Kashmir Issue should not be distorted by party political vote: Emma Nicholson

Baroness Emma Nicholson, the EU special rapporteur on Kashmir, says that her report, "Kashmir—present status and its future prospectus," fully supports the peace process between India and Pakistan. After coming under heavy fire during a debate at the EP's Foreign Affairs Committee in January, the report was adopted with an overwhelming sixty to one vote on March 21, however, many European parliamentarians have vowed that they would seek more changes to report before it is presented to the plenary of the European Parliament in May this year.
In a wide ranging interview with Kashmir Observer's M. Farooq Shah, Emma reflected on the success of her report, refuted the accusations levelled against her, and commented on the role of the European Union in resolving the fifty-nine-year-old conflict she describes a tragedy.

Excerpts of the Interview:

Farooq Shah: Sixty in favour, one against—you must be extremely happy about this outcome. Did you expect that the amended report would be adopted with such a huge margin?

Emma Nicholson: I am delighted and satisfied by the massive majority in favour of my report on Kashmir of sixty colleagues in favour and only one against. I am very grateful to all my colleagues from all sides of the House who supported and helped me in the very difficult subject of the present status of Kashmir and its future prospects. I had confidence that my draft report would gain a large majority, but I did not quite realise the strength of feeling which made it overwhelming.

FS: There are some sections in the draft report that have been strengthened; similarly 28 compromise amendments have been accepted. Could you outline those?

EN: I am delighted that the draft report has been strengthened by the addition of twenty eight compromise amendments that I and the shadow rapporteurs carefully worked out in accordance with Foreign Affairs Committee colleagues' requested amendments. I should add that the European Parliament system differs completely from other parliamentary systems in that it is cooperative and based on compromise rather than adversarial and winner takes all. A fully successful final report (and we have not yet reached that stage with the Kashmir report) will contain thoughts and ideas from the widest possible variety of European parliament colleagues from the twenty seven Member States of the European Union. The word "compromise" is therefore an indicator of success since in the EU as a whole we have built our system upon voluntary agreement bringing together the widest possible selection of views to create what we call a "common position". In contrast, the adversarial system as I experience in the British House of Lords of which I am a member, and earlier experienced in the British House of Commons, relies on an absolute majority where even one vote will swing so that the winning side takes and defeats the loser. In the European Parliament we work hard so that everyone can win to a certain extent. The mechanisms through which we do this are consultation, dialogue and compromise.
A second point is that every rapporteur is wishful of their report stimulating the parliamentary debate so that the topic in hand becomes one of greater familiarity and understanding in Parliament. The underlying concept is that the more we understand the better we can help other nations to enhance their prosperity and to find, where necessary, peaceful solutions to any points of conflict as we have done successfully during the EU's fifty year lifespan. The EU is now a huge potential trading partner for all nations and other trading blocs and our work is based on our common values which are expressed through democracy, the rule of law and the fundamental freedoms of movement, thought, worship, and expression that we enjoy. We are the world's second biggest democracy with a citizenship of nearly half a billion people and wish to share that prosperity and the values that we have created over successive eras of peace and growth with others who invite us to do so. The European Parliament is the directly elected institution of the EU and I return therefore to my earlier comment that the more we understand and issue or a part of the world the better we are able to respond to requests for partnership, trade and association. I attach a copy of all of the amendments that the committee accepted which have enlarged the report and strengthened it.

FS:The most contentious line in the draft report – "calls for plebiscite in Kashmir are wholly out of step" – appears to have been dropped from the amended report. Is it true?

EN: The report has changed the wording on the issue of the plebiscite. Colleagues wished to state more on the UN and I therefore put forward an amendment which was accepted that refers to all the UN resolutions relating to Kashmir. I added a six-page amendment explaining each of the UN Resolutions, but colleagues felt that this took up too much space for the main report and have asked me to add it as an attachment in the explanatory memorandum which I will now therefore redraft. Our comment on the plebiscite is that the conditions have not been met until now, therefore the implication is similar to the original wording.

FS:It's believed that your report goes contrary to the aspirations of Kashmiri people as it is alleged that you didn't go for collecting data from original sources but instead put into writing the views of a group of retired Indian army officials. What've you to say to that?

EN: The report on Kashmir has drawn very firm support from many people in Azad Jammu & Kashmir, in Gilgit and Baltistan and in Jammu & Kashmir, who tell me that they are grateful and delighted that so many of their concerns have been highlighted. I met with and received full briefings from the Pakistani and the Indian armies. I had requested these briefings since the military are so heavily engaged along the line of control and I was grateful to both the Pakistani and the Indian Governments for enabling both the visits and the briefings to take place. However, it is incorrect to say that either current or retired members of either military supplied either the wording or the thoughts for the draft report. The wording, the reasoning and the conclusions were my own and were derived from my earlier work and experiences in south Asia and supplemented by the helpful sequence of meetings in Islamabad and AJK, New Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir, which were mirror images of each other in terms of the politicians, institutions and groups of people with whom I met.

FS:Your report is considered to be in contrast to the European Parliament's Ad hoc Delegation report by the committee on foreign affairs in November 2004 which had accepted Kashmiris as a party to the dispute. That part is deleted in your report, correct?

