India News Online » News Analysis » India and the World » 

Kofi Anan’s straight talk on Kashmir : No UN intervention

	March 19, 2001

The United Nations Secretary General, on his South Asian tour of Pakistan, Bangladesh and India, has ruled out enforcement by the World Body of the UN resolutions on Kashmir, or his own mediation unless both the parties agree to it He has upheld the principle of bilateralism enshrined in the Shimla Agreement of 1972 and rightly underscored the need to return to the spirit of the Lahore Declaration of February, 1999.



While in Islamabad, he emphasised that the unlike the UN resolution on East Timor, the resolution on Kashmir was not passed under Chapter VI for its self-enforcement, in Dhaka, he rejected Pakistan’s plea to intervene on Kashmir unless both parties accepted his good offices. In New Delhi again, he called for early Indo-Pak talks.

What delighted India most was the stand taken by Mr. Annan on the Kashmir issue while in Islamabad on March 11 when he categorically ruled out UN intervention for enforcement of the 1948-49 Security Council resolutions favouring plebiscite in Kashmir and also snubbed the Pakistani leadership by upholding the Lahore declaration as the basis for all agreements over Jammu and Kashmir. To Pakistan, this amounts to cold water being poured on its aspirations for recognition of Kashmir as the “core problem” of South Asia. Asked by newsmen why like the Security Council resolution on East Timor which Indonesia was forced to implement and hold a referendum there which led to its independence, could not be enforced on India and ask it to to hold plebiscite there, Mr. Annan clarified that the UN has two types of resolutions - enforcement resolutions under Chapter VII and other resolutions under chapter VI which require cooperation of both parties to get implemented. East timor, he said was a Chapter VII resolution just like the resolution on Iraq. But, the Kashmir resolution does not come under Chapter VII and thus is not self-enforcing.

He, therefore, categorically ruled out UN intervention for enforcing the 1948 resolution on Kashmir. He said, the issue could only be resolved if Islamabad followed the spirit of the Lahore declaration. He said, a return to the spirit of the Lahore Declaration would require “restraint, wisdom and constructive steps from both sides.

The UN Secretary General’s straight talk that Kashmir cannot be compared to East timor came as a rude shock to the Pakistani military establish. Gen. Musharraf has been a strong opponent of the Lahore accord that was signed in February 1999 between Vajpayee and his democratically elected counterpart, Nawaz Sharif. After all, political observers say, it was he who had planned the Kargil misadventure, that led to a great diplomatic defeat for Pakistan. Gen. Musharraf was secretly working on the blueprint of the Kargil intrusion while Mr. Nawaz Sharif was talking of peace with Mr. Vajpayee in Lahore. Mr. Annan’s reference to the spirit of Lahore Declaration, therefore, would not have gone down well with his hosts as the militarist government feels the document was signed by the Nawaz Sharif Government without “adequate preparations”.

Gen. Musharraf has been playing up the Security Council resolutions on Kashmir to whip up his anti-India sentiments to his country. The Pakistanis were being fed on half-facts that the UN was deliberately discriminating against Pakistan, a smaller country, by appeasing India. Mr. Annan’s clarification on the non-enforceable UN resolutions on Kashmir and his insistence on honouring the Lahore Declaration amounts to a clear signal to Gen. Musharraf from the international community that his antics for third party intervention are no longer amusing.

India greeted with unreserved delight Mr. Anan’s remarks. Foreign Office spokesman said, his observations vindicated India’s consistent stand calling on Pakistan to reaffirm its commitment to the Shimla agreement and the Lahore declaration. The Prime Minister, speaking in Parliament on March 12, pointed to a shift in international perception about the Kashmir dispute and said Mr. Annan’s statement only endowed this. He emphasised India’s position that the UN resolutions had lost relevance and contextuality. The Kashmir dispute, he said, would only be solved through dialogue because it was not a religious question but a political one relating to India’s national integrity.

