BALOCHISTAN & ICJ - Articulating the case and
educating the West
Guest Column by Nagesh Bhushan
The tone and tenor of a few Baloch
groups, particularly individuals who started heckling the
Khan of Kalat Mr. Mir Suleman Daud Khan and others over
their desire to take the Baloch case to the ICJ, is cynical
and ignorant of the long term benefits that this action
could fetch for the Baloch. The ground reality in the West
is very perplexing. People in America, for example, still
ask where Balochistan is--often they think it is a central
Asian country. Also, even less is known about the Baloch
people, who regard themselves as secular and have never used
religion in their struggle for freedom. Needless to mention,
in the West, Balochistan is synonymous with Al-Qaeda and
terrorism, thanks to the Pakistani administration’s
consistent efforts to blur the line between Al-Qaeda
terrorism and the uprising of the Baloch people in an effort
to win their rights.
Below content is compiled based on
the discussions in some popular Baloch egroups.
ANTI-ICJ: It's a waste of time and
diversion from the original objectives; this should not be
viewed as major development, instead as a small contribution
to baloch cause. It will take another 60 years to collect
that money for filing the case.
PRO-ICJ : First , this is a negative
attitude and counter productive . Those who do not help ,
should not bark on others who are doing something small or
big. The Jirga called by Khan of Kalat's was a big boost to
Baloch struggle. It has shut down the Government rhetoric
and Musharraf's propagand that Baloch struggle is only of
three sardars.
Second, it shows the world that Balochistan was illegally
and forcefully annexed to Pakistan.
Third ,it brought all the baloch tribes under one banner
and unify , which so called "baloch nationalist leaders"
have failed to do so and also to bring the Baloch masses
under on platform.
Fourth, the decision to take the case to ICJ is a big
slap on the face of Pakistan and its importance to
internationalize Baloch struggle on international level.
Taking the case to ICJ is either a big contribution or
small that is a different story, but it is not a bad idea .
While it may be possible that the
Baloch can achieve their goals without outside moral or
financial support, it is also possible that the Baloch will
find they want the support of the West. To win this support,
the case and logic behind the cause must be articulated and
the people of the West educated. While taking the Baloch
case through the courts, or simply expressing one's desire
to take it through the courts, may lead to nothing but
publicity, that publicity can be used to educate those whose
support they seek.
As hypocritical as it might be,
resistance or guerrilla groups do NOT generally win the
support of those who hold power in the West--unless those in
power can use the resistance for their own purposes, as they
did with the Afghan mujahids against Russia. The Che
Guevara’s or Zapatistas of the world who fight to correct
economic, political and social injustices threaten Western
power structures and those in power often try to marginalize
such movements by criticizing their efforts in the media.
The very bold move to shepherd this
case through the ICJ courts, however, will ultimately help
the Baloch control the media spin in the West to some
degree. Critics of this move should understand that the
opponent has a game plan. That game plan includes
characterizing the Baloch as terrorists. And given how badly
informed the West is about Baloch history and its people,
the opponent has to do little more than publicize the
videotape of Rigi beheading a person in the Willem Marx
documentary, for example, and Rigi will be seen as a
terrorist. And by association, so will the Baloch
resistance. Do not count on people in the West to take the
time to educate themselves.
Journalist Annie Nocenti who visited
Balochistan says "But the question is whether or not the ICJ
can give fair hearing to Balochistan, a tribal province
without clear sovereign status, now that Pakistan has become
a nation of international standing. Which is why it is
imperative that such a move is backed in the press. The
alternative, if an appeal to the ICJ fails, is likely to be
armed struggle."
In the end, while the big powers might
not support the Baloch cause (unless they can use it to
their advantage), there are plenty of activists who will,
and together activists can help sway public opinion, but
they need to know what they are supporting and why. The ICJ
is a very good international public venue for this
purpose--informing the West about Balochistan.
In the end, outside support cannot hurt
the cause so why not pursue it, too?
Rationale behind the Grand Jirga
A Grand Jirga (meeting of clan chiefs)
of Baloch tribals , convened last year after 136 years, by
present Khan of Kalat Mr. Mir Suleman Daud Khan was attended
by 95 tribal sardars and 300 other important "notables" .
They announced in a declaration that a case would be filed
in the ICJ --International Court of Justice for violation of
the accord signed by the state of Kalat and the government
of Pakistan in 1948. Soon after the event , Khan of Kalat
speaking to Journalist Annie Nocenti expressing
satisfaction for reciprocating his call by all Sardars and
notables, he said “Baloch was a nation and is a nation
“(thebaluch.com , Video) . Implying it is an endorsement
that baloch will present their case as “state of Kalat”,
though not a member of UN. However, article 34 of the
Statute of the ICJ, which is part of the Charter of the
United Nations, says: - "Only States may be parties in cases
before the Court". This author received a email from
Information department regarding this , reproduced below .
When this was raised with Dr.Wahid Baloch, President of
Baloch Society of North America, he said “I also got a
similar letter ...but speaking to lawyers who will be
handling the case they told me there are exceptions to our
case” . He further added "we are relying on our expert
lawyers and we will use every avenue to move forward with
our case”.
