Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB

[Chakram Indian]

The Simla Agreement does not preclude third-party intervention, and it reiterates the commitment of both nations to "their international obligations", which includes the commitment of both nations to the UN and UN Resolutions, as members of the UN. In fact, given that it was India that first raised the Kashmir issue in the UN, her acceptance of UN mediation is a fact.

That the Indian government no longer wants third-party mediation is a separate issue, but the Simla Agreement at least does not negate/prevent the UN Resolutions or UN mediation/intervention.

can you name or write the first 2 conditions of UN resoltuion
before the condition of plebicite ??

 

[third eye]

I honestly cannot find much fault with what you have said.

I could go on but choose not to for hurting people is not the aim.

A nation has to decide how it wishes to be seen from the outside & what it does within - both are linked. Eg : Democracy alone has given India so many bonus points internationally.

A man essentially is the result of decisions he takes in life - this applies equally to nations.

 

[VCheng]

I could go on but choose not to for hurting people is not the aim.

A nation has to decide how it wishes to be seen from the outside & what it does within - both are linked. Eg : Democracy alone has given India so many bonus points internationally.

A man essentially is the result of decisions he takes in life - this applies equally to nations.

I cannot disagree with this, either, to be honest.

 

[jbond197]

I for one support implementation of UN resolution in Kashmir. But it should be implemented in full, starting with Pakistan handing over occupied Kashmir, Baltisan,Gilgit to Indian army and then Indian army will do some clean up, bring back pandits, and once satisfied that all outsiders are thrown out, implement the plebiscite. That's the solution Pakistan is also seeking so I fail to understand what is stopping them in the implementation.

 

[ito]

The Simla Agreement does not preclude third-party intervention, and it reiterates the commitment of both nations to "their international obligations", which includes the commitment of both nations to the UN and UN Resolutions, as members of the UN. In fact, given that it was India that first raised the Kashmir issue in the UN, her acceptance of UN mediation is a fact.

That the Indian government no longer wants third-party mediation is a separate issue, but the Simla Agreement at least does not negate/prevent the UN Resolutions or UN mediation/intervention.

if that is case...it make no sense for india to have pak sign simla

the matter of fact is that simla in fact explicitly say that all bilateral disputes be settled bilaterally.

 

[Windjammer]

Ok so finally are you happy now? or you need more shoulders to cry on?? May be African Union will work for you. Try your luck there till then we will continue some serious @ss whooping on the border.

We are very content with the situation,unlike you people we don't need media to put wind in the sails. You the venue warriors can only attack our players and performers, ...we do our fighting on the borders.....your half hearted BSF will confirm to that.

 

[SpArK]

There is nothing wrong to raise your legitimate concerns on international forums

First it was never on International forum..

It was not conveyed directly to a level of atleast of secretary in chief or a gathering of this group at any given place.

The briefing was to the respective ambassadors of each countries present in your country by either calling up to Sartaj's residence or going up there and telling them " Look what India is doing, do something".

These ambassadors will report back to their higher hierarchy and they nod and goes back to regular activities which is expected.

The country has no credibility on its actions, activities or prospects on its future according many of them. They deal most of the things with extreme caution, discretion and planning while dealing with people from that part.

It would be rather surprising if at all any comments are made by any leaders or diplomats over this briefing.

 

[JustAnotherWomen]

Expose India and its Democracy as much as possible...India is now becoming isolated...

Isolated in Pakistan?

Yes it seems we have been sanctioned. FDI has been stopped.

 

[jbond197]

We are very content with the situation,unlike you people we don't need media to put wind in the sails. You the venue warriors can only attack our players and performers, ...we do our fighting on the borders.....your half hearted BSF will confirm to that.

Sure, is that why your DGMO has constantly been requesting flag meetings and Indians rejecting? We also want you folks to concentrate on fight on the borders rather than wasting time and energy here and there.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

The Simla Agreement does not preclude third-party intervention, and it reiterates the commitment of both nations to "their international obligations", which includes the commitment of both nations to the UN and UN Resolutions, as members of the UN. In fact, given that it was India that first raised the Kashmir issue in the UN, her acceptance of UN mediation is a fact.

