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.

I think the time is right for a permanent Kashmir solution: Italian Ambassador

Antonio Armellini, the Italian Ambassador to India, who's on a 5-day official visit to Kashmir to assess the situation in the backdrop of the recent developments that have generated some hope of a lasting settlement to what he described as the longest standing conflict since the end of the World War II. In an interview with Kashmir Observer, the ambassador says that there's a misperception that the west has launched a war on Islam and terms the theory of 'clash of civilizations' as an intelligent- intellectual construction, which does not automatically apply to the reality. The interview was conducted by M Farooq Shah.

● Is this your first visit to Kashmir? What's your first impression?

Yes, I've never been here before. My first impression is that of a beautiful city and what I've seen a beautiful land. It is a very very pleasant place indeed. I can now understand why so many people in India and elsewhere in the world see it as a prime tourist destination.

● The people of Kashmir who've suffered immensely during the past 15 years or so, obviously for no fault of theirs, have a grudge that the Western world has remained a mute spectator to their ordeal. What do you say to that?

I don't think that the Western world or the world in general has remained a mute spectator. The Western world, EU in particular, has always promoted the peace process in Kashmir. The settlement to the issue is something that pertains to the parties directly involved and we certainly don't wish to interfere in this process but we follow and pay attention and we encourage any positive steps such as the ones which have been taken recently.

● Not long ago, Kashmir was referred to as a nuclear flash point. Given the semblance of normalcy in Kashmir, the people are sceptical whether this could lead to a lasting peace. Are there any guarantees from the International community?

Again this is something for the people of Kashmir to act upon or decide upon and see to the ways that could turn into a permanent solution. What strikes me is that the situation in Kashmir's difficulty as a dispute is the longest standing disputes since the end of the IInd world war. Looking at the time frame, I think the time is more than right for positive developments and for a permanent solution.

● What role do you think the International Community, particularly the EU, play to dispel those fears?

Antonio Armellini: The International community should on the one hand not interfere in the process which has to be left with its direct actors because it's only them who'll be able to solve the problem and on the other should encourage any positive development and be ready to provide whatever assistance is required and may be necessary at the time. I believe this is the position which the Eropean Union has taken constantly. We've welcomed regularly all the positive steps that have been taken. We've always expressed our willingness to be of help whenever required or needed.

● Your itinerary includes a visit to UNMOGIP office here, which is headed by an Italian Major General. Given the present scenario, do you not think that this force has lost its relevance?

I think this is the matter for the Security Council to decide upon.

● There's a so-called theory, 'the clash of civilisations' being floated in the West, especially after 9/11 and a widespread belief in the Muslim world that West has launched some kind of a war on Islam. How do you react to that?

I think that's a basic misperception. I'm not aware of the fact that there's such a widespread belief in the Muslim world. What I'm aware of is the fact that there're some people in the West who feel that the Muslim world and Islam has launched a war on the West and this I think proves that both sides are wrong in their perceptions. Clash of civilisations is a very intelligent-intellectual construction, which does not automatically apply to the reality. It's a key to interpret phenomena. It's not an explanation of the phenomena itself.

● Again there're accusations that the West is deliberately indifferent to the issues pertaining to the Muslim world, which fans the extremist tendencies there and eventually deepens the East-West gulf. Are these accusations true in the first place?

I think not. Let me just give you a very small example as far as my country is concerned. Italy for a number of reasons is a predominantly catholic country but Islam has become the second largest religion and has been growing very fast. This has happened without any problem whatsoever. We believe that anyone's entitled to his beliefs and understandings and within the framework of the laws of the land in which he lives. I think that extremists on all sides can lead to warped interpretations. If you look at the western societies on the whole, you'll see that they're the most inclusive societies which civilisations have produced so far and that I think would tend to disprove the idea of automatic exclusions of anyone particular group. Extremists, terrorists— that's something else but that's not Islamic terrorism. It's an international phenomenon, which has all sorts of connotations.

● Besides the denial of political rights the lack of economic opportunities is believed to be a major cause of extremism and terrorism from which now no country is immune. What can your country do to help build the shattered economy of Kashmir that is being considered a breeding ground of extremism and terrorism?

We are certainly looking forward to the developing co-operation with India and all its components. On the Kashmiri side in particular, some work needs to be done to develop an economic community which can interact with foreign players as well. Lot of trade is going on already in handicrafts and a number of areas between Kashmiri traders and Italian traders, but I think we could do much more. I feel that perhaps a little more work should be done on this.

● How the Kashmir conflict is included in the EU agenda? Are you optimistic that a lasting solution to the problem can be worked out in some time to come?

We're all following very closely the recent developments and the peace process and composite dialogue has been moving ahead at a very swift pace and we very much hope that this will be a forebearer to permanent solution.

● The leverage of power in the World today rests with the United States, ever since USSR collapsed. Has the European Union consolidated itself as a counterpart to the US?

Antonio Armellini: The European Union was formed in 1952 way before the collapse of the Soviet Union and the purpose was entirely different; that of bringing together the countries of Europe that had fought with each other for over a thousand years and turn that age long conflict into a period of cooperation and friendship. That's what EU is all about.

H E Italian High Commissioner, Antonio Armellini visited Kashmir in 2005.

Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia: Prof Gregory Gleason

Professor Gregory Gleason, visiting Kashmir as part of the International Conference on Central Asia currently underway at Kashmir University, says that Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia than to South Asia, owing to its glorious ties with the region in terms of culture, traditions, religion, etc. Professor Gleason, who teaches political science at the University of New Mexico in the U.S., describes the efforts made by India and Pakistan on Kashmir as insufficient as he discusses the pros and cons of Kashmir being the venue of an International Conference on Central Asia with Kashmir Observer Chief Correspondent M Farooq Shah.

