Why Trump does not lead to an emergency room to light the Indian crisis in the Indian Pakistan

Cnn
–

The violent crisis between India and Pakistan is exactly the kind of international emergency, which once caused a complete US diplomatic drive to cool the coolness and end a broader war.

But these recent battles about Kashmir, the controversial region of the Muslim majority, can become a test of the bandwidth of the Trump government and limited efforts after global convening and for the world without American leadership.

President Donald Trump offered a passive initial reaction to the fights on Tuesday, which was derived from a terrorist attack on Indian tourists, the new delhi responsible for militant Pakistani militant. “It's a shame,” said Trump. “I just hope it ends quickly.” On Wednesday he went a little further and offered his good offices without showing a lot of enthusiasm for participation. “I get along with both of them, I know both very well and I want them to work,” said Trump. “You went with the act. So you can stop now. … if I can do everything to help, I'll be there.”

Foreign Minister Marco Rubio has contacted the top officials from India and Pakistan in the past few weeks – and since India's strokes on Tuesday in Pakistani territory, according to the Foreign Ministry. So far, however, there is no evidence of an expansion of the United States to coordinate international mediation or crisis management.

This can be partially due to the fact that the time is not yet ripe for diplomacy, since everyone expects an escalation manager from both sides. While Pakistan's claim to have shot five Indian aircraft indicates that his honor is fulfilled, his leaders have undertaken to reverse in Indian military facilities.

The US reaction will be observed closely in the coming days because the second Trump government has thrown away the US foreign policy game book and has left a vacuum in which the multinational US leadership was once carried out in the United States.

Trump has little interest in building international coalitions and activating alliances to pursue common goals. He is interested in accompanying the economic and military power of the United States in order to manipulate smaller nations in the advantage of America, and sees only a few differences between allies and opponents in his tight profit loss worldview. In any case, it would be pretty inappropriate to see a president who has expansionist designs in Greenland, Canada and Panama, which convey one of the world's leading territorial disputes.

While Trump has made the peace pencils a cornerstone of his new term, his efforts to defuse global hotspots as wars in Ukraine and Gaza have shown little progress. In the meantime, his claim that Houthi rebels in Yemen have undertaken to stop attacks on international shipping after US air strikes.

Trump's diplomatic regulations in Ukraine and Israel's war in Gaza, led by his diplomatically inexperienced envoy Steve Witkoff, have also presented transaction attempts to wrestle financial or other advantages for the United States. He put pressure on the government in Kyiv under pressure to sign a contract for the use of rare earth metal deposits. And the president introduced himself to move Palestinians from the Gaza – in a neocolonial act of ethnic cleansing – so that the United States could build “the Riviera of the Middle East”. There are no obvious money or other advantages for the USA in Kashmir who could pay attention to Trump's attention.

Successful American global peace efforts in the past-in one thing of the mentoring of Peace Agreement of President Jimmy Carter between Israel and Egypt and the end of the war of President Bill Clinton in the former Yugoslavia-specifically asked slow trust and intensive preparation diplomacy on a lower level. In the past three months there has been no signs that Trump is motivated to achieve a similar detailed strategy in existing conflicts, let alone in South Asia.

Tim Willasey-Wilsey from the Royal United Services Institute in London announced that the USA had played a leading role in cooling crises about Kashmir, even in 2000, 2008 and 2019, but possibly no longer inclined. “We now have a president in the White House who says he doesn't want to be the world's police officer,” said Willasey-Wilsey, a former British diplomat. “And he is probably more likeable with the (Indian) Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi than for the Pakistan.”

Kashmir is an area in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent and is limited by Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan claim everything and everyone controls a sector that is separated by a tense border that is known as a control line. China controls a third piece of cashmere.

The securing over decades of the conflict was determined by the departing colonial power in Great Britain at the end of the 1940s, which divided India into two separate nations: modern India, which is mainly Hindu, and in Pakistan of Muslimity. Since then, the rivals have waged three wars about cashmere. In the last quarter of a century there were also several smaller skirmishes and outbreaks of the struggle for the territory.

In the most alarming intervened Clinton in 1999 into the Kargil conflict, since the war in the US secret service group was able to expand into a catastrophic nuclear conflict between two powers, both of which recently tested atomic devices, and incorporated into a disaster nuclear conflict. In recent years, Pakistan and India have weakened the nuclear saber rattles even in times of tension about cashmere. And when you become more mature nuclear forces, the fears have broken off with mass destruction weapons before a catastrophic war.

Nevertheless, Washington believes that preventing the Kashmir conflict is worth investing in the US power. This was the case in the first Trump government when the then foreign secretary Mike Pompeo defused a confrontation between the South Asian rivals about Kashmir six years ago. “I don't think the world really knows how close the Indian-Pakistani rivalry went into a nuclear fire in February 2019,” wrote Pompeo in his memoirs. “Never give a custom.”

The world is now keeping your breath away for the next possible escalation about Kashmir. India justified his attacks with rockets on Pakistan Kashmir and Pakistan himself by saying that after the attack on mainly Hindu tourists, in which at least six people in the Indian Kashmir were killed at least six people last month, it was striking.

Pakistan swore to react after it says that 31 civilians were killed in India's attacks. The Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif warned in a national speech: “Maybe you thought we would withdraw, but you forgot that … this is a nation of courageous people.”

The potential for another escalation from India will grow if it believes that it has to react to new Pakistani attacks. The political incentives for this are increased because the terrorist attack and the loss of Indian aircraft are personal embarrassment. CNN has confirmed the shooting of an Indian jet produced in France.

Apart from the reluctance of the Trump government to play a traditional US global leadership role, there are other reasons why previous diplomatic strategies are less effective in a broken and volatile world order.

An influence of the Kargil crisis in 1999 was to draw the United States closer to India, an increasingly powerful, assertive and wealthy nation. Since then, every administration has followed Clinton's leadership. And Trump is Modi, a nationalist fellow human beings, personally and politically close.

The shocking nature of the attacks on unarmed tourists in Kashmir has also won sympathy for India – not only in Washington – and the feeling of defending itself, even if in large parts of the world in recent years in a large part of the world against Modi's Muslims in Kashmir in Indian. Pakistan denied to house terrorist camps from which the attacks on its territory were planned.

In the meantime, the US capacity of putting Pakistan under pressure has had to be under the end of the troubled alliances of the countries in the war against terror and with the outcome of the United States from Afghanistan. Pakistan has now returned to his many years of political loyalty with China, which means that each of the South Asian rivals has an ally about superpower.

“There is no question that there has been a change in the US position in the US position in recent years,” Milan Vaishnav, director of the South Asia program at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told Becky Anderson from CNN on Wednesday. “India is one of the most important strategic partners for the United States, while Pakistan's meaning has really declined. I think American expectation is Pakistan. And then they hope that both sides can save face on this point and find an exit ramp.”

Mediation in the Middle East could begin in Washington's absence. Qatar, for example, has played a key role in the efforts to convey ceasefires and hostage publications between Israel and Hamas. But the government in Qatar-and Pakistan expressed a Sunnitic state of Muslim majority and condemned and condemned the attack on the Indian cashmere. India's press, which can play an inflammatory role at such times, reported on a call from Qatar by Emir Sheikh Tamim al-Thani that it was regarded as a calculated piece for the government in Islamabad.

The Qatarian Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani meanwhile conducted separate telephone calls with the Indian Minister of Outer Affairs and the Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif. In a statement, the Qatarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the country had “full support” for all regional and international efforts to solve problems between India and Pakistan.

Willasey-Wilsey argued that Pakistan's creditors, including the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, had to regain leverage, because Pakistan is in the middle of a deep economic crisis.

If the situation does not get much worse, it is unlikely that international efforts to terminate the crisis will be led by the United States.