RIGHT of SELF DETERMINATION A REALITY or BETRAYAL for people of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

 

RIGHT of SELF DETERMINATION A REALITY or BETRAYAL for people of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir.

Speech of Dr Shabir Choudhry in a Conference organised in Birmingham, England by United Kashmir People's National Party.

Mr Chairman, friends and colleagues Aslamo Alaykam.

The Charter of the UN proclaims that one of its purposes is to advance the right of all peoples to self-determination. The right of self-determination is defined as ‘the ability of a people to collectively determine its political status and to pursue its own economic, social and cultural development’. 1

Another UN General Assembly Resolution clearly states that:

“Every state has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self–determination of peoples”. 2

We need to ask ourselves, is our struggle for a right of self-determination or is it to regain our independence? Remember, after the lapse of the British Paramountcy on 15 August 1947, the State of Jammu and Kashmir became independent. The Ruler of Jammu and Kashmir concluded an agreement with Pakistan, known as the Standstill Agreement. India was also offered to make a similar agreement. India wanted more discussion on this matter.

It was confirmation by both India and Pakistan that they regarded Jammu and Kashmir as a separate, independent and distinct political entity with its own defined borders and constitution.

It is sad that the Pakistani government, against Islamic teaching and against terms of the Standstill Agreement attacked its smaller neighbour with intention of occupying it. As a direct result of Pakistan’s unprovoked attack on 22 October 1947, our motherland, Jammu and Kashmir was forcibly divided and tens of thousands of innocent people perished and women were kidnapped and raped.

Resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly on 19 December 2017 on Universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination states:

• Reaffirms that the universal realization of the right of all peoples, including those under colonial, foreign and alien domination, to self-determination is a fundamental condition for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights and for the preservation and promotion of such rights.

• Deplores the plight of millions of refugees and displaced persons who have been uprooted as a result of the aforementioned acts, and reaffirms their right to return to their homes voluntarily in safety and with honour. 3

• Lakhs of non - Muslims and Muslims who have been forced to leave their homes, will they ever be allowed to return with safety and honour, when Pakistani militants are sent in name of jihad to create instability and dominate the society with guns and harassment?

The right of self - determination is a right of enslaved or occupied people to determine their own future without any conditions attached to it; and without any coercion and intimidation. Denial of right of self - determination is, in fact, denial of all other human rights because it is through this right, people could give meaning to other political, social, economic and cultural rights.

Mr Chairman,

Right of accession or right of self-determination

The UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, implicitly recognised and gave us the right of self-determination; but Pakistan which many Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir regard as a ‘big brother’ and an ‘advocate’, suggested that the people of Jammu and Kashmir should be only given a right to join India or Pakistan. As a result, our right to independence was curtailed in the subsequent Resolution of 5 January 1949.

This right, at best, can be called a right of accession. It is not a right of self- determination. This right of accession was further curtailed in the Simla Agreement of 1972. In the UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949, at least, a right of accession was to be exercised by the people of the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir. In the Simla Agreement India and Pakistan took away this right from the people, and entrusted it to the bureaucrats of New Delhi and Islamabad.

You can call me what suits you, but, I for one, will not accept any decision with regard to the future of Jammu and Kashmir made by bureaucrats of New Delhi and Islamabad. We people of divided Jammu and Kashmir are the principal party to the dispute. We are politically mature and sensible; and we will decide what is good for us. We don’t want the dictation of New Delhi and Islamabad in this regard.

Pakistani Policy on Jammu and Kashmir

However, I am impressed with the skills of the Pakistani policy makers. They have successfully fooled Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947.

1. The unprovoked attack of October 1947 was camouflaged in the name of Jihad; and many of us still accept Pakistani narrative on this.

2. They have convinced Muslims of Azad Kashmir that the tribal attack was a jihad against a Kaffir Maharaja; and Pakistan has liberated the people. Despite all

the problems we face, many of us continue to think that we are free on the Pakistani side of the divide.

3. Those who betrayed the Maharaja against their oath were presented as heroes. They were given guns, bullets, training, uniform, salary and other benefits that they will defend Jammu and Kashmir and be loyal to the Maharaja. When Jammu and Kashmir was attacked by Pakistan they sided with Pakistan. We have been fooled to regard these people as heroes. If a war breaks out between Iran and Pakistan, and Shias of Pakistan choose to side with Iran; they will be castigated as traitors and punished. Why were those who betrayed the Maharaja Hari Singh treated differently? Are we not also responsible for welcoming them as heroes? Doesn’t this show that this struggle has a communal dimension?

4. The Pakistani policy makers have fooled people that the right of accession is equal to the right of self-determination. This is contrary to the definition of right of self - determination.

