Ambassador's Speech at Kashmir Conference

Kashmir: A Way Forward Through A Peace Process

I am grateful to the Honourable Senator Tom Harkins and the Honourable Congressman Joseph Pitts for organizing this Kashmir Peace Conference. Kashmir is an issue that Americans need to know more about. It is an issue that has become more urgent since the awful events of 9/11. The Congress of the United States is uniquely obligated to appreciate this since it is the voice of the people of the most powerful political entity in human history. The reach of US military power is global. The reach of US political influence is almost as vast. But the extent of the information, knowledge and empathy that underlies much of US decision making is relatively local and parochial. This gap is a global problem. It needs to be narrowed. It can be done.

2. Just as Americans have come to appreciate that progress along a road map towards a just and stable peace in the Middle East is an essential requisite for lasting victory in the war against extremism and terror they need to similarly appreciate that a road map towards a just and principled settlement of the Kashmir dispute is equally essential. Wherever there is injustice, repression and no hope of peaceful redress there are the seedbeds for extremism and terror. Those who deny this have no real commitment to ridding the world of the menace of terror. A doctor who only concerned himself with treating symptoms would heal no one.

3. I thoroughly endorse the theme of this conference which is to go beyond the blame game and find common grounds for peace and justice in Kashmir. But I do believe it is essential to provide you some perspective on this issue before proceeding to say how we might realistically move forward in a manner acceptable to Pakistan, India and, above all, the people of Kashmir. In doing so, I shall inevitably highlight the profound differences we continue to have with India on the subject of Jammu and Kashmir.

4. The Kashmir dispute is the longest standing item on the agenda of the UN Security Council. India-Pakistan relations have revolved around this dispute ever since they became independent in 1947. It has been the direct or indirect cause of several conflicts between India and Pakistan and of crises that have threatened conflict.

5. Ever since India and Pakistan openly declared their nuclear weapons status the peace between them has become a matter of much greater concern to the international community. Shortly after the two countries conducted a series of nuclear test explosions in May 1998 the UN Security Council adopted resolution 1172 in which it called upon both countries to address the root causes of tension between them, including Jammu and Kashmir.

6. This root cause of tension has also impacted negatively on regional cooperation within South Asia. Much of the work of SAARC has been held up because of India-Pakistan tensions generated by the Kashmir dispute. South Asia is a region of around 1.4 billion people with undreamed of but untapped potential.

7. The stake of the world in a just resolution of this long standing and dangerous dispute should be obvious. What is the essence of this dispute? The answer in brief is that the people of Kashmir have been denied their internationally recognized political right of self-determination and their struggle on behalf of this right has resulted in massive violations of their civil and human rights. Several internationally reputed human rights organizations such as Amnesty International as well as the State Department have regularly and graphically illustrated the plight of the Kashmiri people. These reports constitute a standing rebuke to the conscience of the international community, particularly its more influential members. Anyone who regards the desperate resistance of Kashmiris to occupation and repression as terrorism risks being indifferent towards human suffering.

8. Jammu and Kashmir is disputed territory. No one except India disputes this. Several United Nations Security Council resolutions have defined this status of the territory and have called for a plebiscite to enable the people of Jammu and Kashmir to exercise their right of self determination.

9. India and Pakistan both agreed that "the question of 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 conducted under the auspices of the United Nations." Subsequently India withdrew from its obligation. Pakistan continues to adhere to this obligation. India rests its claim on the so-called Instrument of Accession signed by the Maharajah of Jammu and Kashmir. But if that were the case why did it subsequently accept a UN plebiscite which might have rejected the so-called accession? An accession that is conditional on a reference to the people is not an accession unless and until it is confirmed by that people. India promised the world it would refer the matter to the people of Kashmir through a plebiscite. It never did.

10. In April 1994, the International Commission of Jurists in Geneva concluded that the people of Jammu and Kashmir had not been able to exercise their inalienable and inherent right of self-determination.

11. India claims the whole of the State of Jammu and Kashmir as its territory.in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the people of the territory. No other country endorses that claim. Pakistan makes no counter claim to the territory. It merely supports the right of self determination of the people of Jammu and Kashmir as mandated by UN Security Council resolutions. India says these resolutions are now obsolete because it has refused to implement them. It also claims that Pakistan did not fulfill the preconditions for implementing the plebiscite since it did not withdraw its security forces from Azad Kashmir. But the fact is that the UN Security Council resolution of December 23, 1952 expressly permitted "a specific number of forces to remain on each side of the cease-fire line at the end of de-militarization."

