MediationTheUnited Nations defines mediation as a process “whereby a third party assists two or more parties, with their consent,to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict by helping them to develop mutuallyacceptable agreements” (peacemediation.de). Mediating actors can becategorized into four types: individuals (e.
g., former United States PresidentJimmy Carter), states (e.g., Sweden which has gained prestige in theinternational arena as an impartial mediator), international organizations andregional organizations (e.g.
, the United Nation and the Arab League) (Melin2013:79). These actors, when mediating, can make use of different approachesrelevant to the dispute since all disputes vary in terms of parties, intensity,and response and so forth (Bercovitch 1996:4). The motivation behind astate-led mediation can vary and could include one of the following options; 1)the desire to achieve a prestigious reputation as a bridge-builder (in case ofNorway and Sweden) 2) enhancing the state’s own national interests andexpanding influence 3) to reduce the impact of the conflict on one’s owncountry. Powerful states with much resources and prior mediating experience canprove to be effective in their mediator-role given that they can make use of theirmaterial capabilities through incentives and inducements (Melina 2013:86). Although,the approach of mediation differs according to the situation there are sixfactors that are crucial for the success of the mediation:UNResolutionWithregards to Jammu and Kashmir there have been mediation efforts from the UnitedNations in the early years of the dispute.
It was on 1st Jan 1948that the Kashmir dispute for the first time was brought to the attention of theSecurity Council by the Government of India referring to article 35 of the UNCharter which states following:Article 35: Any Member of the United Nations maybring any dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34, tothe attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly (legal.un.org) Article 34: The Security Council mayinvestigate any dispute, or any situation which might lead to internationalfriction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether thecontinuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger the maintenanceof international peace and security (legal.
un.org) The two countries agreedto the appointment of a UN Commission to mediate between them. The UN SecurityCouncil urged a cease-fire and a resolution was passed encouraging Pakistan towithdraw its forces from the State of Jammu and Kashmir and when this wasachieved the Indian Government would withdraw its forces as well leaving behindonly a necessary amount to maintain security in the area. The aim was to holdan internationally supervised plebiscite so that “the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made inaccordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic methodof a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the UnitedNations” (un.
org). The differenceshowever made it very difficult to achieve the demilitarisation. The discussionsand negotiations remained regarding when demilitarisation shall be completedand the size of forces that should be left due to security concerns. However, the possibility of solvingthe Kashmir dispute was reduced by the Cold War geo-political context at thetime. The rivalry and the self-interest of the two Security Council members,U.S. and Soviet Union, had implications on the voting’s on the Kashmir issue. Furthermore,U.
S. diplomacy efforts with Pakistan and military and economic assistance increasedIndia’s mistrust and insecurity towards Pakistan and the U.S as a mediator (Budania2001:95). UN’s mediator role in theKashmir dispute was very active in the beginning but continuous failures toimplement the resolutions made it difficult for them to continue. Perspectives:conflicting points of view· Pakistani perspectiveon the issue · Indian perspective onthe issue· Kashmiri perspective onthe issueEachparty, China, India and Pakistan, has its own position with regards to Kashmir.
However, in most debates the dispute remains to be a territorial one and theKashmiri perspective is often not considered or heard.