Nope, its a part of pre planned strategic move.
The next phase will be limited attack by india in Azad Kashmir, international community will vote in General assembly, invoking artilce 17 (not security council) and will overwhelmingly ask india and Pakistan to leave Kashmir. then international forces will move in Kashmir, a direct problem for CPEC.
Remember what i am saying, give it two to three years.
Few problems with what you say.
- Article 17 of UN you quoted in your post had nothing to do with the situation you are outlining.
Article 17 is concerning the "Budget" of the UN.
Article 17(1)
“1. The General Assembly shall consider and approve the budget of the Organization.
I think you are referring to the Chapter 17 , which is as following:
Chapter XVII — Transitional Security Arrangements
Article 106 deals with it :
Article 106
“Pending the coming into force of such special agreements referred to in Article 43 as in the opinion of the Security Council enable it to begin the exercise of its responsibilities under article 42, the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, October 30, 1943, and France, shall, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 5 of that Declaration, consult with one another and as occasion requires with other Members of the United Nations with a view to such joint action on behalf of the Organization as may be necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.”
The above mentioned articles are under Chapter VII.
Chapter VII — Action with respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Under this chapter the Articles 41, 42 and 43 deals with disputes.
Article 41
“The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.”
Article 42
“Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.”
Article 43
“1. All Members of the United Nations, in order to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security, undertake to make available to the Security Council, on its call and in accordance with a special agreement or agreements, armed forces, assistance, and facilities, including rights of passage, necessary for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
2. Such agreement or agreements shall govern the numbers and types of forces, their degree of readiness and general location, and the nature of the facilities and assistance to be provided.
3. The agreement or agreements shall be negotiated as soon as possible on the initiative of the Security Council. They shall be concluded between the Security Council and Members or between the Security Council and groups of Members and shall be subject to ratification by the signatory states in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”
This is my understanding is, what you are trying to say in your post.
But in either case, the actions would be taken by the Security Council and not by General Assembly. Nothing could be done through Security Council if China's strategic benefits are involved, it would simply veto the moves.
Non binding resolutions cannot be enforced in the UN the way you described them.
That's why the Kashmir issue had not been resolved until now.
If you think that China and Russia would let USA and European play a game and keep quiet, than you are hugely mistaken.