12. While India makes allegations against Pakistan with respect to Jammu and Kashmir it has consistently refused to either implement UN resolutions on the subject or to discuss a settlement of the dispute with Pakistan. On the one hand, it has discouraged the international community from playing any facilitating role with the argument that it will bilaterally discuss all issues including Kashmir with Pakistan. On the other, whenever it has agreed to talks with Pakistan it has taken the line that there is nothing to discuss about Kashmir since it is Indian territory. This has made it difficult to sustain a dialogue process and to bring about a normalization of relations, especially given the civil and human rights situation in Kashmir.

13. India's refusal to discuss a Kashmir settlement with Pakistan is inconsistent with the obligation it took upon itself under Article 6 of the 1972 Simla Agreement to discuss a final settlement with Pakistan. It is also inconsistent with the agenda of talks that was agreed by the two countries in June 1997 which included Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly in September 1998 the Prime Ministers of the two countries issued a joint statement in New York in which they agreed that the establishment of peace and security in the region required a resolution of outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.

14. Because of India's consistent refusal to discuss a Kashmir settlement with Pakistan and because of the political and human rights situation in Indian Occupied Kashmir this root cause of tension between the two countries continues. As a result the Lahore and Agra Summits failed to meet the expectations of the people on both sides of the border. Instead, there has been conflict and crisis which have transformed the Kashmir dispute into what former President Clinton called "a nuclear flashpoint."

15. Since 9/11 the continuing impasse and threat of conflict between India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir has been a drag and an impediment in the war on terror. With Indian forces massed on Pakistan's eastern border last year it was difficult for Pakistan to deploy troops in sufficient numbers on its western border. More importantly, the continuing impasse involves huge opportunity costs for the people of both countries and impedes the realization of their economic and social aspirations.

16. Despite the fact that both countries hold mutually exclusive positions with respect to Jammu and Kashmir a way forward has to be found. A choice has to be made. Will our deep differences over Jammu and Kashmir continue to be expressed in polemical exchanges, dialogues of the deaf and the demise of any prospect of improved relations with each other? Or will we acknowledge our shared stake in improved relations and seek to progressively resolve our differences over Kashmir within the context of an unfolding peace process that includes both respect for the wishes of the Kashmiri people and a normalization of bilateral relations?

17. The President and Prime Minister of Pakistan have made their choice. They have offered dialogue at any time, place and level. During his recent visit to the US the President reiterated his four step proposal for a Jammu and Kashmir settlement process which he said would create space for simultaneous movement towards a normalization of relations. He is not saying Kashmir should be resolved before anything else can be taken up. Nor does he accept Kashmir should only be taken up after everything thing else is settled. He is in fact suggesting a Kashmir settlement should be meaningfully addressed along with other issues. He also states that the people of Kashmir must participate in a settlement process, the outcome of which will concern them most of all.

18. The President first articulated this view at the Agra Summit of July 2001. Had the Agra Declaration.the completed text of which was agreed.seen the light of day it might have constituted a significant step towards putting a genuine peace process in place. Hopefully, we may yet benefit from the understandings reached in Agra.

19. Today we have another chance as a result of the Indian Prime Minister's far-sighted decision to respond to the initiatives of the President and Prime Minister of Pakistan. A number of measures have been taken by both countries and more are expected. At last I have a successor in New Delhi! Most importantly, the much postponed SAARC Summit is now scheduled for January 2004 and the prospect of a bilateral Summit on the sidelines of the regional Summit has raised hopes in both India and Pakistan that a dialogue process may commence either before the Summit or shortly thereafter.

20. But where shall we go from there? We've had several dialogues before. Sooner or later they have all petered out over the issue of Jammu and Kashmir. How shall we impart longevity and productiveness to this anticipated renewed dialogue?

21. If we continue our mutual acrimony and impose conditions the dialogue is likely to run into deadlock and impasse fairly quickly. Acrimony, breakdown and crisis will follow once again in short order. The vicious circle will remain in place. We shall not have broken free of the blame game.

22. If instead we can agree that a peace process is the only possible context for constructive dialogue and that a peace process will need to comprise both a settlement process for Jammu and Kashmir and a range of confidence building measures between India and Pakistan then, despite our deep differences and our respective complaints, we should not only be able to avoid impasse and breakdown, but also be better placed to address expressed concerns to the satisfaction of each other.

23. This is the essence of a win-win process aimed at win-win outcomes. Today we are locked in a zero-sum relationship with each other in which a discussion of possible outcomes regarding Kashmir cannot lead to agreement. The literature on Jammu and Kashmir to which many American scholars have made valuable contributions is full of either incremental/stabilization measures or suggested outcomes and solutions. The fact, however, is that none of these are likely to be of much use for practical policy-makers as long as India and Pakistan are locked in a zero-sum and win-lose relationship.

