Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.

Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).

America, diplomatic back-channel communications and major regional players: How two nuclear powers on the brink of war agreed to a ceasefire

It was a dramatic turn in four days of tensions between Pakistan and India when US President Donald Trump announced on social media that the two countries had “agreed to an immediate and complete ceasefire.” Experts believe that behind-the-scenes American mediation, diplomatic back-channel communications, and major regional players played a key role in pushing back the two nuclear powers from the brink of full-scale war. However, within hours of the ceasefire agreement, India and Pakistan accused each other of violations, which shows how weak the ceasefire is. India accused Pakistan of “continuous violations,” while Pakistan vowed to implement the ceasefire and said its forces had “demonstrated responsibility and restraint.” Before the ceasefire was announced, many feared that India and Pakistan were moving towards a major war, among other measures. Last month, gunmen killed 26 tourists in an attack in the Pahalgam region of Indian-administered Kashmir. India launched airstrikes in Pakistan and its administered Kashmir, leading to days of aerial clashes and shelling. By Saturday morning, both countries had claimed missile strikes on air bases. Tensions were rising rapidly, with both countries claiming heavy losses and thwarting each other’s attacks. According to Tanvi Madan of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, the phone call between US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Pakistani Army Chief General Asim Munir on May 9 was “perhaps a turning point.” “We still don’t know much about the roles of international players,” she says. “But it’s clear that over the past three days at least three countries have been active in reducing tensions: obviously the US, but also the UK and Saudi Arabia.” “The question arises why this call was not made earlier, initially immediately after the Indian air strikes, when Pakistan was claiming Indian losses and there was an opportunity to de-escalate tensions. Perhaps this could have reduced tensions further,” says Madan. This is not the first time that American mediation has been useful in resolving a crisis between Pakistan and India. Former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wrote in his book that he was woken up by an Indian counterpart during the 2019 tensions to tell him that he feared Pakistan was preparing to use nuclear weapons. Former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan Ajay Bisaria later not only rejected Pompeo’s claim but also said that the American role in resolving the conflict was not that big. But diplomats say that this time the United States undoubtedly played a key role in resolving the crisis. “The US was the most important external player,” Bisaria told the BBC on Saturday. “Last time Pompeo claimed to have averted the threat of nuclear war. Maybe he is exaggerating. But he should have adopted a more basic diplomatic role. Maybe he should have made Delhi’s position clear to Islamabad.” But initially, the United States remained aloof from this tension.

Is Sabrina Carpenter a nepo baby?

File Sharing

1

3.0k

2.8k

8.2k