Hostilities between India and Pakistan have broken out many times before. But the latest aerial skirmish has upped the ante for any future clashes over the disputed border territories, with perilous consequences.
Indian observers hope that the enhanced military capabilities demonstrated in India’s attack will deter future Pakistani terrorism.
India must recognize that any response to the attack at Pulwama can at best mitigate—not eliminate—Pakistani terrorism. But India can do much more to equip and protect its security forces.
If the United States effectively uses its considerable residual leverage in Afghanistan, Pakistan does not try and turn Afghanistan into a weak protectorate, and the Taliban does not overreach inside Afghanistan, there is reason for optimism.
Pakistan’s nuclear policy is heavily influenced by 1960s NATO flexible response strategy, and has essentially imported its contradictions into Islamabad’s own. This emulation has raised serious questions about Pakistan’s “full-spectrum deterrence” credibility, deterrence stability and future measures to manage regional security competition.
The Trump administration’s strategy in Afghanistan is promising, but the United States must devote substantial resources and effort to ensure its success.
This summer, the Indian government informed the Lok Sabha that 881 ceasefire violations (CFVs) had taken place in 2017. On the Pakistani side, the figures given were even higher.
As belt and road investments have rolled out across the world, they have been dogged by allegations of corruption and enabled by China’s willingness to seemingly ignore poor governance in its partners.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) had its annual plenary meeting last week in Paris, where it grappled with hard cases, like Pakistan. FATF’s blacklist for nations that do not uphold its standards can effectively cut them off from the international financial system.
Two nuclear-armed rivals in South Asia—India and Pakistan—have not fought openly since the 1999 Kargil conflict, but the lack of active war has not meant the absence of violence.