UN: Political arena not court of justice
Pakistani Military commanders of that time felt that the situation on battle field was not so desperate for Pakistani forces in January 1949 that Liaquat could not have refused a UN offer of an immediate cease fire in Kashmir. They claimed that the UN intervened to arrange a ceasefire when initiative on the ground was passing on to Pakistani forces. Whether this was true or not, the commanders maintained that the hostilities should have continued till Pakistan had pushed Indians out of at least Kashmir Valley and Pooch, that is, the war should not have been abandoned till Pakistani forces had pushed Indian forces out and obtained a large enough area in Kashmir. This resentment over quick acceptance of an unsatisfactory Cease Fire caused the Rawalpindi Conspiracy led by Gen Akbar against Liaquat Liaquat’s second mistake was his expectations (or wish) that UN could impose a just solution of Kashmir dispute on India. Consequently, he relied too heavily on U N to solve the Kashmir dispute on merits of the case , as if U.N was an international court where cases were settled on justice. Although at that time anti-colonial sentiments were stronger in the UN than at any other time, only ground reality on the battle field was decisive. Liaquat was too much of a constitutional minded person than the situation in Kashmir required. Without military capability no diplomacy succeeds. Even when accepting merit in Pakistan’s claim, UN did not pass any Resolution on Kashmir under Chapter VII under which Security Council is responsible to implement its Resolution. Liaquat realized India’s intransigence too late in Pindi in October 1951 when he was assassinated showing his fist to India. On this occasion I recall Sir Zafrullah’s words in the UN in Lake Success when speaking to us the Foreign Service trainees in 1950 , he said. “What is lost on the battle field, cannot be retrieved by diplomacy. Arabs have lost their case. Diplomacy can only mitigate the effects of a military defeat” Obviously Pakistan was always half hearted about using the war option in Kashmir when the opportunity came. It is said that the Quaid had asked the British Commander in Chief Messervy to intervene in Kashmir but he had refused.
Any how the first use of military resistance to Indian occupation in Kashmir in 1948-49 was purely people’s own choice helped by some Pakhtun soldier in the Army headed by General Akbar Khan and Pir Saheb of Wana and Pir Saheb of Manki Sharif. They led the war against Indian occupation behind the back of the Government fearing that if Liaquat came to know of their involvement in the Kashmir Jihad, he would stop it. However, Major General Akbar Khan and his comrades were strongly opposed to Liaquat for agreeing to the ceasefire when the chances of a reverse for Indians, according to him, were brighter . War is a sum total of many battles , in which one loses here and there but then regains the losses by persistence on the battle filed. The final victory or defeat determines the fate of nations. All wars Pakistani leaders started with India were fought half heartedly. The soldiers fought valiantly, but the leaders half heartedly.
The question remains whether Liaquat’s acceptance of the UN brokered ceasefire was correct. .. Perhaps they used war as an instrument of pressure diplomacy rather as an instrument of diplomacy, a mistake the Arabs committed in their wars with Israel. Sadat’s sudden change of heart in 1973 War when the Egyptian forces were on the wave of victory was another case of leaders being half serious on matters of war and peace.
Similarly we made mistakes to solve Kashmir dispute by use of armed struggle in 1962 when India was engaged in military adventure in NEFA , or in India- China border war. We believed Anglo-American assurances to settle Kashmir dispute, after the India-China war ended, if we did not attack India. We should have started negotiations with the Anglo-American leaders to give us an exact idea of what will be the settlement, after making India accept the Kashmir settlement. It is a well known saying in diplomacy that a promise made to get over a tight spot is never fulfilled after the party gets out of the tight position. Here Ayub Khan was too much of a gentleman to rely on the false promises of American and British leaders. Another mistake made in Kashmir diplomacy was to substitute negotiations for winning Resolutions in the UN when the going was favorable for Pakistan in international power community- or on what can be described as depending on draftiest diplomacy for negotiations using the favourable agreements as bargaining chips while most of the UN members were favoring Pakistan case . That is after obtaining some kind of Resolution on Kashmir in favour of plebiscite, we should have through a third party, like Saudis or Iran approached India for a negotiated solution . A UN Resolution is only a to be enforced by force or used as a card in negotiations.
UN is no court of justice or any such thing. Resolutions in favour of countries like Pakistan are only consolation lollypops. In any case no dispute of a Muslim country has ever been settled by the UN- Even Palestine and same with Kashmir. Only when any Resolution favours the Western Powers, UN passes it under Chapter VII of the Charter. Now in the 21st century, after the dismantling of the Soviet power , Muslims have replaced in the UN what once the Communist bloc was. They will be the victims of UN Resolutions like it happened on Libya. UN has in reality become an adjunct of the State Department, but no Muslim rulers will understand this point till they become victims of Chapter VII of the Charter in any substantive dispute between them and a Western surrogate. If Muslims can read the writing on the wall should quit UN, NEVER shall they get any justice from the UN. OIC is even more dead than the UN. One should ponder on what should replace the UN and the mummy called OIC
What happened in Libya, a drama for western monopoly of Arab oil. The Western conquest of Libya with a surrogate Libyan Traitor group cannot be considered as a revolt against “tyrannical” rule of Ghaddafi. That would have been if it was not a proxy war of Sarkozy, French head of the trio planners for capture of Libyan oil , Obama, NATO Chief Rasmussen. The rebels were the mask of the Oil Imperialism they became traitors-By remaining in Libya till the last drop of his blood Ghaddafi became another Ahmed Mukhtar the hero of revolt against the Italians colonialists What proves that Ghaddafi had the dedicated support of a section of Libyans till the last moment indicates that he will not be a forgotten leader. It remains to be seen whether by the heroic last ditch battle on the home grounds, Ghaddafi will not become another Ahmed Mukhtar of Libyan history.
Any how West is now the sole master of Arab oil wells and comfortably. Its dream of a Muslim world minus Faisal, Bhutto, Ghaddafi and Arafat has been finally fulfilled. Even Mahathir Mohammed is out.