The last time Jean Chretien had responsibility for foreign policy was in the four-month government of John Turner in 1984. Now, he has at least one full term as Prime Minister to steer Canada's global role. But to move forward, he and Foreign Minister Andre Ouellet must step back and review our goal in a changing world.

The Cold War and the Berlin Wall are gone, South Africa is desegregating, and the Mideast is embracing peace. Kashmir is one of the few unresolved major disputes threatening war in a strategic part of the world. The Indians will soon begin to find increasing concern of the international community especially the Western part of the world for a resolution of the dispute. It, therefore, would be wise on our part to discuss the issue and to revisit our commitment to Kashmir issue.

Background

The status of Jammu and Kashmir has been in dispute between India and Pakistan since their independence in 1947. In bringing it to the U.N., India declared that it would abide by the verdict of the people of the territory on whether they would accede to India or to Pakistan. The U.N. set up a commission which negotiated with both parties and obtained their written acceptance of a peace plan consisting of (a) cease­fire (b) demilitarization of the State and (c) a plebiscite under the control of a U.N. -appointed Administrator. The cease­fire took effect accordingly but the demilitarization process, which would mean a synchronized withdrawal of the forces of the two sides, was obstructed when India did not accept any of the various plans submitted by successive U.N. Representatives.

The stalemate would not have persisted if, under cold-war conditions, India had not obtained the support of the Soviet Union.

The United Nations considers Kashmir a "disputed territory." The state is located between India and Pakistan. Since the end of colonial rule and British withdrawal, India and Pakistan have exercised control over parts of the state. In 1948, and again in 1949, the United Nations examined the region's status and passed two resolutions: Kashmir's final status was to be determined by a national plebiscite, a position that was supported by both India and Pakistan as well as by Canada.

Calling Kashmir as "integral part" of its territory, India summarily and illegally annexed that portion of the region then under its control. Pakistan continued to hold its portion "in trust." The status of "disputed territory" for Kashmir is still maintained today by the United Nations.

Canada's Role

When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, Canada, under the Liberal administration of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent (1948-57), was firm that the future status of Kashmir must be determined by the will of the people of the territory and their wishes must be ascertained through an impartial plebiscite under the supervision and control of the United Nations.

Canada was one of the principal sponsors of resolution 47 (1948) on the India-Pakistan question, submitted jointly among others by Belgium, China, Colombia, the United Kingdom and United States of America and adopted by the Security Council at its 286th meeting on April 21, 1948. Following the resolution, Canada and other leading members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan adhered to that position. It was a distinguished Canadian, Gen. Andrew McNaughton, who, as the president of the Security Council, sponsored the proposal for the basic formula for a settlement, which was incorporated in the resolution of that commission adopted on August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949.

It was first time for Canada to contribute in U.N. peace keeping mission; that happens to be from Kashmir. It was first time when U.N. peacekeepers were stationed in Kashmir; that too happened with Canadian troops.

The Consequences of Un-implemented U.N. resolutions

The unresolved dispute caused two wars in the not-so-remote past between India and Pakistan, and the two regional powers have accumulated massive weaponry to stare each other down along a U.N. demarcated cease-fire line. According to Western intelligence sources, both sides are working towards the buildup of nuclear arsenals.

Today, Kashmir is the worst case of state terrorism where the occupying Indian forces threaten to eliminate an entire people engaged in demanding implementation of the United Nations resolution. Over half a million troops were sent to Kashmir to "control" the population, and to "silence" every single individual, New Delhi resorted to extreme measures: The razing of entire neighbourhoods, the arrest, torture and murder of any suspected Kashmiri male above the age of 13; the rape of women: a virtual embargo on outside assistance including medicine and food supplies.

The organized brutalities of Indian security forces did not even spare a 24 year-old Canadian woman from Winnipeg, while visiting Kashmir in October 1990, she was gang-raped and robbed in the capital city of Kashmir.

The crackdown in Kashmir has already transformed this "heaven on earth" into a "heaven of fire" and enlarged the destabilizing potential for the entire region. It represents a Government's repression not of a "secessionist" or "separatist" movement but of an uprising against foreign occupation, an occupation that was expected to end under determination by the U.N.

These accounts, which at times have been too horrific to imagine, much less to describe, have been documented by all prominent human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Asia Watch, Freedom House, and the Refugees and Immigration Board.) Many prominent news organizations, including the Globe and Mail the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, Cable News Network and the Independent of London have filed detailed reports time and again.

