Kaja Kallas, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and former Estonian premier, stated during Operation Sindoor, “Rising tensions between India and Pakistan are alarming. I urge both sides to show restraint and pursue dialogue.” This came after the EU chief, Ursula Von der Leyen, had condemned the terrorist strike in Pahalgam mentioning “the vile terror attack in Pahalgam today stole so many innocent lives,’ and adding “Europe stands with you.”
Kaja, on the other hand, was playing to Pakistan’s narrative. Rawalpindi initiated the terrorist strike, then sought global support when India hit back, and threatened a nuclear war. Addressing a joint conference a month later in Europe, alongside Kallas, External Affairs minister Jaishankar schooled her, “This (Sindoor) is not a conflict between two states. This is actually a response to the threat and practice of terrorism. I would urge you not to think of it as India-Pakistan, but think of it as India-Terroristan.” He added that India would never give in to “nuclear blackmail.” The message from India was clear, an attack on its soil will draw a firm response.
The EU commission website describes India-EU ties in these words: “The EU-India relationship is rooted in shared values of democracy, rule of law, and sustainable development.” After the India-EU summit held on 27 Jan this year, the MEA statement read, “The strategic agenda covers key areas: prosperity and sustainability, technology and innovation, security and defence, connectivity and global issues, reinforced by enablers across pillars.” It appeared cooperation was growing in all spheres, when suddenly Kallas applied the brakes.
Kallas visited Islamabad recently and interacted with its political and military leadership. The joint statement issued at the end of her visit displayed how diplomacy can cause more damage than good. The statement said: “The Pakistan side briefed on the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The EU side briefed on Russia’s war against Ukraine. Both sides expressed support to peaceful resolution of conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter.” Was the intent to equate Kashmir with Ukraine? Possibly not, but the way it was worded, it conveyed this.
The only similarity is that both were invaded, Ukraine by Russia and Kashmir by Pakistan. While Kallas criticized Russia, her approach supported Pakistan. Was it intentional or did Ishaq Dar manage to place Kashmir on the same plane as Ukraine and internationalize it? How did diplomats accompanying Kallas fail to grasp that this would invite reaction from India? The joint statement also indicates that Kashmir is an unsettled dispute, something Pakistan insists on, whereas India believes Pakistan is illegally occupying its territory. It also refuses international mediation, which the world respects, less Kallas, who supported it.
The Indian government hit back: “India categorically rejects such unwarranted reference in the joint press communique on matters internal to India. The UTs of J and K and Ladakh are integral and inalienable parts of India.” India is also planning to lodge a formal protest with the EU. A couple of years ago, in response to Europe linking Galwan to Ukraine, Jaishankar said: “There is a linkage today which is being made. A linkage between China and India and what’s happening in Ukraine. China and India happened before Ukraine.” In Islamabad a similar linkage was made between Kashmir and Ukraine, but Kallas supported it, rather than questioning it.
Pakistan raises Kashmir in every global forum and during every visit, a view accepted only by those with vested anti-India interests. Is EU now wading into this category? Possibly Kallas was hoping that Pakistan, in return, would involve the EU in some form of mediation in Iran. Her statement at the press conference hinted at this, “I see a concrete role for the EU in helping to make any eventual agreement durable.” Europe is obsessed with Ukraine. It imagines that it would be the next target for Russian expansion. Concerns are increasing especially as the US threatens to limit its involvement.
Any nation which offers to listen to Europe’s lament on Ukraine is on the right side. Pakistan has an undeclared role in Ukraine. Its ammunition factories supply artillery ammunition to Ukraine, which European and US companies cannot fulfil. Hence, an added soft corner. A statement issued in January this year, at the conclusion of the India-EU summit mentioned, “The leaders unequivocally and strongly condemned terrorism and violent extremism, in all its forms and manifestations including cross�border terrorism.” It was evident that cross-border terrorism implied Pakistan, however it was not named.
A similar reference was made in Islamabad, but this time the statement specifically mentioned Afghanistan: “They expressed serious concern over the presence of terrorist entities in Afghanistan and reiterated that Afghan territory must not be used to threaten or attack other countries.” By this sentence Pakistan projected itself as a victim of terrorism, ignoring the fact that every terrorist strike in India has a Pakistan hand, which also houses almost all global terrorists.
Blaming Afghanistan was easy as it was neither at the table nor has a voice but would it still justify Pakistan’s military actions against Kabul or its own human rights abuses in Baluchistan and Khyb er Pakhtunkhwa? Just mentioning that Pakistan must improve its labour and human rights record to continue with the European Union’s trade preferences is nothing. It should have been warned to stop supporting terrorism as a basic pre-requisite. Kallas highlighted Pakistan’s right of self-defence at the press conference. She mentioned, “Pakistan has the right to defend itself and its people in line with the international law.”
If this was the intent, then why did she seek ‘restraint and dialogue’ during Sindoor. India too responded in self-defence. In a similar vein, is Kallas justifying Israel’s actions against Gaza and Lebanon; after all, Israel’s response is also linked to terrorism. She had earlier stated on Israel’s actions in Gaza, “Israel’s military operation in Gaza, the disproportionate use of force and the deaths of civilians cannot be tolerated.” If one has the right to defend, why not others.
Her comments may not make much difference to Indian policy as it remains firm on Kashmir and refuses any mediation, while accusing Pakistan of supporting terrorism. But they show her and the EU in poor light, incapable of adhering to their own statements, and adopting double standards, especially with a nation with which they seek to enhance strategic ties. It is only a matter of time before she is schooled once again by Jaishankar.
(The writer is a retired Major-General of the Indian Army.)