Human aspect of Kashmir dispute

IN 18 villages of Baramula District of Kashmir, about a thousand graves have been discovered which are unmarked, it was recently announced by the Association of Parents of Disappeared Persons. Human Rights groups claim that about 10,000 people have disappeared since the uprising in the valley against Indian Occupation. Most of them, are believed to have been secretly disposed of by burying them in such nameless graves. But for a protest rally in Muzaffarabad and a brief comment by the Pakistan Foreign Office on the discovery not much seems to have been done to put under sharp focus a tragedy of such apocalyptic proportions. Pakistan has rightly demanded that India allow an independent probe by international human rights organisations into the unmarked graves and issue of missing persons. The FO spokesman said Pakistan was deeply concerned over the discovery of these graves. Asked if Pakistan government would raise this issue with India, the spokesman was not specific; he only said when the foreign secretaries of the two countries meet next month in the framework of composite dialogue, focus would be on Kashmir dispute as part of the agenda. Ironically, over the last some years when Pakistan injected a basic change in its Kashmir policy by putting the UN resolutions on the backburner and offered to India a host of confidence-building measures (CBMs) - mostly unilaterally - the human aspect of the Kashmir dispute has been almost forgotten.
Quite naively, to prove to the outside world that Pakistan is no more helping the Kashmir freedom fighters, the Indian government has stopped taking notice of large-scale murder and arson that its forces carry out in Held Kashmir on day to day basis. Every day non-combatant peaceful men and women are arrested and killed in the so-called encounters with ‘terrorists’. Nobody takes notice of these killings of innocent people, because thanks to the moral and legal perversions justified by the 9/11 episode killing a “terrorist” is no crime. Therefore, as oppression in the Held Kashmir deepens the UN is silent, OIC indifferent and Pakistan looks the other way. Isn’t it diabolic that Afghan Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak was recently in Held Kashmir for “a ringside view of counter-terrorism drills” conducted by the Indian troops. If Pakistan has decided to remain aloof from the plight of Kashmiris’ human rights, one may ask, has Islamabad made any worthwhile gains on the political side? One may also ask: In return for about a dozen or so CBMs offered to India, is Pakistan any distance nearer to the solution of the Kashmir dispute? Of course, there has been some progress in non-political sectors of bilateral relationship like trade and cultural cooperation. But as regards the Kashmir dispute there is absolutely nothing to report as progress. It is hoped that next month when the fourth round of composite dialogue gets underway Pakistan would be able to bring in the human rights violations in occupied Kashmir within the ambit of talks. In the meanwhile, the new political leadership in Islamabad would be well-advised to revisit the policy on the crucial Kashmir issue. To say relations with India cannot be held hostage to the Kashmir issue, is too cavalier an attitude and must be shunned, especially when nothing has come out of a plethora of unilateral concessions given by the outgoing Pakistani leadership.




Unnecessary provocations

IT IS hard to understand President Bush’s eagerness to have the Ukraine and Georgia become full members of NATO. Militarily both countries have little to offer the alliance while politically each brings major burdens that threaten relations with a resurgent Russia. Indeed the accession of Georgia could bring NATO into direct conflict with the Kremlin because there is a disputed border between the two countries. Why therefore should Bush be tweaking the nose of the Russian bear by bringing what the Russians perceive as a threatening military alliance right up to their borders? We already have the precipitate American move to site a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow very reasonably assumes that this $53 billion project, officially called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), will be deployed against its own missiles rather than those which Washington claims the Iranians may have in due time. Any Kremlin defense strategists with half a brain is going to appreciate that bringing NATO right to Russia’s eastern and southern frontiers constitutes a further threat. The Georgians, whose army is being trained and equipped by America may welcome NATO membership as a further guarantee of their independence from Russian influence. However, many Ukrainians who are not of Russian origin are actually deeply concerned at the loss of their nonaligned status.
Nor are NATO members such as Germany and France at all enthusiastic about extending membership to these two new countries. Bush’s proposals may be rejected if they do not disappear with the end of his presidency. Indeed it must be wondered why the president has chosen to use his last NATO summit to raise such a divisive issue. All three would-be presidents, John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have indicated that on foreign affairs, they will restart the listening that the Bush administration has signally abandoned with such disastrous consequences. The next US president already has an ugly legacy to unpick and Bush’s proposal this week at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania is surely only going to add to the work. It was already expected that in his last appearance as a summit guest, Russia’s outgoing President Vladimir Putin would have more bitter things to say about the alliance. Bush’s plan will boost his anger. It is also likely to inform the diplomatic stance of Putin’s chosen successor, Alexander Medvedev, elected with over 70 percent of the popular vote last month. The new man may very well follow in the steps of his former master who is expected to become instead his premier. But new administrations always start with something of a clean sheet and now was the time to appease rather than provoke the incoming president. Yet Bush has thrown away the opportunity.

—Arab News