• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10

Kashmir Issue and Mediation.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Kashmir Issue and Mediation: By Muhammad Afzal Ch. Student of Diplomacy and strategic studies University of Punjab Lahore Pakistan. Introduction: The record of the international mediation (Third Party role), or meditative interventions in regard to the Kashmir dispute is clearly mixed: These interventions achieved both some successes and some failures. Among the successes were the cease-fire and truce agreements, arranged by UNCIP in 1948 and 1949.The cease-fire agreement did not hold for long, and peacekeeping operation that emerged from it failed in large measure to keep the peace. But that failure can hardly be charged exclusively against the United Nations. Among the UN's failures were the several attempts to mediate the Kashmir dispute by UN representatives between 1950 and 1958.1 Since the latter date, in no case has mediation been applied specially and explicitly to the Kashmir dispute. British mediation of the 1965 Rann of Kutch crisis between Pakistan and India brought about a cease-fire agreement on 30 June 1965.However, that agreement, which was followed in February 1968 by the successful international arbitration of the Sind-Kutch boundary, applied only to a dispute stretch of the International border between India and Pakistan. In January 1966, the Soviet Union successfully mediated an indo-Pakistan agreement (The Tashkent Declaration) on cease-fire and restoration of peaceful relations, thus providing a formal ending to the 1965 war. This agreement provided for little more, however than restoration of the territorial status quo ante. It stated that Kashmir dispute has been discussed and that each side had set forth its respective position in regard to this dispute, but there were no provisions for its amelioration.2 From the beginning of the Kashmir conflict, international involvement has been looked upon with a certain amount of suspicion by both Pakistan and India. ...read more.

Middle

The Indian complaint was based on Article 35 of theUN Charter whereby any member could bring to the attention of the Security Council a situation whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace. But, instead of condemning Pakistan, the Security Council responded by establishing a Commission on India and Pakistan (UNCIP), which had the dual function of investigating the facts and exercising any mediatory influence likely to smooth away difficulties. Thus, in effect the UN acknowledged that the Kashmir dispute was an international one and not an internal Indian affair. The UNCIP did eventually succeed in implementing ceasefire, on 1 January 1949, and an UN Military Observer Group (UNMOGIP) was set up to monitor the ceasefire line. So much for ending hostilities. With respect to permanent resolution of the conflict, the UN's line virtually from day one was to leave it to the Kashmiris themselves-the future status of the state of Jammu and Kashmir should be determined in accordance with the will of the people. Having decided a free and impartial plebiscite was the best way to establish what this was, the UN turned its efforts to creating the conditions for such an exercise to be carried out. The major stumbling block was demilitarization. In order to guard against 'intimidation (coerce) and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled' it was deemed necessary for both Indian and Pakistani troops to withdraw from their respective halves of the State. India---which was already beginning to rue Nehru's referral of the dispute to the UN-was particularly reluctant to withdraw its forces from Kashmir (even though it would be allowed to leave a minimum force). ...read more.

Conclusion

As recently Bush's administration forced Pakistan and India to negotiate with each other and seek for the peaceful resolution of the Kashmir issue. Earlier she also has forced two contending parties to negotiate in the Agra between Vajapai and President of Pakistan Pervaiz Musharraf. And sometimes totally denied to mediate and taking part in resolving this issue. All this we concluded from the various statements of the State Department on the various events. The United States would have an 'intense' and 'sustained' interest in South Asia, but it had no intention of mediating on the Kashmir issue, US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwell. The United States would have an 'intense' and 'sustained' interest in South Asia, but it had no intention of mediating on the Kashmir issue, US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwell. Blackwell said the US was closely watching the implementation of promises made by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in last month's speech, including India's demand for extraditing terrorists. "Implementation is the key. We will continue to look towards the many steps required for this," he said. On the Kashmir issue, Blackwell said: "The US position on Kashmir is very simple. We are not going to mediate on the issue. We want Pakistan and India to talk about it." He also said the US had no intention of setting up military bases in India, as the era of any country having many military bases around the world had ended" He ruled out any mediation on the Kashmir issue. Addressing a press conference in Mumbai, outgoing US ambassador to India Robert D Blackwell said, "There will be no American roadmaps. No American game plan. No American substantive proposals." The Bush administration did not have any hidden hand behind the Srinagar speech," Blackwell said. "We have not put pressure on Indian government... ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Politics section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Politics essays

  1. The Successes and Failures of Charles Stuart Parnell!

    After the failure of the First Home Rule Bill, the Liberal Party fell from power and in the General Election the majority of the votes went to the Conservatives who continued to oppose Home Rule. However, the Conservatives did make some improvements to Ireland, which discouraged the Irish from seeking Home Rule.

  2. Party system in India

    (Stanley A. Kochanek, 'Mrs. Gandhi's pyramid: The New Congress.') Centralization also reduced the leader's ability to manage conflict at all levels of administration. The failure of the Congress in alleviating poverty, rising unemployment, inflation, food shortage etc. increased dissent within various segments in the Indian society. All these developments created conditions conducive for the renewal of opposition parties.

  1. Citizenship coursework "A topical Issue"

    This is an important argument as a lot of animals and human's lives are lost because drugs are not being tested properly. It is also very expensive when you think about all the work and tools that are needed to test a drug on an animal.

  2. 'Nationalist Groups in the Sub-Continent played the most significant role in Britain's decision to ...

    Nationalist groups, both Muslims and Hindus created problems for the British, and it looked as though that independence was inevitable. However the question still remained, would it be carried out sooner rather than later. The differences between the Hindus and Muslims were a major reason for the partition of India.

  1. 1. What do you learn from Source A about ...

    The British knew they had to give India independence but the question that was delaying this was how to give independence. 4. Use sources F and G, and your own knowledge, to help you explain why India was partitioned in 1947. India was partitioned in 1947 as a last alternative.

  2. Slavery in Latin America

    In 1538 the indigenous inhabitants in Bolivia were defeated. Uninviting though the high, cold country was, it attracted the Spanish because of its rich silver mines, discovered as early as 1545. Exploiters poured in, bent on quick wealth. Forcing the natives to work the mines and the obrajes [textile mills]

  1. Which major domestic and international factors made German unification possible?

    and if the GDR were to move, following Gorbachev away from this system, "there could be no realistic alternative to unification with West Germany"5. The SED were quick to realise this and therefore refused to tread the path of perestroika however they did make some concessions to reform.

  2. Describe the part played by India in the Second World War.

    The British was willing to pay about one thousand million pounds to the Indian army after the war, this shown how much Britain valued Indian Army. However India did not do much to stop Japanese's occupation and war effort. I think that the war in Asia ended being USA dropped

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work