pc28¹ÙÍø

The current exchange of cross-border attacks, combined with incendiary rhetoric, has again raised fears of escalation. While both governments insist they do not seek war, the cycle of provocation and retaliation continues with alarming predictability. What is most worrying is how quickly these episodes can spiral — and how little room for error exists when nuclear weapons are involved.

The history of India and Pakistan is riddled with moments when full-scale war seemed frighteningly close: the Kargil conflict in 1999, the 2001—2002 military standoff, the Balakot airstrikes in 2019. In each case, miscalculation or mistrust could have tipped the region into disaster. Unlike Cold War-era superpowers, India and Pakistan have less-developed nuclear command systems, limited crisis communication, and highly volatile domestic politics — all of which heighten the risk of a nuclear incident born not of intent, but of confusion or panic.

Both countries continue to modernize and expand their nuclear arsenals, including the development of short-range tactical nuclear weapons. These are designed for battlefield use and lower the threshold for deployment. In theory, they deter conventional military incursions. In practice, they may raise the likelihood that a conflict could escalate from conventional to nuclear.

And yet, the global community has responded with striking passivity. President Trump has expressed sadness. Some regional actors are attempting quiet mediation. The UN Security Council continues its drift into irrelevance. Canada and other middle powers have been muted — overshadowed by strategic partnerships, trade interests, and the domestic politics of South Asian diasporas.

But the danger is not hypothetical. It is immediate, and it demands sustained international attention.

Canada, and countries like it, cannot afford to watch from the sidelines. As a middle power with a proud history of diplomacy, peacekeeping, and nuclear disarmament, Canada has both the credibility and responsibility to act. That does not mean choosing sides. It means choosing peace as a guiding principle in a world where it is rapidly losing ground.

First, Canada must reinvest in preventive diplomacy. This includes pushing to reactivate forums like the UN Conference on Disarmament and working with allies and regional actors to encourage restraint and dialogue — even if such efforts are not immediately headline-grabbing.

Second, Canada should use its voice to restore credibility to the global norms that help prevent war. This includes advocating for the rule of law and supporting arms control treaties that are being sidelined. While Canada’s absence from recent disarmament initiatives — like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons — reflects strategic tensions within NATO, it should not prevent Canada from championing nuclear risk reduction elsewhere.

Third, Canada must acknowledge the domestic political sensitivities that shape its foreign policy — particularly around South Asian diaspora communities. But caution need not mean silence. There is a principled way to support peace, urge restraint, and reject the normalization of violence without inflaming partisan divisions at home.

Finally, Canada should convene a high-level international working group on South Asian nuclear risk. Track II diplomacy — an informal approach, led by retired diplomats, military officials, and civil society voices — can lay the groundwork for trust and crisis planning that official channels often lack.

The embers of conflict between India and Pakistan are not going out on their own. As warfare becomes dangerously normalized and the architecture of global restraint erodes, the world cannot wait for the next crisis to act. Countries like Canada have a choice: to be fire watchers — or firebreaks. Because in a world full of dry timber, even a single ember can ignite catastrophe.