Latest news with #MichaelKugelman
Times of Oman
3 days ago
- Politics
- Times of Oman
Trump to meet Pak COAS Asim Munir in Washington, experts say Iran on agenda
Washington, DC: The White House on Tuesday confirmed a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Pakistan Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir for Wednesday. The meeting comes even as the US seeks to bring to an end the ongoing crisis in West Asia. South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman pointed out the significance of the meeting in a post on X. "Senior US officials often engage with Pakistani Army Chiefs, but rarely is one hosted at the White House by the US President. One of many reasons why Munir's scheduled meeting with Trump is so significant, especially as his administration considers its options regarding the war in Iran," he posted on X. "For what it's worth, the scheduled Trump-Munir meeting shouldn't only be seen through the lens of the Israel-Iran war. There's been US-Pak engagement on critical minerals, crypto, and Counter Terrorism. Trump takes a deep personal interest in all of these. And Munir is empowered to talk about it all. Also, Kashmir," he added. Derek J. Grossman, National Security and Indo-Pacific analyst, said, "India, time to speak up! Trump this week is scheduled to meet at the White House with Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir, who New Delhi believes is the terrorist mastermind behind attacks on Indians." The last Pakistani military leader to meet a sitting U.S. President was General Pervez Musharraf in 2001, who did so as the nation's head of state during his tenure as a military dictator. The Trump-Munir meeting comes after reports speculated on the possibility of Pakistan aiding Iran during its ongoing conflict with Israel. Asim Munir, in a public address in Washington, DC, had declared Pakistan's "clear and strong" support for Iran in its war with Israel while also backing US efforts to de-escalate the situation. The Dawn reported that one of the most consequential developments during Munir's visit, however, has been Pakistan's strengthened counterterrorism partnership with the United States, particularly against the Islamic State Khorasan (IS-K) group. Earlier, overseas Pakistanis protested against Field Marshal Asim Munir outside an event at a hotel in Washington, DC. People shouted slogans "Pakistanio ke Qatil" and "Islamabad ke Qatil" while Munir was being welcomed at the event. While sharing the video of the protest on X, Pak Tehreek-e-Insaaf (Imran Khan's party) stated, "Pakistani-Americans in Washington, DC are protesting outside the Four Seasons hotel, reminding General Asim Munir of the crimes he's committed against the people of Pakistan." The video showed a screen which had Asim Munir's photo along with the message which read, "Mass Murderer Asim Munir", "Democracy dies when guns speak", and Asim Munir, your time is up. Pakistan will rise."
The Hindu
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Pakistan will exploit UNSC opportunity to allege Indian hand in terrorism in Balochistan: Michael Kugelman
Published : Jun 11, 2025 20:11 IST - 17 MINS READ In June 2025, a month after India carried out military strikes on terrorist targets inside Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following the horrific Pahalgam terror attack in April, Pakistan will now head two terrorism-related committees at the UN Security Council (UNSC), where it is a non-permanent member for a two-year term. How did this happen, and what does it mean for India's efforts to expose Pakistan to the international community? Noted South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman spoke to Frontline about how, in the context of recent events in the region, the choice of Pakistan might appear 'ironic' and 'contradictory', but added how this represents a difficult challenge for India as far as isolating Pakistan on the global stage is concerned. Edited excerpts: India is really shocked and outraged that Pakistan now heads two committees at the UNSC that have been set up through very tough anti-terrorism resolutions. Pakistan is now the chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee and vice chair of the Counter Terrorism Committee. Is there not a huge contradiction in handing over these committees to a country that is the address for so many of these groups and individuals designated by one of the terrorism committees as global terrorists? It certainly might seem ironic, but this is essentially how the United Nations works. As you know, Pakistan is currently a non-permanent member of the Security Council. It's got a two-year term, not for the first time that Pakistan has had this role. And when you have that position, it gives you influence and the ability to have an opportunity to serve on, if not lead, some of these committees. This comes about through essentially discussions and a consensus among the members of the Security Council. If you look at the list of countries that are currently non-permanent members, that's a group of countries from Europe and the Global South. None of them have serious tensions with Pakistan. And one could argue that the five permanent members of the Security Council have friendly relations with Pakistan. Obviously, China stands out in that regard. This is not the first time. There have been some notorious human rights offenders that have served on human rights committees in the United Nations. I think it's just a reflection of how the UN works, wanting to give members an opportunity to be in various places. But absolutely, particularly in the context of what's happened over the last few weeks in the region, it certainly seems ironic, contradictory, and certainly I could understand why this would be seen as such an upsetting thing for so many in India and beyond. What is the importance of these committees? The Taliban now run a