'No' US role in ceasefire with Pakistan
PM Carney invites Modi to G7 as guest; first Canada visit in 10 years seen as diplomatic test for the new leader. PHOTO: REUTERS
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi told US President Donald Trump late on Tuesday that a ceasefire between India and Pakistan after a four-day conflict in May was achieved through talks between the two militaries and not US mediation, according to India's senior-most diplomat.
The Indian prime minister also told the US president that New Delhi will never accept third-party mediation with Pakistan on the issue of Kashmir, the India's senior-most diplomat said.
Foreign secretary Vikram Misri said that Modi "strongly" conveyed India's long-held stand to Trump during a phone call between the two leaders on Tuesday.
Trump has repeatedly offered to mediate between India and Pakistan to solve the "Kashmir issue" since a four-day conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbours in May.
The White House has not commented on India's statement.
Analysts say Trump's very public statements on offers of mediation over Kashmir have tested Delhi's red lines on the issue.
Delhi has always encouraged its Western partners not to treat India and Pakistan as equals. It also discourages western leaders from undertaking visits to India and Pakistan at the same time.
"PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a press statement.
"Talks for ceasing military action happened directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, and on the insistence of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi emphasised that India has not accepted mediation in the past and will never do," he said.
However, Modi's claim that the decision to de-escalate was made on the call of Pakistan's military has raised questions about the rationale behind the offensive in the first place with the assertion appearing to potentially undercut New Delhi's own stance.
Misri said the two leaders were due to meet on the sidelines of G7 summit but Trump left a day early due to the situation in the Middle East. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the Modi-Trump call.
Pakistan has previously said that the ceasefire happened after its military returned a call the Indian military had initiated.
He said that Trump expressed his support for India's fight against terrorism and that Modi told him India's Operation Sindoor under which it launched the cross-border strikes was still on.
Trump also asked Modi if he could stop by the US on his return from Canada, Misri said, but the Indian leader expressed his inability to do so due to a pre-decided schedule.
He invited Trump to visit India later this year for the summit of the leaders of the Quad grouping, which Trump accepted, Misri said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Pakistan nominates Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize
Listen to article The government has formally decided to recommend US President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, praising his decisive diplomatic intervention and leadership during the recent Pakistan-India standoff, according to an official statement released Friday. Islamabad cited what it called 'unprovoked and unlawful' Indian aggression against Pakistan, resulting in civilian casualties, including women, children and the elderly. 'This constituted a grave violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity,' the statement added. In response, Pakistan launched Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, described as a measured and precise military action aimed at re-establishing deterrence while avoiding civilian harm. The operation, the statement said, was in 'exercise of the fundamental right of self-defence'. Read More: Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos: Pakistan counters India's Operation Sindoor The intervention of President Trump, coupled with robust engagement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is credited with facilitating a ceasefire agreement on May 10, effectively preventing a wider conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations, the statement read. Trump's 'strategic foresight and stellar statesmanship' helped de-escalate the crisis through vigorous diplomatic engagement with both Islamabad and New Delhi. 'His intervention secured a ceasefire and averted a broader conflict between the two nuclear states,' the statement added, calling the move a watershed moment for regional peace. Government of Pakistan Recommends President Donald J. Trump for 2026 Nobel Peace Prize The Government of Pakistan has decided to formally recommend President Donald J. Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, in recognition of his decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal… — Government of Pakistan (@GovtofPakistan) June 20, 2025 The statement further said the government acknowledges and greatly admires Trump's offers to mediate the long-standing Jammu and Kashmir dispute—a flashpoint that continues to destabilise South Asia. 'Durable peace in South Asia will remain elusive until UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir are implemented,' it stated. In formally backing Trump's Nobel nomination, the statement said: 'President Trump's leadership during the 2025 Pakistan–India crisis manifestly showcases the continuation of his legacy of pragmatic diplomacy and effective peace-building.' Also Read: Shehbaz hails Trump as 'man of peace' The United States is said to have leveraged diplomatic and economic pressure—particularly trade leverage—to expedite de-escalation. The statement concluded by expressing hope that Trump's diplomatic efforts would further promote regional and global stability, 'particularly amid ongoing crises in Gaza and the escalating situation in Iran.' Pakistan thus becomes one of the first countries to put forward Trump's name for the prestigious Nobel accolade, typically reserved for individuals with demonstrable contributions to peace and conflict prevention.