EN: You claim that my report differs from the ad hoc delegation report to the Foreign Affairs Committee of November 2004 with regard to the people of Kashmir being a party to the dispute. That is not so; this point was made in the UN resolutions from 1948 – 1971 and as such was fully accepted by the Member States of the UN but particularly the Security Council of the day, which included the UK and others who are now members of the EU. It would be improper for the European Parliament to move away from such a position, not only because it was adopted by the UN but because involvement of local people is the foundation stone of the EU's own success. My draft report, the Foreign Affairs Committee current final draft report on Kashmir and the report of the Parliament's ad hoc delegation of November 2004 all embrace that as a given and not a debatable point.

FS: Mr. Richard Howitt on his recent visit to Kashmir had said that his movements had been restricted; obviously hype around your trip with regard to your security must have been made by the Indian government officials, thus limiting your access to people here. Under these circumstances are you still able to gain an accurate picture of the ground realities?

EN: I am sorry to learn that Mr Howitt's movements were apparently restricted on his recent visit. I am happy to confirm that my own movements were unrestricted on both sides of the LoC and I am grateful to all concerned in Pakistan and India for this.

FS: You've criticized Pakistan over its human rights record particularly in the Northern Areas, while Amnesty International and other human rights watchdogs have time and time again criticized India over its human rights record in Kashmir. This seems to reflect a bias on your part.

EN: The report does indeed draw attention to Human Rights abuses in AJK and Gilgit & Baltistan, but it also draws attention to reports flowing from Amnesty International, Freedom House and Human Rights Watch of other abuses in Jammu & Kashmir. We therefore recommend that both Governments allow those three human rights organisations and perhaps others like them free access so that a realistic assessment of the situation can be established and monitored.

FS: Fifty eight years to the conflict—Italian Ambassador describes the conflict as longest standing dispute since the end of WWII—Your colleague Richard Howitt says European Union wants to come clean on Kashmir. It is a real pity that European Union is still debating over Kashmir when the International Community knows that there's something terribly wrong going on in Kashmir. Fifty eight years is a hell of a long time, isn't it?

EN: In my view the continuing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir is a tragedy, and I am pleased that the EU is wishful of helping in a region that is well outside our geographical boundaries. I am grateful to the European Parliament for giving me the opportunity for something that I hope will be constructive despite the fact that the EU has not been invited to mediate by either side and is highly unlikely to be called upon to do so.

FS: It is alleged that you've betrayed your position and mandate as EU rapporteur on Kashmir by falling in line with the Indian government because it had bribed you. How do you react to these allegations?

EN: The huge majority in favour of my report has proven that remarks such as these have not stood up to scrutiny in the European Parliament. I would be delighted to examine any evidence that gives credibility to these allegations.

FS:Mr. Richard Howitt has rejected your report saying liberal democrats should be ashamed of publishing what he calls it 'an appallingly prejudiced report'. He had said of the report if passed would be counter productive in holding back the peace process between India and Pakistan. How would those suspicions be laid to rest?

EN: Mr Richard Howitt's comments that the draft report would prejudice the peace process between India and Pakistan gives an unwarranted status to the European Parliament to which we can lay no claim. The report firmly and squarely supports the peace process as its basic premise; why would we say otherwise in the same report? That would be self contradictory which is not the case.

FS: On February 26, the debate on the draft report led to an acrimonious exchange between you and some Pakistani members of the European Parliament, with Mr. Sajjad Karim shouting that the report was an insulting piece of work. Why was the reaction of Pakistan so outrageous in the first place?

EN: There was no acrimonious exchange between myself and other members of the parliament on 26 February. Several British members used highly emotional terminology but I responded in the normal European Parliament way which is more harmonious.

FS: When James Elles, co-founder of the All Party Group on Kashmir, described the report as unbalanced and biased, calling for its amendment, you were quoted as saying: "It is a pity that the British are washing their dirty linen in public." What did you refer the dirty linen to?

EN: I responded to James Elles, Sajjad Karim and Richard Howitt as well as to Philip Bushill Matthews, who all used British style House of Commons language on the 26 February by commenting that the British should not wash their dirty linen in public. I was referring to the fact that their reaction was heavily linked into a drive for Pakistani British votes in certain constituencies for which they were campaigning for the local elections due to be held in early May. I did not and do not believe that the issue of Kashmir should be distorted by party political vote grabbing in the UK. It is too important for that.

FS: Your credentials in child health and development, as former Director of Save the Children speak very of high of your concern for the children. How did you miss to make a mention of some hundred thousand orphans of Kashmir in your report?

EN: I have a large and continuing concern for children and families in distress. I have tried hard to put as much as possible in the report on Kashmir on the many thousands of Kashmiri children orphaned by the earthquakes and on the hundreds of thousands of families deprived of basic needs provision in terms of health and education. I have been dismayed by those same British colleagues who voted to delete parts of the report that highlighted the plight of hundreds of thousands of orphans, women and earthquake victims. Their thinking on the whole report has simply not been rational and for them to vote as they did on these human rights issues prove my point beyond doubt. Now that the voting storm has passed and we have a clear and powerful report from the Committee very much along the lines I have recommended, I very much hope that these colleagues will assume a more balanced position.

FS: How do you view the situation of Kashmir say ten years from now? Is there a hope of a lasting solution to the problem? Are there any guarantees from the international community, particularly the EU?

EN: I hope and believe that in ten years time, the issue of Kashmir will be resolved and families can cross the border peacefully. Trade can be resumed and the people once again can be prosperous and well cared for.