responsible

Islamabad, Pakistan – Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visited Azerbaijan in February, and Turkiye only a month ago, in April.

Yet, this week, he was back in both countries, as part of a five-day, four-nation diplomatic blitzkrieg also including stops in Iran and Tajikistan, where Sharif will hold talks on Thursday and Friday. And he isn’t alone: Sharif is being accompanied by Army Chief Asim Munir — recently promoted to Pakistan’s only second-ever field marshal — and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar.

Their destinations might be familiar, but the context has changed dramatically since Sharif’s previous visits.

More than two weeks after a four-day standoff between Pakistan and India – during which they exchanged missile and drone strikes – diplomacy has become the new battlefront between the South Asian neighbours.

India has launched a global diplomatic campaign, sending delegations to over 30 countries, accusing Pakistan of supporting “terrorist groups” responsible for attacks in India and Indian-administered Kashmir.

“We want to exhort the world to hold those responsible for cross-border terrorism accountable, those who have practiced this for 40 years against India, that is Pakistan. Their actions need to be called out,” said Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson for India’s Ministry of External Affairs, last week.

On April 22, gunmen killed 26 people, most of them tourists, in Pahalgam, a hill resort in Indian-administered Kashmir in the worst such attack on civilians in years. India blamed the killings on The Resistance Front (TRF), which it alleges is linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based group designated as a “terrorist” entity by the United Nations. New Delhi accused Islamabad of complicity in the attacks.

Pakistan denied the allegations, calling for a “transparent, credible, independent” investigation.

Then, on May 7, India launched a series of missiles aimed at what it said was “terrorist infrastructure” in parts of Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Islamabad insisted that the missiles struck civilians, mosques and schools. More than 50 people, including at least 11 security personnel were killed in the Indian missile strikes.

This was followed by drone incursions and, on May 10, both sides fired missiles at each other’s military bases, as they stood on the brink of a full-fledged war before they agreed to a ceasefire that the US says it brokered.

Now, Pakistan, say officials and analysts, is looking to flip India’s narrative before the world — projecting itself as an advocate of peace and stability in South Asia, and New Delhi as the aggressor looking to stoke tensions.

‘We want peace’

On Wednesday, Sharif expressed willingness to engage in dialogue with India on “all matters,” if India reciprocates “in all sincerity.”

Speaking at a trilateral summit in Lachin, Azerbaijan, Sharif said trade could resume if India cooperated on all issues, including “counterterrorism.”

“I have said in all humility that we want peace in the region, and that requires talks on the table on issues which need urgent attention and amicable resolution, that is the issue of Kashmir, according to the resolutions of the United Nations and the Security Council, and as per the aspirations of the people of Kashmir,” he said.

Kashmir, a picturesque valley in the northeastern subcontinent, remains the root of conflict between the two nuclear-armed nations since their independence in 1947.

A 1948 UN resolution called for a plebiscite to determine Kashmir’s future, but eight decades later, it has yet to take place.

India and Pakistan each administer parts of Kashmir, while China controls two small regions. India claims the entire territory; Pakistan claims the portion administered by India, but not the areas held by its ally China.

Contrasting diplomacy

But there are other motivations driving Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach too, say officials and experts.

India’s diplomatic delegations that are currently touring the world include members from various political parties, including the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Indian National Congress (INC), projecting a unified stance.

In contrast, Pakistan’s current mission is led by top state officials, including Sharif and army chief Munir, widely considered the most powerful figure in the country.

The trip also reflects strategic alignment, say analysts. Turkiye, whose drones were used by Pakistan in the recent conflict, is a key defense partner.

“Pakistan’s defense cooperation with Turkey is especially deep,” said Christopher Clary, assistant professor of political science at the University at Albany.

“Evidence suggests several Turkish-origin systems were used in this recent clash, with varying levels of effectiveness, so there is much to talk about between the two,” he told Al Jazeera.

Khurram Dastgir Khan, a former federal minister for foreign affairs and defence, is part of a Pakistani delegation set to visit the US, UK and EU headquarters in Brussels next month.