5. They have fooled people that India refused to honour the UN Resolutions, yet it was Pakistan which refused to withdraw troops as demanded by the UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948. After Pakistan’s complete withdrawal, India only had to withdraw ‘bulk’ the troops.

6. They have violated State Subject Laws in Gilgit Baltistan, and changed the demography of the region. They have given a large area of Shaksam Valley to China. On the policy promoted and supported by them Lakhs of non-Muslims had to migrate from their homes in Kashmir.

7. Despite all the above, and despite what they signed in the Simla Agreement, they continue to fool people that the UN Resolutions should be implemented. They know that the ground realities have changed, making practically the UN resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir irrelevant; and they still have their troops in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan.

Their present policy of promoting and supporting militancy in Kashmir is in essence, continuation of their jihad started in October 1947. It is sad to note that the Pakistani propaganda wrapped in holy name of Islam is so effective that still many people agree with the Pakistani narrative, wrong as it is.

Also, it is depressing to note that Pakistan is not even prepared to give people a right of accession, because they fear that they will lose the vote.

The right of accession gives people two choices:

A/ Ratify the accession.

B/ Join Pakistan.

In the UNCIP Resolution that limited our right to self-determination with the right of accession, both India and Pakistan agreed to ensure that:

(a) There is no threat, coercion or intimidation, bribery or other undue influence on the voters in the plebiscite.

(b) No restrictions are placed on legitimate political activity throughout the State. All subjects of the State, regardless of creed, caste or party, shall be safe and free in expressing their views and in voting on the question of the accession of the State of India or Pakistan. There shall be freedom of press, speech and assembly and freedom of travel in the State, including freedom of lawful entry and exit.

(c) All political prisoners are released.
(d) Minorities in all parts of the State are accorded protection. (e) There is no victimization. 4

It means people of the Jammu and Kashmir State were permitted to promote any political activity they liked. However, Pakistan has ensured that anyone who promotes a pro India or pro - independence policies are castigated as traitors, agents and anti- Pakistan, and in some cases, anti-Islam.

Sometimes people of Azad Kashmir feel that Pakistani officials love and care for people of the Valley of Kashmir, as they seem to be supporting their struggle and highlighting their problems. There is a strong feeling that Pakistan is not prepared to express love and care to the people of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan and give them fundamental human rights.

I sometimes feel this narrative is not true. In reality, if we look at it carefully, they are punishing the people of the Valley for not siding with them in 1947. If these people had not stood up and faced the attackers, Pakistan would have captured Srinagar.

If you really love and care about a group of people or a community, you don’t create instability in their neighbourhood, burn their schools and colleges, hold strikes to damage their economy and livelihood. You don’t send trained militants to throw bombs in streets and in market places. You don’t create a situation in which forces of occupation kill, arrest and torture people.

The Pakistani agenda is to ensure that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute is not resolved and instability continues, walls of hatred and extremism remain high and jihadi culture and division of people in name of religion is intensified.

Mr Chairman,

Our future strategy should be:

1. Jammu and Kashmir is not a religious dispute, so use of religion must stop. There is no danger to Islam there.

2. Our struggle should be for unification and independence of the entire State that existed on 15 August 1947. Those who say liberate the Valley of Kashmir first are not sincere. They want Jammu and Kashmir to bleed forever.

3. A man in chains cannot liberate any other person. We are all occupied in different regions of Jammu and Kashmir State. I cannot go to Srinagar to liberate them. They cannot come to Muzaffarabad to liberate us. It was a wrong strategy, given to us by the GHQ and their stooges. We must abandon it.

4. People of each region should fight against the country that occupies them. We can support each other, but we cannot fight for each other because of the bitter ground realities.

5. Religion is a personal matter of individuals. There must be no interference in religious affairs of any religion; but the State belongs to all of us. We must fight to regain our independence. We all have to work for unification and independence of Jammu and Kashmir.

6. Practical struggle, hitherto, has been against only one country - India, whereas three countries control various parts of Jammu and Kashmir. It gives a clear message to the international community that it is not a national struggle; and that we are advancing an agenda of one country - Pakistan against the other - India.

References:

1. General Assembly Resolution 2200, article 1 paragraph 2.

2. The UN General Assembly Resolution 2625

3. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 19 December 2017 in its

   Seventy-second session, Agenda item 71 [on the report of the Third Committee

   (A/72/438)] 72/159.

4. UNCIP Resolution of 5 January 1949.

CPEC and geo political realities, Dr Shabir Choudhry 20 May 2018

 

 CPEC and geo political realities 

Dr Shabir Choudhry 20 May 2018 

Pakistan claims their friendship with China is higher than Himalayas, deeper than sea and sweeter than honey. I have never heard of a friendship like this between the countries in the world. 

What they claim defies the principles of international relations, which clearly says, countries do not have permanent friends or enemies. Relationships between the countries are based on shared values and national interests. 

Countries and their leaders protect and enhance national interests. However, these interests, visions and alliances can change with the change of leadership and ideologies. 

Apart from that, if we accept that countries only look after their interests, it means two friendly countries can have a clash of interests while preserving self-interest. Most, if not all, countries have imperialist or expansionist ideas to enrich and empower themselves; this is how small powers became major powers and built empires. 

Although empire building has stopped in one sense; but still all countries want to enrich and empower themselves. Countries still need new markets for their products; and cheap raw materials and energy sources; and that results in disputes, apprehensions, conflicts and wars. Gunboat diplomacy is not relevant in 21st century to control markets, although some countries still use force to advance their political and economic agenda. 

National interests determine foreign relations 

As pointed out above, the national interests of countries determine international relations, and not personal likes and dislikes. It is possible that leaders can make mistakes in deciding and prioritising their national interests, hence change of friends and allies. Furthermore, national interests can change with time; and in fast changing geopolitical situations. 

Pakistan perceived Soviet Russia as an unfriendly country, and rejected the hand of friendship from Moscow. Instead, they bent their back to win the friendship of the United States of America. In order to oppose and harm Soviet Russia, Pakistan joined American led military alliances. It was with Pakistan’s help that Russia was defeated in Afghanistan. Pakistan thought it was in their national interest to oppose Russian advance in Afghanistan, although it brought havoc to Pakistan. 

Now the situation has changed. Pakistan is becoming closer to Russia and the relationship with America is not as friendly as it was a decade ago. The American new strategy about Afghanistan and Pakistan has resulted in Pakistan desperately mending its fences with Moscow. 

The American policy makers believe; and not wrongly, that Pakistan has been playing a double game. Pakistan was receiving huge funds from America, including military aid; and was an ally in a war against terrorism. Pakistan took all the help with both hands, but did not stop complaining and providing help to the Taliban and other militants fighting the Americans. Washington believes that many American lives were lost due to Pakistan’s covert and overt help to America’s enemies. 

Pakistan’s military planners, on the other hand, believed that the policies they pursued were in the country's "national interest". The civilian leadership was not on the same page with the army on this; but in Fort of Islam, generals decide what is right and who is a patriot. They would not change their definition of ‘national interest’ until a disaster takes place; and even then, they will have a civilian scapegoat to blame. 

One commentator under title of ‘Reluctant romance: Would Pakistan finally embrace Russia’? wrote: 

‘The two countries seem to have buried their past differences and are looking to cement their economic, political, and defence ties’. 

It was clear that in view of an estranged relationship with Washington, alarm bells rang both in Islamabad and in Rawalpindi; and attempts were made to seek help from Beijing and Moscow. 

As expected, China wasted no time expressing their clear support to Pakistan. What amazed many was the response of Moscow, which acknowledged Islamabad’s ‘pivotal role’ in a fight against terrorism. Russia also appreciated Pakistan’s role in promotion of regional peace and stability. This was an extraordinary initiative, especially when viewed in the light of decades of antagonistic relations between Pakistan and Russia. 

It is believed that some background work was already done before this statement. In fact, Pakistan started to woo Moscow when relations with the United States started getting tense after incidents like Abbottabad, where Osama Bin Laden was killed; Salala, where 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed, and CIA contractor Raymond Davis who killed civilians in Lahore. 

New strategic realities 

President Trump’s new Afghan policy and likely reprisals for Pakistan was expected; and the Pakistani diplomats work hard to counterbalance that. As soon as President Trump’s policy was announced, the Pakistani diplomats were in contact with Moscow; and urged them to come out to support Pakistan in this hour of need. Russia, against predictions of many, and by forgetting the wounds of the past, did not disappoint Pakistan. 

Russia exhibited a clear message that Pakistan should not be intimidated, and made a scapegoat for failure of their wrong policies. Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan Zamir Kabulov said, Pakistan was “a key regional player”, and unnecessary “pressure on Pakistan may seriously destabilise the region-wide security situation and result in negative consequences for Afghanistan.” 1 

The American diplomats also contemplated Pakistani options to ‘offset’ pressure or possible attack from Washington. Diplomatic circles agreed that the changed scenario will test Pakistani patience and will force Pakistan to acquire ‘deeper and enhanced cooperation’ with China and Russia. One Pakistani diplomat said: 

“If the US does not consider our legitimate concerns and just toe India’s line, then we will certainly move closer to China and Russia.” 2 

The American policy makers understand the importance of Pakistan in bringing peace in Afghanistan. However, they feel if your ally deliberately hurt your interests, then ‘it will certainly create misgivings’, said one American official, when asked the wisdom of the US decision. American policy makers believe “Washington is being ripped off by Islamabad”. 