country, and many of the Taliban have actually been delisted. So, what is really the point of these groups now? These committees report to the permanent members of the UN Security Council. They make recommendations and report their deliberations to the permanent members. I would not argue that their clout and influence is unlimited, but certainly there is that influence. I would make one point about how Pakistan specifically is benefited by its role on the Taliban sanctions committee. For many years, the Taliban was essentially Pakistan's asset, and it worked with Pakistan very closely. Pakistan's relations with the Taliban have been quite tense since the war ended, mainly because Pakistan lost its leverage over the Taliban because the Taliban no longer needs to rely on it for wartime support. I think that Pakistan is now in a position where it might now have some leverage because it knows that the Taliban is keen to find ways to get off sanctions lists, and Pakistan might think it could try to exploit or capitalise on its role on this committee to try to get some things that it wants from the Taliban. What are the other benefits for Pakistan? Pakistan is trying to push back against this notion that India is isolating it globally on the world stage. The UN is a particularly difficult place to try to isolate Pakistan or any country, just because this is one of the few forums where Pakistan is able to exert leverage and influence. It's able to bring its Kashmir concerns, complaints, and grievances to the table on a regular basis, especially now, being a non-permanent member of the UNSC. The fact that it has leadership roles in these committees is a clear indication that it's not being isolated. It's always going to be a difficult thing for India to do—it's even hard to do that regionally. What's happened at the UN is a reflection of how difficult a task that is for New Delhi. Also Read | India and Pakistan are still very much on the razor's edge: Ramanathan Kumar India's relations with the Taliban are particularly good at this point. In fact, the Taliban regime in Kabul was one of the two entities that actually supported India's strikes inside Pakistan. Will Pakistan be seeking to alter that optics? Indeed, isn't it something that it's the Taliban along with Taiwan and Israel that were fully behind India in this recent conflict? Quite a trio. But absolutely. We're already seeing how Pakistan is trying to respond to these considerable developments in India's relations with the Taliban. And that's a great example of what I would describe as a very nimble and agile and practical foreign policy on India's part. We've seen in recent weeks [that] Pakistan has held a series of talks with the Taliban. In the last round, some of them were mediated by China. So, Pakistan is definitely trying to get back in the good graces of the Taliban. But it has another reason to try to reduce its tensions with the Taliban, not just trying to push back against what India is doing, but also the broader regional geopolitical state of play. For more than four years, the LoC [Line of Control] was relatively calm because you had that truce that was concluded in 2021. But now India-Pakistan relations are extremely tense. After this conflict, we don't know what's going to happen down the road with the ceasefire. Pakistan wants to ensure that as many of its borders as possible are less tense so that it doesn't have to be quite as concerned about the one with India. Is there something more that India should have done or can do to convince the world that terrorism from Pakistan and the groups based there are not just India's but the world's problem? I believe it was a member of the Indian delegation in Washington, DC, who said that this is essentially the world's fight, not just India's fight. And that by trying to bring attention to this issue, India is really helping the world, not just India. That's an important point to make. Unfortunately, people have short memories in many Western capitals and might not remember that the Mumbai attacks in 2008 killed not just dozens of Indians, but also Americans and Canadians. If you look at the nature of what some of these groups that threaten India, Jaish[-e-Muhammad] and LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba], these are global threats for sure. They don't only pose direct threats to India. So it was quite smart for members of the Indian delegation to bring attention to that fact. But the problem is the way things have worked out: when you have these terrorist attacks in India, India responds with military force in Pakistan, you then have a crisis, a military conflict, and then it's only natural for the world to look at two nuclear-armed countries engaging in a conflict and starting to worry about things beyond terrorism, including nuclear escalation risks. And this is the challenge for India. When you have two countries with nuclear weapons that fight against each other, a bilateral dispute quickly becomes an international one. And in that sense, the focus is going to be on global stability, and the focus gets away from the terrorism issue, which tends to provoke or trigger these crises and these conflicts. So that's India's challenge—how to redirect the world's focus to the terrorism issue. So, you are saying that the Indian military strikes inside Pakistan took away attention from the horrific nature of the terrorist attack in Pahalgam and focussed attention on what could quickly develop into a nuclear war? Not initially. The initial Indian strikes—I think you had many countries around the world, certainly Washington [DC], Beijing as well, expressing support for India in the immediate aftermath of the Pahalgam attack. I think that many key capitals would have seen this decision on the part of India to stage strikes as a counterterrorism imperative, but after the initial Indian strikes, once things escalated and Pakistan responded, that's when the global attention shifted more toward concerns about regional instability and indeed the nuclear escalation risk issue. You talked about the delegations, the Indian delegation in Washington, DC. Who's listening? Who are they speaking to? I think the main audience here is one back home. It's quite clear that both in the case of the Indian and the Pakistani delegations, this is a political exercise for domestic consumption. I'm not saying that there are not very concerned, interested folks around the world that are keen to engage with these delegations. But you look at how this is carried out: India and Pakistan wanted to take their positions in the aftermath of this conflict, which enjoy considerable support across the board in both their respective countries, to a global audience, and show back home that they are taking these positions to influential global audiences. That, in itself, can have political advantages for both governments. Each set of delegations met with different types of folks. Both sides met with members of Congress and key congressional committees. There were some meetings with the administration. India won out in that sense. They got a meeting with the Vice President, the Pakistani delegation met with a senior State Department official. But beyond that, interestingly, the Pakistanis only have two delegations to India's seven, and they're only going to five capitals to India's 33 capitals. But while in Washington, DC, the Pakistani delegation had a packed schedule. There were multiple engagements with think tanks, with very small niche organisations like Americans for Tax Reform. Whereas the Indians, it seemed to be more targeted with fewer meetings. One question that I've had for both of these delegations is, how do you actually measure success? The Indian side wants its interlocutors around the world to remember that this really comes down to terrorism, and the threats that India and the world face from it. And the Pakistanis have a very different type of message. They're trying to deliver this message that essentially India is untrustworthy and an aggressor, that it breaks treaties, and so on. India doesn't need to travel the world to get the world to understand and sympathise with India's concerns about terrorism. Pakistan doesn't need to travel the world to get the world's concerns about regional stability and nuclear risks. It's going to be very difficult to go to Paris or Washington or Brussels or London and get people to start looking at India as an untrustworthy actor. Western capitals have very close relations with India. So, the simple answer to your question is the main audience here is a domestic one. So has this whole episode—the Pahalgam incident and India's response to it, and now this diplomatic outreach by both countries—actually ended up doing the very thing that India does not want to do, which is to internationalise the Kashmir issue? Yes, absolutely that's the case. Going back to what we were discussing about escalation dynamics, you have a terrorist attack in India-administered Kashmir, India responds with strikes, you then have a Pakistani response, and then suddenly, what might have been a regional bilateral dispute becomes an international one because people around the world start worrying about the regional and the global stability implications. And that then gives Pakistan an opportunity to come in and make this pitch that they've always made—that this is going to continue to play out unless the Kashmir issue is settled. So, it really provides openings for Pakistan to internationalise the issue. But I would also argue that India, by deciding to send all these delegations around the world to talk about these issues, is also internationalising the issue. I understand India's position that it wants to refocus the issue on terrorism and Pakistan-based, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. But in doing so, you invariably bring attention to these broader issues like Kashmir, that Pakistan would like to be front and centre on the international agenda. Pakistan also becomes the president of the UN Security Council for a month, starting July 1. Is Pakistan likely to bring up what it has always alleged—that India is behind the insurgency in Balochistan? Do you think this is going to be an opportunity for them to bring up that issue? Absolutely. The timing could not be better for Pakistan with these positions it finds itself in at the UN right now. Given what's happened in the last few weeks, holding these key positions with these committees and then presiding over the Security Council for a month, the timing could not be better for Islamabad. And certainly, it's going to be a bit of a challenge for New Delhi. Pakistan will fully exploit this opportunity to push this argument about India sponsoring terrorism in Pakistan. This would essentially be an extension of the argument that its delegations are making, and that is essentially that Pakistan's a victim of terrorism, not a perpetrator of it, and then bringing attention to its allegations against India. It's going to use this very prestigious platform and prominent platform that it'll have at the UN to push this argument out there. This is what UN members do, especially countries like Pakistan that don't have the level of global influence that the likes of India do. They will use this bully pulpit to the full extent that they can. Whether they get anywhere with this is another story. But for Pakistan, just to be able to have the opportunity to put these ideas and these allegations out there, that's a victory in itself. 'India is trying to take a number of steps, some of them unprecedented, to raise the cost for Pakistan of continuing to hold back from doing certain things that could remove this problem once and for all.' One of the things that surprises Indians is that there was this whole examination of Pakistan's terrorist finances by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Why has the international organisation not been successful in actually getting Pakistan to remove these groups completely? What FATF tries to do is put together these missions or work plans for countries targeted by it. If the country does what they're asked to do, the boxes are ticked off and then FATF moves on. And what we have seen with Pakistan is that it does do certain things. But then, when the attention shifts elsewhere, Pakistan reverts. So, Pakistan might be willing to target certain terrorists with arrest or seizing their assets or whatever the case may be. But then, once they get off the grey list or once they get out of the attention of the international community, they then just step back and let things play out as they have. The FATF's job is not to essentially order a country like Pakistan to fully dismantle its terrorist infrastructure. It's focussed very specifically on these terrorist financing issues. It does have the capacity to get a country like Pakistan to do the things that are stipulated in a very specific, narrowly focussed way in these work plans. But clearly no one has had that capacity, whether you're talking about an international actor or a country, no one has had the clout to compel Pakistan to fully shut down and dismantle its entire infrastructure of terrorism. So what should the world do? What should India do? It seems that India is trying to take a number of steps, some of them unprecedented, to raise the cost for Pakistan of continuing to hold back from doing certain things that could remove this problem once and for all. I think we have to look at these things that India did right after the Pahalgam attack, shutting down trade, closing the border, suspending the Indus Waters treaty. And now we're starting to see India try to urge Pakistan's funders to stop providing as much assistance. Some critics would argue that other countries have to get involved, too, including the US, such as placing sanctions on leaders of the Pakistani military. Given the nature of the US-Pakistan relationship, those are not seen as realistic tactics. But I sense that India is trying to play a long game. It recognises you're not going to see results anytime soon. And that you have to hope that over time, through pressure and through essentially attempts to squeeze Pakistan through non-military means—and here, suspending the Indus Waters treaty could be very impactful. That is something that clearly could have significant implications for Pakistan, not now, but down the road in terms of water security in a country that has significant levels of water insecurity. But you could also argue that this would all backfire, and it would actually compel Pakistan to double down on the very things that have concerned India for so long. We remember some years ago when Lashkar-e-Taiba members would threaten to attack India because of Pakistan's water theft. So now that you actually have India having suspended the Indus Waters Treaty, it could actually take those steps over time to make it more difficult for water to get into Pakistan. The terrorists themselves could be galvanised by these moves that India is making. Also Read | India has now got the strategic space to act against Pakistan: Ajai Shukla How is the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty by India being seen in Western capitals? I would argue that many policymakers are probably not familiar with the Indus Waters Treaty. They wouldn't know the full context, certainly wouldn't know issues about Pakistan's water security. But I do think the fact that it is a World Bank-mediated treaty is something that got the attention of many. Indeed, those who are aware of the context would know that this is a rare success of transboundary water management between India and Pakistan. It's one of the few cases of transboundary water treaties in South Asia that has essentially lasted and endured. One of the tasks of the Pakistanis is to essentially make the West understand the significant serious long-term implications. Some might have seen Pakistan's initial reaction when they said that if India follows through on this, that it would be an act of war. Some in the West might have thought that was just sabre-rattling and hyperbole. But Pakistan is going to want to make that case that you have to understand how serious this could be over the course of time. But I don't think we're going to see this major international campaign to pressure India to come back into the treaty. Many people around the world aren't really familiar with the Indus Waters Treaty, its importance, and the long-term implications of India stepping away from it. To sum up, how would you rate Indian diplomacy and Pakistani diplomacy in the post-Pahalgam weeks? Which has been more effective in getting its message out? I would give each country an average grade. Each country's been able to essentially double down on getting the type of support that it already had been getting, in the sense that India got support from the international community on its concerns about terrorism. Pakistan's been able to get the international community's support about regional stability issues, nuclear escalation risks, but on other fronts, not necessarily as much success. I don't necessarily think that more is better, [say] in the case of India travelling to 33 capitals puts it at an advantage over Pakistan only going to five capitals, especially because the Pakistanis really packed their US schedule in ways that I don't think India did. But basically, each country gets an average grade in terms of its diplomacy. But in terms of their political performance and how it's regarded back home, each country gets a pretty high grade. Nirupama Subramanian is an independent journalist who has worked earlier at The Hindu and at The Indian Express.
