Modi trying in Kashmir Israeli-style settlements

[M. Sarmad]

It may interest you to know that I have, indeed, read all the articles - since much of my research is on a similar, related subject - and the Americans on my doctoral committee will not tolerate any gaps in my knowledge. (Apologies if I sound patronizing, not my intention)

This is a summary of what all the experts say: UN resolutions come in many forms and for different purposes. By default they are non-binding. Some, on procedural aspects, rules governing UN business, taking notice of facts, constitution of fact-finding groups and admission of new members are binding.

UN resolutions cannot, logically be binding because the UN is not an adjudicatory body. The UN does not examine witnesses before issuing resolutions, there is no cross examination, no discovery, etc. - in short it is a political body, not an adjudicatory body.

If what you say is right and UN resolutions are binding, Pakistan would / should have filed a lawsuit in the ICJ decades ago. Think about that.

That doesn't answer my question, does it ?

You really believe that you know more about the charter of the ICJ than the (former) president of ICJ ??

 

[schoolboy]

That's why the UN never blamed Pakistan for halting the process, The UN appointed official mediator (and the English press), however, blamed India

Please name a single UN resolution on Kashmir that has 'blamed' India.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Please name a single UN resolution on Kashmir that has 'blamed' India.

I said that the UN appointed official mediator (i.e Sir Owen Dixon) blamed India for halting the process ... (Para 52, Document S/1971) ... (Also the English press blamed India, and even Nehru himself admitted it later)

 

[TheDarkKnight]

Oh my god a Pakistani guy talks about mass human rights violations? You're exactly like the "Palestinians"! explain to me why do you live in the UK, and not Pakistan?

$$$
And all Israelis live and work in Israel only?

He can't. Most of these ex-pats wouldn't fare too well in their country of birth. Nearly all would cheerfully swap their nationality to desperately get out of Pakistan yet are adept at working themselves into ...

Pakistanis dont swap nationalities... atleast when becomming citizens of countries like US, UK and Canada. Pakistanis are allowed to have dual citizenships. Although Indians lose their citizenship when accepting others; and FYI the biggest backlog in green card processing in US is because of Indians ... so that tells you how well you would fare in India and how desperately you would actually swap your citizenship.

 

[JOEY TRIBIANI]

Help them diplomatically as well as militarily .

 

[dray]

^^ And here comes another Indian troll ....

Several other Indian members and I also had long debates with you in multiple threads, refuting all these posts of yours with highlighted copies of that UN resolution and Simla agreement. When you lose a debate, you move to another thread with the same old discussion and same set of posts, maybe expecting a different result. I am not getting involved in it again, neither tagging others who had this debate with you previously, @schoolboy is doing a good job....you will always find someone destroying your lies & propaganda..too bad for you!

 

[Beny Karachun]

$$$
And all Israelis live and work in Israel only?

Not really, but that's not the point. Israelis that leave Israel only leave to get really high end jobs.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Several other Indian members and I also had long debate with you in multiple threads, refuting all these posts of yours with highlighted copies of that UN resolution and Simla agreement. When you lose a debate, you move to another thread with the same old discussion and same set of posts, maybe expecting a different result. I am not getting involved in it again, neither tagging others who had this debate with you previously, @schoolboy is doing a good job....you will always find someone destroying your lies & propaganda..too bad for you!

Grow up bhai, grow up .....

The best of your diplomats had failed to refute these arguments and convince the UN to accept the Indian position(Remember that 8 hours long speech by Menon which resulted in his collapse on the SC floor? but still a failure), and here you are trying to claim that Indian trolls like yourself have "refuted" Pakistani position multiple times ??

 

[schoolboy]

Pakistanis dont swap nationalities... atleast when becomming citizens of countries like US, UK and Canada. Pakistanis are allowed to have dual citizenships. Although Indians lose their citizenship when accepting others; and FYI the biggest backlog in green card processing in US is because of Indians ... so that tells you how well you would fare in India and how desperately you would actually swap your citizenship.

I see my original post still rankles you. Anyway my intention was only to draw attention to the ease with which ex-pats pass comments on matters of fact that they are not privy to. I am aware of the limited dual nationality permitted in Pakistan - though as a matter of opinion I find it rather discriminatory and I am not aware of any country other than Pakistan which permits such selective dual-nationality. Whether I am desperate for a green card or a US passport is irrelevant to the discussion - it is not me who is emotionally reacting to purported matters of fact without being in a position to verify.

Grow up bhai, grow up .....

The best of your diplomats had failed to refute these arguments and convince the UN to accept the Indian position, and here you are trying to claim that Indian trolls like have "refuted" have refuted Pakistani position multiple times ??

I did some searching on PDF and see you have a stock reply that you copy paste whenever anyone brings up the discussion of the resolution.

Anyway, like it or not, the only resolution that outlines a solution to the Kashmir dispute is the one I quoted - of 1948. Till today for whatever reason (and I don't wish to speculate) Pakistan has not complied with its obligation - which is to be done first. And if you believe you are right that the resolution is binding how come Pakistan has done nothing?

Of course, that belies the fact that the disputing parties have agreed via the Simla Agreement to resolve the issue bilaterally. And that is why Pakistan finds no international support for its claims that the UN must solve this (including from its all-weather ally.) And that is why the UN has dropped Kashmir from its list of disputes-under-UN-mandate watch in 2010.

Btw here's a good summary of the various conflicting legal views on the binding nature of UNSC resolutions. I urge you to read it in your spare time when you have cooled down a bit. As you will read, Higgins' view is one of many and the question is not as straight forward as you make it appear. Perhaps you will update your stock answer.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf

 

[Riz]

not support, Pakistan is providing unmitigated jihadi terrorism.
As to 'selling out', how do you feel about your military housing and catering to Osama bin laden right next to your military center in Abbottabad? you think that is not selling out but a charitable cause?
Or Hafees Saeed? or Dawood Ibrahim?

