Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Kashmir and ICC (JR 206)





Kashmir and ICC (JR 206)
1.       ICC: ICC The Kashmiri Diaspora or just like Ghana and Argentina and all together 56 countries have gone to ICC on the  Rohingya issue. Either option would work
2.       Kurile Dispute and its relevance to Kashmir: The Second World War left behind many problems inherited from history, not least in Asia in respect of multiple disputed territories. One of them concerns four islands in the Kurile chain that are claimed by Japan but occupied by Russia as successor state of the Soviet Union. Despite the passage of over 70 years, this dispute has defied solution and prevented the conclusion of a Russo-Japanese peace treaty to draw a final curtain over the detritus of the war. The Kuriles are an archipelago of some 56 islands spanning about 1,800 km from Japan’s Hokkaido to Russia’s Kamchatka. All of them are under Russian jurisdiction but Japan claims the two large southernmost islands, Etorofu and Kunashiri, and two others, Shikotan and Habomai, as its ‘northern territories’. These islands were occupied by the Soviet Union in August 1945, after which the entire Japanese population, numbering less than 20,000, was evicted. The islands are now populated by the various ethnic groups of the former Soviet Union, but only eight of them are actually inhabited. Mr. Abe’s wish to engage with Russia stems from the rapid rise of China, which spends three times more on defence than Japan, and the perceived threat from North Korea, which recently fired two ballistic missiles over Japan as a taunt to the U.S. Russia is now seen in Japan as the lesser enemy, and improving relations with Moscow might drive a wedge in the growing quasi-alliance between Russia and China, a break-up desired by the U.S.-led Western alliance. Tokyo notes that the Russian far east is endowed with plentiful natural resources which are in need of investments, but is hampered by a small population, whereas China has 100 million citizens along that shared land border. Japan has no territorial or demographic ambitions in Russia other than the Kuriles, and has the capacity to transform the vast contiguous areas of Russia. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that both Japan and Russia see merit in pursuing greater collaboration  At Vladivostok last September, Mr. Abe declared that Japan-Russia relations held “unlimited potential” and that the absence of a peace treaty was “an abnormal state of affairs”. Mr. Putin agreed, noting that the Russian and Japanese militaries had cooperated for the first time, and urged the immediate conclusion of a peace treaty without preconditions. Japan demurred on the grounds that the Kurile islands dispute had to be settled first before the issue was foreclosed. Nonetheless, Mr. Abe stated that “Japan-Russia relations are advancing at a degree never seen before.” The interactions between Japan and Russia probably hold scant interest for the Indian public. Nevertheless, although no two international problems are analogous, there are important lessons to be drawn from the manner in which traditionally hostile neighbours can identify common interests and explore unorthodox avenues along which to proceed in search of innovative solutions to apparently insoluble disputes. This requires strong leadership and a bold imagination. Neither India nor Pakistan lacks either attribute. Kashmir is essentially a territorial dispute of almost equal vintage as the Kuriles. But if both sides keep waiting for the most propitious time to make the first move, it will never come about.
3.      ICJ on right of self determination (Chagos): Mar, 4, 2019: The International Court of Justice has given a near-unanimous opinion that the separation in 1965 of the Chagos archipelago from the then British colony of Mauritius was contrary to the right of self determination, and that accordingly the de-colonization of Mauritius by the United Kingdom had not been in accordance with international law. The ICJ held that Britain’s continued administration of the archipelago was an internationally wrongful act, which should cease as soon as possible. The Chagos Archipelago consists of a number of islands and atolls in the Indian Ocean. The largest island is Diego Garcia, which accounts for more than half of the archipelago’s total land area. Mauritius is located about 2,200 km south-west of the Chagos archipelago. Between 1814 and 1965, the Chagos archipelago was administered by the United Kingdom as a dependency of the colony of Mauritius. In 1964, there were discussions between America and Britain regarding the use by the United States of certain British-owned islands in the Indian Ocean, in particular in establishing an American base on Diego Garcia. It was agreed that the United Kingdom would be responsible for acquiring land, resettling the population and providing compensation at its expense; and that Britain would assess the feasibility of the transfer of the administration of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius.  