Dawn.com looks at some of the reporting and analysis from across the globe on ceasefire, and what comes after it.
“If this ceasefire holds, then coming weeks will see a new battle: of narratives.”
This is what international security correspondent Jason Burke wrote in an analysis for Guardian, just a few hours after a ceasefire — brokered by the US — was reached between India and Pakistan.
As the nuclear-armed neighbours announced the breaking news, international media sifted through a swirl of disinformation and conflicting government statements.
The escalation between the nuclear-armed neighbours began following the April 22 attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which killed 26 people. India, without investigation or evidence, implied “cross-border linkages” of the attackers. Pakistan firmly rejected the claim and called for a neutral probe. Following the allegations, India launched a series of drone strikes on Pakistan, resulting in civilian casualties.
Both sides then launched missiles at each other, which stretched over the week before US President Trump announced yesterday that a “full and immediate ceasefire” was reached between the two countries. There were reports from both sides that the ceasefire had been violated; however, both sides reaffirmed their commitment to adhere to the truce.
Here, Dawn.com looks at some of the reporting and analysis from across the globe on ceasefire, and what comes after it.
The Guardian — If India and Pakistan’s ceasefire holds, the coming weeks will see a new battle: of narratives
“Twenty years ago, a combination of Indian military success and US pressure brought about a shaky peace that survived a round of skirmishes a decade later until being broken again.
“In this new confrontation too, Washington’s influence appears to have been key in bringing about de-escalation. This will not please Russia and China, both manoeuvring for greater influence in the region, even if the reported involvement of Turkey and Saudi Arabia is a useful reminder that the unipolar days of the late 1990s are long gone.
“Casualties this time around have been mercifully low, and economic damage limited. The latter rather than the former may have weighed most heavily in the decision to call a halt to hostilities. Neither nation can afford the kind of destruction and disruption that moving to the next level of war might have entailed. There are ties that bind, as well as much that divides.”
Al Jazeera — India tried to project strength but ended up showing weakness
“The ceasefire announcement by the US president appears to have been perceived by some in India as a sign of the Modi government’s retreat under US pressure while his offer to mediate on Kashmir is being seen as an indication that India’s longstanding rejection of third-party intervention is being undermined.
“In South Asian geopolitics, perception often outpaces reality – until reality bites. India has long projected regional dominance, bolstered by economic growth and nuclear might.”
The Wire — Decisions, Hotlines and Mediators: The US-Led Diplomacy That Led to the India-Pakistan Ceasefire
“While there is no doubt that the technical mechanics of the ceasefire were indeed worked out by the two DGMOs without external mediation, the fact that they spoke and entered into negotiations was clearly the product of a larger diplomatic and political process pushed by Washington — a process in which the leaders of India and Pakistan agreed to set aside the wider military goals they had from the continuing conflict and settle for a truce.
Sky News — India and Pakistan were close to miscalculation either side couldn’t afford
“The [ceasefire] deal doesn’t undo the events of the past two weeks, which will continue to weigh heavily on the minds of many here. The military action has been the most significant between the countries in decades and dozens have died on both sides.
“But their enmity has been enduring, and even with the agreement in place, it feels a bit complacent to assume India and Pakistan will just walk back from the brink.”
Time magazine — Why Gulf States, More Than the US, Are Key to Prevent War Between India and Pakistan
“[…] it is interests, rather than values or ideology, that are ultimately driving all regional actors marks a distinct departure from orthodoxy. For a long time, Pakistan clung to the idea that as a Muslim state, it had a higher claim of loyalty from the Gulf compared to India. Today, however, despite religious differences and divergent value systems, India has emerged as a very significant actor in the Gulf.”
The Washington Post — The US helped deliver an India-Pakistan ceasefire. But can it hold?
“The comments largely express scepticism about the US role in mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, with many doubting the Trump administration’s involvement or effectiveness. Several comments highlight that both India and Pakistan have denied US mediation.”
World community hails ceasefire decision between Pakistan and India
Dawn.comPublished May 10, 2025
(From the left) UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Aljubeir. — Reuters/File
The international community on Saturday welcomed the decision by Pakistan and India to enforce a “full and immediate ceasefire” following days of deadly jet fighter, missile, drone, and artillery strikes.