OBL not our man, American was aware of his location because they were his forefathers, we r not stupids hide him near to our military center and we r not stupids to send freedom fighters along with pak made bullets, biscuits and pak made dry fruits..lol what else you have proof about haifz saeed and dawood Ibrahim? Tsk tsk

 

[ghazi52]

 

[schoolboy]

Several other Indian members and I also had long debates with you in multiple threads, refuting all these posts of yours with highlighted copies of that UN resolution and Simla agreement. When you lose a debate, you move to another thread with the same old discussion and same set of posts, maybe expecting a different result. I am not getting involved in it again, neither tagging others who had this debate with you previously, @schoolboy is doing a good job....you will always find someone destroying your lies & propaganda..too bad for you!

The regrettable part is that if Pakistan was truly serious about a political solution its leadership would have presented some concrete proposal to India long before (such as the proposals given by Alex Salmond to the British PM re referendum on the Scotland issue). That would have actually put some diplomatic pressure on India to respond - and India, could not, indefinitely choose not to comment on such proposals. Or it could have filed a lawsuit in the ICJ or asked the UN to pass more resolutions if it believed it had a good legal case - but those have not materialised either

Instead Pakistan seems to believe a military solution is the answer and glorifies all manner of violence as a justifiable method (I don't wish to take examples as that will invite emotion guided attacks on me personally) - an approach which only serves to undermine the legitimacy of the Kashmiri cause because it lumps genuine Kashmiri separatists with terrorists and blurs the distinction. I can only speculate that the military dominion over Pakistani administration and foreign policy is the reason - and as such I believe no political solution will materialise till a strong and stable civilian government emerges in Pakistan.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I did some searching on PDF and see you have a stock reply that you copy paste whenever anyone brings up the discussion of the resolution.

Anyway, like it or not, the only resolution that outlines a solution to the Kashmir dispute is the one I quoted - of 1948. Till today for whatever reason (and I don't wish to speculate) Pakistan has not complied with its obligation - which is to be done first. And if you believe you are right that the resolution is binding how come Pakistan has done nothing?

Btw here's a good summary of the various conflicting legal views on the binding nature of UNSC resolutions. I urge you to read it in your spare time when you have cooled down a bit. As you will read, Higgins' view is one of many and the question is not as straight forward as you make it appear. Perhaps you will update your stock answer.

http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/5/329.pdf

Yes, I do post that material whenever I see any clueless Indian trying to tell/teach us about the UN Resolutions on Kashmir ... In an attempt (often futile) to Educate the ignorant Indians who have been brainwashed by the Indian State propaganda on Kashmir ..

And like it or not, the fact remains that neither the UN, nor any official/mediator has blamed Pakistan for halting the process or held it responsible for NOT implementing the UN Resolutions ... same does not hold true for India


And I know what I am talking about. So next time before presenting yourself as "an expert on international law", please do the necessary homework, if you want to avoid embarrassment and humiliation. This is not some third rate Indian Forum where you will get away with your lies and false propaganda so easily ... It is PAKISTAN DEFENCE FORUM ... And the "K" in it stands for Kashmir

Thank you

 

[schoolboy]

And like it or not, the fact remains that neither the UN, nor any official/mediator has blamed Pakistan for halting the process or held it responsible for NOT implementing the UN Resolutions ... same does not hold true for India

I have not claimed that the UN 'blames' Pakistan - please quote me if you can find such a claim in these posts. My point was simple: Pakistan has not, to this day, undertaken the first step as required under the UN resolution (which has to be done first) - and as such is in no position to accuse India of not complying with the resolution (which it frequently does).

And I know what I am talking about. So next time before presenting yourself as "an expert on international law", please do the necessary homework, if you want to avoid embarrassment and humiliation. This is not some third rate Indian Forum where you will get away with your lies and false propaganda so easily ... It is PAKISTAN DEFENCE FORUM ... And the "K" in it stands for Kashmir

Sorry - but in my view your research is inadequate and you quote quite selectively. I maintain that UN resolutions are not binding by default except in certain circumstances - and have given you a helpful resource that compiles various views on the subject (including Higgins - which is just one view). I respect a multiplicity of views on a legal question - that's what lawyers are for - but it's preposterous for you (or anyone else) to suggest that it's gospel that UN resolutions are binding.

In closing, let me say this. If your views are correct and I am wrong,

- Why is it that Pakistan has not filed a lawsuit before the ICJ or any other international court (as it did in the Rann of Kutch boundary dispute 1968 or the Atlantique incident) ?

- Why does Pakistan not withdraw its forces from its side of Kashmir as per the resolution - since that is legally binding, right?

- Why do none of the permanent members of the UNSC over the past 50 years including one-time ally the US and all-weather ally China keep saying that the dispute is 'bilateral'?

- Why is it that the UN has dropped Kashmir from its list of UN-overseen-disputes in 2010?

 

[M. Sarmad]

- Why does Pakistan not withdraw its forces from its side of Kashmir as per the resolution - since that is legally binding, right?

- Why do none of the permanent members of the UNSC over the past 50 years including one-time ally the US and all-weather ally China keep saying that the dispute is 'bilateral'?

- Why is it that the UN has dropped Kashmir from its list of UN-overseen-disputes in 2010?

All of theses questions have been answered already .. Read carefully

And who told you that the UN has dropped Kashmir from its list of UN-overseen-disputes in 2010 ?? Your Media lied to you (Read post #43 in case you missed it)

Kashmir still remains on the agenda of the SC and the UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP despite repeated requests by India, even after 45 years of signing of the Simla Agreement ... What more "Proof" is needed that the Indian position has never been accepted by the UN ??