Washington: US President Donald Trump on Friday revived his claim that the United States had a key “hand” in avoiding a nuclear disaster between India and Pakistan. In a recent public appearance, Trump portrayed the high-level diplomatic effort as the crucial factor that prevented Pakistan and India from going to war, despite the presence of two nuclear powers on either side.
Trump said that the U.S. stepped in during a time of greater conflict, but it did not immediately respond or enter a crisis or high-tension situation, whatever that term means. He stated that the situation was extremely fragile, and we should not ignore the probability of escalation. The former president asserted that his administration’s efforts were instrumental in resolving the standoff and temporarily halting hostilities.
India and Pakistan, with a history of conflict and years of being adversaries, have fought wars over issues like the disputed region of Kashmir. There were few official statements from either country, nor have they publicly acknowledged U.S. efforts to mediate a ceasefire. But Trump appears to be suggesting he played a more behind-the-scenes role that would explain, in his view, how stability in the region has been preserved.
Trump’s claims have drawn scepticism because independent corroboration for these allegations has been lacking. Supporters say that Trump’s unorthodox approach to diplomacy might have produced more results behind closed doors than what is reflected in the public record. The debate over the vague nature of that assessment has even been revived, with analysts suggesting that the U.S. government needs to be more up-front about the level of engagement Americans should be bracing for.
These comments by Trump come at a time when the issue of nuclear proliferation and immediate regional security in South Asia is openly being debated. Global policymakers will closely monitor the balance of power between India and Pakistan. Meanwhile, the ex-commander-in-chief’s claims continue to garner attention, leading many to scrutinise the accuracy of his narrative in the realm of international affairs.
Comments are closed.