Excerpts of the Interview:

• You've been one of the special invitees to the International Conference on Central Asia. What does this conference mean to you?

The Conference is an important turning point, I believe, for the studies on Central Asia, in the United States but also in other countries around the world, particularly the European Countries and the countries of Central Asia. Previously, we thought of Central Asia primarily as the countries of the former Soviet Union. Increasingly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we began to think more broadly about Central Asia. And then, of course, after the events of September 11, American involvement in the coalition for operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan, we began to realise that there are cultural, linguistic and close potential trade relations among all the countries of the region. So most of the scholars have now begun to think of Central Asia in terms of an historical and broader definition.

• Why wasn't this conference, which has been described as of 'Unprecedented significance', held somewhere else, Delhi for instance?

Well, I think the important aspect of the venue in Kashmir is that Kashmir is very clearly a Central Asian region. It is a region that has close associations with other cultures in Central Asia, in particular Uzbek culture, culture of Tajikistan, culture in Turkmenistan. The idea of holding the conference in Kashmir is the idea of bringing to the attention of scholars and policy makers and journalists and hopefully eventually the general public that there are close connections in the region.

• Could you say a little more on that when you say Kashmir is very clearly a Central Asian region?

To be honest with you, when I arrived in Kashmir, I immediately recognised the kind of kindred relationship with the Central Asian Countries. There are cultural features and characteristics in Kashmir that remind me very much of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and other countries we've traditionally regarded as the central Asian countries. I have to say that is not the same feeling that one feels when one arrives for instance in Delhi.

• Could you outline the significance of holding a conference of this scale in Kashmir a little more explicitly?

I think one of the important aspects of holding the Conference in Kashmir is that many of the scholars in the outside world who've worked on issues of economics, politics, government, international relations, history and cultural studies in the region have not themselves focussed on the regions around Jammu and Kashmir. Therefore, this is an important re-orientation of the work in the interests of many scholars around the world. I think it is important because it highlights the connectedness of Kashmir with other countries of the region. It's not enough, I would say because very little is known about Kashmir and its relationship with other countries in the neighbouring Central Asia. It is the first major effort to bring to attention of the International scholarly community and the professional organisations in the outside world such as the Central Eurasian Studies Society based in Harvard University that Kashmir belongs more to Central Asia.

• Kashmir, you know is a landlocked territory where a conflict is raging and with an uncertain political future. How are ordinary Kashmiris going to benefit from this conference?

I think scholarship is always to the benefit of ordinary citizens in all the regions of the world. Scholarship in the long run will have an influence but scholarship is not politics and policy making itself. It does not have the direct impact. It rather is a way of accumulating knowledge and understanding that can lend the policy makers more wisdom to do decisions about policies. Its immediate effect is, I think, to be understood in terms of the long-term affect of increasing human understanding of that region.

• As far the human understanding you're talking about, Kashmiris are unable to move freely between its own divided parts. How do you view that?

That's certainly a human tragedy. But it is not a unique situation, there're similar situations in many regions of the world. These kinds of issues certainly have to be resolved in a way that is equitable for all the interested and involved parties.

• India and Pakistan have embarked on certain measures with regard to the connectedness of the divided parts of Jammu and Kashmir. Do you think that suffices the requirement given the level of sentiment involved among the peoples of the divided parts?

I don't think that those particular steps themselves suffice the requirement but I do think the confidence building measures are an important sequence that would be necessary for any kind of unification of the divided groups of people. In this particular case, it seems to me that what we can hope for is a more extensive set of measures taken to improve relationships between the countries to reduce the amount of tension that has been created by disagreements in the past.

• How does Kashmir figure in what you've described as 'The idea of Greater Central Asia'?

Kashmir is a natural corridor between India and other parts of the Asia, Europe and other parts of the Eurasian landmass. I think it can play a very important role in the idea of Greater Central Asia. Most important aspect of that idea is it is not just a concept or a geographical description rather it is an idea of the importance of maintaining close ties between people who've kindred interests and more pragmatically people who've economic mutual interests in trade and greater economic development.

• You've said that there's a greater need for inter-state co-operation without changing of borders or reorganising institutions. What exactly do you mean by that?

We live in a globalized world today. It is a powerful force today and is primarily driven by technology not by the intentions of the people in Berlin or Moscow or Washington. In this globalized world however, the unsettling aspect is of changes in the existing border situations. That however, does not mean that there can't be mobility of capital, movement of people, or movement of ideas across those borders. I'm very much in favour of the idea of trans-border or cross border communication between the countries.

• As an expert, do you think there's a need for a third party mediation on Kashmir?

To be honest with you, I'm still at the point of gathering information on the subject. It is not clear to me how a third party mediation on Kashmir would differ from present circumstances but what I can promise with you is to reflect on the question, think about the question and gather more information to get an idea what would be the international theory given the interests of the various actors involved.

• But both India and Pakistan have failed to resolve their differences on Kashmir for well over five decades now. Do you, as a political science teacher not think that it is the right time for the international community to tell them that enough is enough?

I certainly think that this is the right time for India and Pakistan to think seriously about their differences on Kashmir and hammer out an equitable solution acceptable to the all actors involved in the region. The International community certainly has a role to play but the responsibility ultimately lies with the actors directly involved in the conflict.

• As an expert from outside, how do you visualise Kashmir 10 years from now?

I see a prosperous Kashmir 10 years from now where human rights are protected; where people are free to speak their minds; where people are tolerant; where businesses are protected through legal a regulatory system that allows for open businesses but not frequented by monopolies or economic dominations.

Prof Gregor Gleason visited Kashmir in 2005 and I interviewed him for Kashmir Observer.