He said the current trip by Sharif, Munir and Dar is at least partly about highlighting Pakistan’s capacity to wage a modern war against a larger adversary. “There is immense interest in how Pakistan fought the recent war,” Khan said.

“There are countries deeply interested in learning the details, what capabilities Pakistan used and what Indians had,” he added.

“This opens new strategic possibilities for Pakistan’s defence forces to provide training to others. We are battle-tested. This makes us highly sought after, not just in the region but globally.”

Pakistan relied heavily on Chinese-supplied weaponry, including the fighter jets and the missiles that it deployed against India, and the air defence systems it used to defend itself from Indian missiles.

Post-conflict narrative battle

Though both countries claimed victory after the conflict, the battle over narratives has since raged across social media and public forums.

Pakistan claims to have downed six Indian jets, a claim neither confirmed nor denied by India, while Indian missiles penetrated deep into Pakistani territory, revealing vulnerabilities in its air defenses.

India has also suspended the six-decade-old Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a critical water-sharing agreement that is vital to Pakistan.

Recently, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged Pakistanis to reject “terrorism.” “Live a life of peace, eat your bread or choose my bullet,” Modi said, during a speech in India’s Gujarat state.

He also criticised the IWT as “badly negotiated,” claiming it disadvantaged India.

Muhammad Shoaib, an academic and security analyst at Quaid-i-Azam University, said Modi’s remarks reflected “ultra-nationalism” and were targeted at a domestic audience.

“The Indian diplomatic teams won’t likely focus on what Pakistan says. They will only implicate Pakistan for terrorism and build their case. Meanwhile, the Pakistani delegation will likely use Modi’s statements and international law regarding the IWT to bolster their arguments,” he told Al Jazeera.

Khan, who is also a senior member of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN), the ruling party which premier Sharif belongs to, said the upcoming diplomatic mission that he will be part of will focus on issues like India’s suspension of the IWT.

“Our fundamental point is that Pakistan seeks to maintain lasting peace in South Asia, but three major hurdles are posed by Indian aggression,” he said.

The first, according to Khan, is “Indian-sponsored terrorism” in Pakistan, in which, he claimed, more than 20 people have been killed over the past four years. India has been accused by the US and Canada of transnational assassinations. In January 2024, Pakistan also accused India of carrying out killings on its soil. India denies involvement. Pakistan also accuses India of backing separatist groups in its Balochistan province — again, an allegation that India rejects.

“The second point is India’s utterly irresponsible suspension of the IWT,” Khan said.

“Pakistan has rightly said that any step by India to stop our water will be treated as an act of war. This is something that can bring all the region in conflict and I believe that if India acquires capability to divert waters in next six to ten years, and tries to do so, it will lead to a war,” Khan warned.

The third issue, Khan said, is Pakistan’s concern over India’s “status as a responsible nuclear power”.

In the past, New Delhi has frequently cited the nuclear proliferation facilitated by Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, as evidence that Islamabad cannot be trusted with the safe management of its nuclear weapons.

But in recent days, India’s internal security minister, Amit Shah — widely viewed as the country’s second-most powerful leader after Modi — has confirmed that India used its homegrown BrahMos missile against Pakistan during the recent military escalation.

The BrahMos – developed with Russia – is a supersonic cruise missile capable of Mach 3 – three times the speed of sound – and a range of 300 to 500 kilometers. It can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads and be launched from land, air, or sea.

Khan, who served as defense minister from 2017 to 2018, warned of “unimaginable consequences” from using such weapons.

“Once the missile is in the air, you cannot know what payload it carries until it hits the target. This is very, very irresponsible,” he said. “India has already shown recklessness when it mistakenly fired a missile into our territory a few years ago.”

Khan was referring to an incident in March 2022, when India fired a BrahMos “accidentally” in Pakistani territory, where it fell in a densely populated city of Mian Channu, roughly 500 kilometers south of capital Islamabad.

India at the time acknowledged that accidental launch was due to a “technical malfunction” and later sacked three air force officials.

