SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
India and Pakistan have confirmed a ceasefire agreement today. President Trump announced the deal. And it follows a worrying series of escalating attacks that saw both countries target each other's military bases. The two nuclear rivals also exchanged shelling and gunfire for several days, much of it near what's called the Line of Control along the disputed region of Kashmir. Elizabeth Threlkeld is with the South Asia program at the Stimson Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank in Washington, D.C. She joins us now. Thanks so much for being with us.
ELIZABETH THRELKELD: Thanks for having me, Scott.
SIMON: Do we know what role the U.S. played in this?
THRELKELD: So based on tweets that are coming out from a variety of administration officials, it looks like the U.S. was heavily involved. President Trump, as you noted, announced this deal directly, saying it came after a long night of talks between both sides. We've also seen statements from Secretary Rubio, and it does look like that was in coordination with some partners in the Gulf - Saudi Arabia, for example.
SIMON: Remind us, Elizabeth, please, what started the fighting? And how did they find a way to declare this ceasefire?
THRELKELD: Yeah. So that's actually a really interesting question, Scott. Of course, there is a long history here. Fundamentally, this goes back to the two sides' dispute over the Kashmir region, dating back to the Partition in 1947. But over the past several decades, India, in particular, has accused Pakistan of sponsoring cross-border terrorism. And there was a serious attack that took place on April the 22, in which 26 predominantly Hindu tourists were killed in India-administered Kashmir.
And over the past couple of weeks, tensions have escalated. We've seen diplomatic moves on both sides. And four days ago, a series of really significant military escalations began with Indian airstrikes in Pakistan and some retaliation. Though, we have to say, at this point, even as we have a ceasefire, the fog of war is still pretty thick, and there's been a great deal of fake news on both sides. So, you know, for now, I think we should all be breathing a little bit easier that the ceasefire has happened. And, you know, this has been the most significant crisis we've seen between the two sides in at least 2 1/2 decades.
SIMON: Is this a territorial conflict over Kashmir or something more?
THRELKELD: It certainly speaks to that territorial conflict. That is at the root of so much of this. But the two sides have really grown into a rivalry over the past seven-plus decades that touches on a host of different issues. I think the cross-border terrorism issue is one that is central in this. As I mentioned, India does accuse Pakistan of backing cross-border terrorism. But Pakistan, too, has raised accusations against India, that India is sponsoring groups in Pakistan's western border region and carrying out assassinations.
Obviously, perceptions matter in a crisis like this. And so as we look to what happens next - right? - one of the interesting things out of Secretary Rubio's statement was a mention of talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site. And so I think it's worth watching the extent to which we might be able to get into some of those issues in a way that we haven't in recent years.
SIMON: As we mentioned earlier, these are two nuclear-armed states. And obviously, this underscored the importance of trying to find an immediate resolution. Remind us of where India and Pakistan stand on their nuclear strategy, specifically in the right to strike first.
THRELKELD: Yeah. So the two sides are different in some respects. India has a no first use doctrine, and Pakistan does not. It has a no no first use doctrine. And one of the things that we see between the two sides is a pretty significant asymmetry in terms of their size, in terms of their budget, in terms of their conventional military capabilities. And so what has happened over time is Pakistan has developed its nuclear doctrine and posture to try to make up, to compensate for that asymmetry at the conventional level. And so with that, you know, there is a real risk here of nuclear escalation, especially when you have terror attacks leading to conventional conflict and a lot of misperception between the two sides without strong communication channels.
SIMON: And you mentioned, of course, Secretary Rubio's tweet on broader issues that are up for negotiation. What do you foresee those issues might be?
THRELKELD: So I think that is an open question and one that I certainly wouldn't want to prejudge. But here, we do have some past precedent of looking back to previous rounds of talks the two sides have engaged in. Dating back to 1998 was really the start of a composite dialogue between the two sides, just after they tested nuclear weapons. Over the years, we've seen on-again, off-again talks that, unfortunately, in many times, have been punctuated and stalled by spoiler attacks. And so I think the challenge now, if we are to get into some of these deeper issues - things like terrorism accusations, things like Kashmir - the trick will be to do so in such a way that we do not get into this sort of crisis again going forward so that it doesn't become a precedent.
SIMON: Elizabeth Threlkeld of the Stimson Center, thank you so much for being with us.
THRELKELD: My pleasure. Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
