LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Spring 2008

by Emma Nicholson

Last May, 522 members of the European Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of the resolution “Kashmir: present situation and future prospects". For the first time, the Parliament adopted a full-length resolution on Kashmir which became a touchstone for future policy of the European Union; it will guide the Parliament's and the Union’s overall approach to the region and its problems. For nearly 60 years, Jammu and Kashmir was a region of conflict and a play-thing for regional powers such as China, India and Pakistan. The dispute claimed more than 80,000 lives. While travelling in the region as parliamentary rapporteur for Kashmir, I gained invaluable insights into the political, economic and social conditions of one of the world’s most troubled flashpoints.

One of the strengths of the European Parliament is its ability to produce resolutions based on reports that have been informed by intense observation and analysis, and - even more important − on consensus between political groups. However, the Parliament is also open to lobbying organisations who try to influence the political position and voting behaviour of members. While lobbying is not new, some of the tactics now being employed are startling. One particular organisation has taken out a series of advertisements in Europe's World attacking the Parliament's resolution and my work as rapporteur. On numerous occasions the organisation claimed that the original Draft Report and the resulting Foreign Affairs Committee Report were biased and flawed. On the contrary, the report was strengthened in all its core features when put to the final vote. It was a huge success for all Kashmiris fighting for democracy, human rights and freedom from oppression on both sides of the Line of Control.

This organisation claims to represent Kashmir as a whole, and to lobby for the interests of all Kashmiris in Europe. In reality, of course, Jammu and Kashmir, as well as Gilgit and Baltistan, contain disparate political entities and geographic regions, with numerous groups holding different positions and fighting for diverse political rights; all of them have a right to be heard. For any one organisation to lay claim to absolute authority and knowledge of Kashmir is, therefore, surprising. In fact, this organisation revealed itself to be a political proxy of the Pakistani government in Brussels when it attempted to erase any criticism of the human rights situation in the Pakistani-controlled regions of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit and Baltistan.


The methods of this organisation, especially the way it tried to pressurise British and other MEPs, raises questions over the self-regulation of lobby groups. Is it acceptable that people can walk into the Parliament and harass MEPs to vote in favour of the official position of a foreign government? Most members quickly saw through this organisation; hardly any chose to adopt the views of a military ruler who has been widely criticised for his record on human rights and democracy. President Pervez Musharraf’s latest attempts to save himself by imposing emergency rule in Pakistan will not have made these MEPs regret their decisions.

For the European Parliament, the struggle over the Kashmir resolution highlights the need to rethink its policy on lobbying organisations. Self-regulation is not functioning adequately; indiscriminate access for any lobby group - particularly to the offices of members - needs to be re-examined. Only then can we be confident that MEPs really are hearing the voices of those who most need to be heard.