Oslo, (KEA), 18 nov, 2010: The debate on Kashmir in Norwegian Parliament has landmark significance in Scandinavian and Nordic political scene. Kashmir European Alliance been putting on hectic efforts to bring up an effective lobby in Norwegian Parliament. Barrister Sultan Mahmood Choudry visited Norway twice in year 2010 and played vital role to bring the issue alive again in Norwegian Parliament.

The debate on Kashmir held on 16 November 2010 in Norwegian Parliament has an historic significance in western European political attitude towards long standing Kashmir dispute and alarming human rights violations in Indian Jammu & Kashmir.

Kashmir European Alliance expresses appreciation and gratitude over the role of Peter S Gitmark the member of Norwegian Parliament from Conservative party of Norway to bring the Kashmir issue alive in Norwegian Parliament.

The details of Kashmir debate held on 16 November 2010 in Norwegian parliament are as follows;

This debate has been translated from Norwegian to English through one of online net application, Lack of precision and ambiguity may encounter!

Debate No. 3 [11:55:41]

Interpellation from the representative Knut Harild Hareide Krf to the Foreign Minister:
"The conflict over control of Kashmir since 1989 has resulted in killings around 80 000-100 000. Local leaders in Kashmir have expressed that the conflict in the region can no longer be solved through bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, and they have urged the international community to play a more active role. More and more observers do relating the situation in Kashmir to Afghanistan. Many argue that it would be impossible to create stability in Afghanistan until we have resolved the Kashmir issue.
What is the Foreign Minister's assessment about the Norwegian and Nordic opportunities to contribute to the global community increasingly give priority to put pressure on the parties to find a solution to the conflict in Kashmir, and the extent to see the Foreign Minister of Norway's efforts in Afghanistan in the context of the work of a peaceful solution in Kashmir? "

Knut Harild Hareide Krf [11:56:53]:
Kashmir conflict is in many ways a forgotten conflict. The world's TV viewers and readers know that it exists, but cares little, and journalists are struggling to find new angles to the conflict.
However, it is a very important conflict. Without prejudice to the Kashmir conflict is resolved, there will be no peace between India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers. The two neighbors have fought two wars, a mini-wars and several near-wars over the area, and both are doing today claim area.
The importance of peace between India and Pakistan can hardly be overstated. Without peace, it will be difficult to remove the danger of war between India and Pakistan. Without peace to the suffering of the civilian population in Kashmir is likely to continue. And without peace, there will also be difficult to find a peaceful solution in Afghanistan.
Kashmir conflict is about something more than India and Pakistan. It's about cashmere parties, including probably a majority seeking independence or to become part of Pakistan. It's about their human rights, which constantly broken by militant groups, or - increasingly - by Indian security forces.
These representatives of the world's largest democracy are quick on the trigger and over eager to pounce on the slightest form of resistance in their struggle against militant supporters of Kashmiri independence. It is therefore particularly pleasing that there is a broad political commitment of the Parliament of Kashmir and to resolve conflict.
I have the pleasure to lead the political cross-Kashmir Committee in Parliament, with participation from all parties. With the lead, I Snorre Valen of the Socialist Left Party, which is a clear expression of the broad support the Kashmir Committee.
The committee is a task to increase knowledge about Kashmir in the Norwegian political environment and be an advocate for a just and lasting solution to the conflict in Kashmir. Norway must actively contribute to the international community does what it can do to resolve the conflict. Therefore, I look forward to this discussion in Parliament. I hope the debate can focus on what we can do now.
Let me reiterate my core message:
"The conflict over control of Kashmir since 1989 has resulted in 80 000-100 000 people have died. Local leaders in Kashmir have expressed that the conflict in the region can no longer be solved through bilateral talks between India and Pakistan, and they have urged the international community to play a more active role. More and more observers also point to the relationship between the situation in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Many argue that it would be impossible to create stability in Afghanistan until we have resolved the question of Kashmir's future. "
My question is thus what the foreign minister's assessment of the conflict, and the Norwegian and Nordic opportunities to contribute to a solution.
I want to emphasize our point. We know the UN resolutions on Kashmir in 1948, and the importance they put in to end armed conflicts and instead have settled the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir through a free referendum. The UN emphasized from the outset that a continuation of the conflict could threaten international peace and security.
We put this to the ground and apologize that this recipe from the UN peace is not followed up in such a way that the conflict is now resolved. I would like to see a more active role by the UN in this effort forward. But we also believe that the great powers - and other countries - can make a positive addition to supporting UN efforts.
A few days ago, the U.S. president, Obama, on an official visit to India. It tied a lot of excitement to whether he would create a movement in the Kashmir process. From what is publicly known, it does not seem as if the U.S. took the initiative to do so. A clear desire from the parties could have made this possible, but such a situation existed, unfortunately not.
We believe it is in both India's and Pakistan's interest to resolve the Kashmir conflict. It will strengthen these countries' opportunities to resolve other major challenges they face. For India - which has ambitions to become a member of the UN Security Council - the solution of the Kashmir conflict be a great advantage. India is the world's largest democracy and will get credit for a solution that opens the borders and ensuring the human rights of the Kashmiri people. For Pakistan - which has major challenges internally and in the large border area with Afghanistan - the solution of the Kashmir conflict mean that the country is in much better able to put the resources on economic and social development that benefit the Pakistani public and promote political stability and increased security in boundary with Afghanistan.
Also for the international community, it is important to resolve the Kashmir conflict. Not least it can provide better conditions for unified efforts in the fight against terror. Former President Bill Clinton once called the Kashmir conflict for the world's deadliest conflict. He did so with good reason. Millions of people in Kashmir are suffering because of the unresolved conflict. Many are dead. Life is ever lost. We must show solidarity with Kashmiri people.
The unresolved conflict threatens peace in the region. Both India and Pakistan are major countries with significant military capacity. The risk is especially great because the outbreak of another war in the worst case, can trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the unresolved conflict a brake in efforts to combat terrorism.
Kashmir conflict is a very sensitive topic both in India and Pakistan. Kashmir was never an integral part of India, said the Indian author Arundhati Roy. This resulted, among other things that the opposition party Bharatiya Janata Party went so far as to claim that the author should be thrown in prison for sedition. The author's criticism was also on the Indian government's conduct in a state where over 100 people have died in anti-India protests only since June. This week India's interior minister said however that Roy is not going to be arrested, but only the claim itself is very telling story.
It is not enough to appeal to the United States and President Obama to take up the Kashmir conflict when he is in contact with Pakistan's and India's leaders. Other must identify what they can do. And it is our duty and our responsibility to ask ourselves what Norway and the Nordic countries can do.
I had last week meeting with Pakistan's new ambassador here in Norway. He pointed to Norway as a peace nation that has contributed very positively in many conflicts. What can Norway do in the Kashmir conflict to resolve it?
Finally I want to emphasize a point that can easily be forgotten. Kashmir conflict should not be attempted loosely over the heads of the people of Kashmir, without their participation. Also they must be involved in a process that will lead to a just and lasting peace settlement.
We condemn all violence, torture and terror that goes beyond the innocent people of Kashmir. We are impatient and we want to accelerate efforts to give them a better future. They have waited too long for a solution.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store [12:06:27]:
 I would first like to thank the representative Peter S Girmark for an interpellation about a topic that does not often arrive in the debate, but which nonetheless are crucial - for the people in and around Kashmir, to support here in Norway and for the complex and conflict-ridden region of Kashmir is a part. I would also like to commend the representative of a good, detailed questions, which also contained a lot of analysis, which I will join.
Kashmir has been the subject of conflict between India and Pakistan for more than 60 years and led to more wars, and, as the representative said, has been one of the most dangerous conflicts that the world has had to deal with in recent years. After some years with a greater degree of stability and positive development, the situation since last summer again deteriorated.
As the representative describes the violence has increased since June last year. In the period from June to September, more than 110 civilians killed in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir. Many of them were older.
I share interpellantens concern over this development. Also the Indian government regrets the situation. Norway considers that human rights standards to be followed by all countries, of course, also of India. Young people who throw stones should not be met by sharp shots. It is also worth recalling that we have equally high expectations that human rights be fully respected in Pakistan.
The background to this current situation is complex: Terror groups have for years been trained in Pakistani-controlled Kashmir. They have crossed the de facto border, called the control line, and carried out attacks in Indian-controlled Kashmir. This has at times occurred with the support of the Pakistani army.
India has built an extensive military presence in Indian-controlled Kashmir, and Pakistan a similar presence on their side of the border. There is great frustration among Kashmir's population over a political situation that seems to be stuck. It is also high unemployment in Kashmir, especially among youth. The new riots in the autumn is that these mainly occurred locally in Indian Kashmir.
Beyond the conflict that affects the people in the region, putting the Kashmir tension between nuclear powers India and Pakistan on the tip. It does, of course, conflict extra dangerous.
Norway is following the situation in Kashmir, not least through our embassies in New Delhi and Islamabad. We discuss the conflict in our conversations, both with governments and others in both countries, something I have done during my visit. The embassy in New Delhi has taken up the situation in Kashmir with the Indian authorities, both at central level and with state authorities. The Embassy participated in a joint Nordic delegation to Kashmir in April this year. As was discussed policy issues - including the conditions for human rights - both representatives of state authorities and the police.
In these conversations, we have urged both parties to seek to resolve the conflict by peaceful means and help to avoid new waves of violence, and that local residents' wishes and views should be given considerable weight in a future solution of the conflict. We believe such visits, which draws attention to the conflict and empowering local and central authorities. We have also emphasized that Pakistan and India must work to normalize the overall bilateral relationship, and develop contacts and cooperation between the two countries, regardless of the dispute over Kashmir's future. Increased cooperation between India and Pakistan will be beneficial for both countries' economic development and help to build confidence between them.
Although I fully share the concern for the situation in Kashmir, there are also some positive features: first, the cycle of violence now seems to have slowed. The Indian Prime Minister Singh has repeatedly made it clear that the only path to lasting peace and development in Kashmir is through dialogue. A delegation of representatives of all leading parties in the Indian parliament - including opposition parties - visited Kashmir in September this year. Indian authorities have presented a peace plan for eight points after this broad delegation trip. While not all parties in Kashmir are satisfied with the plan, it represents, in our opinion, an important step in the right direction, namely back to the dialogue track.
Release of detained youth who have participated in demonstrations and stone-throwing, is another step in the right direction. It is further established a negotiating team consisting of representatives of civil society. Some separatistgrupperingene do not want to talk with these representatives, but it is still too early to write off this new dialogue track.
Second, the negotiations between India and Pakistan at a senior level has started again. These began in 2004 but was shelved after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai in November 2008 - an estimate that was planned and executed from Pakistani territory, and as such are linked to groups that have operated out of Kashmir. These negotiations have over the years resulted in positive, confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan. We now hope that India and Pakistan seizes opportunities to use this negotiating track to move forward in efforts to resolve the outstanding border issues, which go beyond the Kashmir issue.
Thirdly, it appears that international human rights organizations can once again get to visit Kashmir after the area has been closed to these organizations for some time. The organization Human Rights Watch visited Kashmir with a delegation in August this year.
We should not underestimate the influence that Indian media. The situation in Kashmir will be reviewed daily, and all information helps to educate the public and the debates in this great democracy India on challenges and possible solutions.
So the sum of this is that we can only hope that the parties build on the positive developments which after all is to track, to create a lasting peace in Kashmir and a lasting peace between India and Pakistan. And if this was not the top, directly advertised, during Obama's visit, we are well aware that the U.S. administration has this high on their agenda in the dialogues respectively India and Pakistan.
I have previously spoken in this chamber is clear that the international community - including Norway - must do what we can to encourage positive developments in relations between India and Pakistan - and a final solution to the countries' conflict over the territory. At the same time that the countries themselves, India and Pakistan, who must take the necessary steps to resolve the conflict among themselves. A solution can not be imposed from outside. Pakistan and India have also agreed that a solution for the whole of Kashmir - on both sides of the border - would have found through bilateral negotiations, known as the Simla Agreement of 1972.
Today, there are considerable differences of opinion as to what should be the original Kashmir's future. Indian Kashmir has democracy and elections within the framework of the Indian state. The original Pakistani-controlled Kashmir is divided into three parts: first, the Gilgit-Baltistan, which is incorporated in Pakistan, then Azad Kashmir, who according to Pakistan is an independent Kashmir, and a third part, which Pakistan has ceded to China, Aksai Chin. At the same holds both Indian and Pakistani Kashmir separatist group seeking independence for a united Kashmir.
It appears from the Indian side held that their willingness to enter into negotiations with Pakistan is conditional on the country's determination to prevent Pakistani territory used to plan and carry out attacks against India. The negotiation process is therefore fragile. However, there are no alternatives to such negotiations, and the international community must support them fully. It also applies to the United Nations, the representative was right on.
At last: Interpellanten points out that many claim that "it will be impossible to create stability in Afghanistan until we have resolved the question of Kashmir's future."
It is obvious that the conflicts in the Middle East, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir have had, and have a mobilizing effect against certain groups in the Afghan conflict. We have seen that radical Islamists have fought in many of these conflicts. And we can also see traces of the conflicts from Kashmir lifted into the Afghan territory and actually be fought there as part of fighting also between India and Pakistan.
But that being said, I think we should be cautious about drawing the conclusion that peace in a region, or in one of these countries are directly dependent on the solution in another. A positive development in one or more of the aforementioned areas of conflict can certainly contribute to some extent to curb the conflict in other areas, but there is no control here. At the same time we can only wish peace in these areas and be sure that it will affect psychologically in a region that is characterized by many conflicts. But the causes are, as I have pointed out, many and complex. I also discussed the issue of Afghanistan and regional stability with my colleagues during my trip to the region earlier this year.
Until recently, about Norway's role: When it comes to negotiations, my experience in traveling in the region has been that I am of Pakistani representatives often urged that Norway should undertake a mediation role between Pakistan and India. The clear call to be as clearly met by a clear message to India that this is a bilateral issue. If one is to play such a role, whether you are qualified for it, it must be desired from both sides. I feel that India is very clear that it is the bilateral track, the bilateral political contact, which here must get results. However, Norway will be keen to contribute in that way we can, although there is no basis for any Norwegian involvement as a mediator or facilitator in this area. We are also in contact with the countries in the region, not least in relation to the U.S..

Knut Harild Hareide Krf [12:15:57]:
I want to thank Foreign Minister for a very good exposition, and especially the Foreign Minister concluded by saying that Norway should contribute in that way we can in this work. I think it is extremely important.
So I think it was a good exposition which also takes up some of the issues related to this, ma what significance the Kashmir conflict has urolegheitene we also see in other parts of this region. I think it's interesting, when we know about the focus and attention is Afghanistan, to see the lack of interest that this conflict.
I will also take up another point, for I noticed that the foreign minister used the word "parties". It's easy to say that it is the parties who must resolve in this conflict - and there lies the explanation Foreign Minister gave that Pakistan has shown a willingness to bring about a peaceful resolution. They have also, as Foreign Minister himself said, pointed out that Norway can play a role, while India points to the bilateral conflict. Then my question to the Foreign Minister, Lie there a particular responsibility on one party to come to the negotiating table and show greater willingness? When I think just in India.
So, as I also was in on Obama's visit. I am pleased that the U.S. administration will take this up, and it is possible that this matter was also high up the internal meetings. Obama also gave public expression that the United States would not take on Noka special role, but appealed to the parties themselves to make progress in this matter. I believe there is a need for a stronger international pressure, particularly against India, but also against Pakistan in order to achieve a peaceful solution.
I would like to point out that while time passes, it is also important that we can have a work along with - let's call it - a humanistic line. When I think out practical measures for improving the lives, security and human rights of those living in the area.
I believe that Norway must, as foreign minister says, do what we can. I believe that now is a special responsibility on India to come to a stronger bargaining solution to this conflict, and will challenge the foreign Minister precisely this: Lay it now has a particular responsibility on India in this conflict?

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store [12:19:21]:
I'm not here and now in a position to, nor willing, to point to India with a special responsibility. I want to use the wording that the parties, and I mean India and Pakistan - and I will also emphasize the importance of pull with the people of Kashmir - is responsible. One can, when you listen to the Indian representatives, have made a fairly systematic case that exposes India's challenge of terrorism, illegal units from the Pakistani area, which puts Indian security forces on large samples. You can also listen to the Pakistani representations that show a lack of progress towards clarified the status of Kashmir and violence by the security authorities. I think that pointing out that one of the parties has a particular responsibility, actually weakens our ability to push both parties.
I think that that is the way to go now, the two tracks. One is that what I interpret as a clear willingness by the Indian Prime Minister, namely, to continue the dialogue between India and Pakistan and make it into a broader and more binding, deeper political track should continue - hopefully without the interruptions that the terrorist attack Mumbai led to. It must not happen again. At the same time Pakistan must also demonstrate that in practice it does not stem from groups of Kashmiri areas, which in turn affects India. In other words: Both sides have a rich agenda to take hold of each side to create both confidence and progress.
So I think, as the representative says that it is important to have international attention on the issue, the UN, in a regional context and in relation to the U.S. - but also other actors in the region. This reminds me of Afghanistan, you do not get a solution to the specific conflict without the neighboring countries around with and build up under it. So, yes, the responsibility of the parties, but I do not think it will serve this development that Norway chose one of the parties and said that it had a special responsibility. They must succeed together that this question will come closer to a solution.

Svein Roald Hansen (Labor Party) [12:22:01]:
I would like to thank interpellanten to put the Kashmir conflict on Parliament's agenda. There is a conflict that affects the regional balance of power. There is a conflict a number of Norwegians with a background in the region follows with concern and interest.
There are two reasons for calling Kashmir an international commitment, both interpellanten and foreign minister have visited. One reason is the conflict itself. For nearly 60 years, Kashmir has been a conflict area, with three wars, a strong military presence and repeated friction and confrontation between India and Pakistan. The conflict is undermining basic human rights for the 10 million people who live there. There is abuse, many have lost their lives, and others have outright disappeared after being detained by armed groups. In addition, many humanitarian affected by conflict, instability has brought with it. A peaceful solution will lay the foundation for giving these people back their dignity.
The second reason is that the conflict will help to reinforce the conflicts in the region. Interpellanten As previously mentioned, instability in Kashmir contributes to instability in Afghanistan. There are both Indian and Pakistani presence in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is also an arena for conflict between the two countries. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokesman has explicitly claimed to have strong evidence that India uses Afghanistan against Pakistan's interests and to destabilize Pakistan. Indian government looks at its side a clear correlation between the repeated attacks on the Indian embassy in Kabul and Pakistani intelligence. There is also reason to question whether Pakistan doing enough to deal with the leeway they give the Taliban on Pakistani territory. The argument about a dangerous India makes it easy for Pakistan to argue why they should have better control over border crossings into Afghanistan.
It is obviously not the case that a solution in Kashmir or in Afghanistan will have an automatic effect on the conflict in Afghanistan, which also both interpellanten and Foreign Minister said. Until it is too complex conflicts. Mistrust between countries run deep. When the Foreign Affairs Committee last year in Geneva and had a breakfast meeting where, among others, the Pakistani ambassador was present and the subject was disarmament, said the Pakistani ambassador that India is now gearing up to wage war against Pakistan and China simultaneously. That says a lot about how deep the mistrust and distrust sticks. The conflicts contribute to mutually reinforce and complicate each other.
I think we all share the impatience to get to a peaceful solution for Kashmir. But I would emphasize, as well interpellanten and foreign minister did, the importance of a future solution must be rooted in order to have legitimacy. It is important for the sustainability of it. That means it will not be lucky for Kashmir's future if a third party assumes a self-appointed role without at the same time to ensure that this necessary foundation.
There are three parties that must be fixed at. It is the people of Kashmir in all its diversity - Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Christians - as well as the authorities in Pakistan and the government of India. Without these ties, an international pressure on the progress being without sustainability, and I think we should warn against. We have made some experiences on how demanding it is - yes, almost how impossible it is - for others to resolve conflicts for those concerned, without that it is anchored, and that the parties will. Therefore, I agree with the Foreign Minister that there is no alternative to talks and negotiations between India and Pakistan, and therefore we must encourage and support these calls. It is an important way to go. But the degree of success depends on a genuine willingness from both parties to get help to these talks and that the parties consider the assistance required, impartial and deliberate.
In parallel with encouraging calls, we can naturally contribute to ground level. We do this by providing support to international organizations such as ICRC and the International Crisis Group, who follows trends and report on violations of human rights, and by supporting the South Asia Free Media Association, which works for the open flow of information, so that you can contribute to increased mutual trust between the parties.
In sum, this small but important step in the right direction of a peaceful solution for Kashmir.
Tone Liljeroth (Progress Party) [1:42:20 p.m.]: I want to thank interpellanten to address an important topic.
Until 1947, today's Pakistan is a part of India, and India was a British colony. In relation to decolonization, it was decided that the area should be divided in two. The part where Muslims were in majority, was Pakistan, the Hindus got India.
Kashmir was given the choice to join either one or the other of the two new states. The largest area, called the Jammu and Kashmir, had mainly Muslim population, but was at this time ruled by a maharaja, who was a Hindu. When it became known that the Maharajah had aspirations to accede to India, riots broke out in the Muslim section of the population, and the Maharajah asked India for assistance. India intervened, which meant that the Muslim section of the population received support from the Pakistani, and there was war in 1948. UN negotiated a ceasefire agreement in 1949, and the area was divided into two - one Pakistani and one Indian-controlled part. UN observation force arrived Kashmir in January 1949 to monitor the ceasefire agreement. Observer Force is still there, and the two countries have fought since 1947 at least three wars on Kashmir.
The conflict in Kashmir and the various actors involved, constitutes a regional security complex where several of the world's great powers, like India, China, Pakistan and Iran meet. This means in other words, the conflict and the actors can not be seen in isolation from other conflicts where the same parties are involved. It makes it harder to arrive at a solution, but no less important, and since both Pakistan and India are nuclear powers.
India has officially stated that they consider Kashmir to be part of India, based on the Maharajah consent to accession to the country in 1947. India argues further that the Jammu and Kashmir has been granted considerable autonomy in the Indian Constitution, and that the area is a natural integral part of India. Pakistan claims that the Maharajah who ceded Kashmir to India in 1947, was a leader recognized by the people, and that Indian troops were in Kashmir before the ceasefire agreement was signed, which was a violation of this.
Pakistan believes that the people of the region themselves must choose the connection, and has on repeated occasions, accused India of human rights violations in Kashmir. When the Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, in October 2008 stated that the freedom fighters in Kashmir were terrorists, triggered this condemnation both within Pakistan and in Kashmir.
Both the Indian army, the Pakistani military, the militant separatists and various terrorist groups, according to international human rights organizations guilty of violations of fundamental human rights.
A study conducted by MSF in 2005 concluded that the risk for women in Kashmir were subjected to sexual violence, were higher than in any other part of the world. Those responsible for these atrocities should be held accountable for their misdeeds.
President Obama wrote in an article in the magazine Foreign Policy in July 2007:
"In Living With goodwill dialog Between Pakistan and India two workshops Toward resolving Their dispute over Kashmir."
Despite this, "said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Blake, in 2009 the U.S. had no intention of appointing a special envoy to the conflict, but that countries had to reach a solution bilaterally.
President Obama's recent visit to India confirms the strong ties between the two countries, but the United States has been and is also largely dependent on Pakistan for success in Afghanistan. Over the last ten years the U.S. has provided Pakistan with both military equipment and financial assistance to combat terrorist groups in the region. Pakistan using U.S. support and aid as a buffer against India, but this is a letter that is not shared by the United States. Pakistan uses military groups to pressure India to the negotiating table, while India uses terror as an argument not to negotiate.
India was until the millennium is not engaged in Afghanistan in particular. This changed around 2002, when the country began to develop hydropower along the Indus River, on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. India provides, along with Iran, including aid to Afghanistan. Pakistan is interested in the strategic depth and look at Afghanistan as a possible backroom to the conflict in Kashmir. The country is thus of great unrest in India's increased activity in Afghanistan. According to the Interior Ministry in 2008 India was the least bloody year for 20 years, with 89 fatalities from 1,413 fatalities in 2006. After a security fence was erected along the median line, the number of violent estimate decreased considerably, and the number of tourists in the area have increased since a bus line was established in 2005.
I'm gonna miss the entire post I had planned to hold here today, but it is undoubtedly true that the Progressive Party supports the Secretary of State Gahr Støre's view that this must be resolved primarily between the parties, namely between Pakistan and India.

