During his visit to the Sub-Continent Kofi Annan, Ex-Secretary General of the United Nations issued some controversial statements. The statements related to validity of UN Resolution on Kashmir. When asked why the world body is not as enthusiastic towards the implementation of these resolutions same way as it was in context of resolutions on East-Timor? His response was that while the former were passed under chapter 6 of the UN Charter, later have been passed under chapter VII.
The resolutions under chapter VII become automatically enforceable. In case of
non-compliance by one of the parties, collective use of force can be resorted to. For resolutions passed under chapter six, no such provisions exist. He didn’t say that the resolutions on Kashmir have become redundant. However, his reference to Lahore declaration was over-magnified by the Indian media to convey as if it was an indication of irrelevance of UN resolutions on Kashmir
It is a fact that resolutions of United Nations on Kashmir fall under chapter VI. However, the same resolution can be brought under Chapter VII in case world body feels that the dispute has become a threat to the world peace. World leaders including Kofi Annan have time and again mentioned that the tension in Kashmir constitutes such a threat. What remains to be done is a new resolution on the part of the Security Council in order to facilitate- implementation of the principles laid down in the existing resolution.
Even though the present resolution has been passed under chapter VI, it in no way is too fragile to be surpassed by a declaration on the part of the parties. Through its resolutions, UN has not done any favour to Kashmiris but simply stated the International Law on the issue. Self-determination of the peoples is one of the purposes of the United Nations (Clause-2 Article1 UN Charter). Under Article 25, Member States undertake to carry out decisions of the United Nations in accordance with its Charter. Article 103 clearly states that in the event of conflict between obligation under any other international agreement, obligations under the Charter shall prevail. Indian version of Kofi Annan’s statement conveys as if Lahore Declaration has over-ridden the UN resolution. It is obvious from the above quoted Article 103 that such a formulation is not valid under international law.
It is not for the first time that India has tried to evade its international-obligations on the pretext of a bilateral treaty. It did the same after Shimla Agreement when they asked United Nations to close its Observers Mission in Srinagar because “parties had resolved to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiations”. United Nations turned down the Indian request and maintained its Observers Mission irrespective of non-corporation of the Indian Authorities towards its activities. This was so in spite of the fact that Shimla Agreement was a treaty, unlike Lahore Declaration which in the terminology of International Law does not qualify to be a treaty. It is merely an agreement upon certain principles. If a bilateral treaty like Shimla Agreement could not override UN resolutions how can a mere declaration be presumed to have made them redundant? UN resolutions are not simply resolutions relating to a dispute but affirmation of those Purposes of the United Nations which now are presumed to be the basic norms of International Law.
Right of the self determination has been enumerated as a basic right in the common article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. International Court of Justice in its judgment in Eastern-Timor case (Portugal Vs Australia) has declared it to be an established principle of the contemporary International Law.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) under Article 53 provides that a Treaty is void if it conflicts with a pre-emptory norm of General International Law ( Jus Cogens).
Thus the way countries cannot conclude a treaty for genocide, they can’t enter into an agreement aimed at depriving a group of people of its inalienable right of self determination. Hector Ross special rapporteur appointed by the UN Sub-Commission on Minorities for identifying the people who have yet to exercise their right of self determination enumerated Kashmiris among such people.
UN Secretary General is not the one who is authorized to interpret UN Charter or implications of its resolutions. He simply is an elevated Section Officer who is to manage Secretarial Affairs of the Organisation. His trip to the Sub-Continent was in pursuit of lobbying for second term and tourism. He wanted to avail the protocol that he is unlikely to get after his retirement. Since, his trip was Indo-centric, he wanted to appease his bigger hosts through such statements. Indian Media over-magnified his assertions to impress upon the people of Kashmir as if they have been written off by the World Body. Kofi Annan refusal to meet Hurriet Leaders has more to do with incompetence and worthlessness of these leaders, rather than UN attitude towards Kashmir. During the tenure of its present chairman ( Abdul Ghani Bhat) Hurriet has made a mockery of Kashmir Movement by begging for passports. In this pursuit they have relegated themselves to the status of messengers of Vajpayee to facilitate the positive response of the militants towards his cease fire. They received a humiliating response from L K Advani, who ruled out any mediatory role for them. This simply depicts their incompetence in representing the Kashmir Movement.
The resolutions under chapter VII become automatically enforceable. In case of
non-compliance by one of the parties, collective use of force can be resorted to. For resolutions passed under chapter six, no such provisions exist. He didn’t say that the resolutions on Kashmir have become redundant. However, his reference to Lahore declaration was over-magnified by the Indian media to convey as if it was an indication of irrelevance of UN resolutions on Kashmir
It is a fact that resolutions of United Nations on Kashmir fall under chapter VI. However, the same resolution can be brought under Chapter VII in case world body feels that the dispute has become a threat to the world peace. World leaders including Kofi Annan have time and again mentioned that the tension in Kashmir constitutes such a threat. What remains to be done is a new resolution on the part of the Security Council in order to facilitate- implementation of the principles laid down in the existing resolution.
Even though the present resolution has been passed under chapter VI, it in no way is too fragile to be surpassed by a declaration on the part of the parties. Through its resolutions, UN has not done any favour to Kashmiris but simply stated the International Law on the issue. Self-determination of the peoples is one of the purposes of the United Nations (Clause-2 Article1 UN Charter). Under Article 25, Member States undertake to carry out decisions of the United Nations in accordance with its Charter. Article 103 clearly states that in the event of conflict between obligation under any other international agreement, obligations under the Charter shall prevail. Indian version of Kofi Annan’s statement conveys as if Lahore Declaration has over-ridden the UN resolution. It is obvious from the above quoted Article 103 that such a formulation is not valid under international law.
It is not for the first time that India has tried to evade its international-obligations on the pretext of a bilateral treaty. It did the same after Shimla Agreement when they asked United Nations to close its Observers Mission in Srinagar because “parties had resolved to settle the dispute through bilateral negotiations”. United Nations turned down the Indian request and maintained its Observers Mission irrespective of non-corporation of the Indian Authorities towards its activities. This was so in spite of the fact that Shimla Agreement was a treaty, unlike Lahore Declaration which in the terminology of International Law does not qualify to be a treaty. It is merely an agreement upon certain principles. If a bilateral treaty like Shimla Agreement could not override UN resolutions how can a mere declaration be presumed to have made them redundant? UN resolutions are not simply resolutions relating to a dispute but affirmation of those Purposes of the United Nations which now are presumed to be the basic norms of International Law.
Right of the self determination has been enumerated as a basic right in the common article 1 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. International Court of Justice in its judgment in Eastern-Timor case (Portugal Vs Australia) has declared it to be an established principle of the contemporary International Law.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) under Article 53 provides that a Treaty is void if it conflicts with a pre-emptory norm of General International Law ( Jus Cogens).
Thus the way countries cannot conclude a treaty for genocide, they can’t enter into an agreement aimed at depriving a group of people of its inalienable right of self determination. Hector Ross special rapporteur appointed by the UN Sub-Commission on Minorities for identifying the people who have yet to exercise their right of self determination enumerated Kashmiris among such people.
UN Secretary General is not the one who is authorized to interpret UN Charter or implications of its resolutions. He simply is an elevated Section Officer who is to manage Secretarial Affairs of the Organisation. His trip to the Sub-Continent was in pursuit of lobbying for second term and tourism. He wanted to avail the protocol that he is unlikely to get after his retirement. Since, his trip was Indo-centric, he wanted to appease his bigger hosts through such statements. Indian Media over-magnified his assertions to impress upon the people of Kashmir as if they have been written off by the World Body. Kofi Annan refusal to meet Hurriet Leaders has more to do with incompetence and worthlessness of these leaders, rather than UN attitude towards Kashmir. During the tenure of its present chairman ( Abdul Ghani Bhat) Hurriet has made a mockery of Kashmir Movement by begging for passports. In this pursuit they have relegated themselves to the status of messengers of Vajpayee to facilitate the positive response of the militants towards his cease fire. They received a humiliating response from L K Advani, who ruled out any mediatory role for them. This simply depicts their incompetence in representing the Kashmir Movement.
No comments:
Post a Comment