Pakistan refuses to sign three multilateral pacts at SAARC summit: officials

[surya kiran]

The highlighted part in your post is the only relevant part. The UN Charter does not make any distinction between "binding vs non-binding". The legal literature on the matter merely points to the fact that UNSC Resolutions under Chapter VII allow the UNSC to authorize enforcement actions to ensure implementation of the resolutions. Therefore, it is the "enforcement" part of Chapter VII resolutions that results in commentators calling them "binding" vs Chapter VI resolutions which do not have "enforcement actions" attached to them. Now then, the difference between the Chapter VI and Chapter VII should be clear to you - "the ability of the UNSC to authorize enforcement actions" - beyond that the commitment of UN Member States to implement UNSC Resolutions is the same, whether they are under Chapter VI or Chapter VII.

Now, going back to the highlighted section of your post, there is no "enforcement action" embedded within the Simla Agreement or the Indus Water Treaty - they are nothing but agreements/commitments between two States. In the case of the IWT, the agreement/commitment was entered into with the assistance of a third party, the World Bank. The UNSC Resolutions were, similarly, initiated after Indian government took the Kashmir Dispute to the UN for mediation. The UNSC issued resolutions that were accepted and committed to by the governments of both India and Pakistan, and that acceptance/agreement/commitment is essentially of the same value as any other piece of paper that two States sign, that does not have any enforcement mechanisms involved.

If a resolution cannot be 'enforced', it is a suggestion/advisory. Whether parties accept that or not, is up to the parties involved. Law enforcement need not be force. It can also mean, taking it to a court of law or boycott or financial repercussions. Enforced means it has to be done. Again, I ask you why is it that if according to what you say is true, not even a friendly country like China backs you in this regard in the UNSC? Because, they know its not legally tenable. Like I said, earlier. Simla Accord mentions Purpose and Principles of the UN Charter will be upheld. Purpose and principle of uN charter is maintaining peace internationally. Where does it state anywhere that UNSC 47 will be the basis of future talks. NO. It says bi-lateral. If you want anything to be tenable legally it needs to be explicitly mentioned. When it is not mentioned, it is not legal.

India or Pakistan could walk away from the Simla Agreement today and what do you think would happen? Nothing, zilch, nada. Why? Because there is nothing in the Simla Agreement, nor anything in the UN Charter, that would allow for any kind of "enforcement action" to be taken against the country that "violated the Simla Agreement". So how is the Simla Agreement, or any other bilateral agreement, any different from the agreement that India and Pakistan entered into when they accepted the UNSC Resolutions and committed to implementing them?

There is nothing, that can be done if Pakistan walks away from the Simla Agreement. In fact, Pakistan has violated the Simla Agreement enough number of times. Now, if you were to say we do not accept the Simla Agreement and will go by UNSC 47. Sure go ahead. Its not going to help. We are going to be back to square 1. Which means, the cease-fire line no longer applies. Do you realise what that means?

But to further bring to your notice, if Simla Accord is not important, then why in 1999 did GoP sign the Lahore Agreement. Which means, first Simla accord was signed which mentioned bi-laterelly and then the GoP again signed and confirmed the Simla Accord,

"COMMITTED to the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, and the universally accepted principles of peaceful co-existence;
REITERATING the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement in letter and spirit"

In letter and spirit - "bi-laterally". Again no mention of any UN Resolution. This is 1999. It says purpose of the UN Charter. Which is maintaining peace and the rest. It then specifically says Implementing Simla Agreement. I am not saying this. GoP agreed to it. Again no UNSC 47 or anything about plebiscite.

So its not once, but twice that the GoP said they will follow the Simla Agremeent in 'letter and spirit'. If the Simla agreement goes so does the ceasefire line. Which means opening a whole can of worms.

 

[hussain0216]

**** india

**** the hindus

we are enemies

when kashmir is ceded to Pakistan then we can discuss everything else

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Hmm guys be serious for once. Pakistan does not need road transit to Nepal and Bangladesh, not worth it.

Then why even bother with SAARC? Aren't those countries as equal SAARC members as India and Pakistan themselves?

