By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following Indian missile strikes on Pakistani territory, Pakistan claimed that Chinese J-10C jets assisted in repelling the attack, a claim the Chinese foreign ministry denied. The ministry stated unfamiliarity with the matter, despite China being Pakistan’s largest arms supplier. This response contrasts sharply with Pakistan’s assertion of Chinese involvement and prior notification to Beijing. China ultimately reiterated its call for de-escalation between India and Pakistan.
Read the original article here
Pakistan’s claim that Chinese-made jets were instrumental in downing Indian Rafale fighter jets during “Operation Sindoor” has sparked a flurry of reactions, most notably a dismissive response from Beijing. China’s official stance, a simple “not familiar,” has fueled speculation and raised eyebrows globally. This seemingly nonchalant reaction is intriguing, especially considering the potential implications of such a revelation.
The lack of direct confirmation from China isn’t entirely unexpected. The potential fallout from acknowledging Pakistani use of Chinese jets against India is significant. If the claim is true, it would directly implicate China in a regional conflict, potentially straining relations with India, and opening a can of worms regarding arms sales and international relations. It’s a complex situation with significant geopolitical ramifications.
There’s a degree of plausible deniability at play here. Pakistan operates a mixed fleet of fighter jets, including those manufactured in the US. Confirming the use of Chinese J-10s would be a massive admission that could have wider consequences. Without irrefutable visual evidence or detailed intelligence, a direct confirmation from China would carry a substantial risk.
The situation also highlights the complexities of international arms sales and the often opaque nature of military cooperation. While Pakistan purchased the J-10s from China, the use of these weapons in combat doesn’t automatically necessitate Chinese approval or even prior knowledge. The Pakistani government’s decision to utilize these weapons in a conflict with India is arguably a matter of their own sovereign military strategy.
Interestingly, other nations seem more forthcoming in their assessment. Reports from France and the US appear to corroborate Pakistan’s claims to some extent, suggesting that at least one, if not more, Rafale jets were indeed downed. However, pinpointing the exact origin of the weapon used remains contentious, with confirmation that the PL-15 missile was involved, which is primarily associated with the Chinese-made J-10.
China’s carefully worded response can be viewed as a strategic manoeuvre to avoid direct involvement in the escalating India-Pakistan tensions. Confirming Pakistan’s use of Chinese-made jets could destabilize the region further, potentially affecting China’s relationships with both nations, as well as its broader international image. This could negatively impact ongoing negotiations and undermine the carefully cultivated neutrality China consistently strives for in major international conflicts.
The lack of transparency also aligns with China’s well-established pattern of reacting to military incidents and arms transfers. Past instances involving similar scenarios, such as the appearance of advanced Chinese military technology in North Korea and other nations, show a consistent pattern of denial or vague statements. This behaviour appears to be a calculated strategy to minimize international scrutiny and avoid any potential diplomatic fallout.
Ultimately, the ambiguity surrounding China’s role in the conflict underscores the delicate balance of power in the region. It also points to a broader issue of accountability and transparency in international arms transfers and military operations. While Pakistan’s claims may hold some truth, the lack of definitive confirmation from China adds another layer of complexity to this already volatile situation. China is playing a delicate diplomatic game, choosing to distance itself from the conflict rather than risk further complicating its relationships with regional powers and potentially disrupting significant international trade negotiations. The “not familiar” response, then, is less a statement of fact, and more a strategic maneuver to deflect responsibility and navigate the treacherous currents of geopolitical tension.