Peter S Gitmark Conservative party of Norway[12:32:40]:
The author Ahmed Rashid writes in "Descent into Chaos" that ethnic, linguistic and regional nationalism has divided the country more. It is not a problem to be absolutely agree in. When you go back to 1947, it was to outsiders almost a matter of course, when you follow the ethnic and religious majority, that the area should be Pakistani. But as the representative Liljeroth cards accounted for, it ended up being Indian, thanks to such Maharajah who was Hindu, not to mention also that the Indian leader Nehru was from Kashmir.
Kashmir's civilian population is suffering. Residents lack basic rights. One sees a lack of security. One sees widespread human rights violations, and while India as a nation has 10 per cent economic growth, it is far too small and growing prosperity in Kashmir. When we take a historical perspective on the area and, related to the Afghan conflict, it was precisely the fear - the fear of Pakistan - to get an attack in the flank that made that supported the Taliban in Afghanistan to begin with.
India has more troops in Indian-controlled Kashmir, than that found by foreign soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. It puts things in perspective when it comes to the powder keg one here is talking about. When Perwez Musharraf went so heavily in the war on terror, not least in what was a war against the Taliban, there was also something that was not followed up on all levels of the Pakistani power unit, nor in the secret services of Pakistan.
For India he has invested 750 million dollars and promised an additional 450 million dollars to Hamid Karzai, who also is a strong Indian friend to the country and his government. India is Afghanistan's biggest trading partner, and Pakistan has been a move that has met with resistance, that India has opened consulates in both Jalalabad and Kandahar.
When one looks forward to the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul in July, a bomb attack that killed 41 people, said U.S. security service that they have evidence that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate was "Involved", as they say.
In an interview, Joe Klein did with President Obama, draws Obama reach out to the role he wants to play, and also see that the U.S. can play a role in the region. I mean it is time that the U.S. would and should play a role ii region. He said then - and now the release I get this from a literal reading - that the essence is that you look at the possibility of a special envoy, that appeals to Indians as an emerging economic superpower, and why then hold on to Kashmir, this way you do. Mon towards Pakistan argues that one does need to focus on its own northern areas where it is now disengaged control, and where this is the tribal areas, in reality, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other controls.
My approach is that the people must decide. Civilians are suffering because the situation is as it is. This is an area that is on par with Africa has been a ruler on a map, and the boundaries were as they were. It was chance that got prevail.
Few areas are as beautiful as Kashmir. Few areas have greater opportunities for growth and prosperity through tourism, but security must be applied. The parties themselves also need help. The help can be given by the United States.