Ceasefire holds, but tensions linger

While the conflict brought both countries to the edge of war, the ceasefire declared on May 10 has held, with troops gradually returning to peacetime positions.

Shoaib, also a research fellow at George Mason University in the US, expressed cautious optimism.

“Initiating hostilities is risky. No side wants to be seen as irresponsible. For that to break, it would take a major incident,” he said.

Tughral Yamin, a former military officer and researcher in Islamabad, noted that while diplomacy offers no guarantees, the ceasefire could last.

“India has seen that Pakistan is no cakewalk. It has both conventional and nuclear deterrence,” he told Al Jazeera. “Both sides will remain alert, and Pakistan must address weaknesses exposed in the standoff.”

Clary added that while the India-Pakistan relationship remains fragile, history suggests that intense clashes are often followed by calmer periods.

“It is reasonable for both countries and international observers to hope for the best but prepare for the worst over the next few months,” he said.

But Khan, the former minister, questioned Modi’s comments, after the military crisis, where the Indian PM said that any attack on the country’s soil would now be seen as worthy of a military response, and that New Delhi would effectively cease to draw any distinction between Pakistan’s military and non-state armed groups.

“The new stated policy of the Indian government is to attack Pakistan even after minor incidents, without waiting for evidence. This puts the entire region on edge,” he said. “This trigger-happy policy should concern not just Pakistan, but the entire world.”

May 13 (UPI) — Russia was responsible for the downing of a Malaysian Airlines passenger jet over eastern Ukraine that killed all 298 people on board in 2014, the U.N’s International Civil Aviation Organization ruled.

The ICAO Council voted that Russia had failed in its duties under the international laws of the sky in the shooting down of flight MH-17 after finding in favor of the Netherlands and Australia, both of which lost citizens in the tragedy, after they brought a case against Moscow, ICAO said in a news release Monday.

The council agreed that claims by the two countries were “well founded in fact and law,” saying Russia’s alleged conduct in the downing of the Boeing 777 aircraft by a surface-to-air-missile breached the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which mandates states “refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight.”

ICAO said the finding had been reached after reviewing written submissions and oral hearings at multiple meetings of the 36-member-country governing council and that a formal document setting out the facts and points of law leading to its conclusion would be released at a future meeting.

Australian Foreign Minister Penny Wong, in a post on X, welcomed the win in what she said was Australia and the Netherlands’ “historic case” against Russia, saying it was a significant step in their fight for justice.

“We remain unwavering in our commitment to the pursuit of truth, justice and accountability for the victims and their loved ones,” she wrote.

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp said the ruling was a strong signal to countries around the world that “states cannot violate international law with impunity.”

In a joint statement, the two countries said Russia must now take responsbility and “make reparations for its egregious conduct” as required under international law.

“Our thoughts are with the 298 people who lost their lives due to Russia’s actions, incuding 38 who called Australia home, their families and loved ones,” the statement said.

“While we cannot take away the grief of those left behind, we will continue to stand with them in that grief and pursue justice for this horrific act.”

MH-17 was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down over Ukraine’s Donbas region, where Russian-backed separatists were fighting Ukrainian forces for control.

Britons, Belgians and Malaysians were also killed in the disaster but the majority, 196, were from the Netherlands.

In November 2022, a Dutch court trying two Russian nationals and a Ukrainian rebel fighter in absentia, found the trio guilty of murder and sentenced them to life in prison.

However, Russians Igor Girkin and Sergey Dubinskiy, and Ukrainian Leonid Kharchenko, who were fighting for the pro-Moscow Donetsk People’s Republic separatist movement at the time, remain free as the Netherlands was unable to extradite them.

A Joint Investigation Team made up of experts from five nations impacted by the diasaster — Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Ukraine and the United States — later ruled after a eight year probe that there was “concrete information” that Russian President Vladimir Putin likely approved the transfer of the BUK missile that brought down MH-17.

However, the team said that while they had evidence of Putin’s role in signing off on the transfer of the missile to separatists, it fell short of the prosecutorial standard of “complete and conclusive evidence.”