How the US gave India and Pakistan an excuse to stand down
WHEN US President Donald Trump announced on May 10 that India and Pakistan had agreed to a ceasefire, it surprised most on the subcontinent.
The military exchanges that followed a terrorist attack on tourists in Kashmir had only intensified in the days prior. And few outsiders seemed interested in the conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations – vice president JD Vance had even said that the brewing war was 'fundamentally none of our business.'
So how was the Trump administration, unable to arrange for a ceasefire in Ukraine, so successful in South Asia? Even an unenthusiastic attempt at mediation proved remarkably effective. Is the United States still the global policeman that it was a couple of decades ago?
Not quite. In this case, America was not a figure of authority – merely a good excuse. Neither India nor Pakistan really wanted a full-out war, but the spiral of attack and retaliation might have led them there. They needed a plausible reason to pull back from the brink, and Washington's efforts qualified.
All three countries were acting on muscle memory. The US has intervened often when India and Pakistan have fought. In another Kashmir-centric skirmish in 1999, Bill Clinton pushed then-Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif into retreating after a stormy July 4 meeting in the Oval Office.
Clinton's advisers told him that would be the most consequential meeting of his presidency; Trump's advisors may not have been so pressing. But they didn't need to be. India and Pakistan didn't have any other path to de-escalation, so they simply seized on the one that had worked before.
Pakistan was particularly grateful for the out, judging by its reaction. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked the president for his 'pathbreaking leadership and commitment to global peace.'
India was less willing to name the US. New Delhi didn't even call it a ceasefire, clumsily describing it as 'an understanding on stoppage of firing and military action.'
They insisted, in addition, that this was negotiated not at the political level but through talks between the uniformed officers in charge of military operations at the front.
India might have been worried that Trump went too far when he offered to work with the two countries to reach a solution to the Kashmir dispute. New Delhi has never discussed that issue with anyone other than Pakistan, and isn't likely to start now.
People on this side of the border seem more disappointed than the Pakistanis – egged on, perhaps, by a remarkably irresponsible media. India's news anchors have predicted total military victory while standing in front of AI-generated images of Pakistani cities on fire, as ersatz air raid sirens shrill in the background.
This bellicosity seemed so universal in the public sphere that you might not have noticed how it contrasted with New Delhi's official tone.
The foreign ministry and the military consistently insisted there would be no escalation. Those who did notice the difference were not pleased. India's top diplomat, whose frequent press conferences made him the face of this official moderation, had to protect his X account when he and his family began to receive threats.
But Prime Minister Narendra Modi, unlike his Pakistani counterpart, chose to avoid discussing the strikes and counter-strikes at all. This is where even the appearance of US involvement helps: It allows decision-makers at the top to do the right thing while giving them some cover against their own hyper-nationalist followers.
People on either side of the border are now free to wonder if somehow their leaders secretly got something in return for giving in to US suggestions that they climb down.
Trump gave that speculation some wings when he talked about 'increasing trade' following the ceasefire. Others have wondered about arms deals. No such secret clauses to the agreement may ever materialise, but imagining their existence is nevertheless useful.
Too few facts have been established for either side to credibly claim victory. Eventually, we will know if and how many Indian aircraft were shot down, and how much India damaged Pakistani air bases.
The Pakistani air force can say it demonstrated parity in the sky. India can claim to have shown that Pakistani airfields are vulnerable and will be held hostage to terrorist attacks.
It's all too opaque for any decision-maker to feel confident.
Did Pakistan's Chinese-made missiles really outfox India's European planes and weaponry?
How has the use of drones changed the escalation ladder between two nuclear adversaries, and has it made us less or more secure?
Who in the Pakistani establishment aided the terrorist attack on Kashmir, and will they ever be brought to account?
The point of US intervention is to render these questions less urgent.
Nobody has to save face by giving in to the other; they each give in to the US – even if America has changed dramatically from the country that could and would enforce its decrees on the rest of the world.