The ICJ reviewed the various UK and ECHR cases brought by Chagossians seeking the right to return to the archipelago, and noted that:: To date, the Chagossians remain dispersed in several countries, including the United Kingdom, Mauritius and Seychelles. By virtue of United Kingdom law and judicial decisions of that country, they are not allowed to return to the Chagos Archipelago. The first substantive issue was to what extent was there a customary right in international law to self-determination in 1965-8. The ICJ noted the obligation (under Chapter XI of the UN Charter) for UN Member States administering territories with peoples without full self-government to develop the self-government of those peoples. The ICJ held that it followed that: the legal rĂ©gime of non-self-governing territories, as set out in Chapter XI of the Charter, was based on the progressive development of their institutions so as to lead the populations concerned to exercise their right to self-determination. The adoption of UN resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, which affirmed that “[a]ll peoples have the right to self-determination” represented “a defining moment in the consolidation of State practice on decolonization “the General Assembly has a long and consistent record in seeking to bring colonialism to an end” rather than being about a resolution of a territorial dispute between two states. This evaded the inevitable consequence of its finding that decolonization process concerned was illegal, meaning that either the UK has no sovereignty over the archipelago, or it does have sovereignty but is obliged to hand over sovereignty to Mauritius. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) clarifies the content and scope of the right to self-determination. The Court notes that the decolonization process accelerated in 1960, with 18 countries, including 17 in Africa, gaining independence. During the 1960s, the peoples of an additional 28 non-self-governing-territories exercised their right to self-determination and achieved independence. There was a “clear relationship between resolution 1514 (XV) and the process of decolonization following its adoption.” Accordingly, resolution 1514 (XV) indicated that self determination was a customary norm in international law.The ICJ went on to hold that both State practice and opinio juris at the relevant time confirm the customary law character of the right to territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory as a corollary of the right to self-determination. It therefore followed that any detachment by the administering Power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.The second issue was whether the detachment of the Chagos archipelago had been done in accordance with international law. The ICJ held that at the time of its detachment from Mauritius in 1965, the Chagos Archipelago was clearly an integral part of that non-self-governing territory. The ICJ considered the background to the agreement of the Mauritius Council of Ministers in 1965 to that detachment and held that it is not possible to talk of an international agreement, when one of the parties to it, Mauritius, which is said to have ceded the territory to the United Kingdom, was under the authority of the latter. So heightened scrutiny should be given to the issue of consent in a situation where a part of a non-self-governing territory is separated to create a new colony. The Court considered that this detachment was not based on the free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned.Hence, the United Kingdom was obliged under international law as at 1965 to respect the territorial integrity of its colonies, and accordingly, as a result of the Chagos Archipelago’s unlawful detachment and its incorporation into a new colony, known as the BIOT, the process of decolonization of Mauritius was not lawfully completed when Mauritius acceded to independence in 1968. With respect to the third substantive issue, the ICJ in short order held that The Court having found that the decolonization of Mauritius was not conducted in a manner consistent with the right of peoples to self-determination, it follows that the United Kingdom’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelago constitutes a wrongful act entailing the international responsibility of that State… Accordingly, the United Kingdom is under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible, thereby enabling Mauritius to complete the decolonization of its territory in a manner consistent with the right of peoples to self-determination. This has implications for Indian Occupied Kashmir .Wonder if Pakistan will take up this issue

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Are Indian Nukes in Unsafe Hands? By Sajjad Shaukat (JR202S69


Are Indian Nukes in Unsafe Hands? By Sajjad Shaukat (JR202S69
                                              
In the recent years, various conferences and seminars have been held regarding the security of nuclear weapons and radioactive materials, as the participant countries were worried that terrorist outfits like the Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS and ISIL) may get these fatal weapons and can use against a state actor or any country to create misunderstanding, which may culminate into an atomic war.

In this regard, the US former President Barack Obama had hosted the fourth Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on March 31, 2016 to check the spread of nuclear weapons, showing concerns about the ambitions of terrorist groups such as the ISIS in acquiring a nuclear weapon or radioactive materials.

In this respect, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is organizing the third International Conference on Nuclear Security: Sustaining and Strengthening Efforts (ICONS 2020) at its headquarters in Vienna, Austria, from 10 to 14 February 2020. The previous conference, held in 2016, attracted over 2000 participants, including 47 government ministers, from 139 Member States and 29 intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The conference provides a forum to formulate and exchange views for nuclear security.

It is notable that in its report, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) disclosed on June 18, 2018 that estimated 110-130 Indian nuclear bombs are stored in six or so government–run sites across India. Within the next five years to one decade, as many as 60 reactors will also be functional in India with the active cooperation of the US led Western and far eastern allies.

In the past, several incidents of leakage and theft in addition to alarming episodes of lax security on existing nuclear sites in view of a history of civil tumult have occurred in India. India is notorious for highly lax security of its nuclear facilities. The episode of October 8, 2014 at Kalpakkam, when a soldier of Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) responsible for protecting nuclear materials, went on a rampage to destroy the security of the facility leading to nuclear material theft by criminals.

Indian media reported on July 5, last year that the Kolkata police have arrested five men with 1 kg of uranium valued at around Rs. 3 crores ($440,000).

The Times of India elaborated that the men had come to Kolkata in the state of West Bengal to try to sell the substance. Police were quoted as saying that two packets of a “yellow-coloured substance” were seized.

By pursuing the double standards of America and some Western countries in its worst form, the US President Donald Trump has favoured India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Trump has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi led by the ruling extremist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan agenda.
While, Indian past record proves various kinds of security and safety lapses regarding various nuclear plants and the related sensitive materials, including events of leakage, nuclear theft, smuggling and killing.

In November, 2009, more than 90 Indian workers suffered radiation due to contamination of drinking water at the Kaiga Atomic Power Station in Karnataka.

On July 27, 1991, a similar event occurred at the heavy water plant run by the Department of Atomic Energy at Rawatbhata in Rajasthan. Nuclear radiation had affected and injured many laborers there.

In July 1998, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) seized eight Kg. of nuclear material from three engineers in Chennai, which was stolen from an atomic research center.

On November 7, 2000, IAEA disclosed that Indian police had seized 57 pounds of uranium and arrested two men for illicit trafficking of radioactive material. IAEA had revealed that Indian civil nuclear facilities were vulnerable to thefts.

On January 26, 2003, CNN pointed out that Indian company, NEC Engineers Private Ltd. shipped 10 consignments to Iraq, containing highly sensitive equipments entailing titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps.

In December 2006, a container packed with radioactive material had been stolen from an Indian fortified research atomic facility near Mumbai.

In June 2009, India’s nuclear scientist, Lokanathan Mahalingam missed from the scenario and after a couple of days; his dead body was recovered from the Kali River. Indian police concocted a story that Mahalingam had committed suicide by jumping into the river. It is a big joke to hide some real facts behind his death because wisdom proves that if an educated person decides to commit suicide, he will definitely adopt a soft way to eliminate his life. Afterwards, Dr. Haleema Saadia said that death of the scientist was a conspiracy.

However, such events in connection with nuclear material continued unabated in India, putting the security of atomic weapons and their related components, including the lives of workers at high risk.

In this context, the more dangerous development is that in the start of November, 2019, international media pointed out cyber-attack on an India nuclear power plan.

In this connection, The Washington Post wrote on November 4, 2019: “The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) has now confirmed that there was a cyberattack on the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) in Tamil Nadu, India, in September. The nuclear power plant’s administrative network was breached in the attack…KKNPP plant officials had initially denied  suffering an attack…The KKNPP is the biggest nuclear power plant in India…VirusTotal, a virus scanning website owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has indicated  that a large amount of data from the KKNPP’s administrative network has been stolen. If this is true, subsequent attacks on the nuclear power plant could target its critical systems more effectively. Cyberattacks on nuclear power plants could have physical effects, especially if the network that runs the machines and software controlling the nuclear reactor are compromised. This can be used to facilitate sabotage, theft of nuclear materials, or—in the worst-case scenario—a reactor meltdown. In a densely populated country like India, any radiation release from a nuclear facility would be a major disaster”.

Nevertheless, it has raised serious questions and worries—hacking of India’s nuclear information and its repercussions for the world?—sensitive information now available to hackers in black market— is the world safe?—sitting on the edge of catastrophe—IAEA must look into command and control system of India, recommending an action against New Delhi.

It is noteworthy that during his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010. President Obama announced the measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes. Despite, Indian violations of various international agreements and its refusal to sign Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and Additional Protocol with the IAEA, Washington signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During American President Obama’s second visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

Notably, America is a potential military supplier to India. US also pressurized IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to grant a waiver to New Delhi for obtaining civil nuclear trade on larger scale.

Although these atomic weapons or radioactive materials seem to be mysterious, yet still could be within the reach of some Hindu terrorists with the help of Indian RAW which might have also got these destructive arms from Israeli Mossad.

Sources suggest that with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, weapons of mass destruction or nuclear weapons and their components are easier to acquire. The fears are widespread that unemployed Russian scientists might have provided expertise material about these devices to some sovereign and non-sovereign entities. Hindu terrorists could also get these destructive weapons from Israel as strong Indo-Israeli lobbies are collectively working particularly in the US against the interests of Muslims by manipulating the war against terrorism. Such chemical and radiological materials could also be smuggled inside India by the Hindu fanatics. And they can also buy nuclear devices covertly from the global black market.

Frustrated in isolating Islamabad, RAW in connivance with Mossad might have also prepared a most dangerous plan to use nuclear weapons or dirty nuclear bombs inside the US homeland or any major European country to implicate Pakistan for having allegedly used these weapons through some Taliban militants.

Particularly, RAW and Mossad may also employ these fatal weapons against NATO forces in Afghanistan, as India and Israel want to prolong the stay of the US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan which has become the center of their covert activities against Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran. Terrorists of the ISIS which are strategic assets of the CIA may be used by RAW and Mossad for employment of these unconventional weapons. While, India, Israel and America are also playing double game against one another, hence, by utilizing the vicious circle of terrorism, New Delhi can alone use these weapons through Afghanistan-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and ISIS which are also being backed by RAW, CIA and Mossad, and have claimed responsibility for several terror assaults inside Pakistan and Afghanistan, including the recent ones. So, RAW’s sole aim will be to provoke Americans and its allies against Islamabad which is challenging Indian hegemony in the region. Thus, RAW could create a dangerous misunderstanding in which US could use small nuclear weapons against Pakistan or could ask the latter of rollback its atomic programme.

At present, almost 100 have been passed. Indian forces have continued military clampdown in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK). On August 5, 2019, New Delhi unilaterally annexed the IOK, revoking articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution which gave a special status to Kashmir. While, Indian extremist rulers are also escalating tensions with Pakistan to divert attention from the drastic situation of the Indian Held Kashmir, and without bothering for anomic war, their forces have continued shelling inside Pakistani side of Kashmir by violating the ceasefire agreement in relation to the Line of Control (LoC).

As regards Modi’s victory in the elections 2019, analysts opined, “Modi’s election win is a victory for far right Hindu nationalism…India’s secular democracy is under threat…BJP’s record in 2015-2019 has been divisive to say the least. The party has marginalised religious minorities, especially Muslims, from public life with many; as a result, being lynched by Hindu nationalists in the name of cow protection…Jingoism and Islamophobia have propelled the BJP to an even stronger showing than in 2014. A Modi victory puts India’s 200 million Muslims in danger…Modi is part of the large Hindu supremacist family…In his home state of Odisha, he furthered India’s sectarian divide, pushed the idea of Hindu supremacy and with that, violence against Muslims, Christians and other minorities…Modi is radicalising Muslims.”

Undoubtedly, we can conclude that Indian insecure nuclear programme is threatening regional and global peace. Therefore, world’s various forums such as EU, UNO and especially IAEA should take cognizance of New Delhi in this regard.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com