The Foreign Hand in the India-Pakistan Face-Off

The main takeaway is that it is a self-help world, and every country approaches a military situation from its perceived national interest lenses

- Sreeram Chaulia

Although military tensions and clashes between India and Pakistan since the Pahalgam terrorist attack on April 22 were a bilateral affair between the two principal antagonists, the varied roles played by external actors in this crisis offer insights into the kind of world we live in.

No war, quasi war, or armed confrontation can be completely localized because it triggers high stakes considerations such as alliances and strategic partnerships, the regional balance of power, the efficacy and sales of weaponry, the norms and doctrines governing the use of force, and ripple effects in security in other parts of the world. Particularly in the present global context of renewed great power competition or the new Cold War, the conduct of the US and of China in the India-Pakistan crisis deserves close examination.

While Washington's claims to have mediated a ceasefire between New Delhi and Islamabad are unfounded, speculation about the ever-controversial American hand is rife. Given that the US has a comprehensive global strategic partnership with India and America's principal adversary, China, is Pakistan's 'all-weather friend,' many expected Washington to squarely stand in New Delhi's corner and apply overwhelming pressure on Islamabad. The Donald Trump administration did declare its solidarity with India and its right to defend itself after the Pahalgam attack. The American green signal for an Indian counterattack, not that New Delhi needed one, was visible in plain sight. Washington may have also used its financial leverage on debt-ridden Islamabad, which depends on loans from the American-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF), to force it to step back from escalation.