Business Recorder
3 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump says Europe will not be able to help much with Iran-Israel war
WASHINGTON: U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday that Europe would not be able to help much in the war between Iran and Israel. 'Europe is not going to be able to help with this one,' Trump said. European powers urge Iran to continue US nuclear talks European foreign ministers urged Iran on Friday to engage with Washington over its nuclear program after talks in Geneva aimed at opening negotiations for a new nuclear deal ended with little sign of progress.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Water — not a bargaining chip
Listen to article In international diplomacy, some agreements are too foundational to tamper with. The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), signed in 1960, is one such rare pillar of stability between Pakistan and India. It has stood wars, diplomatic tensions and political changes. Now, however, with an alarming twist, India has unilaterally "held it in abeyance", an expression of elasticity with potentially disastrous results. This is not just a bureaucratic manoeuvre. It is an affront to legal norms, a threat to regional peace, and most gravely, a dangerous suggestion that water, the source of life, is now a bargaining chip. Water is not optional for Pakistan. With more than 80% of its agricultural output relying on the Indus River system, and with already dwindling per capita water availability, any disruption to this flow is an existential threat. The provinces of Punjab and Sindh, which form the country's breadbasket, would face drought, economic paralysis and civil unrest. The consequences would not be limited to economic losses as it would increase inequalities, fuel provincial tensions and make an already unstable situation in the political arena much more complex. The legal basis of the Indian claim of the treaty being in abeyance is weak and the first in history. There is no provision in the IWT allowing a suspension and anyway what due process has been adopted by India in its regard under the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties. Under Article 57 of the Convention, a treaty may be suspended only by mutual consent or within the framework of the treaty itself and neither of these applies here. Article 60 does allow for suspension if a material breach occurs which India has no proof of. In essence, India has invented a legal grey area to justify a political decision. It is a breach not only of treaty obligations but of the basic principles of international law. To turn water into a pressure tactic is to reduce a humanitarian and ecological concern into a geopolitical lever. And once that precedent is set, it becomes dangerously difficult to undo. If water is fair game in power politics, what comes next? This is why the global community cannot afford to stay neutral. South Asia is already one of the most water-stressed regions. Climate change is causing shrinking glaciers and monsoons slackening, and has been speeding the dearth of platforms. The IWT despite all its shortcomings was a paradigm of collaboration on common resources. Such an undermining not only destabilises Pakistan, but also sends the signal to other riparian basins in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia that a unilateral weaponisation of water security is possible. Pakistan must act, but not recklessly. Although there is nothing wrong with citing India's shift as a possible casus belli, it has to first make all the diplomatic attempts. That involves appealing to the Security Council of the UN under Chapter VII of the UN Charter that specifically provides the possibility of interfering when there is a threat of peace. Water, especially when controlled by one nuclear power over another, constitutes exactly that kind of threat. The P5 states must be reminded of their 1998 commitment to intervene if South Asia's stability is at risk. That moment is now. This is not merely about sovereignty or national pride. It is about redefining what should be off-limits in conflict. Civilian water access cannot be a pawn in strategic calculus. Pakistan's response must reinforce this principle, legally and morally. Because if this treaty falls, the damage will go far beyond the Indus Basin — it will corrode the very idea of principled diplomacy. Water sustains life; it should never be used to choke it. The IWT is not a perfect document, but it is a symbol of what diplomacy can achieve even between enemies. To treat it as a bargaining chip is to abandon that legacy and to gamble with peace itself.