The escalation began following the April 22 attack in Indian-occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam, which killed 26 people. India, without investigation or evidence, implied “cross-border linkages” of the attackers. Pakistan has firmly rejected the claim and called for a neutral probe.
Following the allegations, India launched a series of drone strikes on Pakistan, resulting in civilian casualties. According to the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), 24 impacts were recorded across six locations, leaving 33 Pakistani civilians dead and 76 injured. In response, Pakistan’s military shot down five Indian jets and destroyed brigade headquarters and multiple checkposts along the Line of Control.
On Saturday morning, India targeted several Pakistani airbases, prompting a swift military response from Pakistan under the retaliatory campaign codenamed Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos.
In a breakthrough moment today, the two countries agreed to a ceasefire pushed by US President Donald Trump, with global leaders hailing the move.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres welcomed the ceasefire announcement, calling it a “positive step that should lead to peace,” his spokesperson Stephane Dujarri quoted him as saying.
Guterres “hopes the agreement will contribute to lasting peace and foster an environment conducive to addressing broader, longstanding issues between the two countries”, the spokesperson said in a statement.
Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi phoned him and acknowledged Pakistan’s restraint and appreciated its responsible approach under challenging circumstances.
The Chinese foreign minister reaffirmed that China, as Pakistan’s All-Weather Strategic Cooperative Partner and ironclad friend, will continue to stand firmly by Pakistan in upholding its sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national independence.
“Both leaders emphasised the importance of close communication and agreed to maintain ongoing coordination in the days ahead,” the foreign office said in a post on X.
Turkiye called on both countries to “make maximum use” of the cessation in hostilities to establish dialogue, according to a statement from the Turkish foreign ministry.
“We welcome the declaration of a ceasefire between Pakistan and India. We call on the parties to make maximum use of the opportunity provided by the ceasefire to establish a direct and healthy dialogue,” the statement read.
Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Adel Aljubeir also welcomed the ceasefire between the two countries, according to a post by the Foreign Office (FO) on X.
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy wrote on X, adding that de-escalation was in “everybody’s interest”.
“Today’s ceasefire between India and Pakistan is hugely welcome. I urge both parties to sustain this. De-escalation is in everybody’s interest,” he wrote.
Peace with dignity
Abbas Nasir Published May 11, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
AS escalation appeared on the cards with tit-for-tat missile and air attacks continuing between India and Pakistan, US President Donald Trump announced on his Truth Social media platform that a US-mediated “full and immediate” ceasefire had been agreed between the two nuclear-armed South Asian neighbours.
In the hours, even minutes before the Trump announcement, fears were mounting of a major escalation with India’s missile attacks against non-military targets followed by strikes against military bases in Pakistan and the latter’s retaliatory action targeting Indian military assets.
At that point, when the situation seemed poised on a knife-edge, the only certainty was that India’s attempt to set a new normal in carrying out attacks deep inside Pakistan after blaming the latter for its own security and intelligence and policy failures in held Kashmir had backfired spectacularly.
Whether among the five downed Indian warplanes, during the aerial fight with BVR (beyond visual range) weapons, after the first set of missile attacks on Pakistan earlier this week, were two French-made Rafale jets or three is immaterial.
As South Asia heaved a sigh of relief that a nuclear exchange had been averted, what next was the question on many minds
What counts is that purchased at way over $250 million apiece, the state-of-the-art warplane, the perceived force multiplier, failed to project power as it was meant to and was effectively neutralised by weapons systems used by the Pakistan Air Force with stunning skill. The PAF’s most expensive J-10C fighter costs a fifth of the Rafale’s price tag.
PAF’s multiple kills seemed to have taken defence and modern aerial warfare experts by surprise. A cursory glance at the world media in general, and defence-related publications/ sites in particular, shows the fascination with how the Chinese-provided assets were used to lethal effect by the PAF.
It was this embarrassment that perhaps made immediate de-escalation difficult as India continued to talk of de-escalation while targeting Pakistani bases in the small hours of Saturday, provoking retaliation from Pakistan, which claimed huge successes in its missile/ air campaign including hitting the formidable Russian-made S-400 air defence missile site on an Indian Air Force base.
