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

[Green Arrow]

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.

I was referring to UN actually.
As far as briefing is concerned, I think it is good move on diplomatic front. We are living in globalization world, so no harm in sharing your concerns with other.Even though, we know that there will be no outcome any way.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

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 been rendered useless by the Simla Agreement.

You are still wrong - whether the UNSC resolutions are binding or not does not change the fact that, as of today, the ONLY "mutually agreed upon means to peacefully resolve the Kashmir dispute" are the UNSC resolutions agree to by the governments of India and Pakistan. In addition, by reiterating their respective commitments to the UN Charter, the Simla Agreement also clearly accepts the fact the any potential future BINDING resolution by the UNSC would have to be implemented by India and Pakistan by virtue of their acceptance of the "Charter of the UN".

The Simla Agreement allowed for "third party mediation" in the very first clause, when it reiterated the commitment of both countries to the UN Charter, which allows for "binding UNSC resolutions on member States".

 

[Windjammer]

Sure, is that why your DGMO has constantly 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.

You need to get out more, DGMO of both countries have already spoken on the hotline. Making futile and ridiculous efforts at chest expanding on a Pakistani forum, it's not difficult to conclude who is desperate and wasting their efforts.

 

[third eye]

Wrong - see the following excerpt from the text:

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.

You choose to ignore the words ' mutually agreed by upon by them '.

 

[VCheng]

You are still wrong - whether the UNSC resolutions are binding or not does not change the fact that, as of today, the ONLY "mutually agreed upon means to peacefully resolve the Kashmir dispute" are the UNSC resolutions agree to by the governments of India and Pakistan. In addition, by reiterating their respective commitments to the UN Charter, the Simla Agreement also clearly accepts the fact the any potential future BINDING resolution by the UNSC would have to be implemented by India and Pakistan by virtue of their acceptance of the "Charter of the UN".

The Simla Agreement allowed for "third party mediation" in the very first clause, when it reiterated the commitment of both countries to the UN Charter, which allows for "binding UNSC resolutions on member States".

We can agree to disagree here Sir, since I am in good company with the Sec-Gen UN agreeing with what I have said.

 

[ito]

Wrong - see the following excerpt from the text:

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.

the first part is universal principals of UN charter governing relations between all countries, including that between india and pak

the second part is specific to india and pak

 

[jbond197]

You need to get out more, DGMO of both countries have already spoken on the hotline. Making futile and ridiculous efforts at chest expanding on a Pakistani forum, it's not difficult to conclude who is desperate and wasting their efforts.

Only yesterday, when we saw your politicos running all over the world crying. I think we did enough damage for now and hopefully expecting that the other side will now think 100 times before starting the violations again. Let's see how it goes. Our boys are tired shelling your territory day and night, they need some rest. So chillax till it start all over again.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You choose to ignore the words ' mutually agreed by upon by them '.

The UNSC Resolutions were "mutually agreed upon" by both States. Differences over interpreting the how and when of demilitarization certainly existed, but the resolutions overall were accepted by both.

We can agree to disagree here Sir, since I am in good company with the Sec-Gen UN agreeing with what I have said.

The current Sec Gen hasn't agreed or disagreed with either the Indian or Pakistani interpretation of the Simla Agreement, unless I missed the reference, in which case I would appreciate it if you could quote it for my benefit.

 

[third eye]

The UNSC Resolutions were "mutually agreed upon" by both States. Differences over interpreting the how and when of demilitarization certainly existed, but the resolutions overall were accepted by both.

These stand succeeded by Shimla agreement.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

I am impressed by Indian bravado, keep this bravery up limpos, this is first time Indian had the balls to respond to Pakistani aggression they just cant hide their pride. Dont you think you should have done this a long time ago and the world wouldnt consider you a limp nations.P5 or P7 or P10 dont care about Pakistan india situation because everyone knows India doesnt have balls to goto war its just border clashes. They have seen India reaction to China's incursions, what a bunch of khusreys. The funniest practical joke that China played, Chinese president visiting India and chinese forces picnicking inside india and Bravado Moodi dont have balls to say a word and sees off Chinese respectfully. why would anyone come to save any country from such kind of coward nation.

Are we talking about Pakistan here or China?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

the first part is universal principals of UN charter governing relations between all countries, including that between india and pak

Which means the Simla Agreement explicitly accepts third party mediation

the second part is specific to india and pak

And is broadly worded to allow for third party mediation, especially given the commitment to the UN Charter in the first part.

 

[VCheng]

The current Sec Gen hasn't agreed or disagreed with either the Indian or Pakistani interpretation of the Simla Agreement, unless I missed the reference, in which case I would appreciate it if you could quote it for my benefit.

The current Sec-Gen is on record stating that UN will help only if requested to do so by both Pakistan and India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These stand succeeded by Shimla agreement.

No, as I have explained in my last few posts.

 

[unbiasedopinion]

showing your coward face, nations with dignity protect themselves from everyone not just one

Drone attack? Does it ring bell?

 

[Lil Mathew]

We are running all anti India groups including Hafiz saeed and that Mumbai dawn. we are sending jihadis in Kashmir for 2 decades, we are constantly firing across the borders for 60 years. we are beheading your soldiers (as you believe), we are sending Kasabs into mumbai, kashmiris to Indian parliament. does that sound running to someone?

Perfect examples of cowardice..