Because of the changing scenario, relations between old adversaries continued to improve; and in 2016, both Russia and Pakistan agreed to conduct joint military exercises. India, and to some extent America was not happy with this new development. Before the planned military exercises, the Indian military base was attacked by militants apparently sent by Pakistan, in which 21 Indian soldiers were killed. India was furious over this and urged Russia to cancel the joint military exercise. 

Despite friendship spread over many decades, Russia paid no attention to the Indian request. So, one can see, alliances and interests do change with the changed geo political situation. 

Being a novice to international relations, Pakistan committed a blunder by jumping on the bandwagon of the American led military alliances against Soviet Russia in the 1950s. Pakistan suffered immensely because of this mistake and India benefited. It is believed that Pakistan has learnt a lot over the years, and they will try to maintain friendly relations with all big political players like America, China and Russia. 

In view of a paradigm shift in relations, Russia lifted arms embargo against Pakistan in 2015. In June 2016, Moscow and Islamabad concluded a $153 million helicopter deal, and Russia has delivered Mi-35 advanced assault helicopters to Pakistan. 

Pakistan has a great strategic location; and they have been making use of that to accrue benefits and plan their foreign policy accordingly. It is debatable for how long they will be able to effectively take advantage of 

the geographical location. However, Russians can use Pakistan to send their goods to the Middle East and to other markets. 

Russia has also expressed keen interest to use the CPEC, which will enable them to realise their goal of having access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean. Russia also wants to invest in various sectors like agriculture, telecom, oil and gas development. 

After purchasing Mobilink, Russian telecom giant Vimpelcom has also obtained Warid. This 1-billion-dollar investment gives the Russian telecom giant a strong base in the telecom industry in Pakistan. Russia has expressed interest in purchasing banks and laying down railway lines. 

Pakistani writer and research Fellow at Centre for Research and Security Studies, Sadam Hussain wrote: 

‘With Russia’s growing interests in different sectors of Pakistan’s economy and tapping into the potential areas where it can either invest or capture the market for Russian goods, it seems that after Chinese adventurism of CPEC, Russia Pakistan Economic Corridor (RPEC) is also in the making. The thought of it may be ahead of time, but if Pakistan plays balanced chess moves on the board of international and regional politics in particular, it can become a hotbed of intersecting world economies.’ 3 

Realising growing friendship between Russia and Pakistan, New Delhi placed a large order of 5.5 billion Us dollars in 2016, on condition that certain types of weapons will not be sold to Pakistan, which include S-400 surface to air missiles. 

An expert associated with the renowned British think tank, Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) feels Russia may change its position if India continues to purchase military equipment from the West, especially America. 

However, another defence expert, James Hackett, associated with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, feels because Russia still has many large defence orders with India; it is likely that Moscow may not ‘significantly deepen defence ties with Pakistan.’ 4 

In this context, it is imperative to mention that due to Russian and Chinese pressure both India and Pakistan resumed their backchannel talks. Beijing and Moscow emphasised that problems of Asia should be resolved by Asian leaders without interference from outside. The Pakistani side opined that for peace and stability of South Asia and for the success of the CPEC it was essential that there was peace in the region; and that both India and Pakistan should resume their talks to resolve all outstanding disputes. 

The Indian and Pakistani experts had meetings in Islamabad between 28 April 2018 and 30 April. According to reliable sources both sides “discussed all aspects of bilateral relations and agreed that all issues between the two countries should be resolved through talks.” 5 

Despite this, for some reason, Mohammed Faisal from Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs felt appropriate to say: 

“India should walk the talk and refrain from provocative statements. Our armed forces practice restraint but have the capacity and are ever vigilant to give a befitting response to any threat to the motherland.” 6 

American concerns and strategy 

Another interesting twist was noticed in international relations and alliance building exercise, when the American President Trump, known for his undiplomatic, but daring statements asserted that he ‘too believes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through a disputed territory.’ It must be remembered that India’s opposition to the CPEC was based on this plea that the territory of Gilgit Baltistan belonged to New Delhi; and that China and Pakistan had no right to continue with these mega projects in a disputed territory. 

The American Defence Secretary James Mattis, while speaking in the Senate Armed Services Committee said: 

“The One Belt, One Road also goes through disputed territory, and I think that in itself shows the vulnerability of trying to establish that sort of a dictate.” 7 

He further said in a globalised world there are many ‘belts’ and ‘many roads’, and ‘no one nation should put itself into a position of dictating One Belt, One Road’. He also ‘opposed’ the CPEC because it was ‘going throu-gh a disputed territory.’ 8 

This new development can further deteriorate the tense relations between Pakistan and America. Also, it can encourage other players to take positions in changing political, strategic and economic situations in South Asia and beyond. 

Tension between America and Pakistan has many dimensions. Their relations have seen many ups and down in the past. Both governments know the strengths and vulnerabilities of each other. Their love and hate relationship is likely to continue. Both countries need each other for different reasons. One American policy analyst expressed, rather bitterly, that: 

‘After reading scores of incriminating intelligence reports and experiencing first-hand the frustrations of dealing with Pakistani counterparts, many concluded that Pakistan’s military and intelligence forces guilty of a cruel, immoral and deceptive strategy that helped Afghan Taliban insurgents kill hundreds of US troops and made another major terrorist attack against Americans and their allies more likely.’ 9 

Many American experts believe that Washington and Islamabad have clearly worked against each other with different and opposing strategies. These experts strongly believe that American officials are: 

‘fully convinced that Pakistan employ’s some terrorist groups as proxy fighters in Afghanistan and India. These groups have American blood on their hands.’ 10 

Despite this strong observation made many years ago, more or less the same relationship continued between Islamabad and Washington until President Trump came on the scene with tough actions. They were friends and allies; but they were suspicious of each other’s objectives and strategies. 

Another American said, ‘Islamabad is addictive to US assistance dollars’. Pakistan needs dollars either in the form of military aid, development aid, grants or loans. In return, America also wants many things from Pakistan and expects honest dealing. 

The American narrative aside, some analysts, especially Pakistanis believe that America doesn’t want to see politically and economically stable Pakistan. They believe the CPEC can bring economic stability; and that is why America is opposing the CPEC. Economically strong Pakistan with a large army and nuclear arsenal can help Pakistan to withstand the American pressure of ‘do more’. 

Apart from that, America thinks the CPEC is an important component of the Belt and Road Initiative; and success of the CPEC will give China a strategic and economic edge over America in this region. Furthermore, India is America’s new defence and strategic partner; and both partners perceive the CPEC as a future threat. The Pakistani policy planners think, because of these reasons, America has to oppose the CPEC. 

Pakistan’s denial to provide access to Afghanistan and the Central Asian markets forced New Delhi to think of alternative strategies. One such strategy was to start air cargo between India and Afghanistan, which is up and running. The other strategy was to develop Iranian port of Chabhar, which could be used to ship Indian goods to landlocked Afghanistan and Central Asian countries. For this purpose, India committed more than 500 million; and also, constructed roads to transport goods to Kabul. 

If Chabhar route becomes viable and attracts customers, who don’t want to be victims of instability of Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan, and  Pakistani policies, then it can take away a considerable business away from the CPEC. 

In this context, President Donal Trump has also urged New Delhi to speed up the development of Chabhar port and the road links, which will ultimately help the development of Afghanistan. This route will also provide access to goods from the Central Asian countries and Afghanistan to the Indian markets and beyond. 

Where does Iran stand in this equation? 

Relations between Iran and America have not been cordial for many decades. The American led policies against Iran, by and large, alienated Iran, and hurt them considerably. The optimism after the nuclear deal is also dashed by President Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the deal. Even though countries like Britain, France and Germany are not with America on this vital point, the question arises what will be the response of these countries should there be armed hostility either between Iran and America or with their proxies in the region. 

Some analysts believe the CPEC has a hidden strategic and military agenda. China and Pakistan, for obvious reasons, deny this. On the other hand, Pakistani strategic policy planners view development of Chabhar and India’s ‘acquisition’ of Duqm port from Oman with suspicion. 

These critics see it as an Indian strategic planning to counter any misadventure emanating from Gwadar port. They see all this in the context of Indo – Iran Defence Pact of 2003, which provides certain military cooperation to India. 

In a case of war-like situation with India, these Pakistanis think, Iran may allow Chabhar port to be used against Pakistani coastal areas. They feel India may convert Chabhar into a ‘multipurpose military base for intelligence gathering, radar and communication stations, naval, submarine, missile, logistics and/or air force assets.’ 11 

These critics go as far as saying that India may be developing these ports and new trade corridors for Afghanistan and Central Asian Republics for ‘deeper sinister strategic designs?’ In a war like situation, India may even ‘place some of their nukes/missiles in Chabahar, Duqm or any of the other military bases they are desperately acquiring all over the IOR to retain their second- strike capability?’ 12 

There is not much merit in this argument. Perhaps, the writer is not fully aware of Indian capacity and ability. Indian policy makers claim they want to avoid war with any country because they want to concentrate on economic development. They know war, be it with Pakistan or China, will destroy much of the economic achievements, and hold back development plans for many years. 

However, Indian defence analysts claim, if war is thrusted upon them, then they have the ability to defend their borders and teach Pakistan a lesson. Before we make any serious comments on the military position of India and Pakistan, and possible threats to India, one needs to see the world Military Strength Ranking 2018. 

‘The complete Global Firepower list for 2018 puts the military powers of the world into full perspective. It takes over 55 individual factors to determine a given nation’s power index’. 

In this ranking India is 4th most powerful military in the world. Pakistan is at no 17. Are we suggesting that the country which is at no 17, in the world military ranking has power and ability to militarily defeat the country which is at no 4 in the world power ranking? 13 

Apart from that Iranians are not fools to allow India to station their nuclear weapons on their territory and endanger peace, security and lives of the Iranian people. Furthermore, people need to know that Iran has their own issues with Pakistan and cause for resentment. 

Iran is clearly unhappy with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan's close military cooperation and strategic alliance. Pakistan is not only providing training and military weapons to Saudi Arabia, but has also sent more army there on top of the troops already stationed there. Tehran thinks this military assistance and sending of more troops will boost Saudi Arabia’s ‘ambitions to dominate’ the region. Also, Iranian government is suspicious that Pakistani troops and weapons can be used in Yemen to hurt Iranian interests. 

In view of some Iranian policy makers, presence of Pakistani troops and so called Muslim army commanded by former army Chief of Pakistan General Raheel Sharif in Saudi Arabia pose a serious threat to Iran and can further destabilise the region. 

These critics who link development of Chabhar port with some military agenda, overlook the bitter facts that apart from the above, Iran is annoyed with Pakistan because Pakistan did not fulfil their part of the contract with regard to the Iran Pakistan Gas Pipeline. Furthermore, Iran is cagey about Pakistan’s attempts to get LNG from Qatar and gas through the TAPI Gas Pipeline. 

Additionally, Iran is unhappy because Russia is building a 2 billion-dollar North - South Gas Pipeline from Lahore to Karachi to supply LNG to Pakistan. Iranians are not fools; they understand that despite the contract with Iran, Pakistan has made alternative arrangements and has ‘cheated’ them. 

To make matters worse, Iran believes that Saudi supported Wahabi groups are attacking Shias in Pakistan. Also, they think Pakistan has allowed anti Shia groups like the ‘Jaesh-e-Adl, which reportedly operates across the border from Pakistan.’ 

So, one can see Iran had many outstanding issues with Islamabad many years before the idea of CPEC was even conceived. Even if the CPEC projects collapse, the disagreements which Iran has with Pakistan will 

continue to exist; and trouble both governments because they have religious and ideological dimensions. 

Relationship of India and China 

India and China have many relations. They are neighbours, competitors, enemies and good business partners. They fought each other in 1962. They continue to have military skirmishes on disputed borders. Good thing is that their diplomacy has matured, and they have decided to resolve their differences by a process of dialogue. They have also decided to continue improving their trade despite outstanding disputes and hurdles. 

Despite claims of Pakistan and China that the CPEC is an ‘economic project’, Indian strategic planners do not accept this, as they see hidden military and strategic aspects to it; and are concerned about its defence and national interests. Apart from that, India claims Gilgit Baltistan, the CPEC gateway to Pakistan as its territory, which is illegally occupied by Pakistan. 

China has not only tried to satisfy the Indian fear with regard to the CPEC, but has also continued to improve economic relations with New Delhi. China also invited India to become part of the CPEC. 

In this context, many discussions between officials of two countries have taken place. One can say the most important is the meeting that took place in Wuhan, China, between Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping on 27 April 2018. The Indian government requested this meeting, a kind of summit; and the objective of this was to iron out differences on geo - political issues in and around the region. 

It is believed that the Chinese ‘drift’ towards India has alarmed many in Islamabad, even though they spend more time fighting each other than focussing on issues that have serious implications for the future of Pakistan. Analysts in Islamabad feel that Modi has been successful in explaining to Jinping that they can continue to improve their trade relations, despite New Delhi’s geo strategic partnership with Washington.

 

Both Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping agree that they must focus to de-escalate tension in the region in order to enhance trade and economic relations. For Modi, this meeting is good for local politics as well, as he can present himself as a statesman with the ability to promote peace and understanding with neighbouring countries. Economic achievements and building bridges of peace in the region can help him in the general elections taking place next year. 

It must also be noted that under the banner of SCO, India, Pakistan and China are meeting in Russia in September 2018, to discuss various issues related to terrorism. It is believed that in the Modi – Jinping meeting, they could have also discussed and agreed on certain aspects of this multi-nation counter-terror exercise. 

The emerging role of SCO in South Asia and Central Asia must not be underestimated; and the importance of SCO countries is growing with time for the success of the CPEC and Belt and Road Initiative. Countries need to learn to concentrate on economic development rather than arms race and military conquests, which only add to problems of the suffering people. There are hundreds of millions of people in South Asia and in Central Asia living below the poverty line; and efforts should be made to alleviate this suffering. 