In their report released recently on December 15, 1993, Amnesty International - India: 'AN UNNATURAL FATE' 'Disappearances' and impunity in the Indian (Occupied) State of Jammu and Kashmir, describes in one of the numerous incidents: "that the alleged detenue [Javed Ahmed Ahangar] was arrested by the National Security Guards during the intervening night of 17/18 of August 1990, from the residential house of one Ali Mohammed Ahangar of Dhobi Mohalla Batamaloo and thereafter he was last of all seen in the custody of the officials of the National Security Guards namely S.P. Katoch, S.P. Dinesh and S.P. Gupta and by Shawkat Ahmad who too was that time under detention. From the day the alleged detenue was last of all seen in the custody of these officials near Hari Niwas interrogation centre his whereabouts are not so far known to the parents of the alleged detenue."

The movement for self-determination in Kashmir is an indigenous one and it is now irreversible. A failure to recognize this reality on the ground would only complicate the situation in the area. It is, therefore, important that Canada and other responsible nations seek peace by way of urging India to stop massacre of the people and to allow Kashmiris their right of self-determination.

An Ambivalent Policy

In the recent past the administration in Ottawa did not have a clear policy on Kashmir.

There are certain characteristics of the situation in Kashmir which distinguish it from all other deplorable human rights situations around the world.

It prevails in what is recognized - under international law, by Canada -as a disputed territory.

It has also build the sensation that Canada under the influence of the U.S. has been selective about the application of the principles of human rights and democracy and will condone even a blatant breach of these principles if it wishes to promote the offending party. There is a virtual silence over the killing and maiming of great number of human beings in Kashmir. Reliable estimates of civilian casualties put the number around 50,000 since 1989.

The other fundamental error of the Mulroney Administration policy was their silence over the exclusion of the Kashmiri people from any negotiations. Using the 1972 Simla Agreement as its guide, the Mulroney Administration held that India and Pakistan would determine what was best for the Kashmiri people. No one but the Kashmiri people can speak for Kashmiri interests.

How much blood must be spilled in Kashmir, before we in Canada, could acknowledge the conviction of Kashmiri people and their resolve to seek implementation of the United Nations resolutions regarding their right of self-determination?

A real policy of crisis resolution

The Liberal Administration of Jean Chretien must pursue a crisis resolution policy in Kashmir. Time is not on our side. Every day more and more atrocities are being committed by the Indian security forces. Every day a larger segment of the Kashmiri population becomes alienated, and every day more Kashmiri youths turn to violence as the means of achieving self-determination.

The Liberal Administration of Jean Chretien must make several fundamental changes in the Canadian policy towards Kashmir:

1. Proceed from the premise that the status of Kashmir be an integral part of any regional dialogue - one cannot deal with the nuclear proliferation question in South Asia without simultaneously addressing the question of regional conflict in Kashmir;

2. Urge that any talks between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir must also include legitimate representatives from Kashmir. The talks must be tripartite;

3. Promote the right-full opportunity for all Kashmiri political dispensations living on both sides of the Cease-fire Line in Kashmir, to meet and hold an intra-Kashmir dialogue on their own soil; e.g., 3-kilometres of area on both the sides of the Cease-fire Line could be demilitarized to serve as a Red Cross zone for intra-Kashmir dialogue;

4. Bring its pressure to bear on India to stop its campaign of terror in Kashmir. Canada's foreign assistance and trade benefits should directly be linked to India's performance on human rights;

5. Reaffirm that the people of Kashmir must have the final say in their future status. Their wishes, determined by a majority of the population through a free and democratic plebiscite under U.N. supervision, must be respected. There is no other way to a lasting peace;

6. Reiterations that the U.N. resolutions of 1948 and 1949, which called for the holding of a national plebiscite, must remain the guiding factors to any settlement; and

7. Show its pro-active leadership role to bring the parties of the dispute to the negotiating table.

Canadian influence, at this stage, can activate all these necessary aspects, would entail no deployment of Canadian troops, no financial outlays, and no adversary relations between Canada and India. Yet, this would definitely help in halting the violations of human rights and set a stage for a peaceful and lasting solution.

Kashmiri-Canadians have a reason for the hope, and have appreciated the Liberal Party's support for the principle of self-determination for the people of Kashmir and their understanding for the worsening human rights situation in the disputed state. Kashmiri-Canadians also have long-awaited Liberal Administration hoping that it will bring a reactivation of Canada's role in unravelling the self-determination.