Snorre Valen Serigstad (SV) [12:37:57]:
It is a very important representative interpellation Peter Gitmark promotes, and I am very happy that this conflict be room for debate in Parliament.
The conflict in Kashmir has a very long history. The stretching really more than 60 years back in time, and it involves three of the world's nuclear powers.
Norway also has a very long history of involvement in the situation in Kashmir. In fact it was so that the first peacekeeping efforts in the UN context was the posting of Norwegian officers in Kashmir to monitor the maintenance of the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Today held up the commitment of several groups and a separate group in Parliament, which interpellanten leader.
There is no reason to make light of the human rights situation in Kashmir. It is mainly what I want to talk about. None of the provinces of Kashmir is considered by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees as free. Committed serious human rights violations and the prospects for a solution to the conflict is challenging, although there are flashes of light in between. In Indian-controlled Kashmir, about 400 000 people internally displaced. Refugees passing the borders in both directions and tells, according to human rights organizations, a history of constant fear, hopelessness and extensive violence and threats of violence.
A survey conducted by MSF in 2005 shows that the representative Liljeroth was built on, that women in Kashmir are among the most affected by sexual violence in the world. 11.6 percent of respondents report having been victims of sexual violence. There are reports of numerous incidents where soldiers taking into people's homes and carrying out acts of violence and rape against civilians. The use of sexual violence in a conflict is at the absolute low point of means, and it must be possible to expect that sovereign states, and democratic states in particular, refrain from such actions and do what they can to prevent them and punish those responsible. So far it has not always been the case.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has previously criticized the civilian deaths and the lack of freedom of speech and freedom of political organization in Indian-controlled Kashmir.
I share the foreign minister's view that human rights violations must be condemned wherever they committed in the world, and by whom. All parties to a conflict have a responsibility to prevent human rights violations and violence. Here, all of Kashmir has a long way to go. It is unacceptable in silence to accept the structure of groups operating as an extended arm of a party's interests in a highly conflictual area. Nevertheless, I believe all also agree that it is incumbent democracies a special responsibility to adhere to basic freedoms and rights. That is what the term "democracy". The current situation is, in my view, little consistent with India's aspirations for permanent membership of UN Security Council, and will probably also be able to claim that there is an advantage to living the previous Security Council resolutions on the conflict.
So it goes without saying that a solution to the conflict is not in the violence. Then you have the strong feeling of hopelessness in the population fought. It requires a strengthening of property rights, freedom of expression and political rights for the citizens of Kashmir on all sides of the border. It is important that Norwegian representatives promotes this view in their meetings with representatives of national and regional governments in the region.
Secondly, assume a solution to the Kashmir conflict that residents will no longer be treated as, or perceive themselves as, chips and throw balls into a big political game. When needed not only an end to oppression and violence, but also that a negotiated solution between Pakistan and India also reflects people's own wishes. The civil groups in Kashmir should be part of the dialogue that leads to a fair and peaceful agreement, for it is the most important assumption - a negotiated solution that creates confidence in the Kashmiri population.
This population has experience little reason to trust the authorities and power apparatus. Such confidence building is just as time consuming and difficult to achieve a negotiated solution between Pakistan and India, and requires as much follow-up and work. Norway has relevant experience, and Norway may have a positive contribution, I think. It is in everyone's interest that a just peace is achieved in Kashmir, and until new decisions of the United Nations takes place, must be the starting point for all the previous Security Council resolutions must be followed.
Peter N. Myhre (Progress Party) [12:42:49]: Kashmir conflict is often referred to as the forgotten conflict. There is definitely no reason to forget about the Kashmir conflict. There are strong forces are involved, and it is therefore gratifying that the representative Hareide set this matter, this conflict, the Parliament's agenda.
We must remember that India and China and other countries in the region has nearly 3 billion inhabitants, ie 40 per cent of the world's population. It is the closest countries involved in this conflict.
We often say that India is the world's largest democracy. It is important that we do not use either the debate or our approach to this in any other way to take a stand for or against India or Pakistan. But we note that in addition to the world's largest democracy, we also find some of the world's largest dictatorship in this part of the world.
The situation in Kashmir, calling on the world's attention. Violence and abuse against civilians carried out in a scope that is completely unacceptable. It is therefore a major task facing the world community. Norway should engage - if necessary stronger internationally especially through UN agencies, so that the situation in the area can be followed more closely than today. On the way there will also be clarified if the international community can engage heavier towards India and Pakistan.
When it comes to key players, India and Pakistan, is it in the conflict zone Kashmir that a security fence that was erected some years ago along the dividing line, has led to a number of violent estimates have gone down. It has actually led to the number of tourists in the area have increased, especially after a bus route was created five years ago.
India and Pakistan, according to the Indian think tank Council of Research on International Economic Relations a bilateral trade potential equivalent to over 11 billion USD, while the present trade with Pakistan is only about 1.65 billion USD, ie one sixth of this. A study by two Norwegian researchers Eriksen and de Soysa in 2009 at NTNU, PRIO shows that economic freedom, such as eg measured in the annual index of Economic Freedom of the World, correlate strongly with better protection of human rights. More trade and economic relations between India and Pakistan can thus contribute to an improved relationship between the two countries, not least when it comes to these two countries compared to the Kashmir conflict. It can boil down to - as we know from many other conflicts in the world - that it is often the case that countries with a comprehensive economic cooperation has a much higher threshold to go into conflict with each other than those who isolate themselves.
Finally, I would just reiterate that the Progress Party is satisfied with the government and the foreign minister's way of approaching this problem, and he has our full support.