UN Article 93 (2) and Article 35 (2)
Article 93, Para 2, of the Charter of
UN which empowers the General Assembly to determine the
conditions on which a state not a member of UN , may become
a party to the Statute of the court .
Article 93 , Para 2 says: “A state
which is not a Member of the United Nations may become a
party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice
on conditions to be determined in each case by the General
Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
We wish to reproduce an excerpt of
"ANALYTICAL SUMMARY OF PRACTICE" of ARTICLE 93
During the discussion 8/ in the
Security Council and its Committee of Experts of the request
of Liechtenstein to learn the conditions upon which it could
become a party to the Statute of the Court, the objection
was raised that Liechtenstein was not a sovereign State,
since it had yielded important parts of its sovereignty to
Switzerland. The arguments set forth below were among those
adduced in support of that view, (l) Liechtenstein did not
conduct its foreign affairs independently, but did so only
through Switzerland. (2) Liechtenstein was a member of a
customs union with Switzerland, which meant that it was not
autonomous in the matter of customs.(3) Liechtenstein did
not have its own currency. (U) Liechtenstein did not have a
postal system, its postal affairs being handled by
Switzerland. (5) The administration of the telegraph system
of Liechtenstein was also in the hands of Switzerland.(6)
Liechtenstein did not have an army of its own. (?) The
League of Nations had refused to permit Liechtenstein to
become a party to the Statute of the Permanent Court of
International Justice.
The majority of the Committee of
Experts and of the Security Council, however, was of the
opinion 9/ that Liechtenstein was a State within the
meaning of Article 93 (2). The arguments set forth
"below were among those advanced in support of that opinion.
(l) Most writers and jurists considered Liechtenstein as a
State. (2) It had a
population, a Government and a
constitution. (3) The customs union treaty between
Liechtenstein and Switzerland did not affect the
independence of the former; the treaty stated that the
customs union was without prejudice to the sovereign right
of the Prince of Liechtenstein. (k) The fact that
Switzerland represented Liechtenstein in foreign countries
did not affect the sovereignty of the latter; there were
several undoubted States which relied on the diplomatic
service of other States.
The Security Council by a vote of
9 to none, with 2 abstentions, adopted the draft
resolution recommended for adoption by the Committee of
Experts and setting forth theconditions in question for
Liechtenstein Source:
The question whether an applicant was
a "state" withinthemeaning of Article 93 (2)
Further Article 35 (2) says "
A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may
bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the
General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it
accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the
obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present
Charter "
Therefore , it is appropriate for Khan
of Kalat to consider an attempt to make use of the court to
decide this point .In this regard if an attempt were to be
made by Baloch leaders they should decide which of the above
2 -- Article 35 (2) OR Article 93 (2) -- should be adopted
.
Baloch intellectuals should make use of
these available avenues without taking these emails
seriously. Pakistan may raise preliminary objections similar
to what Mrs.Laurence Blairon of Information Department
mentioned. However this matter will be decided by the
court.
Not to mention the Agreements signed by
Khan of Kalat --dated (11th April 1952) and (1st January
1955) will be void, as they were signed under duress. Only
Instrument of accession signed on 27th March 1948 will be
taken into consideration, as per my well informed source.
Therefore Baloch leaders should make an
attempt by presenting their case before ICJ .
Now, the legal team of Baloch, which is
preparing the case , baloch intellectuals face an uphill in
order to craft an effective strategy .
Annexure:
Secretary of the Court has sent the
following mail regarding this .
Dear Sir,
Today I read an article on your
website entitled "Balochistan case is ready to be filed at
International Court of Justice". As Head of the Information
Department of the International Court of Justice (ICJ),
which is mentioned in the article, I wish in this respect to
clarify matters.
The Court's activities are limited
to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States
submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory
opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized
agencies of the UN system.
Article 34 of the Statute of the
Court, which is part of the Charter of the United Nations,
provides: "Only States may be parties in cases before the
Court". At the moment, these are the 192 Member States of
the United Nations only.
It follows that neither the Court
nor its Members can consider applications from private
individuals or groups, provide them with legal advice or
assist them in their relations with the authorities of any
country.
I trust you will find this
information useful.
Yours faithfully,
Laurence Blairon (Mme | Mrs.)
Secrétaire de la Cour | Secretary of
the Court
Chef du département de l'information
| Head of the Information Department
Cour internationale de Justice |
International Court of Justice
Palais de la Paix | Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye | The Hague
Pays-Bas | The Netherlands
T: + 31 (0)70 302 23 36
F: + 31 (0)70 302 23 38
E: information@icj-cij.org
Site Internet | website:
www.icj-cij.org
(The author is an analyst
with many years of experience of study on the developments
in South Asia and also blogs at intellibriefs.com covering
Geopolitics, Security & Intelligence. The views expressed by
the author are his own. He can be reached at
intellibriefs@gmail.com)