It is important to note that America and India worked together in a conference of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) in February 2018, at Paris to include Pakistan’s name in the grey listing because of Pakistan’s unsatisfactory record related to combating terrorism. India and China met in Wuhan, China, in April 2018 to work on projects of mutual interest to both countries. This again proves the point, that countries only care about their national and strategic interests, friendship and principles are only used as sweeteners. 

The CPEC is a big bail out for Pakistan. It will help Pakistan to build infrastructure and meet energy requirements. However, people need to understand that mega projects bring with them mega responsibilities, which many experts believe Pakistan is not in a position to accomplish. As a result of Pakistan’s failure to fulfil their responsibilities, the country will run into deep problems. 

The Chinese Ambassador to India, Luo Zhaohui, in the context of Modi – Jinping expressed his view like this: 

‘From the global perspective, China and India are largely relevant to the evolving international structure of “rise of the east and decline of the west” and against the headwinds of anti-globalisation and protectionism. From the respective developments, we should share the developmental strategies and experiences as our combined population and GDP account for 40 percent and 20 percent of the world’s total.’ 14 

He further says that both countries have to look at each other, and coexist. The focus, he says, must be development; and that we can seek guidance to formulate policies from our leaders. The Chinese Ambassador further said: 

“Equally important is to implement the consensus, transmit personal friendship between the two leaders down to the common people, and take more concrete actions. Wuhan Summit is not a talk shop and we have a lot of work to do in the future such as trade deficit mitigation, acceleration of BCIM process, cooperation in Afghanistan and establishment of high-level people-to-people exchange mechanism.” 15 

Many more aspects of geo political alliances and interests can be discussed and analysed. However, I shall do this under another topic. No doubt, the CPEC is important; but more important are the geopolitical realities of this region, and it is imperative that we look into the future and see what can happen and what should happen. 

Reference: 

1. Kamran Yousaf, http://pk.shafaqna.com/EN/61261 

2. http://pk.shafaqna.com/EN/49620 

3. Is a Russia Pakistan corridor in the making? Saddam Hussein, Published in Daily Times, April 29th 2018. 

4. ‘India upset at improvement in Pak-Russia defence ties’, http://pk.shafaqna.com/EN/61240 

5. ibid 

6. ibid 

7. Reservations on CPEC: Finally the US cat is out of bag http://pk.shafaqna.com/EN/52015 

8. Ibid 

9. No exit from Pakistan, Daniel S Markey, page 4 

10. Ibid, page 8 

11. http://pk.shafaqna.com/EN/60523 

12. ibid 

13. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp 

14. Xi-Modi meeting: a cause for concern, Imtiaz Gul 

Daily Times, May 9th 2018. 

15. ibid 

Islamabad Declaration passed in All Parties Conference, title of which was, ‘Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan in the state of limbo and future perspectives.’

 

Islamabad Declaration passed in All Parties Conference, title of which was, ‘Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan in the state of limbo and future perspectives.’

This important Conference organised by United Kashmir Peoples National Party in Islamabad, in which renowned leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan, Gilgit Baltistan, human rights activists, thinkers, lawyers, journalists and authors with forward looking approach, assembled to discuss situation of peace and human rights in forcibly divided State of Jammu and Kashmir; and formulate appropriate strategies to counter threats to peace and human rights.

Honourable leaders and delegates of this Conference unanimously:

1. Pronounce that the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir is a separate political entity; and its unification, stability, prosperity and independence is our ultimate goal.

2. Declare that Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan are legal and constitutional parts of the former State of Jammu and Kashmir.

3. Caution the Government of Pakistan to refrain from unilaterally changing the status of these areas, as that would seriously affect the Jammu and Kashmir dispute; and could prove to be counterproductive.

4. Reiterate that the Jammu and Kashmir is not a territorial dispute between India and Pakistan; therefore, it could not be resolved bilaterally. As the Principal party to the dispute, the people of Jammu and Kashmir must have the final say on the future of our motherland.

5. Enunciate that the right to life is a fundamental human right, and this right is violated on both sides of the Line of Control in the divided State of Jammu and Kashmir. We request people with guns to exercise restraint, as guns do not provide any solutions, and they add to misery and suffering of the people.

6. Assert that people of the State of Jammu and Kashmir have been victims of aggression, extremism and violence since 1947. They are forcibly divided, and continue to suffer on both sides of the Line of Control. This forced division and suffering must come to an end, as people deserve to enjoy their fundamental human rights.

1

7. Express their strong resolve that human rights must not be selective. Equality, human rights and justice must be for all the citizens.

8. Announce that there is no military solution to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, and dialogue is the only way forward; and to support the dialogue and peace process among all three parties to the dispute, politics of gun, fear and intimidation must end.

9. Acknowledge that India and Pakistan have interests in Jammu and Kashmir, but we do not concur with them; as our interests must be paramount, as we are the principal party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.

10. Emphasis that people of Jammu and Kashmir, and all oppressed nations in Pakistan should unite, and work together to promote peace and tolerance, and help to establish a conducive environment where people can feel safe.

11. Strongly condemn growing ‘Land Grabbing’ in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit Baltistan, where military, non-state actors and other influential people are illegally and forcefully seizing private and public property, hill tops and tourist resorts like Peer Chanasi Hill Top in District Muzaffarabad. These holiday resorts belonged to the people of this region, where people freely went with their families. After seizing these holiday resorts, military and non-state actors restricted access to the entire area by erecting barbed wire, and no one is allowed to enter. If someone ignores their instructions, orders are to shoot him on sight.

12. Criticise Pakistani policy of systematically plundering our natural resources, and constructing mega dams and diverting natural flow of rivers in this disputed territory. This illegal construction and diverting of rivers result in serious environmental problems for the local people, including access to clean drinking water.

13.Notify government of Pakistan that continued oppression and injustice may compel people to rise against Pakistan, therefore, it is prudent to stop exploiting our natural resources, and give us the ownership of the dams already built within the territory of Jammu and Kashmir State.

2

14. Demand construction of all mega dams should stop as they are anti – people and anti-environment. Construction of mega dams is against the interests of our people. Before the construction of mega dams, the authorities must take local people into confidence.

15. Recommend the government of Pakistan to take effective measures to control activities of those who promote extremism, violence and intolerance in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit and Baltistan, and in various parts of Pakistan. Also, they must ensure that religious and ethnic minorities in Pakistan must not become victims of intolerance and hate.

16. Starkly opposed brutality perpetrated on unarmed civilians who were peacefully protesting against high prices, lack of electricity, lack of clean drinking water, and systematic exploitation of our natural resources.

17. Remind the Pakistani authorities that we are also human beings, just like people of Pakistan. We also need clean water, electricity and other necessities. Azad Kashmir produces around 3,000-megawatt electricity, and our consumption is less than 400 megawatts, at least, provide us that. Our people suffer without electricity for long hours, and they still pay hefty bills and taxes.

18. Restate that China is not a party to the Jammu and Kashmir dispute. However, China is in occupation of Jammu and Kashmir territory - Pakistan illegally ceded territory of Shakhgam Valley from Gilgit to China in 1963. In addition to that China occupied Aqsai Chin in 1962; and China must evacuate all the territory of Jammu and Kashmir under their occupation.

19. Urge the government of Pakistan and India to respect the State Subject Notification of 1927, as that Ordinance grants a special status to people of Jammu and Kashmir. In this context, demand Pakistan to stop violating this law, and stop settling Pakistanis and Chinese in Gilgit Baltistan to change the demography of the area.

20. Observe that hundreds of thousands of people who are uprooted due to different military operations, and mega projects must be rehabilitated, and resettled according to the constitution of Pakistan and international norms forth with.

3

21. Worried about continuous practices of enforced disappearances, extra juridical killings and torture by the secret agencies, and law enforcement forces. Social media reports claim that there are around sixty torture centres in Pakistan, including in Azad Kashmir. The puppet government of Azad Kashmir is a silent spectator and is not doing anything to protect people. We request the international community to intervene in this matter, and must ask the UN Human rights Commission to investigate the cases of enforced disappearances, extra – judicial killings and torture.

22. Exceptionally disturbed about this policy of using religion as a weapon and violence as a tool to advance political and strategic agenda to suppress the democratic and progressive voices.

23. Recognize that we should formulate strategies to educate people about fundamental human rights, and empower them with skills and relevant education that they can protect their rights; and challenge those who promote extremism, religious intolerance, violence and hatred.

24.

25. Highlight the importance of people to people contacts as that helps to build bridges of confidence, and help to resolve disputes. Therefore, it is imperative to open all traditional routes of the forcibly divided State of Jammu and Kashmir so that people can interact with each other and eradicate misunderstandings, differences and hatred.

26. Understand that South Asia has a turbulent history where interests of many other countries also clash with the interests of countries of the region. We must ensure that our forcibly divided Jammu and Kashmir and South Asia should not become a battleground for the ‘new cold war’ or a ‘new Great Game’. We all have to live in South Asia and face challenges of 21st Century; and work together to counter threats of terrorism, violence and xenophobia.

4

Advocate this demand of the people that there must be free, totally

impartial and transparent elections in Azad Kashmir and in Gilgit

Baltistan; and the clause of ‘accession’ to Pakistan must be removed

that all people can participate in elections without any fear or

intimidation.

27. Call on governments of India and Pakistan to respect and honour civil and political rights of the people of Jammu and Kashmir State; and also request the government of Pakistan to refrain from annexing areas of Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir, as that will further exacerbate the situation. Instead, we request the government to grant autonomy to both areas under their control so that the elected members could help the local people with everyday social, political and economic problems. END

5