Latest news with #defenseMinister
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Border tensions rise as Thailand and Cambodia reinforce troops after May 28 clash
Thailand has reinforced its military presence along a disputed border with Cambodia, following an increase in troops on the other side, Thailand's defence minister said on Saturday, as tensions simmer following a deadly clash. For days, the two Southeast Asian governments have exchanged carefully worded statements committing to dialogue after a brief skirmish in an unmarked border area on May 28, in which a Cambodian soldier was killed. But Phumtham Wechayachai, who also serves as Thailand's deputy prime minister, said that during bilateral talks held on Thursday, Cambodia had rejected proposals that could have led to a de-escalation. 'Furthermore, there has been a reinforcement of military presence, which has exacerbated tensions along the border,' Phumtham said in a statement. 'Consequently, the Royal Thai Government has deemed it necessary to implement additional measures and to reinforce our military posture accordingly.' Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Phumtham Wechayachai Photo: EPA-EFE He did not provide details on the extent of reinforcements by either side.
South China Morning Post
3 days ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
Thailand to take control of checkpoints on border with Cambodia, after May skirmish
Thailand has reinforced its military presence along a disputed border with Cambodia, following an increase in troops on the other side, Thailand's defence minister said on Saturday, as tensions simmer following a deadly clash. For days, the two Southeast Asian governments have exchanged carefully worded statements committing to dialogue after a brief skirmish in an unmarked border area on May 28, in which a Cambodian soldier was killed. But Phumtham Wechayachai, who also serves as Thailand's deputy prime minister, said that during bilateral talks held on Thursday, Cambodia had rejected proposals that could have led to a de-escalation. 'Furthermore, there has been a reinforcement of military presence, which has exacerbated tensions along the border,' Phumtham said in a statement. 'Consequently, the Royal Thai Government has deemed it necessary to implement additional measures and to reinforce our military posture accordingly.' Thailand's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defence Phumtham Wechayachai Photo: EPA-EFE He did not provide details on the extent of reinforcements by either side.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Perspective: Nuclear jitters are back. How worried should we be?
For decades now, it's been assumed in the field of security studies that the first nuclear exchange in a conflict would take place on the Indian subcontinent, between India and Pakistan. There have been incidents in the past that have come close, such as when nuclear bombs were loaded onto aircraft by these countries in 1999, but the crisis was averted by the efforts of then-President Bill Clinton. The most recent flare-up when nuclear sabers were rattled by India and Pakistan was in 2019, and again U.S. intervention was pivotal in achieving de-escalation. Terrorist activity has often precipitated these escalatory spirals, and that has been the catalyst yet again. On April 22, terrorists machine-gunned more than two dozen people in Indian-controlled Kashmir, a territory claimed by both nations. India retaliated by shelling what it said were terrorist camps across the 'line of control' between Pakistani-controlled Kashmir and Indian-controlled Kashmir. Pakistan is now retaliating, with shells dropping on several towns and cities in Indian-controlled Kashmir. The defense minister of Pakistan is reported as saying, 'There is a very vivid and clear possibility that this confrontation will expand.' That would be truly unfortunate. The impetus for the use of nuclear weapons lies in the fact that Indian military forces dwarf those of Pakistan. In addition, India's military budget is nine times that of Pakistan. If push came to shove, Pakistan would get shoved. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan was meant to deter such a foreseeable outcome, and that has arguably been the case to date. Even so, the continuing hostility of the two countries, mixed in with terrorist attacks by militant groups, shakes Indo-Pakistani deterrence to the core every few years, and the world can only wonder how sturdy that nuclear deterrence is in reality. A nuclear war between the two countries has been war-gamed over and over by military planners, so we have a good idea of what the price would be if deterrence failed. Both countries have approximately 170 warheads, typically of 50-100 kiloton yield. India has a full nuclear triad — land, sea and air — with Pakistan missing one leg: the sea component. Both countries have missiles that can reach any part of its foe's territory. Because of its military advantage, India has adopted a 'No First Use' doctrine, meaning it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, for it is Pakistan that is likely to need first-strike capability. If an all-out nuclear exchange were to occur between India and Pakistan, it is estimated that up to 125 million would die after escalation from tactical nukes to airbursts to ground bursts. But those would only be the first casualties, as the two countries would likely then be plunged into prolonged scarcity and famine, the death toll from which might even outstrip that from the detonations themselves. Furthermore, smoke and dust from the nuclear explosions would also probably affect global weather patterns, decreasing both temperature and sunlight, also jeopardizing agriculture in lands far from the Indian subcontinent. Effects would be felt for up to a decade. No wonder many nations of the world, such as the U.S., the United Kingdom, China, Iran and the United Arab Emirates have called on the two countries to step back from the brink of nuclear escalation. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken with officials in both countries, urging them to de-escalate immediately. But already the conflict is having longer-term repercussions. The day after the April 22 terrorist attacks, India suspended its water-sharing agreement with Pakistan, which is devastating for Pakistani agriculture, and India has also lobbied the International Monetary Fund to deny new loans for Pakistan. There are also larger geopolitical considerations at play. The biggest arms seller to Pakistan is China, a clear example of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' There have been recent clashes between Chinese and Indian soldiers over disputed territory, and Pakistan might look to China to offer a form of extended nuclear deterrence. How easily nations forget what was learned in the early years of the Cold War: a nuclear war produces no winners, only losers. The only thing nuclear weapons are good for is, ironically, preventing their own use through deterrence: the 'balance of terror,' as it was known then. But as yields have decreased and the terror they are capable of instilling has decreased with them, nations have once again begun to speak of nukes as usable weapons. We have certainly seen that in the Russia-Ukraine war, where Russia has been rattling its nuclear saber at the U.S. and Europe for the past three years. At some point, I fear this slipshod thinking will result in nuclear use, which will harm every person on the planet in one way or another. During the Cold War, there were many attempts to help understand what that would entail; one of the most successful efforts was the 1984 BBC docudrama, 'Threads.' The screenplay was written by professional writers working with scientists who were able to describe exactly what biological, social and environmental effects that survivors of a nuclear exchange in Sheffield, England would likely experience, out to 15 years post-detonation. The effect on that generation was sobering in the extreme, helping to catalyze the nuclear freeze movement, and, arguably, the INF Treaty later on. If you have never seen 'Threads,' it is well worth viewing even now. As a sign of the times, the BBC has just announced it is making a new series — a reboot of 'Threads.' How apropos, especially since European nations are busy dusting off their plans for survival after nuclear attack. However, given what we know now, the new series should not be set in Sheffield, as it was in 1984. Rather, it should be set in Islamabad. That is the wake-up call the world needs now, in 2025.
CNA
07-05-2025
- Politics
- CNA
CNA Explains: What escalating India-Pakistan tensions mean for the rest of the world
SINGAPORE: India on Wednesday (May 7) launched missile strikes at nine sites in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. At least 38 fatalities have been reported. Tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours have been escalating since an attack on tourists in India-administered Pahalgam in Kashmir last month, which left 26 dead. India's defence ministry said Wednesday's operation showed the country's resolve to hold perpetrators accountable while avoiding unnecessary provocation. In response, Pakistan's defence minister said the retaliation had "already started" and vowed to "settle the score". What's the history between India and Pakistan? Since gaining independence from the British in 1947, Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan have fought over the Kashmir region, with both sides claiming it in full. Their first war was in 1947 and a second happened in 1965. At least three other wars and several armed skirmishes have erupted in the decades since. The India- and Pakistan-administered parts of Kashmir are currently split by a Line of Control, which serves as a de facto border. India governs the Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh, while Pakistan controls Azad Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan. Are they on the brink of another war? Since last month's attacks, the two nations have already traded diplomatic blows: India suspended the Indus Water Treaty - a decades-old agreement to divide the water in the Indus river - and closed its mainland border crossing with Pakistan. Pakistan, meanwhile, has threatened to pull out from the Simla Agreement, a peace treaty signed in 1972 which established the Line of Control and is aimed at normalising ties. The neighbours have also cancelled visas for each other's citizens and closed off access to airspace. With the latest escalation, expert opinion is split on the prospect of South Asia's longest-running conflict spiraling into another all-out war. Writing in The Conversation, international relations professor Ian Hall from Australia's Griffith University said it was clear both sides are closer to a major conflict than they've been in years. "The hope would be there's limited military action, lasting a few days, and then things calm down rapidly, as they have in the past. But there are no guarantees," he said. Associate Professor Iqbal Singh Sevea from the National University of Singapore (NUS) said there were no signs of an impending war - yet. Both countries are wary of being pulled into full-scale hostilities, he said, noting that India had consciously framed its strikes as "focused, measured and non-escalatory" actions solely targeting "terrorist infrastructure". "This reflects its aims of framing the strikes as attacks on terrorists based in Pakistan, and not an act of war." On its part, Pakistan is anxious about a military escalation. It will still likely respond to India's strikes with military action - but calibrated in a manner that does not escalate tensions beyond a point, added Assoc Prof Sevea, who is the director of the university's Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS). How has the global community reacted? Leaders across the world have expressed concern. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the world "cannot afford" a military confrontation between the two countries. United States President Donald Trump called the crisis a "shame". In Asia, the Chinese foreign ministry said in a statement that India's operation was "regrettable", and called on both countries to refrain from taking actions that might further complicate the situation. Japan's chief cabinet secretary was concerned about the potential escalation into a full-scale military conflict, and similarly urged the two nations to "exercise restraint" and stabilise the situation through dialogue. What's the impact on Southeast Asia? One immediate implication of extended hostilities would be import: India's economy is increasingly linked with Southeast Asia, with many states in the region investing in New Delhi, said Assoc Prof Sevea. Several Southeast Asian countries are also reliant on food imports from India and Pakistan, including staples such as rice. Malaysia imports about 40 per cent of its rice from the two nations, while Indonesia relies on imports from India to meet its shortfall in rice production. For countries like Singapore which support multilateral institutions and frameworks, conflict between India and Pakistan will only introduce even more uncertainty to a global order already in flux, Assoc Prof Sevea noted. Is there a path to de-escalation and long-term peace? Researcher Iftekharul Basha from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies think-tank wrote in a commentary after the April attack in Pahalgam that India needs to take steps to ensure social cohesion and co-existence; and respect diversity. "Alienating Indian Muslims will only pave the way for extremists to exploit the situation," he said. Pakistan, too, has a responsibility to take credible measures to ensure regional peace and security by thoroughly investigating and clamping down on terrorist groups operating within its borders, Mr Basha added. He also cited the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) - an economic and political organisation of countries in the region - and how treaties under it such as the Suppression of Terrorism Convention have been "underutilised" due to a lack of enforcement and political will. The association could have stepped in to reduce tensions following the April attack, but political rivalry had hindered its effectiveness. Mr Basha said the SAARC could consider learning from other regions like Southeast Asia and its ASEAN bloc. Gestures from the wider international community, meanwhile, may only offer temporary relief, said former Pakistan national security adviser Moeed W Yusuf in an analysis for the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in Harvard University. The international community's interest has been restricted to crisis management rather than crisis prevention, which requires more sustained effort to nudge both sides to normalise their ties, he wrote. Mr Yusuf said dialogue between the two nations was the "only sensible way forward", citing examples of previous instances when India and Pakistan had made progress in their relationship after serious conversations. "The international community should find ways to facilitate India and Pakistan's return to the negotiation table – with the intent to address all their outstanding issues in a mutually acceptable and sustainable manner," he said.
