LONDON Dec 2: Former Deputy of UN mission in Kashmir, Brian Cloughley, has said the dispute cannot be resolved without intervention of a third party and America can do it.

Mr Cloughley, also an expert on Kashmir was speaking at a seminar on “Creating a climate of confidence in Indo-Pakistan relations” organized by the department of History University of Leicester.

“There is no light at the end of the tunnel, but a practical solution to the present stalemate is to introduce third party-preferably United Nations-emplacement and verification of confidence building measures, in addition to UN-sponsored mediation”, he said.

He was the deputy head of the UN mission in Kashmir from 1980-82 and later served as British defence attache in Islamabad from 1989-94.

He said: “The US has a lot on its plate at the moment but they have turned to Pakistan and India in the hope that they will be able to solve the differences properly.”

Replying to another question, he said: “The possibility of a third party mediation is slim but it is still a chance and every chance should be taken where there is an avenue to peace.”

The matters of Kashmir, Siachen, human rights violations and other issues between the two sides “cannot be dealt with bilaterally simply because there appears to be no intention on the part of India to seek bilateral negotiations,” he said.

As the “Kashmir dispute has given rise to so much acrimony (and countless bilateral discussions over decades have failed to resolve even minor points), it has been suggested that the nations go to arbitration concerning the matters that have driven and continue to drive them apart.”

He said this proposal in general had been welcomed by Pakistan but India was not ready to accept it.

Mr Cloughley said the Simla Accord which both countries embrace as the basis for relations,” does not in any way contradicts or nullifies extant UN Security Council resolutions concerning the Kashmir dispute, nor does it incontrovertibly insist on solely bilateral negotiations, or exclude mediation, in any approach to or discussion of disputes between India and Pakistan.”

He said talks between India and Pakistan must begin otherwise “tension will increase and misunderstanding will feed upon itself. Talking together without pre-conditions is the only way ahead,” said the scholar.

Mr Cloughley said mediation” will in no fashion diminish national sovereignty. The only result would be diminution of tension and the opening of paths to peace and prosperity. These are reasonable and indeed most desirable objectives that cannot be lightly dismissed.”

“The dialogue has never been more important in the sub-continent than it is at the end of the year 2001.

“I contend that creation of a climate of confidence is impossible unless the sides reach precursive agreement to subordinate nationalism to internationalism. I aver that vindictiveness should have no place in relations between India and Pakistan.”

He said: “The dispute over Kashmir is the main cause of dissent and disruption in the sub-continent, and that it is central to relations between the two largest countries.”

Mr Cloughley said: “Inspite of adjurations from every major country and grouping in the world to resume talking about Kashmir, India has been resolute in refusing to do so”.

The scholar who has written extensively on the region said there was an opportunity to open the way to trust and tranquillity in the sub-continent. He also gave some suggestions in this regard.

Brian Cloughley said “the civil insurrection in Kashmir cannot be delinked from military confrontation along the LoC, although these conflicts are separate manifestations of patterns of mistrust”

He said the dangers to peace noted by the UN representative Sir Owen Dixon in 1950 have been constant, and his statement of that time continues to apply, as he observed that “the continuing maintenance of two armies facing one another across a ceasefire line is another matter. A danger to peace must exist while this state of things continues”.

Apart from Kashmir another obstacle to create climate of confidence is conflict over Siachen glacier, he said.

He rejected the idea of a limited war on Kashmir and said,” once there is troop movement across a defended line there can be no guarantee that escalation will not obtain.This is precisely what is feared by those who seek peace in the sub-continent”. —APP