24. The primary focus of effort must shift from measures and outcomes to the establishment of process. If crisis management is to give way to conflict resolution it can only be brought about through a sustained peace process that aims at transforming a zero-sum relationship into a positive-sum relationship in which trade-offs, compromises and win-win outcomes become possible. Outside of a peace process, confidence building measures either remain unimplemented or one-off developments that do not generate cumulative and multiplier effects. Inside of a peace process they can provide positive feedback and become the building blocks for further progress.

25. How might a peace process be initiated? One way might be for the leaderships of both countries to say a number of things such as (i) that normal relations between India and Pakistan are a matter of high national priority because without them national objectives will not be achieved, (ii) that a principled and mutually satisfactory resolution of the long-standing Jammu and Kashmir issue will facilitate this high national priority, (iii) that a peace process that starts without prejudice to the existing positions of either side will be initiated, (iv) that the peace process will aim at drawing up an agreed road map for (a) a principled and mutually satisfactory resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir issue that is acceptable to its people and (b) the normalization of relations between India and Pakistan, (v) that measures will be undertaken to effectively and satisfactorily address each country's expressed concerns and to implement a range of confidence and security building measures, including nuclear risk reduction measures, in order to facilitate progress along the road map, (vi) that an appropriate institutional framework for the India-Pakistan peace process will be established, and (vii) that the good offices and facilitation of parties who subscribe to the aims and purposes of the agreed peace process and road map will be welcomed.

26. The representatives of the Kashmiri people, particularly the APHC, should be enabled to participate in the settlement process for Jammu and Kashmir. The modalities for such participation would need to be discussed by India and Pakistan to ensure that they were mutually acceptable.

27. While announcing a series of measures on May 6 of this year to set the stage for meaningful dialogue with India, the Prime Minister of Pakistan said, "Nuclear realities in our region impose certain obligations and responsibilities on our two countries. It is therefore important for India and Pakistan to engage in serious discussions for nuclear and strategic stability. In this context Pakistan supports the confidence building measures outlined in the MOU signed at Lahore in February 1999 and we hope that a reconvened dialogue will enable us to conclude substantive and result-oriented measures for arms restraint and promotion of security in our region."

28. On this basis, Pakistan has called for a new architecture of security based on agreed tenets which should include (i) foreswearance of the use or threat of force in settling disputes, (ii) full respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states of the region, (iii) a permanent mechanism for bilateral dialogue and consultations for dispute settlement, (iv) the initiation of result-oriented talks for devising mutually acceptable confidence building measures in the nuclear field, (v) stabilization of conventional forces at levels consonant with the legitimate security needs of all states in the region, and (vi) renewed commitment to jointly combat the enemies of South Asia, i.e. poverty, hunger, illiteracy and disease.

29. Peace processes are conceptually attractive. But as Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told the US Congress, they are notoriously disappointing, messy and frustrating. For them to have any chance of success they must be based on a shared vision, a shared stake in peace, a shared assessment of the necessary and the possible, a shared determination to overcome history and press ahead even in the face of set-backs and reverses and a shared willingness to educate public opinion into outgrowing deeply rooted stereotypes and accepting principled compromise.

30. This may seem a tall order. And it is. That is why practical politicians seldom support peace processes in the face of intractable differences in which the emotions of their peoples have been invested over long periods of time. They generally leave that task to their poets. Nevertheless, even in such circumstances practical people may be persuaded to support a peace process if they are convinced that (a) there is no practical alternative to it and (b) the other side is similarly persuaded. This is where overt diplomacy must critically depend on confidential diplomacy and on the committed good offices of mutual friends.

31. Without the constant and insistent urging of powers like the US that appreciate the stake they and the world have in an India-Pakistan peace process the chances of it developing self-sustaining momentum and resilience in the face of inevitable reverses may not be bright. Moreover, peace processes that are translated into road maps will require a set of time-lines to lend them focus and direction.

32. Finally, a peace process is not a status quo process. Long standing impasses over "vexed" problems such as Jammu and Kashmir cannot be pronounced as their own solutions. A peace process is a process of acceptable change. If one side refuses to accept this it will signal its lack of interest in a peace process even if it continues to rhetorically assert an interest in peace. If, on the contrary, both countries agree to work towards mutually acceptable change they can change the world for their peoples and help realize the fabulous potential of South Asia.

33. In his essay "Neither Victims Nor Executioners" Albert Camus writes "an endless struggle is going to be pursued between violence and friendly persuasion...If he who bases his hopes on human nature is a fool, he who gives up in the face of circumstances is a coward...the only honourable course is to stake everything on a formidable gamble: that words are more powerful than munitions."

34. Let us be fools--and heroes.