Alwaght- The UN General Assembly finally approved with 193 votes the Pakistan-proposed draft resolution that supported the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their fate and get a guarantee of not being exposed to military interventions. Regional countries such as Iran, China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, South Africa, and Lebanon backed the pro-Kashmiri resolution. The resolution came after nearly four decades of tensions and intermittent wars in the contested Kashmir, reviving hopes for ending the violence and restoring the peace in the disputed part of the Indian Subcontinent. Due to significance of the issue, Alwaght conducted an interview with Zahra Mahmoudi, the university professor and Pakistan and Afghanistan affairs analyst. The interview was originally conducted in Farsi.
Alwaght: Please tell us about recent UN resolution on the Kashmiri people’s right to determine their fate. What happened that after decades of violence this resolution was passed by the UN?
Mahmoudi: On November 23, 2016, the UN General Assembly approved a Pakistan-proposed draft resolution that recognized the right of people of Kashmir to determine their fate in their highly tense land. The resolution was passed in the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee, also known social, humanitarian, and cultural committee. 193 countries, including Iran, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Egypt, Lebanon, Nigeria, and South Africa are members of this committee, and 73 countries backed the Pakistani motion and the draft resolution was approved in the committee. But according to the official website of the UN it is likely that within a month a new vote be performed in the General Assembly’s open session.
The resolution highlights the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their future. The roots of this resolution date back to the lasting India-Pakistan rifts over Kashmir. In 1947, the Pakistan Muslim League party and Indian National Congress signed a deal according to which the Muslim parts of the subcontinent went under Pakistan's administration and the Hindu parts of it went under Indian administration. However this accord was not applied to Kashmir. The Maharaja of Kashmir at that time Hari Singh without attention to the demands of Kashmiri Muslims arbitrarily signed a document that gave administration of the former state of Kashmir to India. India presently argues on the international stage that Kashmir dispute is a domestic issue. Currently, nearly two third of Kashmir under “Jammu and Kashmir Valley” belongs to India and one third of it under “ Azad( Free) Jammu and Kashmir” as well as the northern regions are administered by Pakistan. Kashmir is so important for both sides that they fought three wars in 1947, 1965, and 1971. There have been some UN resolutions, meanwhile, addressing the conflict.
Alwaght: With this long history of struggle, why did the Pakistani draft resolutions about the rights of the Kashmiri people fail to be passed by the UN in past decades? Actually, why the UN only now and after over three decades of conflict has passed such a resolution?
Mahmoudi: The issue of right for determination of fate was put forward in 1948 in a different form by the UN Security Council under the UN Chapter 6. At that time, the Security Council proposed a referendum to be held in Kashmir, something like today’s right of fate determination. Following the proposal, a referendum was held and, as Pakistan claims, a majority of the Kashmiris voted to go under administration of Pakistan but India refused to accept the referendum results, arguing that the vote was manipulated, and so cannot settle the problem. Concerning the recent General Assembly’s passing of the Pakistan-proposed resolution, I believe that this resolution is not much decisive for Kashmir and cannot deeply influence the decades-long struggle. The General Assembly also recognized the Palestinians' right of determining their fate, but the situation did not change in Palestine. The extra sensitivity about Kashmir surged after this year’s General Assembly speech of the Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. His mentioning of this year’s killings in Kashmir added to sensitivity to the Kashmiri cause. A stronger ground for the resolution was built during a meeting between a Pakistani security official and a British official. In fact, before moving to propose the draft resolution, Pakistan made the primary preparations, and it was not without grounds.
Alwaght: Do you think this resolution will be enforced on the ground? Will be hopes of settlement of the struggle after a majority of members voted for the resolution?
Mahmoudi: This issue is examinable from the two political and legal aspects. Legally, this issue is not without achievements. Actually, Pakistan proposed a resolution and it won strong vote. Legally, passing the draft resolution by a majority of the General Assembly members shows that the world is moving to accept the right of determination of fate of Kashmiris despite an India's insistence to paint the crisis as a domestic issue. But, regarding Kashmir's great security, political, and economic significance for India, New Delhi is unlikely to accept any resolution that the UN passes. In fact, currently no country or organization is able to press India to allow for a referendum in Kashmir. In 1948, the Security Council under Chapter 6 obliged India to hold referendum in Kashmir but the Indian leaders declined to accept. Now the demand for referendum is made by the General Assembly, which is much weaker than the Security Council. Legally, if the case was raised by the Security Council, it could enjoy some degree of enforcement guarantee. But it is passed by the General Assembly and so it cannot come influential on the dispute over Kashmir.
Politically, however, in this resolution Pakistan has managed to build an international consensus. This can be used as a kind of pressure tool by Islamabad to pursue its dispute with India. Moreover, because some pro-Indian groups are not willing to go under rule of Pakistan for ethnic and religious drives, passing the resolution can be a victory for pro-Pakistani Kashmiri groups.
Alwaght: How was the US reaction to the anti-Indian resolution while Washington has close ties with both India and Pakistan? Did Washington support the resolution?
Mahmoudi: I think that the US position about this resolution needs examination from general and strategic aspects. As it appears in practice, the two wings of the US policy are interests and values. Values like the right to determine the fate are highlighted in the UN Charter and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights approved in 1966. The Americans raise the issue of democracy and human rights whenever their interests require. But another wing, the stronger wing of the US foreign policy, is its interests, and the American leaders always give the priority to their interests. But the US lost trust on Pakistan. Although Pakistan has been one of the most important allies of the US and after 2001 the US president George Bush called Pakistan the most important non-member ally of NATO, Islamabad gradually changed behavior, from one hand announcing readiness for cooperation with Washington and Kabul (against terrorism) and on the other hand facilitating Taliban's freedom of action in Afghanistan. This approach affected the American-Pakistan relations, making them far from holding normal ties as before. However, India because of its domestic order, economic power, and stronger military force takes a special place in the US foreign policy, and is so different from Pakistan. Even in the nuclear aspects, the US-India relations are firmer than the US-Pakistan ties. This means that if the Americans are to choose between India and Pakistan, they will pick India. So, knowing well that this resolution is not going to be practical and binding, the Americans did not show a specific reaction to it.
Alwaght: With this, what is the outlook of relations between India and Pakistan? Having in mind that following the resolution approval, India reacted strongly, threatening to cut off the Indus River to Pakistan, can their relations become tenser?
Mahmoudi: We can consider the outlook only when we consider the place and value of Kashmir for each of them. Kashmir is a matter of prestige and honor for both India and Pakistan. It is highly significant for India because the strategic region shares borders with China, Russia, and Afghanistan. Regarding natural resources, many rivers in India have their sources in Kashmir. On the other side, due to existence of a large number of Muslims, settlement of this conflict in favor of Pakistan will be regarded a win for Muslims over the Hindus. Additionally, the prestige dimension of Kashmir is very important for Pakistan.
The Indian approach sees Kashmir issue as settled that needs no more pursuing and negotiations. The outlook for Kashmir dispute is that the international organizations and global powers cannot step into the case. Countries like the US can only mediate and persuade the two countries to go to the negotiating table. There is nothing more specific they can do.
We can have a clear outlook for any solution of the dispute because Kashmir cause is of security, economic, and political significance for India and Pakistan, and the tensions will drag on at least in the mid-term because India is boastful of being a regional power and the US is closer to it than to Pakistan. It is unlikely that the UN which is under the US influence can make any practical and efficient move. This means that tensions will roll on at least in the mid-term.
