Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

UNSC United Nations Security Council Topic Area Kashmir Crisis: Revocation of A

UNSC United Nations Security Council Topic Area Kashmir Crisis: Revocation of Article 370 Introduction In the first few days of August, there were signs of something afoot in Kashmir. Tens of thousands of additional Indian troops were deployed, a major Hindu pilgrimage was cancelled, schools and colleges were shut, tourists were ordered to leave, telephone and internet services were suspended and regional political leaders were placed under house arrest. But most of the speculation was that Article 35A of the Indian constitution, which gave some special privileges to the people of the state, would be scrapped. The government then stunned everyone by saying it was revoking nearly all of Article 370, which 35A is part of and which has been the basis of Kashmir's complex relationship with India for some 70 years. The article allowed the state a certain amount of autonomy - its own constitution, a separate flag and freedom to make laws. Foreign affairs, defence and communications remained the preserve of the central government. As a result, Jammu and Kashmir could make its own rules relating to permanent residency, ownership of property and fundamental rights. It could also bar Indians from outside the state from purchasing property or settling there. Current Issues India – Pakistan Relations Recent geopolitical developments such as the anticipated withdrawal of US Troops from Afghanistan, the possible return of an emboldened Taliban in Kabul, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comments regarding mediation of the Kashmir issue may have compelled the Modi government to expedite the process of scrapping the special status. New Delhi worried that if the United States withdrew from Afghanistan and the Taliban returns to power, Pakistan- backed terror groups might get training in Afghanistan, which they recognised a potential threat. Pakistan also saw degradation in its membership of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), through Indian lobbying, after the re-election of the Modi Government. With the scrapping of the special status of J&K, New Delhi is likely to seek a change in the narrative around the Kashmir issue, altering the position it has maintained since the 1972 Simla Agreement that India and Pakistan should discuss their disputes in a bilateral manner. The Kashmir dispute has now become a “strictly internal matter” of India rather than a bilateral issue to be discussed jointly in the presence of Pakistan. It is possible that the Modi government may now focus on formalizing the Line of Control and International Boundary, which Pakistan refers to as the Working Boundary, in an effort to render the current division of territory in Kashmir non-negotiable. India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s recent comments suggested this shift is taking place when he said that any future talks with Pakistan will be on Pakistan-administered Kashmir only. As such, it is unsurprising that Islamabad has intensified its diplomatic offensive to garner international support on the Kashmir issue, including expelling the Indian Commissioner in Pakistan, stopping cross-border trade with India, and initiating outreach to China, the United States, the United Nations, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. These diplomatic overtures risk the internationalization of the J&K issue for India. However, New Delhi’s main concern remains the ability of the Pakistani military establishment to use terror groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e- Taiba, and Kashmir-based Hizbul Mujahideen to create unrest in J&K. Regional Security The BJP’s actions are likely to exacerbate the fraught relationship with Pakistan and negatively impact regional security in South Asia. Since its inception as a state, Pakistan has seen the Kashmir issue as an existential one and has seen its role as the champion and protector of Kashmir’s Muslim-majority citizenry. Although the Modi administration has insisted that the revocation of the legislation in question is a domestic Indian matter, it is likely quite aware of Pakistan’s reaction to the move. The international community has raised concerns about the situation in Kashmir, with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres urging “maximum restraint” by all parties. Pakistan’s confrontational rhetoric urges action rather than restraint, and Prime Minister Khan vowed to raise India’s actions in Kashmir at the UN General Assembly. Additionally, the government in Islamabad has taken several actions against India: it has expelled the Indian ambassador in Islamabad, downgraded diplomatic relations and severed trade with its neighbour, suspended the cross-border Samjohta Express rail service, and banned the screening of Bollywood movies and broadcasting of Indian channels on cable television. Furthermore, the developing situation in Kashmir might hinder the peace process in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been wary of Indian intentions in Afghanistan for decades, and this turn of events in Kashmir will make Islamabad that much more mistrusting of its neighbour. Pakistan has been playing a significant role in recent U.S.-Afghan peace negotiations with the Taliban. The Kashmir issue may not only detract Pakistani resources and political will away from Afghanistan but potentially could also be used as leverage to persuade the United States to intervene with India. Finally, there is the likelihood of an escalation of tensions in Kashmir into full-blown violence. Forced demographic changes would create an atmosphere ripe for communal violence between Muslims and Hindus in Jammu and Kashmir that risks escalating to the whole country. Communal tensions have already been high since Prime Minister Modi’s first term, and events in Kashmir would only fan the flames farther. The BJP’s actions in Kashmir will likely be a narrative boon for violent extremist groups, who are already radicalizing disenfranchised Kashmiris toward their cause. With Pakistan’s history of backing Kashmiri separatists and militants, the situation bodes ill for regional security. Legality According to the constitution, Article 370 could only be modified with the agreement of the "state government". But there hasn't been much of a state government in Jammu and Kashmir for over a year now. In June last year, India imposed federal rule after the government of the then chief minister, Mehbooba Mufti, was reduced to a minority. This meant the federal government only had to seek the consent of the governor who imposes its rule. The government says it is well within its rights to bring in the changes and that similar decisions have been taken by federal governments in the past, while simultaneously having recognised Kashmir as “Disputed Territory” as per the UNSC resolution. Opposition political parties could launch a legal challenge but Kashmir is an emotive issue with many Indians, and most parties would be wary of opposing the move lest they be branded antiIndia. Curfew (Humanitarian Crisis) Normal life remains crippled as military lockdown has cost the territory’s economy more than Rs200 billion over the past three months in Indian occupied Kashmir. According to Kashmir Media Service, amid continued military siege, internet and mobile phone services are shut down, public transport is off the roads, and business establishments are shut while schools and offices continue to wear a deserted look.The lockdown has rendered more than 50,000 workers jobless in the carpet industry alone. There is also a shortage of skilled labour in occupied Kashmir, as some 400,000 migrants have left since India imposed undeclared martial law in occupied Kashmir on August 5.As per industry experts, Srinagar’s almost 1,000 iconic houseboats have been running empty due to absence of tourists. Amid unprecedented restrictions and communications blackout, residents of the Kashmir valley have mocked Governor’s directive asking for lifting travel advisory saying who will come to Kashmir when even locals are finding it hard to move and communicate with their next-door relatives. The Kashmiris struggle as a ban on all communications has been imposed, for them to simply isolated from the rest of the world, depriving them of rights recognised under the UN International Declaration of Human Rights. International Reaction There are two possible implications of the ruling BJP’s decision to abrogate Article 370: first, the BJP may gain political mileage from the move, both in J&K and the rest of India. Secondly, New Delhi may now be able to further emphasize the Kashmir issue as an internal matter of India in response to attempts at third-party mediation. However, the government understands the risks involved, such as possible civilian unrest and terror attacks in the Valley, communal tensions in J&K, and the internationalization of the Kashmir issue. The Modi government has proceeded with these cautions, simultaneously engaging in strengthened relations with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Russian Federation, and the USA evident after the G7 summit and the UNGA session. Alongside, the Khan government have also reached out to the International Community with the aims of de-escalating the conflict through its Internationalisation. “Has it been successful?” should be a question for Pakistan to determine its further policy. Past Actions Resolution 38, 39 and 47 of the Security Council In January 1947 these resolutions were adopted to create the first measures in order to stop the conflict between India and Pakistan. In the first document, India and Pakistan were invited to withhold direct conversations in order to find a common basis for the conflict. In these conversations no specific agreement could be reached. Three days after the first resolution, the following would regard uploads/Finance/ unsc-study-guide.pdf