UNDENIABLY, the peaceful settlement of three regional conflicts — Palestine, Ukraine and Kashmir (also known as three nuclear flashpoints), is crucial for achieving durable peace in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia. Also, these conflicts represent longstanding grievances and territorial disputes that have fuelled regional instability and violence. Addressing them would not only alleviate humanitarian crises but also foster trust and cooperation among nations. There is a unanimous consensus that a comprehensive approach that integrates sustainable development, peace and human rights is essential for achieving lasting stability and security worldwide, particularly in the conflict regions where humanity is bleeding. In the Middle East, the Israel-Palestine conflict has been a source of tension affecting broader regional dynamics. A resolution could lead to improved relations between Israel and its neighbours, enhancing regional security. In Europe, a stable Ukraine is essential for European security; the ongoing conflict there has implications for NATO and EU relations with Russia.
Lastly, a resolution to the Kashmir issue could reduce tensions between India and Pakistan, contributing to stability in South Asia and preventing potential military escalations. Moreover, Kashmir, Palestine and Ukraine are considered nuclear flash points due to the high tensions and unresolved conflicts involving nuclear-armed states. The humanitarian situation in Palestine, Ukraine and Kashmir is sensitive, with the potential for conflict if not resolved, to escalate involving regional powers and their nuclear capabilities. Moreover, the ongoing war and geopolitical tensions with Russia, a nuclear power, heighten the risk of nuclear conflict as both sides navigate military engagements and territorial disputes. Sadly, the ongoing regional conflicts often become arenas for major powers to assert influence, complicating peace initiatives. Militaristic rhetoric and an emphasis on sovereignty in international law exacerbate human rights violations and impede diplomatic resolutions, while local populations bear the brunt of these geopolitical manoeuvres. However, the effectiveness of international law depends on the willingness of powerful nations to enforce these laws, often complicating resolutions. Instances where international law has been invoked, such as calls for enforcement in Kashmir or Palestine, highlight its significance, but the actual implementation remains challenging due to geopolitical interests.
The US arming of Israel and Ukraine is often viewed as a significant factor complicating peace efforts in both the Middle East and Europe. In the Middle East, the lack of a fair peace process with the Palestinians, which the US has been reluctant to broker, contributes to ongoing tensions. In Europe, the military support for Ukraine in its conflict with Russia has led to a protracted war that some analysts describe it as a war of exhaustion, complicating the prospects for a ceasefire and resolution.
Similarly, the US’s role as a silent spectator in the ongoing human rights abuses in Palestine and Kashmir is perceived as a significant obstacle to resolving these conflicts as both Israel and India remain main beneficiaries of US foreign policy giving a blanket cover of such atrocities to persist. For years and years, US foreign policy has been oscillating between supporting regional stability and maintaining strategic partnerships which complicates its influence on the matter. While the West advocates for a rules-based order globally, this concern often appears contingent on their strategic interests and geopolitical relationships. Critics argue that violations of international law are rampant when they align with the Western interests—reflecting blurred and vague responses to different international crises. Needless to say, the perceived double standard of the US and Western nations regarding the rules-based international order arises from their selective enforcement of international norms, particularly in conflicts like Palestine and Kashmir. In the case of Palestine, the US is criticized for a one-sided policy favouring Israel, allowing it to act with impunity while ignoring Palestinian rights and the humanitarian situation, which leaves aid workers and civilians vulnerable. The potential of international law to settle the Palestinian, Ukrainian and Kashmiri conflicts lies in its principles that advocate for self-determination, respect for sovereignty and the rights of oppressed peoples.
For instance, the right to self-determination could empower the peoples in these regions to pursue governance which reflects their aspirations. Conversely, geopolitics and hawkish narratives significantly undermine peace in conflict zones like Palestine, Ukraine and Kashmir by intensifying existing tensions and fuelling military escalations. That said, the role of global powers in settling global disputes such as those in Palestine, Ukraine and Kashmir differ significantly due to their strategic interests, historical ties and international influence. The US typically promotes a resolution based on democratic principles and often supports Israel in the Palestine conflict while advocating for Ukraine’s sovereignty against Russian aggression. China tends to adopt a more neutral stance, focusing on regional stability, particularly in Kashmir, where its influence can impact India and Pakistan relations. As for Russia, because of its security imperatives, the Kremlin seeks to extend its influence in Ukraine resisting-NATO-backed US hegemony.
To conclude, the notion of western realism— driven by imperialist western democracies prioritizing geopolitics over moral considerations or humanitarian needs—needs to be denounced. This approach tends to focus on strategic dominance and resource control, leading to a lack of genuine efforts towards peace and resolution endorsed by the Ukraine situation where Western nations have been more inclined to support military strategies rather than diplomatic solutions, reflecting a broader pattern where geopolitical interests overshadow the pursuit of lasting peace. Same is the case that rests with Palestine and Kashmir where humanity is bleeding because of geopolitics resisting resolution based- approach towards the pacifications of these conflicts and where the risk of nuclear war in these nuclear power-affiliated conflict zones is eminent. Therefore, a future of durable peace in these conflict regions requires a lasting approach based on humanitarian objectives based on the UN’s Charter of Human Rights.
—The writer, based in Pakistan, an independent IR & International Law analyst, also an expert in Conflict and Peace Studies (with special focus on Palestine, Kashmir), is member of European Consortium of Political Research (ECPR), including the Washington Foreign Law Society/American Society of International Law. He also deals with the strategic issues.
