Letter: Conflict in Kashmir
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In your leader, "The UN may be the only hope for peace in Kashmir" (29 May), you argue that it is right for powerful states such as the US and the UK to undertake enforcement operations without Security Council authorisation as long as their cause is just. To international humanitarian organisations like Save the Children, this represents a dangerous position.
If the UK and the US are prepared to go to the UN when they are assured of its support (as you say they should do in Kashmir), but ignore it when they risk incurring a veto (as you say they were right to do in Kosovo), then both their own moral authority and that of the UN itself will be undermined - perhaps fatally.
The UN is more than a political body; it is also the custodian of human rights. We cannot have it both ways: either we are ready to accept the rules laid out in the UN Charter, or we might as well forget altogether the idea of an "international community" that takes action to protect human rights in accordance with a universally endorsed set of principles.
If the Chinese or the Russians pursued a doctrine of "pragmatic and piecemeal intervention" outside the framework of international law, there would be protests - justified protests - in Washington and London. In the long term, double standards will make it impossible to secure human rights and will undermine international peace and security.
MIKE AARONSON
Director General
Save the Children Fund
London SE5
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments