its territory in Shaksgam Valley to Pakistan — a move that still triggers Indian objections. This laid the foundation for political and military cooperation.
• Support During Kargil War (1999): Although China maintained official neutrality, it subtly supported Pakistan diplomatically, while urging “dialogue” and avoiding condemnation of Pakistan’s aggression.
• CPEC and Strategic Investment: China’s $60+ billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, binds Beijing even closer to Islamabad. Any instability in Pakistan, including terror attacks, threatens China’s economic interests — yet China has not pressed Pakistan hard enough to dismantle the very terror networks that often operate in these areas.

One of the most glaring contradictions in China’s anti-terror rhetoric is the double standard in how it defines terrorism:

• Crackdown in Xinjiang: China has pursued an iron-fisted crackdown on Uyghur Muslims in the name of “counterterrorism,” establishing mass surveillance and internment camps. It claims these are necessary to prevent separatist violence.
• Silence on Kashmir-based Terror: However, when it comes to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba or JeM operating from Pakistani soil into India — China often chooses silence or indirect deflection. The same nation that sees slogans in Xinjiang as “terrorism” hesitates to condemn bombings and killings across the LOC.

After the recent Pahalgam terror attack in India, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar raised a strong point in an interview with French media: “You cannot afford ambiguity or double standards on terrorism.”

In response, China’s Foreign Ministry claimed its position on terror is “consistent and clear” and rejected any “so-called ambiguity.” But once again, China avoided naming Pakistan — the alleged source of the attack — and emphasized cooperation, not accountability.

At the same time, China dispatched Vice Foreign Minister Sun Weidong to New Delhi to repair ties. The contrast between peace overtures and silence on Pakistan’s role in terror is hard to miss.
China may not be sponsoring terrorism directly, but it is certainly complicit through silence, inaction, and selective diplomacy. Its repeated use of veto power to shield Pakistan, its refusal to name perpetrators, and its strategic investment in Pakistan all point toward a foreign policy that prioritizes alliance over accountability.

Words like “global peace” and “shared responsibility” lose meaning when they are not matched with action. If China wishes to be seen as a genuine global leader — not just a transactional power — it must stop enabling states that give safe haven to terror.

Until then, the question remains not just relevant but urgent:
Is China quietly supporting terrorism through its friendship with Pakistan?
The evidence suggests that the answer is yes — not through weapons, but through willful diplomatic cover.

Explore the latest trends and tips in Health & Fitness, Travel, Life Hacks, Fashion & Beauty, and Relationships at Times Life