The Hurriyat conference, however, criticized the UN Secretary General’s statement and sought a meeting with him in New Delhi. But, Mr. Annan did not oblige. The Pakistan-based militant group, Hizbul Mujahideen chief, Syed Salahuddin also took a serious exception to Mr. Annan’s statement that India and Pakistan should resolve all their disputes in the spirit of Lahore declaration. He said, now Jihad appeared to be the only way to resolve the Kashmir conflict.

Mr. Annan, whose next stop was the Bangladesh capital, Dhaka, once again rejected Pakistan’s plea to use his good offices in finding a solution to the Kashmir issue. He firmly told Pakistan that it was not possible unless India also desired so. In an interview with PTI in Dhaka, he said, in his talks with the Pakistani leadership, he got the impression that they wanted to prepare the UN to be a third party “to assist” in resolving the issue. He conveyed them his position hat his good offices were always available, but for the initiative to be effective, both countries should accept it. Clearly, he said, this acceptability does not exist at the moment. He said, the only option left now was direct talks between India and Pakistan.

In New Delhi too, Mr. Annan, who arrived on a three day visit on March 15, repeated his call for early Indo-Pak talks. Mr. Annan, who had wide-ranging talks with the Prime Minister, Mr. Vajpayee, and the External Affairs Minister, Mr. Jaswant Singh, besides calling on the President, Mr. K.R. Narayanan, and others, began his visit with a call that India and Pakistan resume their dialogue. He repeated his offer of “good offices” to break the logjam. Stating that “this is the right time for India and Pakistan to resume the dialogue”, Mr. Annan said, in Pakistan, he was assured by Gen. Musharraf that he was ready to do so at any time. What he said on terrorism, also pleased New Delhi. Talking to newsmen on arrival, he said, the UN is concerned about the spread of terrorism. He urged all countries not to give refuge to terrorists “because if you give them comfort and protection, we must all pay the price.” India sees this as a direct indictment of Islamabad and its role in sponsoring cross-border terrorism in Kashmir.

In another smart move which pleased India, the UN chief refused to meet the Hurriyat Conference leader, Abdul Gani Lone. The Hurriyat Conference had asked both the United Nations Office and the Ministry of External Affairs for a chance to meet Mr. Annan during his three-day stay in India.

Mr. Jaswant Singh’s discussions with Mr. Annan on March 16 covered a number of issues including UN reforms and peace keeping operations. India is keen on UN reforms and is lobbying for a permanent seat in an expanded UN Security Council. Mr. Annan described India as a “potential permanent member of the enlarged Security Council. Reiterating India’s stand in favour of its inclusion in an expanded Council, Mr. Singh said, the UN reforms should be implemented soon. According to Mr. Singh, over 150 countries had advocated the expansion of the Security Council and among these, a large number of countries had supported India’s candidature. Afghanistan and terrorism took a lot of time during discussions between Mr. Singh and Mr. Annan. Both leaders were appalled at the wanton destruction of priceless Buddhist relics in Afghanistan. The nuclear issue also came up. The UN naturally wants India to sign the CTBT. Singh took the opportunity to once again state India’s position that it was committed to sign the CTBT as soon as Prime Minister Vajpayee was able to build up a national consensus. And in the meantime, it was committed not to carry out any further test and not to stand in the way of the CTBT coming into force.

Peace keeping was also on the agenda of talks. Mr. Annan briefed Mr. Jaswant Singh on the proposed stand-by force for UN peace-keeping operations and sought India’s views on subscribing to the force. Mr. Singh said, India was ready to earmark one brigade as a stand-by force with the condition that the brigade can be mobilized by the UN for emergency situations subject to approval from the Government for the mission.

Mr. Annan, who welcomed India’s decision, had touched upon the issue of a stand-by force for UN peace-keeping operations at his address at the United Services Institution on march 15.

Later, addressing a meeting organised y the Confederation of Indian Industry [CII] on March 17, Mr. Annan expressed concern over the “digital divide” - the growing gap between the information haves and have-nots - and said there was a danger that the world’s poor will been excluded from the knowledge-based global economy. He was concerned about State monopolies that charged exorbitant prices for the use of bandwidths and countries that lacked the trained work forces and legal and regulatory frameworks to attract investments.



