Three days before his first scheduled foreign tour, during which he was set to visit Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE from 13 to 16 May, US President Donald Trump pulled off a spectacular foreign policy win by mediating a ceasefire between the two South Asian nuclear powers of India and Pakistan on 10 May.
A military conflict between the two countries erupted when India launched attacks on targets within the Pakistani side of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Indian government justified its attacks by saying they were retaliation for the terrorist operation in the Indian side of Kashmir on 22 April that cost the lives of 26 Indians who were targeted and killed on the basis of their religious affiliation. India accused the Pakistani government, without providing incontrovertible evidence, of being behind this horrible terrorist attack, which was not the first of its type.
No group has claimed responsibility for the attack, but India believes that terrorist groups within Pakistan carried it out. The Indian forces began their attacks in Pakistan by targeting nine locations believed to be run by these groups, including Quranic schools.
The fighting on the Indian subcontinent intensified with new and more lethal weapons systems being used and the bank of targets on either side widening by the day. The Pakistanis and the Indians themselves have been aware from day one of the risks of any miscalculation, which is why the adults in the room on both sides kept sending messages that neither one of them has an interest in escalating the military conflict further.
Throughout the four days of intensive artillery, aerial, and ballistic missile attacks that made up the present round of fighting, international efforts calling for de-escalation and a ceasefire never stopped. The major powers, the G7 group of countries, the European Union, and the leading Muslim countries, which have enjoyed good relations with both Pakistan and India, kept up the pressure on both Islamabad and New Delhi to stop the fighting.
From the outset, the US administration called for a responsible resolution of the conflict. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio telephoned senior Pakistani and Indian officials to stress the need for de-escalation and to keep the lines of communication between the two governments open.
In the meantime, the Muslim countries also played an important role in pushing for a ceasefire. The Iranian foreign minister flew to both Islamabad and New Delhi as did the Saudi foreign minister.
On 10 May, Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that Pakistan and India had agreed to a ceasefire. He jokingly expressed the hope that he would be able to help the two governments settle the Kashmir question for “a thousand years”. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on 10 May that it was to be hoped that the agreement would “contribute… to addressing broader, long-standing issues” between India and Pakistan.
The outbreak of the fighting between Pakistan and India, the ongoing war in Ukraine, the Israeli war, not only on Gaza but also in Southern Lebanon and Syria, are all signs that the post-World War II international order is proving inadequate in ensuring peace and security. The UN itself has been ineffective in dealing with wars and flashpoints that have threatened international peace and security.
Ironically, at the height of the Cold War there was a certain international consensus about the need to contain the causes of wars and regional insecurity and instability. This consensus was premised on a tacit understanding between the US and the former Soviet Union on the need to keep the peace for fear of reaching a nuclear precipice. The strategy of Mutual and Assured Destruction (MAD) proved to be in hindsight a dissuasive instrument.
Today, not only are there multiple centres of power worldwide, but the emergence of strong regional powers, aligned or not with the great powers, enjoy more influence in world politics than they did during the Cold War. These regional powers also no longer rely on two or three great powers for procuring advanced weapon systems. They have become manufacturers and exporters of advanced weapon systems themselves.
Another aspect of the unmoored world in these challenging times is the total absence of statesmanship.
If we go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis in the early 1960s, for instance, when both the US and the former Soviet Union were closer than ever before after the end of World War II to a devastating nuclear confrontation, both former US president John F Kennedy and the then Secretary General of the former Soviet Communist Party Nikita Khrushchev demonstrated statesmanship that has rarely been seen since by accommodating the national security interests of their respective countries.
Moreover, the member states of both NATO and the former Warsaw Pact accepted the compromise reached between the two superpowers.
Nowadays, it is difficult to imagine a similar scenario taking place. Take the war in Ukraine as an example.
The Trump administration has been trying to bring the two warring parties to the negotiating table, but its European allies have not been on the same wavelength. On 10 May, their leaders gathered in the Ukrainian capital Kyiv to support a 30-day ceasefire proposal, warning that if Russian President Vladimir Putin did not accept it, they would impose additional sanctions on Russia.
Though the proposal came after Trump put it on the table a few days earlier, some European leaders seemed willing to take a different route that is not necessarily in line with the US desire to end the war.
The Ukraine war has proven that the international system has lost its capacity to contain the outbreak of military conflicts and that it also lacks the capability and the political will to end them.
The world is on fire, as we witnessed in the Indian Subcontinent earlier this month. It is true that US mediation is credited with the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan last Saturday, but there is no guarantee that it will hold, or that renewed fighting will not take place basically for the same reasons as on 7 May.
Last week, the Allies who fought in World War II celebrated the 80th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany in May 1945. The irony is that Europe observed the celebration on 7 May, and Russia did the same on 8 May.
Maybe if we dwell on this small detail that is long on symbolism, we will understand the precarious situation of international peace and security in our world today – which has become unmoored and will likely remain so for some time to come.
*The writer is former assistant foreign minister.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: