Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif addressed the United Nation’s General Assembly(UNGA) and made an impassioned speech about Kashmir, referring to the ongoing protests here and sought the intervention of the international community in the conflict. Sharif also dwelt on other issues but the gravamen of the address revolved around Kashmir. Many in Kashmir and perhaps in Pakistan were thrilled at the conflict over Kashmir having been “internationalized”.
The prosaic fact of the matter is that the “internationalization” of the conflict is merely rhetorical. The reasons pertain to the very nature of the United Nations and are structural.
The United Nations- successor to the moribund “League of Nations” was designed to curb aggression among and between states and prevent another Great War among other things. In this sense, in the words of the great scholar, Inis Cluade, the United Nations was meant to convert “Swords into Plough Shares”. However, the historical record of the United Nations since its inception has been rather dismal in preventing inter state conflict, intra state conflict or even war.
The United Nations has been rather a laggard in terms of “ high politics” – the domain of international and national security that is vital to the survival of the state- but has done relatively well in the domain of “ low politics”-issues that are peripheral to the survival of states.
The reasons are structural and political. Structurally, the United Nations is a behemoth- a labyrinthine bureaucracy where movement on issues is glacial. Other structural issues pertain to the structural division of the United Nations into the General Assembly, the Security Council, the various secretariats and other arms. The Security Council is the heart and Centre of Gravity of the organization and the General Assembly is derided as more a “talk shop” than anything else.
The Security Council is comprised of “Great Powers” who hold the structurally crucial power: the power of the veto. The veto power has historically been used (whenever it has been used) for obstructionist and very partisan purposes. The Cold War politics might constitute a classic example of this. Moreover, the United Nations contemporarily has been criticized (rightly so) for not reflection the current distribution of power and capabilities in the international system; critics point out that the organization reflects the power structures of the post War era which has now become irrelevant.
But this is not all. Utopianism is embedded in the organization. It then is not realistic. As Paul Kennedy pointed out in his book, “The Parliament of Man”, the UN gets activated only when the interests of Great Powers are threatened. This is critical and crucial. In the final analysis, world politics and international relations are determined by the omissions, commissions and interests of Great Powers.
Unless and until Great powers evince interest in an issue or conflict and want to resolve it, nothing really happens, In this sense, there is no such thing as an “ international community”; what exists are states and Great Powers and it is the thrust of Great Power action that determines the gravamen of international politics- including conflict resolution.
Unless and until Great powers evince interest in an issue or conflict and want to resolve it, nothing really happens, In this sense, there is no such thing as an “ international community”; what exists are states and Great Powers and it is the thrust of Great Power action that determines the gravamen of international politics- including conflict resolution.
What, the question is, is the drift and tenor of world politics contemporarily?
World politics appears to be moving inexorably towards a more multipolar dispensation which creates space for key and important states to assert themselves. Great powers are not necessarily altruistic or unselfish. They are egotistical entities motivated and determined by interest and power.
Unless there is an issue that touches upon the interests and power of Great Powers, they neither intervene nor evince interest other than a rhetorical one. Where then does this leave Kashmir in the light of Sharif’s address? In the same position and status as before. What Sharif’s address has done is to bring the issue to the notice of the so called “international community” and possibly alerted them to the dangers of conflict escalation in the subcontinent. But the “ international community”- comprised of states with their respective interests and power overlain by Great Powers will not act beyond rhetorical commitments and lip service. The reason is that their interests- even tangential ones are not touched. Have Sharif’s efforts been in vain? Probably. What then is the solution?
The “international community’s” or Great Powers in Kashmir would be to prevent escalation to the nuclear level. It is prevention of this that they would devote their energies to. However, who presses the trigger first, so to speak, or who raises the nuclear threshold, whatever the provocation will be held to be as the “guilty party” by Great Powers in the game. And whosoever exercises “restraint” will earn diplomatic accolades. This renders the issue back into the domain of dialogue and conflict resolution based on dialogue.
This, more than anything else is the lesson that India, Pakistan and Kashmiris must draw from the current imbroglio and the long term resolution of the conflict in and over Kashmir.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