South China Morning Post
25-05-2025
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
As fighting stops, India-Pakistan start narrative war to sway global opinion over conflict
Two weeks after pulling back from the brink of all-out war, India and Pakistan are now racing to win over global opinion. Both sides are sending delegations to global capitals to influence international perception of the conflict, as tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals continue to simmer. New Delhi this week dispatched seven teams of diplomats and lawmakers to capitals of some 30 countries, including in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa and South America as part of its publicity campaign. The delegates have been told to detail Islamabad's history of supporting militants, and its alleged involvement in the deadly April 22 attack in the India-administered part of Kashmir, which triggered the latest conflict. India is also pushing back against the perception – reinforced by US President Donald Trump's social media posts – that the two sides were equals in their dispute over the territory of Kashmir , and that they had agreed to mediated peace talks. Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday ruled out talks with Pakistan and vowed military action if faced with further terrorist attacks. Separately, India's foreign minister told Dutch broadcaster NOS that the May 10 truce was negotiated directly between India and Pakistan, refuting Trump's claim of brokering the ceasefire. 'For many Indians, Trump's messaging on mediation amounts to drawing a false equivalence by treating India and Pakistan the same,' said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia analyst based in Washington. 'This is a major setback for New Delhi, given that it amounts to a victory for Islamabad in the battle of narratives that has endured even after the fighting stopped.'
India.com
18-05-2025
- Politics
- India.com
‘Unreliable Ally': US Actions Push India Closer to ‘No-Drama' Partners Russia, France?
US foreign policy expert Michael Kugelman recently highlighted contrasting dynamics in India's bilateral relationships with key global players. Drawing from past incidents and diplomatic developments, he pointed to multiple moments over the past two decades that have tested Indian public perception of the United States as a strategic partner. While India maintains steady and long-standing relationships with countries such as Russia and France, ties with the US have at times encountered turbulence. Kugelman referred to this difference by describing India's interactions with Russia and France as 'no-drama', in contrast to more complex and occasionally strained episodes with Washington. There've been times over the last 2 decades when in India, public trust in US as a partner is called into question & contrasted w/India's reliable, no-drama relationships w/Russia, France etc. Khobragade affair, late US response to India COVID crisis, Pannun. And right now. — Michael Kugelman (@MichaelKugelman) May 15, 2025 In each case, these moments have been smoothed over on policy levels. But public perceptions of the US and its reliability as evinced by some key Indian constituencies continues to be an issue that flares up periodically. Properly addressing this remains a work in progress. — Michael Kugelman (@MichaelKugelman) May 15, 2025 He cited a few examples – the 2013 'Khobragade affair', in which Devyani Khobragade, then India's deputy consul general in New York, was arrested on charges related to visa fraud. The incident had led to a diplomatic standoff and public outcry in India. Another reference was made to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the US response to India's health crisis drew criticism for its perceived delay. More recently, the 'Pannun case' – a reported plot to assassinate Khalistani leader Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, allegedly involving Indian agents – resurfaced concerns about bilateral trust. The US responded with a diplomatic warning to India, while authorities in India stated that they were reviewing the shared intelligence. Kugelman's comments also came in the backdrop of recent claims about former US President Donald Trump's involvement in India-Pakistan relations. According to reports, Trump intervened during a cross-border escalation between India and Pakistan, using trade-related pressure to influence India's response. While a ceasefire was eventually agreed upon, his public assertion of credit reignited discussions about the consistency and reliability of the US as a strategic partner. Other analysts also weighed in. Strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney said the episode highlights broader concerns about strategic alignment. Meanwhile, former Pentagon official Michael Rubin said that Trump's comments may have economic repercussions, particularly for US defense firms eyeing India as a key market. These developments together add to the ongoing discourse about India's approach to global partnerships, particularly in terms of trust, predictability and long-term cooperation.
News18
16-05-2025
- Business
- News18
"Trump's Trade Comments Have Complicated US- India Relations" India Pakistan War News
Last Updated: World Tensions between India and Pakistan are at a low point despite a recent ceasefire. U.S. President Trump's comments on trade and the situation have complicated U.S.-India relations, prompting concerns over a potential rehyphenation of ties between the two South Asian nations, says Michael Kugelman, South Asia Expert n18oc_world News18 Mobile App -
