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

[toxic_pus]

Actually, the operative word is OR, as in, "through bilateral negotiations OR by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them".

'Or' is a grammatical conjunction in a sentence to distinguish between alternate ideas/arguments in a sentence. The clause of the Simla Agreement in question is divided into two arguments/ideas. The first refers to "through bilateral negotiations", which is self-explanatory. The second part of the sentence after the 'or' therefore refers to an idea that is an alternative to the first part, and since the first part specifically refers to "bilateral", the second part of the sentence can only mean "non-bilateral", which would include third party mediation.

Deciding to appoint 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Selecting a 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Appointing the 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Implementing 3rd party's proposal would require mutual agreement.

Seems to me even this 3rd party affair is essentially a 'bilateral' thing, however you may want to spin it.

 

[Hulk]

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

Pakistan on Monday briefed the envoys of 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council about the tensions on the LoC and International Border with India.

In a statement, Pakistan Foreign Office said Adviser to the prime minister on National Security and Foreign Affairs Sartaj Aziz briefed the ambassadors of the US, the UK, France, Russia and China in Islamabad on the security situation.

"He expressed his concern that the ceasefire violations by India and the provocative statements by Indian leadership were not only a setback to peace efforts but also a distraction from Pakistan's counter-terrorism commitments in the ongoing Operation Zarb-e-Azb (operation in North Waziristan)," the statement said.

Aziz expressed disappointment that first the foreign secretary-level talks were cancelled, and then "India resorted to unprovoked firing and shelling on the LoC and the International Border resulting in many civilian casualties, injuries, and extensive damage to property".

He outlined the prime minister's vision of a peaceful South Asian region and his positive overtures to the Indian government since coming to power in May 2013, including reaching out to Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Aziz also informed the P-5 Ambassadors about his letter to the UN Secretary-General in which he had called upon the world body to play its due role towards defusing the prevailing situation, and monitoring of the ceasefire violations by the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan, which possessed both the mandate and the infrastructure to play its important role.

He also called upon the P-5 countries to urge India to respect the ceasefire agreement and engage in a meaningful and serious dialogue.

The foreign secretary also attended the briefing, which was conducted after the government decided last week to highlight the border tension with India at the international level.

Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB - Rediff.com India News

You know what, when I have an issue and I talk to people and realize that they care two hoots. I do not keep going and telling them my problems again and again. I wonder when Pakistan will realize this.

Neither UN nor anyone else is interested in Kashmir. They think and rightly think that if Kashmir goes to Pakistan it can be another Syria, Iraq of Afghanistan to manage, till it stays with India they do not have to worry. This is the prime reason nobody will ever care about this issue.

There are other things to add, Pakistani's hype this issue in big hyperbola. In reality this area has less than 10 civilian deaths in last 4 to 5 years. Hardly any other issue reported, no issue reported of torture or rape.

 

[third eye]

Actually, the operative word is OR, as in, "through bilateral negotiations OR by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them".

'Or' is a grammatical conjunction in a sentence to distinguish between alternate ideas/arguments in a sentence. The clause of the Simla Agreement in question is divided into two arguments/ideas. The first refers to "through bilateral negotiations", which is self-explanatory. The second part of the sentence after the 'or' therefore refers to an idea that is an alternative to the first part, and since the first part specifically refers to "bilateral", the second part of the sentence can only mean "non-bilateral", which would include third party mediation.

My response to Ares in an earlier post covers this.

We can split hair till the cows come home.

The bottom line is that 3rd party intervention is a No - No as far as India is concerned , that's how it shall stay and those who matter worldwide have accepted it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deciding to appoint 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Selecting a 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Appointing the 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Implementing 3rd party's proposal would require mutual agreement.

Seems to me even this 3rd party affair is essentially a 'bilateral' thing, however you may want to spin it.

See my reply in 162.

We can split hair till the cows come home.

The bottom line is that 3rd party intervention is a No - No as far as India is concerned , that's how it shall stay and those who matter worldwide have accepted it.

My dissection of the relevant clause of the Simla Agreement is not "splitting hairs", it is an exercise in pointing out the meaning of the plain English used in the Simla Agreement, and the meaning is clear - the Simla Agreement does not in any way prevent third party mediation, in fact it explicitly allows for it (subject to the consent of both States of course), as I explained in my response that you quoted.

 

[third eye]

India agreed to third party mediation when it took the Kashmir dispute to the UN, and when India and Pakistan both accepted the UNSC Resolutions on the dispute. India can argue that it is reneging on that agreement, but that is a different argument, and puts into question the legitimacy of ANY agreement the Indians enter into.

Source: Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB | Page 12

What happened in 1948 does not have to happen in 1973 ( 72 ?)more so when India has the leverage of 90000 POWs

If its a different argument, why bring it up here ? No relevance & not connected.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now only if you can get the Sec-Gen UN to agree to that contorted logic, I will have no problems at all!

The UNSG already agrees with my argument, as I explained in my previous posts, which you still appear incapable of providing a coherent response to.

