TERRITORIAL DISPUTES such as Kashmir have to do with domestic 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
or international elements is being short-sighted. The issues at stake are many.
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 neighbours 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
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) recognise 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.
POST 10: Territorial disputes: remedies
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.
Previous posts about Kashmir (from the blog series TERRITORIAL
DISPUTES):
22nd
March 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment