OBOR, CPEC Track-II Diplomacy and Neglected Kashmir issue

On this political design and economic map of the region, only one important variable, the geo-strategic one, is missing as always and that is the leadership of Jammu Kashmir residing at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit.

by Nayyar N Khan-Jun 7, 2018

( June 7, 2018, Califonia, Sri Lanka Guardian) China in December 2017 said that its ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is not directed against India and the project should not be influenced or disturbed by any third country, the day Beijing offered to extend the USD 50 billion project to Afghanistan. The corridor, which came into operation last November, passes through Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) in Pakistan-administered Kashmir – a territory claimed by both India and Pakistan. Both the South Asian neighbors claim the disputed Kashmir region in full, but control parts of it.

China also hopes CPEC can help address its own concerns related to the Uighur population in Xinjiang province, where the corridor begins. Xinjiang has been the site of repeated flare-ups between Chinese authorities and the Uighurs. The Chinese government hopes CPEC will invigorate the region’s economy, and therefore diminish tensions with the Uighurs and fascinate a more diverse population.

After negotiating border stand-off at Doklam Plateau (China-Bhutan disputed border) both India and China indicated that they wanted to build peaceful relations by solving the bilateral disputes through persuasive negotiations instead of armed conflicts. By having unceasing tensions at its western border with Afghanistan (2430 Km. Durand Line), civil and political unrest in Pashtun and Bloch territories, Pakistan feels the need to ease the tensions with India and negotiate the disputes. It is because the fact that CPEC is passing through the disputed territory of former State of Jammu Kashmir (Gilgit Baltistan), Pakistan does not want to emphasize on her long stand for plebiscite under United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan’s (UNCIPs) resolutions. It is because of the fears, if, the outcomes of proposed plebiscite go against the perceived results by Pakistani authorities or any other developments by inviting the United Nations to the territory.

Therefore, diplomatic and policymaking institutions at Islamabad came to the conclusion to sit on the negotiating table with India and solve the issues in accordance with Shimla agreement of 1972. Question then arises why Pakistan was reluctant to declare GB as her 5th province instead of introducing “Order 2018”? Apparent response from Islamabad is that due to its disputed nature for being part of former State of Jammu Kashmir, it could not do so. But the reality is quite different. After the 18th amendment passed by Zardari government all the federating units (provinces) got internal autonomy and if GB would be given the Provincial status, it would have been internally autonomous i.e. it would control all the economic and administrative institutions and would claim royalties for water, electricity, minerals and also control the revenues and taxation. In that scenario Islamabad would become crippled in collecting the benefits of CPEC passing through GB and it would also lose control on Bhasha Dam and other hydro projects’ ownership. Secondly and more importantly, the population of GB is hardly 2 million. If, in case, Pakistan would have given provincial status to GB (only 2 million population), it would have created a frenzy among the people of FATA, Southern Punjab, Potohar region and Karachi for the demand of separate provinces. Thus by issuing Order 2018, Islamabad, has played two folded game both internally and externally. As GB, according to Order 2018 would be under Federal government, thus all the economic benefits and administrative powers would rest with Islamabad instead of GB government and GB government would be firmly controlled from Islamabad and virtually GB would be a de-facto province too.

On the other hand, in this emerging prospect, China has got some sort of relief on her investment, because it has not to be worried about negotiating with GB, instead all the matters would be handled through Islamabad. In case of Azad Jammu Kashmir, Islamabad simultaneously introduced a new document by amending Interim Act of 1974. The legislative, monetary and administrative status of Kashmir Council is tumbled to advisory one by accumulating the real powers to PM office at Islamabad. By reinforcing section 7 of the Interim Act 1974 and adding an additional clause 7(2) Islamabad has practically back stabbed and constrained the freedom and independence movement in AJK for the reunification of entire State of Jammu Kashmir, while virtually disenchanting the local rulers at Muzaffarabad.

In October 2017, Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani categorically said that his country would join the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) only if Islamabad allows connectivity between India and Afghanistan. Mentioning sovereignty issue raised by India, Ghani also warned that if Afghanistan was not given transit access to Wagah and Attari for trade with India via Pakistan, then Kabul would also restrict Islamabad’s access to central Asia. Here if we look at the architect’s route of CPEC, that passes through GB, KPK and instead of going direct to Baluchistan (Gawader), it lengthens to Punjab passing through Lahore. Was the extension of CPEC route passing through Lahore (near Wagah) an already established indicator on behalf of Islamabad and Beijing that they would finally give an access to Delhi for joining the mega project of OBOR (One Belt One Road) reaching to more than 70 countries in the world through CPEC passing near Wagah (Indo-Pak International Border)? By looking at the chronicle history of events, the apparent answer is yes but visualizing it through the strategic microscope, the stance taken by powerful establishment against Nawaz Sharif, this matter needs some more details. Because, it was the stance of Nawaz Sharif to build friendly relationships with India, in order Pakistan wanted to grow and prosper.

India, on the other hand, was hopeful to negotiate the possibilities with the democratic government at Islamabad. In fact, back door or Track-II diplomacy between two nuclear rivals of South Asia also suggested the same. The vital deterrent was the powerful establishment at Islamabad that outstrips the legitimate powers of any elected government. Focusing at the centers of power and enmity at Islamabad, China apparently remained calm on the internal situation at Islamabad, but, diplomatically dealt with the establishment and persuaded it to negotiate with India through backdoor channels. Sudden appearance of Indian delegation on 23rd March parade at Islamabad and then at Shanghai Co-operation summit again at Islamabad in May 2018 was the result of the same backdoor diplomacy and China’s diplomatic muscles.

Now, that there is an interim government at Islamabad and it has limited powers to act as a neutral body for the transfers of powers to next elected government, if elections are to be held as announced. Mighty establishment has free hand during this interim period to negotiate the external affairs with any country including India. As a first step the ISPR (Inter Services Public Relations) on 29th May 2018 (soon after the announcement of interim PM) tweeted the first sign of establishment’s anticipated strategies that the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both the countries have agreed to implement the ceasefire agreement of 2003 on working boundary and LOC in Jammu Kashmir. India, on the other hand has realized that it failed time and again to achieve any results for peace building with Pakistan over the last 7 decades by negotiating with democratic representatives of Pakistan. Only when it negotiated with General Musharraf, there was a hazy ray of hope in the bilateral relations. Now, the political actors at Delhi are willing to avail the opportunity to deal with establishment at Islamabad and would possibly be taking the advantage of the small window created in the absence of democratically elected government at Islamabad. If, it is true, in next few months India would be given a green signal to join the CPEC via Wagah and in turn, India would definitely do so because it wanted a fair share to export her products to a wider international market using the affordable land route passing near her immediate borders. As a matter of fact, to validate this hypothesis, timing of “The Spy Chronicles: RAW, ISI and the Illusion of Peace” by A.S.Dulat and Asad Durani is a very important variable for the experts of Track-II diplomacy in bilateral negotiations and International affairs.

Apparently, OBOR is all about building massive stuff, mostly around transport and energy: roads, bridges, gas pipelines, ports, railways, and power plants but internal to this mega economic initiative are the political designs of the region. On May 15 Chinese president has indicated at Beijing by saying “We have no intention to form a small group detrimental to stability. What we hope to create is a big family of harmonious co-existence.” “Harmonious co-existence” in its core is a self-explanatory doctrine that needs no further explanation if we look at the political and strategic demography of the region.

On this political design and economic map of the region, only one important variable, the geo-strategic one, is missing as always and that is the leadership of Jammu Kashmir residing at Srinagar, Muzaffarabad and Gilgit. If there were a wise and unified leadership in Jammu Kashmir, considering the geo-political importance of their country in this mega economic voyage, they would have negotiated their prime concerns of basic human, civil, cultural and economic rights with the trio of China-India and Pakistan and would have used this opportunity as a “political economy”. The politically naive administrators at Muzaffarabad and Gilgit have shown their unskillfulness, inability and parasite nature by compromising on a small chunk of personal benefits with Islamabad. While, Srinagar government on the other hand would also be following the same suit if they are to be taken aboard by Delhi in coming future. Absence of collaboration between resistance movement in all the divided regions of Jammu Kashmir and Kashmiri diaspora creates vacuum for both India and Pakistan to discuss the issues bilaterally ignoring the primary party to the conflict. Proxies on both sides would be taken aboard and once again negotiating and solving the Jammu Kashmir conflict per wishes of citizens of former Jammu Kashmir State would be swept under the carpet of doubted political history of two nuclear giants of South Asia. This colossal error and political dishonesty on behalf of so called leadership of Jammu Kashmir would, once again politically impel the entire State of Jammu Kashmir in protracted situation where wishes for lasting peace associated with human freedoms and political independence would be dishonored and another generation of proxies would be in making to safeguard the economic and strategic interests of India and Pakistan at the cost of 20 million citizens of Jammu Kashmir.

(Nayyar N Khan is a US-based political analyst, peace and human rights activist and a free-lance journalist of Kashmiri origin. His area of concentration is International Peace and Conflict Resolution. He can be reached at globalpeace2002@hotmail.com)