What happened in 1948 does not have to happen in 1973 ( 72 ?)more so when India has the leverage of 90000 POWs

Then India should have used her leverage better, because the Simla Agreement as written does not negate the UNSC resolutions and in fact explicitly allows for third party mediation, provided both parties agree (which they did when the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were passed in the UN).

If its a different argument, why bring it up here ? No relevance & not connected.

It is relevant in terms of highlighting the distinction.

 

[VCheng]

The UNSG already agrees with my argument, as I explained in my previous posts, which you still appear incapable of providing a coherent response to.

Actually, they do not. Pakistan simply has no credibility on this issue in the UN or with the P-5. And that is the sad but honest truth.

 

[toxic_pus]

See my reply in 162.

That is a specious argument.

Implementation of those UN resolutions would require fresh agreement, post Simla Agreement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Actually, they do not. Pakistan simply has no credibility on this issue in the UN or with the P-5. And that is the sad but honest truth.

Pakistan's credibility, or lack of, is not being discussed here. What is being discussed is what the Simla Agreement states and whether the recent comments by the UNSG support the Indian interpretation of the Simla Agreement. Again, please offer an actual response to the arguments I made (on the points above) to illustrate how your "opinion", which you merely continue to regurgitate without any attempt at substantiating it, is valid.

That is a specious argument.

Implementation of those UN resolutions would require fresh agreement, post Simla Agreement.

I did not question that - implementation of the UNSC resolutions was/is always a sticking point, given the differences in interpreting the demilitarization requirements, for example. But the fact remains that the UNSC resolutions are the only existing "peaceful means of dispute resolution" agreed to by India and Pakistan, and fit the Simla Agreement.

 

[VCheng]

Again, please offer an actual response to the arguments I made to illustrate how your "opinion", which you merely continue to regurgitate without any attempt at substantiating it, is valid.........

Okay, let us assume that you are correct. When can we expect to see third party mediation happen and previous Resolutions being implemented if Pakistan's stance is so credible as you claim?

(The fact will remain that unless India agrees, never. Just as stipulated in the Simla Agreement.)

 

[toxic_pus]

I did not question that - implementation of the UNSC resolutions was/is always a sticking point, given the differences in interpreting the demilitarization requirements, for example. But the fact remains that the UNSC resolutions are the only existing "peaceful means of dispute resolution" agreed to by India and Pakistan, and fit the Simla Agreement.

If it can't be implemented how it 'fits' the Simla Agreement, is beyond me. However, post Simla Agreement the only 'peaceful means of dispute resolution' is converting LoC into IB. Nothing else is acceptable by India.

 

[Bang Galore]

le. But the fact remains that the UNSC resolutions are the only existing "peaceful means of dispute resolution" agreed to by India and Pakistan, and fit the Simla Agreement.

It cannot fit the Shimla agreement and be considered operative unless it was again specified as such. As @toxic_pus said, you would need a fresh call to the UN by both parties for it to be considered.

 

[third eye]

See my reply in 162.


My dissection of the relevant clause of the Simla Agreement is not "splitting hairs", it is an exercise in pointing out the meaning of the plain English used in the Simla Agreement, and the meaning is clear - the Simla Agreement does not in any way prevent third party mediation, in fact it explicitly allows for it (subject to the consent of both States of course), as I explained in my response that you quoted.

Allow others the same level of intellect to read and understand ' plain english".

The UNSG already agrees with my argument, as I explained in my previous posts, which you still appear incapable of providing a coherent response to.


Then India should have used her leverage better, because the Simla Agreement as written does not negate the UNSC resolutions and in fact explicitly allows for third party mediation, provided both parties agree (which they did when the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were passed in the UN).

It is relevant in terms of highlighting the distinction.

Here I agree.

No where after WW 2 did an army give not 3 but all 4 aces to its Govt in form of 90000 POWs as it sat on the negotiatiing table. IG slipped up here. The J&K issue should have been resolved once & for all back then. Additional pressure could have been built up by war crime trails both by India & BD.

 

[toxic_pus]

It cannot fit the Shimla agreement and be considered operative unless it was again specified as such. As @toxic_pus said, you would need a fresh call to the UN by both parties for it to be considered.

Notice the spin here. The UN resolutions are being made out to be only about plebiscite. It is not. There is demilitarization, then handing over of administration of the part of Kashmir that is currently occupied by Pakistan, to 'local authority' and then a plebiscite.

Since the first two stages in plebiscite remain undecided, negotiations on those two aspects are needed to be started afresh and that would require a fresh call. And that would be hit by Simla Agreement.

 

[VCheng]

Notice the spin here. The UN resolutions are being made out to be only about plebiscite. It is not. There is demilitarization, then handing over of administration of the part of Kashmir that is currently occupied by Pakistan, to 'local authority' and then a plebiscite.

Since the first two stages in plebiscite remain undecided, negotiations on those two aspects are needed to be started afresh and that would require a fresh call. And that would be hit by Simla Agreement.

All spin and no substance makes for poor policy.