World opinion tilted towards India in terror fight with Pakistan

WASHINGTON: In an America transfixed with the prospect of President Donald Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen ratting on his long-time boss before Congress while he (the President) is holding a summit with North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-un, the India-Pakistan spat barely made a ripple in Washington on Tuesday beyond the circuit of regional experts.
There was none of the alarmism about “nuclear flashpoint” as the Trump administration deferred comment (as of now), mainly on account of almost everyone up the pecking order being in Hanoi for the Trump-Kim summit. Both Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Adviser John Bolton, along with their senior aides, are in Hanoi with President Trump, with the India-Pakistan skirmish a sideshow to what Washington considers a showstopper in Vietnam.
A state department spokesperson said there could be a statement later in the day subject to coordination, but the Trump administration has already indicated the onus is on Pakistan to address India’s concerns while acknowledging New Delhi’s right of self-defense against terrorist strikes by Pakistan based groups.
The UN Security Council statement on the attack last week took cognizance of Jaish-e-Mohammed’s claim that it launched the attack while asking member countries to cooperate with India to address terrorism, implicitly putting the onus on Pakistan to defuse the situation by acting against terror groups. Even China eventually signed on to the statement.
Except for the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), of which Pakistan is a founding member, there has been no outright condemnation of the Indian strike from any country, including China.
In fact, France explicitly said it "recognises India’s legitimacy to ensure its security against cross-border terrorism," while calling on Pakistan to take action against its terror groups.
The French reaction was in line with the White House outlook expressed in a Bolton tweet last week in which he said “Pakistan must crack down on JeM and all terrorists operating from its territory” and “Countries should uphold UNSC responsibilities to deny safe haven and support for terrorists.”
Pompeo too had tweeted after the Pulwama attack that “Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security,” even though Islamabad had maintained that the suicide bomber was a local Kashmiri.

The smackdown was rounded off by President Trump who said he understood the strong feelings running though India following the attack and New Delhi’s desire for a strong response.
More diplomatic fireworks are expected later this week at the OIC meet where India is a special invitee at the March 1-2 Foreign Ministers meeting in Abu Dhabi. Although the organization condemned the India “incursion,” it did not accede to demand from some Pakistani quarters that its invitation to New Delhi, to be represented by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj, be withdrawn.
“The #OIC condemned the #Indian incursion and aerial violation and dropping of four bombs today, 26 February 2019. It urged India and #Pakistan to exercise restraint and avoid any steps that would endanger peace and security in the region,” the OIC said on Twitter while calling upon BOTH parties “to act responsibly & encouraged them to seek peaceful solution to current crisis without resort to use of force.”

In military and strategic studies circle meanwhile, there was skepticism about New Delhi’s claims about the strike and its effectiveness, given lack of precise information and evidence to back its claim (India’s foreign secretary Vijay Gokhale, who briefed the media on the strike) did not take questions.
Joshua White, a former White House and Pentagon official now with the Johns Hopkins University urged caution about “early, fragmentary reports” saying “initial statements from India’s press and even officialdom regarding its military prowess tend to be, shall we say, slightly inflated.” This, he said, was true of the “surgical strikes” in 2016.