If that US didn't exist, we would have to invent it. These days, we will instead pretend it does. — Bloomberg Opinion/Tribune News Service
Mihir Sharma is a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
4 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
US, China seek to extend trade truce with London talks
US President Donald Trump accused China of violating a tariff de-escalation deal last month. (AP pic) LONDON : The US and China are to sit down at the negotiating table in London today to attempt to preserve a fragile truce on trade, despite simmering tensions. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, commerce secretary Howard Lutnick and trade representative Jamieson Greer are leading the US delegation, president Donald Trump announced on Friday. Chinese vice-premier He Lifeng – who led Beijing's negotiating team at previous talks with the US last month in Geneva – would also head the team in London, China's foreign ministry announced at the weekend. 'The meeting should go very well,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News today: 'We want China and the US to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva.' While the UK government reiterated that it was not involved in the content of the discussions in any way, a spokesman said: 'We are a nation that champions free trade.' UK authorities 'have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks', the spokesman added. Rare earths The talks in London come just a few days after Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping finally held their first publicly announced telephone talks since the Republican returned to the White House. Trump said the call, which took place on Thursday, had reached a 'very positive conclusion'. Xi was quoted by state-run news agency Xinhua as saying that 'correcting the course of the big ship of Sino-US relations requires us to steer well and set the direction'. The call came after tensions between the world's two biggest economies soared, with Trump accusing Beijing of violating a tariff de-escalation deal reached in Geneva in mid-May. 'We need China to comply with their side of the deal. And so that's what the trade team will be discussing tomorrow,' Leavitt said today. A key issue in the negotiations will be Beijing's shipments of rare earths – crucial to a range of goods including electric vehicle batteries and which have been a bone of contention for some time. 'Rare earth shipments from China to the US have slowed since President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April,' said Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading group XTB. 'The US wants these shipments to be reinstated, while China wants the US to rethink immigration curbs on students, restrictions on access to advanced technology including microchips, and to make it easier for Chinese tech providers to access US consumers,' she added. In April, Trump introduced sweeping worldwide tariffs that targeted China most heavily. At one point the US hit China with additional levies of 145% on its goods as both sides engaged in tit-for-tat escalation. China's countermeasures on US goods reached 125%. Then in Switzerland, after two days of talks, the two sides agreed to slash their staggeringly high tariffs for 90 days. But differences have persisted, including over China's restrictions on exporting rare earth minerals. The impact was reflected in the latest official export data released today in Beijing. Exports to the US fell 12.7% on month in May, with China shipping US$28.8 billion worth in goods last month. This is down from US$33 billion in April, according to Beijing's general administration of customs. There is also huge uncertainty around the outcome of other trade disputes. 'Green channel' Throughout its talks with Washington, China has also launched discussions with other trading partners – including Japan and South Korea – in a bid to build a united front to counter Trump's tariffs. On Thursday, Beijing turned to Canada, with the two sides agreeing to regularise their channels of communication after a period of strained ties. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and Chinese Premier Li Qiang also discussed trade and the fentanyl crisis, Ottawa said. Beijing has also proposed establishing a 'green channel' to ease the export of rare earths to the European Union, and the fast-tracking approval of some export licenses. China is expected to host a summit with the EU in July, marking 50 years since Beijing and Brussels established diplomatic ties.
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Tariffs tarnishing jeweller's shine
PANDORA, the world's largest jewellery company, is based in Denmark and has nearly 500 stores in the United States, more than any of its other key markets. But in some ways, its real home is Thailand, where the company has been making its products for nearly four decades. Like many global corporations, Pandora's continent-crossing supply chain has allowed it to sell its goods worldwide at a low cost. That supply chain became a grave weakness in April when US President Donald Trump said he would impose 36% tariffs on goods entering the United States from Thailand, alongside steep tariffs on dozens of other countries. After Trump unveiled his 'reciprocal tariffs', Pandora's shares were among the worst performing in Europe. Later, Trump postponed those tariffs until early July, offering a reprieve. But the threat looms, and Alexander Lacik (pic), CEO of Pandora, is not expecting the uncertainty that is paralysing businesses to end. Unless tariffs return to previous levels, the next year will be turbulent, he said in an interview. For now, he added, there is little to do but wait to see how investors, customers and competitors react. 'With the information at hand today, I would be crazy to make big strategic decisions,' Lacik said. Alongside business leaders all over the world, Lacik is grappling with how to respond to Trump's unpredictable policies, which have generated almost maddening uncertainty. Lacik says he is not expecting the uncertainty paralysing businesses to end unless tariffs returned to previous levels. — Jenna Schoenefeld/The New York Times The Trump administration has started to show a willingness to lower tariffs, but his first agreements, with Britain and China, have posed more questions than answers, and tariffs are still higher than they were a couple of months ago. Although some aspects of the trade war have been suspended, Pandora and other multinationals are in limbo, waiting for more agreements to be finalised. Pandora, best known for its silver charm bracelets, has been making jewellery in Thailand since 1989. Across three factories, thousands of people handcraft the products. The company is building a fourth plant in Vietnam, but Trump has also threatened tariffs on Vietnamese goods. Last year, the company sold 113 million pieces of jewellery, about three items every second, making it the largest jewellery brand by volume, with stores in more than 100 countries. A third of Pandora's sales, US$1.4bil, was generated in the United States and Lacik said he had no intention of moving away from the company's most profitable market. But prices will rise, he said, and who will bear the brunt of that is unclear. 'The big question is, am I going to pass on everything to the US consumer, or am I going to peanut butter it out and raise the whole Pandora pricing globally?' Lacik said. Jewellery by Pandora being worn by a model at a promotional event in Los Angeles. — Jenna Schoenefeld/The New York Times But Pandora keeps several months' worth of stock, giving him time to see how other jewellers change their pricing and then decide. A few things can be done immediately, such as streamlining parts of the supply chain. The day after the reciprocal tariffs were announced, Pandora said that it would change its distribution so that products sold in Canada and Latin America would no longer move through the company's distribution hub in Baltimore, a process that would take six to nine months to complete. Moving production into the United States is not being considered, in part because of higher labour costs. Pandora employs nearly 15,000 craftspeople in Thailand and expects to hire 7,000 more in Vietnam. In an earnings report last month, the company estimated the cost of the trade war. If higher tariffs go back into effect, they would cost Pandora US$74mil this year, and then US$135mil annually after that. But the jeweller is not panicking. In fact, the economic curveballs are starting to feel normal, Lacik said. 'We are battle ready,' he added. When he joined the company as the CEO in 2019, Pandora was struggling. Its share price had dropped more than 70% from its peak three years earlier. Lacik instituted a 'complete overhaul', he said, with new branding and store designs, an emphasis on its 'affordable luxury' label and showcasing its complete jewellery line, not just charms. That prepared the company for the trials that hit the global economy next. First, the Covid-19 pandemic, when 15,000 store employees were sent home, and some factory workers slept on cots to keep production going. Then, a surge in inflation risked customers pulling back. Lacik's strategy appeared to be working. In January, Pandora's share price reached a record high. Since then, however, it has dropped more than 20% as it shields itself from some of the trade turmoil. — ©2025 The New York Times Company This article originally appeared in The New York Times
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
America's cold shoulder to foreign students is worrying Asia
The Harvard Students for Freedom rally in support of international students at the Harvard University campus in Boston recently. The US government said it intends to cancel most foreign student visas. — AFP AN Ivy League degree has long been central to the Asian Dream – a ticket to success and status. But President Donald Trump's message to international students is clear: Far fewer of you are welcome. The blunt statement and growing chaos across the university sector has left families wondering if sending their children to America is still worth it. The White House's immediate target is Chinese students allegedly connected to the Communist Party. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the United States plans to start 'aggressively' revoking their visas. Students affected would include 'those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.' The US will also enhance scrutiny 'of all future visa applications from the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong,' he added. It's unclear how these rules will be executed; the move follows a short period of improved ties between the superpowers after they agreed to a truce in the trade war. China's Foreign Ministry has expressed its dissatisfaction, saying it had lodged a protest with the US. The impact is wider than Washington and Beijing's geopolitical rivalry. The decision to ban Harvard from enrolling international students is focusing minds in Asia, even though a federal judge has temporarily blocked the policy. Many families are wondering if other universities will be next. The rhetoric coming out of the White House is hardly reassuring. 'We have people who want to go to Harvard and other schools; they can't get in because we have foreign students there,' Trump had said. Students of other universities protesting in support of international students at Harvard University. — Bloomberg This attitude, combined with a directive ordering US embassies worldwide to stop scheduling interviews for student visas sends a chilling message to Asian students: The Ivy aspiration is no longer as accessible as it once was. The worries are pouring in on my parent chat groups. Many have already spent thousands of dollars preparing children for a future at a prestigious American university – hiring expensive college counsellors, visiting campuses, and investing countless hours navigating complex application processes. That's not to mention time spent on preparing for standardised tests and extracurricular activities, all in an effort to perfect the profile for a prospective candidate. There are also legitimate concerns about what happens to deposits and scholarships, all of which are up in the air as students and their families figure out what the new rules mean for them. It's no small cost. An average American degree can set an international student's family back approximately US$100,000 (RM42,300) over four years, excluding living costs. An Ivy League degree? It's more than triple that. Parents spend decades making sacrifices and putting aside the massive investment required to help their kids go to their dream university. The money is worth it, the thinking goes, because eventually their child will reap the rewards. The schools get something out of this, too. Foreign applicants are more likely to pay full tuition, essentially subsidising American students who receive aid. Over a million international students studied in American universities in the 2023-2024 school year, according to data from Open Doors, an information resource for foreign students studying or teaching in the US. Asians made up a significant proportion, with Indians and Chinese citizens accounting for over half. America is not going to lose its appeal overnight. It's still a coveted place to study, both because of its world-class tertiary education and the potential to find lucrative employment after graduation. But other countries are becoming more attractive because of the Trump administration's crackdown. Some parents I've spoken to will simply go elsewhere. Canada and the United Kingdom, already popular alternatives, are poised to scoop up disillusioned applicants. Closer to home, Australia and New Zealand are also promoting their schools. Asian universities that offer top-tier programs will appeal to anxious Asian families. Schools such as the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, the University of Tokyo, and Malaysia's Sunway University are offering credit transfers and other incentives to attract ambitious students and families looking for quality education without the uncertainties tied to American foreign policy. For many Asian students who have dreamt of studying and working in cities like New York or Los Angeles, the political gyrations affecting their futures are no doubt disappointing. But this is about more than visas and policies. It's about the hopes of a generation searching for a place to study, grow, and build their future. Trump has just made the US seem like a far less inviting option. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Karishma Vaswani is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China.