Annan’s rebuff to Pakistan - an analysis

Commenting on the observations by Mr. Annan during his South Asian tour that the UN resolutions on Kashmir were not self-enforceable and therefore, a solution for the Kashmir dispute should be found through direct talks based on the Lahore declaration, political observers say, Mr. Annan’s support for India’s position stems from the wide appreciation of New Delhi’s new policies on Kashmir. Nearly every government of consequence has supported the ceasefire, and explicitly demanded that militant groups and Pakistan reciprocate the move to help create the atmosphere for a dialogue. The ceasefire strategy Prime Minister Vajpayee courageously envisioned and held on to despite serious attempts to destabilize it, both by militants in the Valley and the conservative opinion within his own Government and part, has certainly helped India win international sympathy.

However, the inexplicable delay in getting to the next stage of the peace process, after the declaration of ceasefire, has given rise to fears that the gains to be had from silencing the guns were being needlessly frittered away. New Delhi acknowledges the beneficial spin-off effect of Islamabad’s announcement of a policy of “maximum [military] restraint” along the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir. Yet, New Delhi’s hesitation to take imaginatively bold steps to widen the opportunities for building trust in its ties with Islamabad remains inexplicably bankrupt as a follow up policy. The Prime Minister’s promise to steer away from the beaten track of polemical diplomacy has been severely dented by the recent refusal to allow a designated delegation of the All-Part Hurriyat Conference to travel to Pakistan for clearly confidence-building purposes rather than any mediatory intervention in regard to the two States.

As for the UN resolution on Kashmir plebiscite, political observers say, the then Nehru Government was to blame for taking the dispute to the UN and asking that the world body persuade Pakistan to pull back from occupied parts of Jammu and Kashmir. India did not proceed under Chapter VII, which would have entitled the UN to deal with Pak intrusion into Kashmir as an issue threatening world peace and take mandatory action to expel them from what is now Pak-occupied Kashmir. Exploiting the subsequent Cold War, the Pakistanis converted the issue into an overall Indo-Pakistani dispute, encompassing Junagarh and Hyderabad. Pakistan told the mediatory body, the UN Commission for India and Pakistan [NCIP] that India was partitioned on the basis of the two-nation theory. Since Pakistan was to be the homeland of Indian Muslims, Kashmir and its Muslim majority population belonged with Pakistan. The Commission’s resolution of August 14, 1948 stipulated that Pakistan should withdraw its forces from Jammu and Kashmir; all those who left Kashmir after August 14, 1947 should go back and all those who came in after the date should leave. It added that the Srinagar government’s jurisdiction over all areas of the erstwhile princely State should be restored, after which a plebiscite should be held. The commission also held that Pakistan would have nothing to do with the holding of the plebiscite. Pakistan did not fulfill any of the directives. But, the UN could not impose sanctions on Pakistan for its defiance since it was a chapter VI and not a Chapter VII resolution.

Then in 1971, a large chunk of Pakistan seceded to form Bangladesh. The total Pakistani population became less than the Muslim population in India. Pakistan could no longer bite the two-nation theory. Nor could it claim that it was the true homeland of all Indian Muslims. Therefore, Pakistan’s claim to Kashmir was no longer valid. Indeed, the post-1971 state of Pakistan was not even the party against which India had complained in 1948 since it had less than half the population of the original Pakistan. Present day Pakistan can claim to be the successor state of the original Pakistan. But, its composition, geography and nature have changed so profoundly that India can justifiably question whether it should continue to be treated as the disputant against which the Kashmir dispute was raised in the UN. Since the dispute was handled under chapter VI, India is entitled to withdraw its complaint. If Pakistan wants to re-raise the issue in the UN, it should be asked to explain why it wants to disturb the territorial stats quo of 1953 years which has been ratified by the Shimla agreement, the Lahore declaration and the Blair House Joint statement. As the original complainant India should close the chapter by notifying the N that it does not want to pursue the complaint.