Mediation on Kashmir
By Brian Cloughley

Exchanges of fire continue across the Line of Control in Kashmir, which is regrettable because, as always, innocent people are killed in this sort of affray. There is no point in attempting to apportion blame about violations of the accord of November 25, 2003 in which India and Pakistan “agreed to observe a ceasefire...along the international border, the Line of Control and the Siachen Glacier.”

That initiative was a welcome indication of flexibility, moderation and attempted confidence-building in a dispute which should be settled by common sense application of measures to ensure that wider conflict will not arise – which is why the United Nations has a major part to play.

India has the laudable ambition to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council and is supported by many influential nations including China (albeit with a caveat), Russia, and the United States, and even by such as Benin, Tuvalu and the United Kingdom. After the leaders of the US and India met in Washington in September it was recorded that “the United States looks forward to a reformed UN Security Council with India as a permanent member; President Obama and Prime Minister Singh agreed that both their nations bear a responsibility to ensure that the Security Council continues to effectively play the role in maintaining international peace and security envisioned in the United Nations Charter.”

These are admirable sentiments, and now is the time to transform aspiration into practicality. There have been several Security Council resolutions on the matter of Kashmir, and all remain in accordance with the UN Charter which states that, “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.”

As India’s Nehru said in 1960 when discussing a crisis in the Congo, “The role of the United Nations is a mediatory one...We are convinced that these questions cannot be dealt with on a bilateral basis, or even by a group of countries. They are of immediate and vital concern to the entire world.” Quite so: and his reference to the UN being ‘mediatory’ cannot be brushed aside – or swept under a Kashmir rug, for that matter.

But sweeping seems to be the drift of the moment, as indicated by India’s Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid who pronounced that: “There is no way in which India will accept any intervention on an issue that is entirely accepted in the Simla Agreement as a bilateral issue between India and Pakistan.”

But it isn’t ‘entirely accepted’ in the Simla Accord that there will be exclusion of mediation. The meeting of ZA Bhutto and Indira Gandhi at Simla in 1972 resulted in a joint undertaking that “the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the countries,” and, more specifically, that “the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.”

In accordance with the UN Charter there is no prohibition of mediation and specific note of the desirability of ‘any other peaceful means’. Certainly it would be preferable for India and Pakistan to solve their differences bilaterally. This would indeed be a civilised manner in which to settle a disagreement. But they haven’t managed to agree for over 65 years, so it’s time for another approach. And there could not be a better solution than agreeing to mediation by the UN to whose ideals and principles both nations unconditionally subscribe.

India’s defence minister, Antony, has said, “We are not in favour of involvement of any third country in talks between India and Pakistan.” But the UN is not a ‘third country’. It is a world body dedicated to attempting to stop countries going to war with each other. Certainly its ethos can be at variance with national vanity, and its verdicts may offend those against whom it might decide. But its judgements are the closest the world is going to get to international reason.

Mediation is defined as “a form of conflict management in which a third party assists two or more contending parties to find a solution without resorting to force.” As I have emphasised before, mediation does not demand capitulation. Acceptance of independent judgement is not declaration of weakness, and the parties involved could with profit bear in mind Nehru’s advice to “Let us be a little humble; let us think that the truth may not perhaps be entirely with us.”

It would be admirable were the countries to demonstrate restraint and realism by referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN for consideration, while placing their own arguments before it, which they are perfectly entitled to do. The matter remains on the books of the Security Council, and India has no hope of becoming a permanent member of that body if it continues to adhere to the fallacy that its own disputes fall outside its compass. After all, as a non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2011 it examined (for example) the problem of the Congo (like Nehru a half-century before), and voted for Resolution 1991 that “Demands that all armed groups...immediately cease all forms of violence.”

As observed by Nehru: “in ages long past, a great son of India, the Buddha, said that the only real victory is one in which all are equally victorious and there is defeat for no one. In the world today, that is the only practical victory. Any other way will lead to disaster.” It is up to his successors to follow his wise advice.

The writer is a South Asian affairs analyst. Website: www.beecluff.com