At a media briefing in New Delhi, the Indian military spokeswomen conceded ‘limited damage’ at three of their bases, while again reiterating they wanted to ‘de-escalate’. More or less as this briefing was happening another high-explosive drone strike on a PAF base in Sindh, near Hyderabad, was confirmed. Casualties, including fatalities, were feared.
This prompted concerns that Pakistan would also be compelled to retaliate in a spiralling confrontation. In such a rapidly escalating military conflict, miscalculations can happen, leading to untold repercussions, given the two nations are said to together possess some 300 tactical and strategic nuclear warheads and also tested, diverse delivery systems.
As South Asia and possibly the wider world heaved a sigh of relief that a possible, even if improbable, nuclear exchange had been averted, what next was the question on many minds. Would it be back to the future, a repeat of the past so many decades when a terrorist incident in India blamed on Pakistan would lead to fears of war with troops locked in eyeball to eyeball stand-offs as they have many times, before de-escalation?
Many Pakistanis and, I am sure, Indians, may have become accustomed to such recurrences every few years. But after the last round of tension triggered by the Pulwama attack in Indian-held Kashmir that left dozens of paramilitary soldiers dead in 2019 was the first instance of a ‘retaliatory’ strike on Pakistan soil and the downing of an IAF fighter and the capture of their pilot, as the PAF responded.
But attacking a forested area in Balakot, adjacent to Azad Kashmir where hostilities routinely erupt, and claiming a win was one thing, launching missile attacks on civilian targets deep inside Pakistan this week after last month’s Pahalgam terror attack was a different matter.
Pakistan, it turned out, was determined to robustly resist this attempt by India to set a new normal. The embarrassment of losing state-of-the-art aerial assets drove India to launch missile attacks on PAF bases. And the Pakistanis who appeared prepared and determined to hit back, did so, as per their claims, with telling effect and forced India to agree to a ceasefire.
Now many readers in India would consider the use of the word ‘forced’ unacceptable, given what they have been hearing in their government-controlled and dominated media and sanitised social media environment but they would do well to reflect what their government stance on talking to Pakistan has been.
After President Trump announced the ceasefire and congratulated both countries on displaying “common sense and great intelligence”, the more revealing and tell-tale tweet came from Secretary of State Marco Rubio who said Vice President J. D. Vance and he had engaged with senior Indian and Pakistani officials including the two prime ministers, the Indian foreign minister, the two national security advisers and the Pakistan army chief.
He commended the two prime ministers on their “wisdom, prudence and statesmanship in choosing the path of peace”. But the most significant part of his statement was that both the countries had agreed to “start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site”.
The timing or the place of these talks was not immediately known but whether these happen in Abu Dhabi, as was being speculated, or elsewhere, it wasn’t without significance that India shifted from its position of no talks with Pakistan “until the latter ends its support to terrorism”.
Like it usually happens between India and Pakistan, both will claim this as a win but it is clear that only one side moved from its stance on talks as Islamabad has repeatedly called on New Delhi to come to the negotiating table.
If a dialogue were to materialise indeed and India does not backtrack, then the real winners will be the people of the subcontinent, several hundred million of whom try and survive below the poverty line. A terrible war has hopefully been averted and perhaps the newly established balance of conventional power below the nuclear threshold will prevent future conflicts.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, May 11th, 2025
Space for peace diplomacy
Muhammad Amir Rana Published May 11, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a security analyst.
PAKISTAN and India have long struggled to resolve their disputes, with the Kashmir issue continuing to cast a long shadow over both nations.
Despite failing to address the core issues, both sides have historically managed their differences by maintaining certain norms to limit escalation and achieving milestones that have kept the conflict within bounds.
However, this time the tensions ran very high, resulting in conflict that broke through those long-maintained boundaries. This escalation came at a time when the international community showed little interest in mediating between the two.
The US, which was once a key mediator, appeared initially disengaged, and US Vice President J.D. Vance had even remarked that a potential war between India and Pakistan would be “none of our business”. Apparently, this was a smokescreen, and the US was engaged with the leadership behind the scenes. Ultimately, its efforts for a ceasefire appeared productive.