Akhtar Chaudhry (SV) [12:46:52]:
 How representative Peter S Gitmark rightly pointed out, it is commendable that there is now a group that has been called a committee, here in Parliament that works to increase knowledge about this dangerous conflict, as many of my colleagues have visited. It is also commendable that Peter S Gitmark today has gone into the matter in Parliament. It is part of this group's work, and that's commendable. It was discussed many good sides of the conflict, or bad pages, so to speak, but the conflict at all were brought into the hall, is good.
I'll try to take a couple of ¬-three moments about why the Norwegian parliament, government and not least, we as a society should make us better in this conflict and spend some more time on it.
Firstly, as many have visited, the human rights situation in Indian-controlled Kashmir, unfortunately, been unacceptable. Many international organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and several others, has criticized human rights violations. In particular, it has gone out of women. At one point it was up to 800 000 men under arms in Kashmir, and it was committed violations of human rights. Women were particularly vulnerable to it. They were directly affected by it. The sexual violence was too great, and in addition, very many men, husbands, sons and fathers killed. This meant that women had to take the burden. There are no well-functioning welfare state in Kashmir - in line with many other countries - and when her husband passes away, life becomes very difficult for these women and children.
So it is in both countries a lot of money that goes to the rearmament of the military and to the equipment. This money is needed in the welfare society in both countries, and especially in Kashmir.
As foreign minister visited, unemployment is very high. This can always be a full-scale conflict. There have been tendencies to, several times over the past 30-40 years. Therefore it is important that we spend time, increase knowledge and become familiar with this. I would say that the Kashmir group here in Parliament and other parliamentary representatives should perhaps go to Kashmir on both sides of the line, to learn about the conflict.
So many have been through this bit, about who is responsible for this, if we can interfere in it, or whether it is the parties themselves who must resolve. It is absolutely correct that the Foreign Minister also touched upon that in 1972, an agreement between Pakistan and India to resolve this together. But it has been 38 years since this agreement was signed. 100 000 lives are lost. Many women have been raped. Many children have been affected by the conflict. Mon unable to resolve the conflict between these two countries bilaterally. Then it is perhaps time that the international community says yes, here we do what we can, and that the pressure against these two countries increased to resolve the conflict. First and foremost, it is cashmere fighters who must be targeted here, those who suffer every day in these two countries. I believe that where we should do a bigger job.
So is there anything that I have visited and stated: Violations of human rights, no matter who commits it, it should be penalized. Pakistan must do his part of the job, so that the insurgents do not come. But it must also be understood that when at one point was 800 000 men under arms in Kashmir, one can not say that it was only to deal with a few hundred, maybe a few thousand insurgents from Pakistan. It had to be a growing, broad, local rebellion in Kashmir, who needed 700 000-800 000 men under arms. Someone should begin to understand that the Kashmiri people in Indian part of Kashmir are not satisfied with the situation.

Knut Harild Hareide Krf [12:52:02]:
I want to thank you for a very good debate, for many good post, yes I would actually say that I can set me back all the posts that are held in the course of this debate . It has so far also been good to experience something other than in debates about the toll, about something that may be a little more important in this courtroom.
The very setting of this conflict on the agenda, as many have described as the forgotten conflict, and see how important he is, I think this debate has done in a good way. I find that there is no one who does not say that this conflict must be resolved by the parties. But there is a need for a clearer international pressure to get it, I think is important.
I would like to draw out the Svein Roald Hansen in a so well brought out, it just apply to the third party and the people who live in Kashmir, that a solution which we want to be a peaceful solution must be built on their premises. They must be involved in this. They are the third party in this conflict.
I will also draw up what Peter Gitmark took up the U.S. role. It is subject to somewhat different signals from the U.S. administration, but I'm fully and completely agree with the Gitmark victory, that here the United States has opportunity to play a stronger role.
There is someone who has questioned what I put in "India's role." When I've wanted to repeat what I said, for I believe that it is important. It is important for both India and Pakistan that we have resolved the Kashmir conflict. For India, which has ambitions to become a member of the UN Security Council, will a solution of the Kashmir conflict be a great advantage. India is the world's largest democracy and the will get credit for a solution that opens the borders and ensure human rights of the Kashmiri people.
I also took up what the conflict means for the region as a whole, particularly related to the situation in Afghanistan. There is no doubt that a solution here will contribute positively, both because of the challenges we have with terrorism in the region, and because of that this area is a place where terrorism, unfortunately, grows today.
Also Norway's role has been taken up. I am therefore pleased that the Foreign Minister said: Norway should contribute in that way we can. I also understand that The study by the Foreign Minister had, that this is a conflict that the Norwegian foreign service follows closely.

Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store [12:55:11]:
Let me again thank interpellanten for having raised this question.
So I would ask a counter question, as a summary. Why in the world, Norwegian parliamentarians in peaceful Oslo, Norway in a peaceful, focused on this conflict up the mountainous areas in the region that we have talked about? Why do we spend time and commitment to it, put us into the conflict, engage in it? Yes, it is for the simple reason that it affects a large number of people that it's easy to get close to and - shall we say - with empathy. It builds on that we have a political understanding of this conflict's impact on a much wider conflict pattern in the region, and, in the latter sense, as parliament and government, we understand that the developments in Kashmir, indeed, may have implications for our own security in a world where so much hangs together. From the analysis we can lead back to that there is a commitment in Norway, among many Norwegians, in this chamber, again in separate groups and also in government, to do what Norway can to contribute to this conflict also comes in on the right track.
I think that much of the analysis here today has been good in the direction of the parties' responsibilities are emphasized, in the sense that we have an international right to focus on this. It follows up another debate, about whether there is interference in the internal affairs of other countries that engage in issues related to human rights, refugees, atrocities, the spread of unrest and terror. No, we can not look at it as interference in internal affairs. It's actually affairs of the region and the world as a whole.
I can say that we in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at our embassies in the relevant countries - they are more than two - but especially in India and Pakistan and through the various international fora in which we participate, will continue to focus on this conflict and have contact with Parliament on the follow-up.

President: Debate No. 3 is thus completed.