|

Is dislocation of UN Office a path to ‘Insaniat” (Humanity) or a broken promise?

Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai
Secretary General
World Kashmir Awareness

Washington, D.C.
July 10, 2014

On July 8, 2014, the Spokesman of Indian Ministry of External Affairs made a formal statement saying, “As far as we (India) are concerned the UNMOGIP (United Nations Military Observer Group in India & Pakistan) has outlived its relevance. This is a consistent stance that we have articulated on several occasions since the Shimla accord.”

What is the legal ground of the spokesman’s pronouncement? Christopher Hitchens has made it easy to understand when he said; “”Perhaps you notice how the denial is so often the preface to the justification.” And George R.R. Martin confirms it by saying “Most men would rather deny a hard truth than face it.”

The spokesman has conveniently forgotten that India and Pakistan are signatories to various United Nations Security Council resolutions. These resolutions constitute an agreement because, unlike most resolutions of the Security Council, their provisions were first negotiated with the parties and, it was only after their written consent was obtained that they were adopted by the Security Council.

These resolutions are binding on both India and Pakistan to respect the verdict of the people of Kashmir to be obtained through a free vote under the impartial supervision of the United Nations. India, however, recognizing that the people of Kashmir would never freely vote accession to India; it contrived excuse after excuse to frustrate a plebiscite. One of the excuses is that Security Council resolutions have been superseded by the Simla Agreement.

The implication is false because it would run counter to a standing principle of international relations which is set out in Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations (accepted by every Member of the United Nations, including India). The Article says: “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail”

What, then, is the relevance of the Simla Agreement as far as instituting a peace process between India and Pakistan, fully recognizing Kashmir’s inherent right of self-determination, is concerned?

First, it may be that the Simla Agreement is being invoked because of lack of knowledge about its actual terms and the circumstances in which it was signed. India is taking full advantage of this factor to spread the misinformation that the Simla Agreement absolves her from the responsibility of striving for a settlement of the dispute. By citing the Simla Agreement at this stage, or encouraging others to do so, India obviously seeks to prevent those basic issues of the dispute being addressed that were fully taken into account by the United Nations.

Second, despite the circumstance of the Simla Agreement, the Agreement nowhere precludes a settlement of the Kashmir dispute along the lines laid down by the United Nations with the consent of both India and Pakistan. Nor does it require that the United Nations be by-passed in the effort towards a settlement. On the contrary, it expressly says that the relations between the two countries shall be governed by the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. The Agreement thus reinforces the obligations of both India & Pakistan to achieve a settlement in accordance with the resolutions endorsed by the Security Council resolutions and, if their bilateral efforts fail, to turn to the United Nations for assistance. Nothing would be more contrary to the Charter — and, therefore, to the Simla Agreement itself — than to bar recourse to the United Nations.

The spokesman needs to understand that a sincere and serious effort towards a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute must squarely deal with the realities of the situation and fully respond to the people’s rights involved in it. The Simla Agreement does neither. Indeed, it was not intended to do so. A peace process that ignores the wishes of the people of Kashmir and is designed to sidetrack the United Nations will not only prove to be an exercise in futility but can also cause incalculable human and political damage to all parties concerned.

Dr. Fai can be reached at 202-607-6435 or gnfai2003@yahoo.com

Similar Posts

  • |

    Preventive Diplomacy: Successes & Failures

    “It is also true that there is no peace and sustainable development without respect for human rights.” Antonio Guterres, Secretary General- elect of the United Nations

    Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind.” President John F. Kennedy

    It has always been a challenge to exchange views on conflict prevention and the summoning into being a peaceful and prosperous world. The intellectual debate is great, but the stakes are even greater. Men and women have yearned for peace and prosperity for ages. President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address declared, “Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.” Winston Churchill brilliantly recognized that it is invariably better to jaw-jaw than to war-war.

  • |

    Six-Point Agenda To Resolve Kashmir Crisis: Dr. Fai

    San Francisco. March 29, 2014. Dr. Ghulam Nabi Fai, Secretary General of “World Kashmir Awareness” has announced a six point agenda to set a stage for the resolution of Kashmir issue. He was addressing a well represented seminar entitled “Kashmir: A reminder to the American policy makers,” here at Fremont, California. The event was sponsored by the American Muslim Alliance and Pakistani American Democratic Forum which are headed by a well-known political scientist, Dr. Agha Saeed. Mr. Mike Gravel, former member of the U.S Senate, Mr. Naeem Baig, President of Islamic Circle of North America and Dr. Hatem Bazian – a prominent Arab American leader spoke on the event.

  • Fresh thinking is needed to cut the Gordian knot in Kashmir

    The best way to solve any problem is to remove its cause.” Dr. Martin Luther King

    The Joint Resistance Leadership (JRL) in Kashmir has shown willingness to talk provided the Government of India clarifies the parameters of talks.

    In an interview with The Indian Express, (June 5, 2018) Dineshwar Sharma, the Chief Interlocutor said, “When I talk to the younger generation there (Kashmir), often they confront me with so many questions and even talk about Azaadi… Any rational discussion will be possible when we are able to first address the sentiment of the people…” In this interview, Mr. Sharma has made it clear that the sentiments of the people of Kashmir are for Azaadi.

  • |

    Governor McAuliffe Kicks Off Pakistan Independence Day Festival in Washington, DC.

    September 1, 2015. We are proud of the achievements of the Pakistani Americans not only in Virginia but also in the United States. Pakistani culture is a beautiful culture, said Hon. Terri McAuliffe, Governor of the State of Virginia who was the Chief Guest to kick off Pakistani Independence day Festival at Fairfax, Virginia which was attended by several thousand people.

  • |

    The UN and Kashmir: Where Do We Go From Here?

    If we were to judge the UN based upon its history of involvement in efforts to resolve international conflicts, the simplest answer is that it has been an enormous failure. The UN of course is a far more complex organization whose work covers such a wide range of activities that conflict resolution is really only a small aspect of its work. Nevertheless, if we consider the fact that its fundamental mission in being created was to be a means of preventing global catastrophes like the Second World War, then conflict resolution would have to be considered Job One. In addition, the word “conflict” in the phrase “conflict resolution” was defined as conflict among or between sovereign nations. As Chapter I, Article 2, stipulates, ” Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter;”