The Sino-US angle of Pulwama

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons

Pakistan’s role in Pulwama attack is straightforward and rather easy to discern, but what about the roles of other countries? My previous article had discussed the intent of Allied forces to use Pakistan as a base in South Asia following the end of WWII. In the present day, both China and the USA use Pakistan as a client state, and it is improbable that an attack of this scale would have not raised any alarm in intelligence circles. Why then did they not intervene?

To answer this question, we must look at the nature of Pulwama attack which was a Fidayeen attack. A Fidayeen attack is carried out by an explosive-laden vehicle, as opposed to a person. In Pakistan’s eyes, this serves as a ‘notch-up’ from the previous small scale attacks. It should be noted that Pulwama had the highest casualty rate among any attack since 26/11 Mumbai Shootings. Why was this ‘notched-up’ attack executed by Pakistan at this specific point in time? There could be two possible reasons:

1. Failure of USA’s Afghan campaign as of 2018, followed by increasing withdrawal of US military presence from Afghanistan is viewed by Pakistan as a strategic victory. Pakistan does not have a very good record at conventional warfare. However, it views non-state actors (i.e. terror groups) as a strategic asset, making them critical to Pakistan’s military establishment. Failure of the US in Afghan is hence viewed by Rawalpindi as a direct success. In Pakistan’s eyes, following their ‘success’ in Afghanistan, Pulwama is a declaration that Pakistan’s Army is now targeting Kashmir. The Fidayeen nature of Pulwama attack serves to differentiate it from previous attacks and drives home the ‘declaration’ of moving against India.
2. The incumbent BJP-led Indian government is coming to the end of its tenure. This tenure was marked by a hard stance taken against Pakistani border aggression and infiltration. There also have been no major terror strikes during this government’s tenure. Following the Surgical Strike against terror launchpads in Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir, it has become increasingly untenable for Pakistan to continue border aggression. Moreover, it has compromised the image of Pakistan Armed Forces among Pakistani citizens. A second term to the present government would be detrimental to PAF. Hence, this major attack was timed right before the elections, to discredit the present governments claims of having secured India against terror.

Why, however, would countries like China and USA, both with significant diplomatic and economic stakes in India, allow this strike to be carried out? China’s motivations are a little easier to understand. They mostly center around the increasing diplomatic influence which India is beginning to enjoy. There are two major setbacks which China has faced in territorial stand-offs against India which demonstrate the threat China faces from India:

1. 2017 Doklam standoff — this standoff marked one of the few times when India snubbed Chinese aggression in complete glare of international media. The standoff concluded with the ceasing of road construction which was being carried out by China in Bhutanese territory and the withdrawal of Chinese Forces from Doklam.
2. 2017 One Belt One Road Summit —India had long expressed disapproval of China’s Belt and Road project, given that it compromises India’s sovereignty by passing through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This culminated in India rejecting the multilateral Belt and Road Summit which took place in Beijing in May 2017, and then again earlier this month. Following this, the Belt and Road project has gone increasingly cold, with Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Malaysia being among the countries to point out the debt trap posed by Chinese investment.

These two failures of Chinese foreign diplomacy were both in large part influenced by India. Hence, China sees India as a significant threat to its plans for establishing diplomatic supremacy over Asia. Given this backdrop, it is very much in China’s interest if India is kept engaged in a never-ending, resource-draining territorial contest with Pakistan. It is possible to even argue that the biggest gainer from the hyphenation of India and Pakistan in international diplomacy has been China.

This leaves the third and final party, which is the US. The US sees it in its interest to groom India as a counter-balance to China. This explains why every US President since George Bush has tried to reach out to India. Why then would the US allow a strike against India to take place?

The answer lies in the failure of USA’s Afghan campaign. Following this failure, the usefulness of Pakistan as an outpost for power projection by the US is severely compromised, and the US is looking for a new outpost in South-Asia. India has in the past refused to allow US to set up a permanent base on its territory and is not an option for such an outpost. A new base in South Asia must hence be carved out of the already existing territory of Pakistan. This will also involve the dissolution of the current establishment of Pakistan. Based on these requirements, USA’s long term plan is now to partition the current territory of Pakistan into five separate territories, as suggested in this tweet by retired U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Sellin.

The Pakistani establishment — for obvious reasons — is unlikely to willingly accept this resolution. Hence, the current path of action for the US is an escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan, to a point of eventual war, following which Pakistan would be partitioned as per the interests of USA.

Although the interests of these three countries converged against India, an Indian counteroffensive was not factored into the wargaming by PAF. Hence, the paradigm shifted rapidly following the Balakot Airstrike by Indian Armed Forces. In this new paradigm, Pakistan could no longer be certain of the scale of retaliation by India. China’s interests are affected by this new paradigm as well since it means that Chinese assets in PoK and Baluchistan may become collateral in the event of an Indian counteroffensive. The USA though remains mostly unaffected by this change in paradigm. It may even help speed up the long-term goal of USA to dissolve the current Pakistani state and partition it into smaller countries.

Layman analysis can often exclude the larger interests at play and can lead to simplistic conclusions. The real motivations behind such attacks are rarely straightforward, and often involve a mix of diplomacy and deceit. It is therefore imperative that we understand the various interests at play, to have an informed perspective of India’s future course of action.