Kashmir, issues at stake and domestic, regional and
international contexts
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES such as Kashmir have to do with domestic, regional
and international elements. As Huth says “states leaders are both national
security managers as well as domestic politicians seeking to maintain their
position of influence and power. As such, the foreign policy goals of state
leaders should reflect the pursuit of both external security as well as
domestic political gain.”
Huth, Paul K. 2001. Standing Your Ground.
Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. The University of Michigan
Press.
Pakistan was defeated by India in 1971. The Simla Agreement was signed
in 1972. Several decades after this agreement and Pakistan has not made any
important concession to India or taken any steps towards solving the dispute.
On the contrary, it has opposed to India in the Siachen Glacier region and has
strengthen its position in terms of conventional forces and nuclear weapons.
Also, it has supported the right to self-determination over Kashmir.
Claiming that this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE is based either on domestic,
domestic or international elements is being short-sighted. The issues at stake
are many (see POST 9: Territorial disputes: issues at stake).
The strategic location of Kashmir as a link between India and Pakistan
intertwined with the economic value of the natural resources present in the
region are the tip of the iceberg. Religious, linguistic, cultural, historical
ties between populations and a potential political unification add the
sociological and political components.
The same dispute offers many international angles from balance of
military forces between India and Pakistan as neighbors and competing powers to
alliances with third parties.
For instance, as Merrills makes clear, in the early days of the conflict
on the one hand “the mediation of the Soviet Union was instrumental in securing
the cease-fire […] and on the other hand “a political interest in restoring
stability to an area close to the southern borders of the Soviet Union and
avoiding the risk of Chinese intervention, while at the same time advancing
Soviet influence in the region.” In addition to India, Pakistan, the former
Soviet Union and China, the United States “was too closely aligned with
Pakistan” and the United Kingdom “cut off military aid and was attempting to
have India condemned in the United Nations.” Even the bargaining power was
evident in the United Nations with the former Soviet Union and its place in the
Security Council.
Merrills,
J.G. 2017. International Dispute Settlement. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
With
this extremely brief account, it is evident that there is a myriad of domestic,
regional and international elements present in this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE
(Kashmir). Therefore, it is not strange that traditional remedies do not work
and after the cease-fire, no progress has been made in resolving the
fundamental issue. A succession of provisional arrangements, times of relative
peace and crisis followed and a permanent solution is yet to come.
If
India, Pakistan and Kashmir (and the regional and international communities)
actually want peace and international security at least two paths must be
taken: a) recognize the complexity in territorial disputes (they are not
uni-dimensional); b) a revised remedy that embraces this complexity and somehow
accepts the interests of all parties (or at least, it does not ignore them)
should be examined.
The
last few posts introduced an attempt to deal with this particular TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE. Next time the last post about Kashmir. Next week this blog series on
TERRITORIAL DISPUTES will introduce another case study.
NOTE:
This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Territorial Disputes and State
Sovereignty: International Law and Politics,” London and New York: Routledge,
Taylor and Francis Group, 2020 (forthcoming)
Previous
published research monograph about territorial disputes and sovereignty by the
author, Jorge Emilio Núñez, “Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and
Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue,” London and New York: Routledge, Taylor
and Francis Group, 2017.
NEXT
POST: Kashmir, final words
Thursday 10th October 2019
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
Twitter: @London1701
No comments:
Post a Comment