That the Indian government no longer wants third-party mediation is a separate issue, but the Simla Agreement at least does not negate/prevent the UN Resolutions or UN mediation/intervention.

This argument was previously raised by Pakistan and adequately addressed by India on various occasions. You are conveniently looking at the form of the Simla Deed and not the substance. The Simla Agreement commits both Pakistan and India to bi-laterally attempt to resolve the Kashmir issue. That in itself excludes any third party involvement and I would suspect was the raison de'etre for India's hard and unwavering stance when it comes to excluding any third party on dialogue between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. It may well justify the stance by the US and the UN that the issue must be resolved between India and Pakistan without third party involvement. The fact remains that currently Pakistan created the impasse by its reckless acts of conferring with Kashmiri separatist leaders prior to the arranged talks without notifying India. What harm would Pakistan have suffered if it simply behaved like an internationally responsible state for once in its history with India ? No, it had to scuttle the talks simply to placate the radicals at home. Which leaves us with the question as to whom exactly is responsible for the mayhem at the borders. Considering the attention which the Pakistani establishment is attempting to obtain from current conflict at the border and their desperate endeavors to link the conflict at the border with the Kashmir issue, one needn't be a brain scientist to place the blocks in order. The current PM of Pakistan blamed his then COAS for the Kargil conflict with India which got out of hand. He was then unceremoniously thrown out of office and the rest is history. I certainly hope for his sake and for Pakistan's sake that history will not repeat itself during his current tenure.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The Simla Agreement clearly binds both countries to resolve ALL their disputes BILATERALLY, with third party intervention possible ONLY if both agree. There is no way around this short of abrogating the Agreement.

Wrong - see the following excerpt from the text:

The Government of India and the Government of Pakistan are resolved that the two countries put an end to the conflict and confrontation that have hitherto marred their relations and work for the promotion of a friendly and harmonious relationship and the establishment of durable peace in the subcontinent so that both countries may henceforth devote their resources and energies to the pressing task of advancing the welfare of their people.
In order to achieve this objective, the Government of India and the Government of Pakistan have agreed as follows:
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.

First - by reiterating their respective commitments to the Charter of the UN, both nations in essence accepted the validity of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

Second, "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them" encompasses the UNSC resolutions since it was India that introduced the Kashmir dispute into the UN, and accepted almost every single UNSC resolution passed, which means that the UNSC Resolutions are in fact the ONLY "peaceful means mutually agreed upon between India and Pakistan" that currently exist.

 

[acid rain]

Lets see the p5

Russia - India's friend, not withstanding the support they need from us on Ukraine or to ride out the sanctions.

France - India's friend.

UK - I believe Cameron is visiting India again for the fourth time.

US - our strategic partner

China - lol, no credibility there especially with the mess they have created in the scs.

 

[VCheng]

Wrong - see the following excerpt from the text:

I am correct. Please read the Charter of the UN, and note that the first clause does not mention the non-binding resolutions. Then highlight the first sentence of (ii) in toto and read it again. India and Pakistan must resolve all disputes bilaterally, or invite a third party only if they both agree to do so. The UN Resolutions have been clearly superseded by the Simla Agreement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

can you name or write the first 2 conditions of UN resoltuion
before the condition of plebicite ??

Which UN Resolution? There were several UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, with additional clarifications and details added upon the initial ones, especially with respect to questions over the interpretations of demilitarization, which Pakistan and Indian disagreed on.

 

[SpArK]

Wrong - see the following excerpt from the text:
(i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.
(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. [/QUOTE]
First - by reiterating their respective commitments to the Charter of the UN, both nations in essence accepted the validity of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

Source: Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB | Page 7
First - by reiterating their respective commitments to the Charter of the UN, both nations in essence accepted the validity of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir.

Second, "other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them" encompasses the UNSC resolutions since it was India that introduced the Kashmir dispute into the UN, and accepted almost every single UNSC resolution passed, which means that the UNSC Resolutions are in fact the ONLY "peaceful means mutually agreed upon between India and Pakistan" that currently exist.

CHAPTER I: PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Charter of the United Nations: Chapter I: Purposes and Principles


Can we have a brief description on which of the purpose and what all principles among these are in contention regarding the issue?