Role Of United Nations In Solving World Conflicts

Guest Post By: Mohammad Yousuf Naqash

The chief of United Nations human rights commission Madam Navi Pillay has discouraged Kashmiri people by her recent statement on Kashmir. In which she said that though United Nations council for human rights is watching and monitoring the situation in Kashmir, it can not order for the commission of inquiry in Kashmir without the consent of Indian government. By saying so she has negated the role of United Nations organization in Kashmir, in respect of ensuring the right to self determination and protecting people from the state terrorism and gross human rights violations perpetrated by Indian forces and state police.

These basic inherent rights have been guaranteed to every human being of the world irrespective of caste, creed, color, sex, religion and region by various United Nations covenants and declarations on human rights like universal declaration of human rights and international bill of rights. World apex body has every right and jurisdiction to enforce these covenants and declarations in letter and spirit in any country and territory where these covenants and declarations are violated, disrespected and denied and no country has the justification to deny the access and intervention of United Nations organization in this regard. United Nations organization came into existence for the welfare of the world humanity i.e establishment of peace, resolution of disputes and protection of the rights of human beings including the peoples, and territories under colonial rule. Above referred responsibilities are the legal and moral obligations of this world apex body as per the United Nations Security Council resolutions and other resolutions passed from time to time. Unfortunately all these resolutions passed and responsibilities of United Nations remained confined to the extent of theory.

The said world body utterly failed in performing its duties towards the human race of the world. Right from day one it has the history of failure and deception given its defective structural formation including prominently the veto power curse to America, Britain, France, Russia and china. These five countries have been dictating and shaping the world affairs as per their respective national interest. One can say it with reason that only these countries have the say in United Nations organization and rest member countries do not have any hold or relevance, in respect of making decisions on world affairs. The unipolar dictatorship of America is another misfortune to the world. This has not only reduced the world body to a mere showpiece, has made it soul less, ineffective and redundant. These five countries including the unipolar dictator America has forced the world to kneel down before their every decision.

These are behaving ruthlessly in pursuing their policy of dictating hegemonic terms and are forcing the decisions on world affairs as per their own interest. The vested interest of these five countries encouraged India, Israel and nations hell bent on subjugating and oppressing the people otherwise India, Israel and other nations are bound to uphold and respect and internal covenants and declarations on human rights as they are all signatories to these international covenants and decisions and is their legal binding, to remain, strictly and seriously stick.

Addressing United Nations general assembly on 20th September 1999 then U.N secretary general Mr. Kofi Anan said that time has come to initiate global debate on the humanitarian intervention. In his address he identified different aspects of armed intervention in resolving future conflicts. while elaborating Mr. Anan said that such interventions are inevitable now in the near future as some nations are bent on criminal behavior and are perpetrating unchecked genocide and whole sale slaughter of civilians in the name of maintaining national soveregnity.He further said that such massacres and brutal acts against civilians are crimes against humanity and violative of international norms meant for peace, stability and prosperity.Mr Anan further said that this developing international norm in favor of intervention will no doubt continue to pose profound challenges to the international community and both national sovereignty and states interpretation of its national interest can be challenged in the interest of humanity What Mr. Anan said was practiced in many nations by the order of these five nations as per their respective national interest. North Atlantic Treaty Organization N.A.T.O with the headship of America took undue advantage of the humanitarian intervention and without any reason attacked and rocked Iraq and Afghanistan, where lakhs of civilians were ruthlessly massacred for their no fault. And where humanitarian intervention was due and based on reason such colonial and repressive states were let free to further deepen the subjugation and trample the humanity.

Humanitarian intervention was badly needed in India and Israel as both rouge countries have subjugated and oppressed the people in Kashmir and Palestine respectively. Is it not the double standard of United Nations Organization which under the complete grip of Veto power countries is not intervening? Where genuinely needed for enforcing, upholding, respecting the objectives of United Nations Organization and is dancing to the tunes of these Veto power countries including unipolar dictator America.

Resuming to United Nations Human Rights Council as defined by its laws, it has the human obligation to raise voice against the Human Rights Violations in any country and has the every power to order for commission of inquiry in this regard. Then why this double double standard in respect of Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine and North Eastern states of India. World has to change dictatorships need to be dethroned. Either the closure or restructuring and reformation of United Nations Organisation is must and inevitable to make it the representative of whole humanity in real sense, to give it real power in respect of resolving disputes decolonizing the territories, upholding Humanitarian laws.

Author is Chief Patron Islamic Political Party, a constituent of APHC (M)

Kashmir: The Essence of the UNCIP Resolutions

When it comes to Kashmir or any other Muslim territory like Gaza etc. human rights, right to self determination and democratic principles become irrelevant. How hypocrite the west is. Raja Mujtaba

By Dr. Raja Muhammad Khan

There exist a misperception that Pakistan has not implemented the UNCIP resolutions of August 13, 1948 and January 5, 1949. Indeed, this is an allegation, taken as an excuse by Indian authorities for the non-implementation of these two famous resolutions as well as many others.  India indeed, knew that, implementations of these resolutions would expose her act of aggression on Kashmir on October 27, 1947, against whom; Kashmiri were fighting a war of their national liberation from India. The fact of the matter is that, as a result of UNSC Resolution number S.726 of April 21, 1948, United Nations constituted a   five-member commission in June 1948 and named it as the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP). Its first meeting was held in Geneva on June 15, 1948.

To consult the Pakistani authorities, the Commission reached Karachi on July 7, 1948. During its meeting with Foreign Minister, the Commission was informed that for her own defence, Pakistan had sent some troops in Jammu and Kashmir.  Following the consultation with Pakistan, the Commission reached New Delhi on July 9, 1948 and carried out its discussion with the Indian leadership. It is on the record that, Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru, the Indian Prime Minister, categorically told the members of the commission that, Pakistan must be forced to pullout its troops and its nationals from the state’s territory. India also compels the Commission to declare Pakistan as an aggressor state.

Sequel to consultation process with both countries, the members of the Commission drafted the first UNCIP resolution, which was adopted by UN on August 13, 1948. The resolution (S.995) asked both countries for the cessation of fighting in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The resolution had three parts. In the first part, both countries were asked to implement the ceasefire by issuing necessary ceasefire orders to the forces under the respective command of each country by an earliest possible date. In the second part, both countries were to accept certain principles for a Truce Agreement. In the third and the final part, the resolution made clear the decision for the future of the state would be through Plebiscite, where the people of the state would determine their right of self-determination. This indeed was the most alarming part for the India, as she knew that, Kashmiri would never opt for the India.

As demanded by this resolution, Pakistan government despite its security reservations, agreed to withdraw its troops and tribes men from the state’s territory. As regards India, it too accepted the contents of the resolution, but practically created many hurdles, in the implementation of the resolution, by raising many ifs and buts in the agreement. India agreed to withdraw bulk of its forces from the state, but after withdrawal of Pakistani forces and tribesmen. Local authorities under the UNCIP were to administer territory thus vacated by withdrawal of either side’s forces.  Nevertheless, the local authorities were practically under the India, the occupying power.

Since India was to maintain a reasonable force in the state’s territory until its final settlement, therefore, Pakistan, owing to its security reservations, sought necessary clarification from the Commission. However, later on, during informal conversation of the Commission with the representatives of India and Pakistan certain suggestions regarding the conditions and basic principles for holding the plebiscite in the state were communicated to both governments. Through various meetings between members of the Commission (UNCIP) and representatives of India and Pakistan, certain proposals / suggestions were later on accepted by both parties, which became part of UNCIP resolution of January 5, 1949.

In the resolution of January 5, 1949, India and Pakistan were urged to implement the basic terms and conditions fixed in UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1947. In the UNCIP resolution of the January 5, 1949, it was made amply clear that, “The question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.” Subsequently, on July 27, 1949, both countries formally ratified the cease-fire Agreement at Karachi. Meanwhile military observers, appointed by UNCIP in its last resolution also reported about the progress to commission regarding the withdrawal of tribesmen/ Pakistani nationals in addition to some battalions of Pakistani regulars and some units of Indian Air Force. After prior consultation with India and Pakistan, the United Nations Secretary General appointed Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, USN, as a Plebiscite Administrator in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. He was to be formally appointed by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir after settling the details of Permanent Truce Agreement. Since the authorities of the State were under India, therefore, its formal appointment was deliberately deferred by India.

Indeed, soon after the appointment of Plebiscite Administrator differences arose between India and Pakistan over the implementation of Truce  Agreement. India was insisting on the disbanding of Azad Kashmir forces and assurance for a control over Northern Areas by her forces (or to keep Northern Areas under State’s administration). Pakistan however, wanted that, these are the people of the State, therefore, should stay as such to perform the security duties. Moreover, there was practically no administration of the state itself. After a couple of meetings of the Commission with representatives of India and Pakistan (which failed), the UK and US President appealed to both governments (India and Pakistan) to accept the proposals of UNCIP. Pakistan, however, accepted this appeal but India rejected it.

However, by the end of December 1948, UNCIP got certain principles (which were supplementary to UNCIP resolution of August 13, 1948) accepted by the government of India and Pakistan. With these principles becoming part of the UNCIP Resolution of January 5, 1949, it was agreed that, the future of the state was to be decided through a fair and impartial plebiscite under the Plebiscite Administrator   (  A   high-ranking    person   of    international    standing   appointed    by      UN Secretary General). The Commission also promised to cater for human and political rights besides making necessary arrangements for the return of refugees who had left the state under unfavourable situation. Both the parties after clarifications given by the members of the commission accepted the proposals and declared cessation of hostilities in the state.

From January 1948 to May 1964, the United Nations Organization passed sixteen resolutions and carried out many debates/discussions concerning Jammu and Kashmir. It is the oldest unresolved issue present on the agenda of the United Nations Organization. In all of its resolutions, including resolutions of United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), United Nations Organization asked for a fair and impartial plebiscite to decide the future status of Jammu and Kashmir as per the wishes of its subjects. For implementing these resolutions, the UNO appointed its missions, mediators, and even nominated Plebiscite Administrator with various practicable suggestions / proposals to reach to a logical solution of the issue. However, owing to inflexible attitude of India, these efforts fell flat and could not become fruitful.

Originally published on Opinion maker