US President Trump’s ceasefire claim is alive and well

THE controversy over US President Donald Trump’s claim that he mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan refuses to die down. Though India has refuted his claim, Trump is insistent that he played the peacemaker. On May 30, he said, “I think the deal I’m most proud of is the fact that we’re dealing with India, we’re dealing with Pakistan and we were able to stop potentially a nuclear war through trade as opposed through bullets”.

Advertisement

This comment encapsulates his three assertions on the ceasefire that was announced on May 10. One, he was responsible for it; two, the hostilities could have potentially led to a nuclear conflict; and three, he threatened to snap trade ties with both countries, thus prompting them to agree to a ceasefire.

India has stated that the cessation of hostilities happened after Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) called up his Indian counterpart on May 10. During this conversation, the two DGMOs agreed that all military action would cease from 5 pm that day. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has clarified that Operation Sindoor has only been paused. India has also emphasised that the conflict remained in the conventional domain and there was no nuclear signalling by Pakistan.

Significantly, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said on May 13, “From the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7, till the understanding on cessation of firing and military action on May 10, there were conversations between Indian and US leaders on the evolving military situation. The issue of trade did not come up in any of these discussions”.

After his attention was drawn on May 29 to US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s declaration in a US court that Trump cited trade to bring about a ceasefire, the spokesperson said, “I hope you have seen the court order as well”. Thereafter, Jaiswal went on to repeat his May 13 comment. It was premature for him to mention the court order, for a superior court stayed it on May 29 itself. The spokesperson should not have relied on a lower court’s decision to try to validate his country’s position.

Pakistan has stated that the ceasefire was the result of intervention of several countries. During the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last week, Pakistan’s Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza, named six in this context: the US, UK, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and China. This would hardly please Trump, who is claiming entire credit for the best ‘deal’ he has made.

Islamabad has not said that this conflict was in danger of going beyond the conventional stage, but it has now reaffirmed its general concern that Indian kinetic action could lead to a nuclear exchange if foreign powers don't get enough time to intervene. Pakistan has also not made any comment on Trump’s claim of threatening to stop trade ties if the hostilities did not cease. Pakistan-US trade talks are set to begin.

Why has the Trump administration shown such disregard for Indian sensitivities on the trade issue that it has included it in an affidavit submitted by Lutnick in a US court on May 23? The case pertains to a legal challenge to Trump’s tariff policies, which he is justifying under his country’s International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Technically, Lutnick has given a declaration, but as he states that he has done so “under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”, it is nothing but an affidavit. My diplomatic experience suggests that it is unprecedented for a country to convert a political statement of the kind Trump made on invoking trade to bring about a ceasefire into a legal document. Its implication is that the US cannot resile from the President’s claim on the issue. Trump talks loosely and often contradicts his own statements. But a legal document is not to be trifled with. This puts the US at odds with the Indian stand on this matter at a time when both countries are negotiating a trade deal.

Considering the India-US differences on Trump’s trade threat, it is worthwhile to give details of Lutnick’s averment in his affidavit. Asserting that any curtailment of the President’s powers under the IEEPA would adversely impact US security interests and foreign policy, Lutnick said: “A ruling that narrows IEEPA would have ripple effects across every domain in which economic instruments are used for strategic effect. For example, India and Pakistan — two nuclear-armed powers which engaged in combat operations just 13 days ago — reached a tenuous ceasefire on May 10.”

He added: “The ceasefire was only achieved after President Trump interceded and offered both nations trading access with the US to avert a full-scale war. An adverse ruling that constrains presidential power in this case could lead India and Pakistan to question the validity of President Trump’s offer threatening the security of an entire region and the lives of millions”.

In response to another question on May 29 on Lutnick’s declaration, the MEA spokesperson bristled and said, “I have stated my position, and when I state my position, I do it as spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Government of India with flags on both sides. That has an implication, it means a lot”.

Of course, it means a lot if the Modi government is formally asserting that the US Commerce Secretary made a false declaration in a US court “under penalty of perjury”. It will mean much more if the matter gains traction in America.

As for India, it cannot help feeling let down by Trump’s actions and statements since Operation Sindoor. Perhaps the popular song from the 1964 classic Sangam best sums up Delhi’s current mood, “Dost dost na raha…” And the days of ‘Howdy Modi’ and ‘Namaste Trump’ are now a distant memory.

Vivek Katju is former Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.