Monday, May 5, 2008, Rabi-ul-Sani 28, 1429    

UNSC seat for India?

Dr Samiullah Koreshi
Email: koreshi@sat.net.pk

When first time in a newspaper I read Barrister Sultan’s generous statement offering UN SC Permanent Seat to India linking it to a “resolution” of Kashmir dispute I wondered whether he had been misquoted but when I read him repeating this strange proposal and read it in a prestigious newspaper I thought he is ignorant what are its implications and how unrealistic his expectations. This is the most meaningless statement based on an immature approach. I do not understand on what authority from, Pakistan or the Muslim World he made this offer. Pakistan has never entertained any such bizarre idea as to swap UNSC Permanent Seat to India conditioned to “the resolution” of Kashmir dispute whatever this “resolution” means. He was reported to have said that “ his party in Britain proposed to submit to the Ruling Labour Party Convention scheduled for September”. Mr. Sultan is a former Prime Minister of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Government.

He is reported to have said that we are collecting signatures of all British Kashmiris on such a petition to submit such a petition to the Convention.

I am sorry to say that if Barrister Sultan feels that he has struck on a brilliant idea to solve Kashmir dispute and it would make him a historic personality by discovering a wonderful give and take he is mistaken. This is an amateurish idea.

Briefly it means a nebulous “resolution of Kashmir Dispute in exchange for making Pakistan a State under India security umbrella and abandoning the demand for a Muslim seat among the Permanent Members of UNSC, making Indian role in UN decisive for the Muslim World also.

Following is an analysis of this proposal. He has not clarified what that “resolution” of the Kashmir dispute he wants? He has left it ambiguous which means the “resolution” is to be decided in negotiations. We are back to square one:. Negotiate with India a nebulous “resolution”. To any diplomat it means Sultan’s willingness to give up the question of the “ future of entire Kashmir territory” is dropped in exchange for some sort of compromise with India. India says Kashmir is atot ang of India or inalienable part of India. Then what “out of box” solution of Kashmir is Sultan visualizing?

Actually India’s insistence that Kashmir is atot ang of India if looked upon closely is a declaration that India has military muscles to keep Kashmir in its possession and Pakistan cannot challenge Indian occupation on the battle field. This implies that if ever this atot ang is to be disputed the only effective way to do will be militarily, and dare you! Pakistan knows the military implications of India’s claim that Kashmir is atot ang.

No “resolution” of Kashmir dispute is possible through talks except legalizing status quo. International climate is against Muslim Pakistan. No realist can deny that Western powers would never like any Muslim country, far less Pakistan to be stronger militarily, which would be the result of Kashmir or major part of Kashmir coming to Pakistan. US-India-Israel is an unstated combination against Muslim powers in the region from Arab World to Asia. Moreover, West is creating a military encirclement of China in which it automatic assumes that India is US’ partner in military containment of China. It would support India’s hold over Kashmir adjacent to China’s vitals. This is why no a demand has been made that Kashmir dispute be redefined away from its traditional parameters, which is that Kashmir is overwhelmingly Muslim and /or it is left over part of the Division of British Empire in the Subcontinent. The demand that we get away from this logic is intended to make India’s hold over Kashmir legitimate by removing from the dispute the question of the will of the people or decide the dispute by referring to ascertaining the will of the people.

Entertaining any hope that India will ever agree to any solution to change the borders of Kashmir with Pakistan or agree to an independent Kashmir is unrealistic simply because India is sitting comfortably, Pakistan cannot alter the situation by power, international-that is, Westrn powers- are in fvour of Indian status quo in Kashmir.

Now comes the point who authorized Barrister Sultan to offer India UNSC permanent seat ? It assumes that Pakistabn will sponsor Indian candidature to UNSC. This is not in line with either Pakistan’s stand on India’s UNSC seat – which wants no additions to the existing number of UN SC members but only reforms in the UNSC which will take away the monopoly of veto with the UBSC Permanent Members - nor with OIC stand or of such countries as Egypt which want representation of a Muslim seat among Permnent UNSC members. So Barrister Sultan’s offer is in conflict with OIC and Pakistan’s position.

What Barrister Sultan is offering to India is to be the Super Regional Power with Pakistan acknowledging India’s hegemony and denying the Muslim world a voice in the UNSC. In terms of civilizations, Muslim civilization will be an appendage of Hindu/ Indian Civilization. Has Sultan this authority to write off Muslim claim to be in the power Directorate in the UN.

This is therefore not only an unrealistic plan but the Western powers can interpret it in its broader implications that there is a group among Kashmiris which is willing to support India hegemony over not only Pakistan but the Muslim world. Thus this kite flying can do tremendous harm to Pakistan and the Muslim World. This is quite normal when amutures try their hands on matters connected with international security. It would be better for those who do not understand international games stay out of meddling in them.

Of course it is quite obvious that the short lived hope resulting from the last elections has faded ay and we are back to square one, in the US clientage , people have started to assume that since we are a subservient power, what difference would it make if we accept Indian hegemony.

I thought the implications of this statement should be presented lest they had been ignored.

Coming to international themes engaging the people, I do not understand why when the mass demonstrations are led against Danish and Dutch blasphemy, the people do not demand “Boycott” of goods of these two countries through out the Muslim world. This is in their hands and it is an easy self help This is the best weapon in international relations. No government decision is required that people stop buying Danish and Dutch goods. Breaking diplomatic relations can be a short term measure and that too not very effective. Arabs broke diplomatic relations with US in 1967 Arab-Israeli War, and after the Camp David Accord but they were short lived. The most effective retaliation is economic boycott and boycott of Dutch and Danish goods throughout the Muslim world. The Blasphemers and their supporters would keel down if this boycott is real. Please boycott them, this does not require any Government decision. Peoples’ decision is far more effective. This was Gandhian weapon against the British. Do what you can do yourself.

What a pity the question of release of our ambassador to Kabul from the kidnappers has been put in the limbo. Had it been even a small American vice counsel kidnapped the entire Pakistan Government machinery would have moved for obtaining his release. Here it is a miserable civilian Pakistani diplomat case, what does it matter? Is this the attitude!