Saudi Arabia had appeared to take a more proactive stance. While it appeared uncertain whether Riyadh could play the same role as the US and, to some extent, Russia once did, Saudi Arabia has been increasingly active in international diplomacy in recent years, seeking to position itself as a global mediator and a stabilising force in regional and international conflicts. Besides its mediation role in Africa, Saudi Arabia has also intervened in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, while maintaining balanced relations with both Russia and the West during the war.
Apart from Saudi Arabia, the UAE is also interested in gaining a foothold in regional and global politics. The UAE played a key role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in 2021, which halted cross-border skirmishes that had been ongoing since 2019.
Nonetheless, the nature of the long-simmering India-Pakistan tensions over Kashmir is such that an entirely new approach is needed. Saudi Arabia has become more assertive on the global stage, recently intervening in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and mending ties with Iran. Its relationship with India has strengthened significantly since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, while its approach towards South Asian Muslim nations, especially Pakistan, has evolved. Still, it remains uncertain whether Saudi Arabia possesses diplomatic leverage over India.
The nature of the long-simmering India-Pakistan tensions is such that a new approach is needed.
The question of mediation always resurfaces whenever tensions between India and Pakistan flare up. While both countries officially commit to resolving disputes bilaterally, they often wait for international intervention to calm tensions. Nevertheless, there have been instances demonstrating their ability to engage in direct negotiations. One such example is the Non-Attack Agreement, signed on Dec 31, 1988, and entered into force on Jan 27, 1991. Under this agreement, both nations exchange coordinates of their nuclear facilities every January, regardless of ongoing tensions or diplomatic relations.
The 1972 Simla Agreement, signed with US mediation and once considered a no-war pact, also stipulated that both countries would resolve differences through peaceful bilateral negotiations.
It converted the ceasefire line of Dec 17, 1971, into the Line of Control and included a commitment neither side would attempt to alter unilaterally. When India recently hinted at withdrawing from the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan responded by questioning the validity of the Simla Agreement, arguing that its violation would mean the LoC could no longer be respected.
There was also the Karachi Agreement of 1949 (which was abandoned by both nations) to bring about a ceasefire in Kashmir, while another notable example of mediation is the Tashkent Declaration, signed on Jan 10, 1966, following the India-Pakistani war of 1965. Brokered by the Soviet Union and the US, the declaration led to a ceasefire and an agreement to restore diplomatic ties, exchange prisoners of war and improve bilateral relations. The 2003 ceasefire agreement also marked a significant milestone in de-escalation efforts.
Extensive literature exists on these agreements, negotiations, and conflicts — both from within the region and by international academics, diplomats, and officials working in South Asia. A consistent theme in much of this analysis is that leadership matters. Peace requires leaders willing to challenge entrenched interests that thrive on conflict and interests embedded within state institutions and who are influential in shaping public opinion.
Unfortunately, such leadership is lacking today. In particular, the BJP-led government in India appears increasingly hostile in its domestic and regional politics. It shows little interest in mutual negotiations or conflict resolution, preferring to impose its own solutions on neighbouring countries. Its decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status on Aug 5, 2019, and now its move to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty go against accepted international legal norms and the bilateral agreements the two countries have upheld.
Both states are undermining their capacity to negotiate peace. Unfortunately, peace lobbies within civil society are also weak, limiting the creation of a conducive environment for dialogue. When two parties manage their affairs bilaterally, third-party mediation can often restore the status quo, but rarely results in substantial development or behavioural change. Pakistan and India do have a framework for dialogue, which includes Kashmir and terrorism — the two major concerns of both states — but achieving meaningful progress requires courage and long-term commitment.
When conflict escalates and brings nations to the brink of war, third-party mediation is often considered a blessing, as it at least halts the momentum of conflict and allows emotions to settle.
Diplomacy for peace requires broader global engagement. In the recent conflict, while China’s influence was understandable given its close alliance with Pakistan, India likely viewed its efforts with suspicion. Russia faced its own constraints due to its historical relationship with India. Actors such as the OIC, the UN, the EU, Asean and the SCO have limited potential to play a decisive role in any future conflict between India and Pakistan.
With a ceasefire declared, both nations have a chance to reflect on the consequences of continued conflict and consider the possibility of a new beginning.
Published in Dawn, May 11th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment