Hope Is Not a Strategy: The Urgent Need for India and Pakistan to De-escalate
The heinous terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 and the retaliatory May 6 missile and drone attacks by India, including on targets in Pakistani territory, have created the conditions for a dangerous escalation of hostilities between these two nuclear-armed states.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, as well as leaders from other key countries, including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have called for urgent, direct dialogue leading to immediate de-escalation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, the danger of a wider war has not yet been abated.
So far, President Trump has apparently only offered vague words of hope that a more serious crisis can be averted. "They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now," Trump said at the White House on May 7, adding he knew both sides "very well" and wanted "to see them work it out." He added: "And if I can do anything to help, I will be there."
But given what is at stake, hope is not enough.
India has accused Pakistan of direct involvement in the terrorist attack through Islamist militant organizations it says have the backing of Islamabad. Pakistan has denied involvement and condemned the terror attack. But, following India’s missile volley, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said India must “suffer the consequences” for the attack and authorized “corresponding action,” which could trigger a chain reaction of strikes and counterstrikes against important military and political targets on each side.
With approximately 170 nuclear warheads each, India and Pakistan have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate the other; Pakistan retains the option to use nuclear weapons first against non-nuclear military threats. In recent days, Pakistan has continued to issue inflammatory statements hinting at potential nuclear use.
Following India's April 24 announcement regarding the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan declared that it would react with "full force across the complete spectrum of national power," which is a not-so-veiled reference to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking to Pakistani TV channel Geo News Wednesday, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said: "If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a stand-off, then at any time a nuclear war can break out."
Any use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving nuclear-armed states will likely lead to a wider nuclear war. Such a catastrophe in South Asia, one of the most populous areas of the world, would produce a catastrophe with regional and global effects beyond imagination.
A 2019 study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates tens of millions of people would be killed, "many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable, millions of injured people needing care, and power, transportation, and financial infrastructure in ruins," and the soot that would be ejected into the atmosphere by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would adversely affect the global climate.
The unfolding crisis highlights the reality that the possession and buildup of nuclear arsenals, the perpetuation of nuclear deterrence strategies, and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state -- whether considered a friend or foe -- is an existential danger to international peace and security.
Senior U.S. leaders, including some presidents, have played an important and sometimes direct role in defusing earlier crises that could have led to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly “emphasized the need for immediate de-escalation” in separate calls with Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif and India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. These efforts are encouraging but not likely sufficient to avoid a spiraling, out-of-control crisis, which continues to worsen.
The most senior officials in the Trump administration, as well as Chinese leaders who have greater influence with Pakistan, will need to more actively and directly press both sides to refrain from issuing further threats or engaging in further military strikes against civilian or military targets -- whether that be in the form of ballistic missile attacks, drone attacks, or artillery bombardments across the line of control -- which could lead to disaster.
In addition, a second UN Security Council meeting this month on the topic should be scheduled to foster a serious dialogue on off-ramps, to increase the pressure on India and Pakistan to avoid further hostilities, and to explore options for longer-terms exchanges of views on how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war in the region.
Since the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998, India continues to steadily develop more advanced nuclear weapons delivery systems while Pakistan produces more fissile material and new and longer-range missile capabilities in the name of “full spectrum deterrence” against India.
If and when this latest and immediate risk of escalation between India and Pakistan is averted, responsible global leaders need to implement a more comprehensive, balanced, and pro-active strategy to reduce nuclear risks in South Asia and bring India and Pakistan into the global nuclear disarmament enterprise.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The heinous terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 and the retaliatory May 6 missile and drone attacks by India, including on targets in Pakistani territory, have created the conditions for a dangerous escalation of hostilities between these two nuclear-armed states.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, as well as leaders from other key countries, including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have called for urgent, direct dialogue leading to immediate de-escalation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, the danger of a wider war has not yet been abated.
So far, President Trump has apparently only offered vague words of hope that a more serious crisis can be averted. "They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now," Trump said at the White House on May 7, adding he knew both sides "very well" and wanted "to see them work it out." He added: "And if I can do anything to help, I will be there."
But given what is at stake, hope is not enough.
India has accused Pakistan of direct involvement in the terrorist attack through Islamist militant organizations it says have the backing of Islamabad. Pakistan has denied involvement and condemned the terror attack. But, following India’s missile volley, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said India must “suffer the consequences” for the attack and authorized “corresponding action,” which could trigger a chain reaction of strikes and counterstrikes against important military and political targets on each side.
With approximately 170 nuclear warheads each, India and Pakistan have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate the other; Pakistan retains the option to use nuclear weapons first against non-nuclear military threats. In recent days, Pakistan has continued to issue inflammatory statements hinting at potential nuclear use.
Following India's April 24 announcement regarding the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan declared that it would react with "full force across the complete spectrum of national power," which is a not-so-veiled reference to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking to Pakistani TV channel Geo News Wednesday, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said: "If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a stand-off, then at any time a nuclear war can break out."
Any use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving nuclear-armed states will likely lead to a wider nuclear war. Such a catastrophe in South Asia, one of the most populous areas of the world, would produce a catastrophe with regional and global effects beyond imagination.
A 2019 study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates tens of millions of people would be killed, "many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable, millions of injured people needing care, and power, transportation, and financial infrastructure in ruins," and the soot that would be ejected into the atmosphere by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would adversely affect the global climate.
The unfolding crisis highlights the reality that the possession and buildup of nuclear arsenals, the perpetuation of nuclear deterrence strategies, and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state -- whether considered a friend or foe -- is an existential danger to international peace and security.
Senior U.S. leaders, including some presidents, have played an important and sometimes direct role in defusing earlier crises that could have led to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly “emphasized the need for immediate de-escalation” in separate calls with Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif and India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. These efforts are encouraging but not likely sufficient to avoid a spiraling, out-of-control crisis, which continues to worsen.
The most senior officials in the Trump administration, as well as Chinese leaders who have greater influence with Pakistan, will need to more actively and directly press both sides to refrain from issuing further threats or engaging in further military strikes against civilian or military targets -- whether that be in the form of ballistic missile attacks, drone attacks, or artillery bombardments across the line of control -- which could lead to disaster.
In addition, a second UN Security Council meeting this month on the topic should be scheduled to foster a serious dialogue on off-ramps, to increase the pressure on India and Pakistan to avoid further hostilities, and to explore options for longer-terms exchanges of views on how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war in the region.
Since the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998, India continues to steadily develop more advanced nuclear weapons delivery systems while Pakistan produces more fissile material and new and longer-range missile capabilities in the name of “full spectrum deterrence” against India.
If and when this latest and immediate risk of escalation between India and Pakistan is averted, responsible global leaders need to implement a more comprehensive, balanced, and pro-active strategy to reduce nuclear risks in South Asia and bring India and Pakistan into the global nuclear disarmament enterprise.
The heinous terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22 and the retaliatory May 6 missile and drone attacks by India, including on targets in Pakistani territory, have created the conditions for a dangerous escalation of hostilities between these two nuclear-armed states.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, as well as leaders from other key countries, including China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States, have called for urgent, direct dialogue leading to immediate de-escalation between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan. Nevertheless, the danger of a wider war has not yet been abated.
So far, President Trump has apparently only offered vague words of hope that a more serious crisis can be averted. "They've gone tit-for-tat, so hopefully they can stop now," Trump said at the White House on May 7, adding he knew both sides "very well" and wanted "to see them work it out." He added: "And if I can do anything to help, I will be there."
But given what is at stake, hope is not enough.
India has accused Pakistan of direct involvement in the terrorist attack through Islamist militant organizations it says have the backing of Islamabad. Pakistan has denied involvement and condemned the terror attack. But, following India’s missile volley, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said India must “suffer the consequences” for the attack and authorized “corresponding action,” which could trigger a chain reaction of strikes and counterstrikes against important military and political targets on each side.
With approximately 170 nuclear warheads each, India and Pakistan have enough nuclear firepower to obliterate the other; Pakistan retains the option to use nuclear weapons first against non-nuclear military threats. In recent days, Pakistan has continued to issue inflammatory statements hinting at potential nuclear use.
Following India's April 24 announcement regarding the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, Pakistan declared that it would react with "full force across the complete spectrum of national power," which is a not-so-veiled reference to the possible use of nuclear weapons.
Speaking to Pakistani TV channel Geo News Wednesday, Pakistan's Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said: "If they [India] impose an all-out war on the region and if such dangers arise in which there is a stand-off, then at any time a nuclear war can break out."
Any use of nuclear weapons in a conflict involving nuclear-armed states will likely lead to a wider nuclear war. Such a catastrophe in South Asia, one of the most populous areas of the world, would produce a catastrophe with regional and global effects beyond imagination.
A 2019 study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists estimates tens of millions of people would be killed, "many major cities largely destroyed and uninhabitable, millions of injured people needing care, and power, transportation, and financial infrastructure in ruins," and the soot that would be ejected into the atmosphere by an India-Pakistan nuclear war would adversely affect the global climate.
The unfolding crisis highlights the reality that the possession and buildup of nuclear arsenals, the perpetuation of nuclear deterrence strategies, and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any state -- whether considered a friend or foe -- is an existential danger to international peace and security.
Senior U.S. leaders, including some presidents, have played an important and sometimes direct role in defusing earlier crises that could have led to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
On Thursday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly “emphasized the need for immediate de-escalation” in separate calls with Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shehbaz Sharif and India’s external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. These efforts are encouraging but not likely sufficient to avoid a spiraling, out-of-control crisis, which continues to worsen.
The most senior officials in the Trump administration, as well as Chinese leaders who have greater influence with Pakistan, will need to more actively and directly press both sides to refrain from issuing further threats or engaging in further military strikes against civilian or military targets -- whether that be in the form of ballistic missile attacks, drone attacks, or artillery bombardments across the line of control -- which could lead to disaster.
In addition, a second UN Security Council meeting this month on the topic should be scheduled to foster a serious dialogue on off-ramps, to increase the pressure on India and Pakistan to avoid further hostilities, and to explore options for longer-terms exchanges of views on how to reduce the role of nuclear weapons and the risk of nuclear war in the region.
Since the Indian and Pakistani nuclear tests of 1998, India continues to steadily develop more advanced nuclear weapons delivery systems while Pakistan produces more fissile material and new and longer-range missile capabilities in the name of “full spectrum deterrence” against India.
If and when this latest and immediate risk of escalation between India and Pakistan is averted, responsible global leaders need to implement a more comprehensive, balanced, and pro-active strategy to reduce nuclear risks in South Asia and bring India and Pakistan into the global nuclear disarmament enterprise.