He was answering a question from a Pakistani journalist whether the UN chief was pushing India and Pakistan towards some of talks as a follow-up to his last week's statement, regarded here as highly significant, on the volatile situation in occupied Kashmir. In that statement on August 8, the secretary-general had said he had been following the situation in Jammu and Kashmir with concern, making an appeal for maximum restraint.
The position of the United Nations on this region is governed by the (UN) Charter...and applicable Security Council resolutions, the statement said. The Secretary-General also recalls the 1972 Agreement on bilateral relations between India and Pakistan also known as the Simla Agreement, which states that the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means, in accordance with the UN Charter. On August 16, the Security Council considered the volatile situation in Occupied Kashmir, addressing the issue in a meeting focused solely on the dispute, within the UN body dedicated to resolving matters of international peace and security, for the first time since 1965.
The UN has long maintained an institutional presence in the contested area, which both countries claim in its entirety, with the areas under separate administration, divided by the Line of Control. The UN Military Observer Group in Indian and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) observes and reports on any ceasefire violations. Lately, India has been repeatedly violating LoC, firing across the line and killing Pakistani soldiers and civilians.
Meanwhile, Adil Najam, a Pakistani academic, writing in The Hill newspaper, said that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's action in ending Kashmir's special status has made the Kashmir question more international than it has been in at least half a century.
In this context, Najam, who a professor of international relations and the founding dean of the Frederick Spardee School of Global Studies at Boston University, wrote:
"By unilaterally changing the status of an internationally disputed territory-which, although occupied by India, is also claimed by Pakistan and under sanction of multiple UN Security Council resolutions-all aspects of the international status quo on Kashmir have also been brought into question. This includes, for example, the very nature of the so-called "Lines of Control" that serve as borders between the Pakistan-, China- and India-occupied parts of Kashmir.
"The drastic nature of India's unilateral action reflects a de facto abandonment of its long-held position that all matters pertaining to Kashmir should be decided between Pakistan and India. This is a seismic foreign policy shift for India but also reflects a historical progression. India first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations in 1948, seeking a multilateral resolution and accepting the principle that the issue should be resolved on the basis of a plebiscite reflecting the will of Kashmiris. That referendum never happened.
"By 1972, India held more than 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and used its new leverage to enshrine in the Simla Agreement an insistence on a bilateral approach. Now, in 2019 - at a moment of India's economic and political confidence and of Pakistan's isolation and weakness-Modi has upped the ante again by declaring India's intent to 'solve' the Kashmir question unilaterally. India's new unilateralism has left the Simla Agreement dead; with no bilateral option to exercise, the still-simmering conflict has no place to go except to become international.
"Ultimately, the conflict in Kashmir has become international again not only because Pakistan and India have so miserably failed to resolve it bilaterally but because the human implications of this failure are so stark. It took nearly two weeks for India to begin easing just a few of the restrictions on movement and communication in Srinagar, but the government had to immediately reimpose the clampdown amid a wave of violent clashes. It is not clear how long Kashmir can remain barricaded, but it is very clear that normalcy can no longer be expected. Not surprisingly, the tension has spilled into deadly clashes between India and Pakistan. The prognosis is not good. Not good at all.
The fact that the UN Security Council did meet on Kashmir, albeit reluctantly, suggests that the major powers do realize that the conflict again requires international attention. One hopes they also realize that not having found a resolution to the Kashmir conflict is not only the greatest failure of India and Pakistan, it is the unfinished agenda of the UN in fact, one of the longest unresolved disputes on its docket.
"One wonders if it is wise counsel or a dereliction of duty for the major powers to ask India and Pakistan to resolve their differences themselves. Any parent of squabbling children will confirm that the strategy of 'just go away and sort it out yourself!' can only work so long, and often not at all. In this case, it has not worked for more than 70 years.
"Given India's unilateral action, where is the space or scope for a bilateral conversation between India and Pakistan? Where might it take place? What might come of it? Yes, dialogue is always a good idea - but can anyone honestly see that happening without it being mediated by the Security Council or by a great power that can influence both Pakistan and India?
"Which, of course, reminds us that there is one major power whose leader is ready and willing to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir? This would be a good time for President Donald Trump to make good on his offer."