New Delhi: A contentious report by the Islamabad-based Pakistan-China Institute, titled “16 Hours that Reshaped South Asia,” has dealt a blow to the United States and President Donald Trump’s global reputation, portraying Washington as strategically and technologically outmanoeuvred by China during the May 2025 Pakistan-India conflict. While primarily targeting India’s alleged ‘shortcomings’, the report indirectly undermines U.S. credibility and, separately, perhaps unintentionally, confirms that it was Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) who initiated contact for the ceasefire to stop Operation Sindoor with his Indian counterpart—settling a hotly debated issue.
The report highlights five key points that damage Washington’s image at a global level and Trump’s perception at a personal level.
First, it claims the U.S. strategy to counter China in the Indo-Pacific was weakened by Trump’s mediation efforts, which treated Pakistan and India as equals and offered to mediate on Kashmir. This neutral stance, the report has stated, elevated China’s role as a regional stabilizer, ‘showing’ Trump’s administration failed to maintain what it calls U.S. dominance in South Asia.
Second, the report asserts that the U.S. and NATO must reassess their assumptions about the ‘technological gap with China’, as Chinese military systems—used effectively by Pakistan—outperformed Western technology. The report has stated that Washington underestimated China’s advancements, thereby tarnishing its reputation as a leader in military innovation.
Third, the document emphasizes the U.S.’s failure to anticipate the sophistication of Chinese technology, such as sensors and electronic warfare systems. This portrayal of U.S. unpreparedness erodes confidence among its allies in Washington’s ability to counter China’s technological rise.
Fourth, Trump’s decision to mediate the conflict, announced on X, rather than taking a decisive stance in support of its ally India, is framed as a diplomatic misstep. By praising Pakistan and offering to mediate on Kashmir, the U.S. inadvertently bolstered China’s influence as Pakistan’s key supporter, weakening Trump’s image as a strong global leader.
Fifth, the report calls for the U.S. and Western planners to “dust off old military plans and assumptions” due to China’s “far more sophisticated and superior” military technology. This forces an embarrassing reevaluation of U.S. strategies, depicting Washington as reactive and unprepared.
The report, in what is likely to anger its domestic audience, confirms that on 10 May, Pakistan’s DGMO reached out to its Indian counterpart for direct military-level communication, resolving a contentious debate over who initiated the ceasefire. This detail, perhaps unintentionally included, establishes it was Pakistan who sought the ceasefire, ostensibly due to massive losses that it suffered.
This acceptance, perhaps inadvertent, is in line with India’s consistent denial of U.S. mediation, reinforced by Prime Minister Modi’s conversation with Trump earlier last month. It also strengthens India’s narrative of military dominance in Operation Sindoor and its rejection of third-party involvement in Kashmir.
Curiously, the report’s anti-U.S. narrative contrasts sharply with Pakistan’s recent diplomatic overtures toward Trump, revealing a strategic dichotomy in its approach. Last month, Pakistan nominated Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his “decisive diplomatic intervention” in de-escalating the conflict. This came after Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was warmly hosted by Trump at the White House.
These gestures suggest Pakistan is seeking to use U.S. goodwill to secure strategic benefits, such as economic aid or support on Kashmir, while simultaneously continuing to leverage its alliance with Beijing regionally.
Given the Pakistan-China Institute’s likely Chinese funding, the report’s pro-China and pro-Pakistan bias is evident. However, its widely circulated narrative risks eroding global trust in Trump’s leadership and U.S. power. By framing the U.S. as outplayed by China, the document delivers a significant blow to Washington’s global prestige, raising doubts about its ability to counter Beijing’s growing influence.
The Pakistan-China Institute (PCI), founded in 2009 under the leadership of Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed, is a prominent non-governmental think tank based in Islamabad, dedicated to strengthening Pakistan-China relations through research, advocacy, and people-to-people initiatives, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Its collaborations with Chinese institutions like the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and its influence in policy discussions underscore its standing as a key player in shaping the strategic and economic partnership between Pakistan and China.