 

[Jit]

pakistan has nothing of value to contribute anyway. Their national occupation and obsession is with jihadi terrorism to support the grand life of military generals, though the general public do that under the guise of islam. The public know very well that they are following evil mandates but still express support to terorrist organizations such as taleban, JUI, LeT, ISI etc. The SAARC attendees should be thankful that Shariff did not come there with a belt himself

 

[The Unnamed]

The last i knew, Russian Bears want to do business with Pakistan.
So much for isolating it self.

Plus what do we really lose out on from Bangladesh, Nepal or Srilanka? Not much. Visa allowances are already in place. Afghanistan is our backyard.

So much for crying Indians like you.

Since when has Russia shied away from doing business post Ukraine. The world order is changing and I love the fact that we will buy US stuff and pakistanis russian. You have no idea what that means. If you had, you would not be rejoicing about it.

Lose out from is the not the question, but what India gains from Bangladesh, Nepal and SriLanka. What India gains is Pakistan's loss. Afghanistan is your backyard ? More like the front yard with roads from far from Pakistan from middle east leading to your doorstep.

Crying Indians ??? Indians are laughing man, looking at you trying to defend the undefendable with smart @ss answers thinking wishing makes it happen.

 

[dil_dil]

Then why even bother with SAARC? Aren't those countries as equal SAARC members as India and Pakistan themselves?

We don't need India to trade with Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. I think Indians are giving to much importance to this useless agreement or SAARC.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

We don't need India to trade with Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. I think Indians are giving to much importance to this useless agreement or SAARC.

LOL, you first mentioned NEPAL and BANGLADESH and now you changed it to "BANGLADESH and SRI LANKA"?

Nice!

 

[dil_dil]

LOL, you first mentioned NEPAL and BANGLADESH and now you changed it to "BANGLADESH and SRI LANKA"?

Nice!

Trade with Nepal can be done through China. Nepal is not worth the effort with $15 billion GDP.

 

[kadamba-warrior]

Trade with Nepal can be done through China. Nepal is not worth the effort with $15 billion GDP.

Exactly! Great idea to trade with Nepal using the 100% Himalayan terrain all the way from Pakistan to Nepal! You should go for it!

But then why even bother sending your PM all the way for the SAARC summit or even become a member of SAARC when you think it is so "not-worth-it"?

 

[dil_dil]

Exactly! Great idea to trade with Nepal using the 100% Himalayan terrain all the way from Pakistan to Nepal! You should go for it!

But then why even bother sending your PM all the way for the SAARC summit or even become a member of SAARC when you think it is so "not-worth-it"?

Being member does not mean Pakistan have to accept something which goes against their interest. And this agreement is not in Pakistan interest if even India loving Nawaz refused to sign.

 

[Krate M]

Should Pakistan block similar health and education initiative, what about the saarc satellite, which is to be used for education and connectivity?

Pakistan is basically blocking the road access to Afghanistan, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

There is a thread running on topic already , But it seems Pakistan is the looser as other SAARC nations have already signed the deal with themselves . Pakistan is the only nation left outside and not to mention Isolating itself ..

Lol I think the biggest loser is India, when Pakistan refuse these connectivities, as I said on other thread, India lost all the hope to have quick and easy way to access to Afghanistan and resource rich central Asia and have to use Iranian port, how convenient? ... A for Pakistan, the economic corridor and other cooperations with China will ensure a fruitfull future for both nations.

 

[SrNair]

Again, trade via sea is not inherently disadvantageous, and Pakistan can and is working to develop energy transit projects with its neighbors to the West, and can work with SAARC countries on a case by case basis to develop projects to import energy.

But it may be not that feasible compared to road transit.

 

[SrNair]

Lol I think the biggest loser is India, when Pakistan refuse these connectivities, as I said on other thread, India lost all the hope to have quick and easy way to access to Afghanistan and resource rich central Asia and have to use Iranian port, how convenient? ... A for Pakistan, the economic corridor and other cooperations with China will ensure a fruitfull future for both nations.

Nice idea.
But it is not like that.Except Pakistan all others would directly connected to our power grid and road transit after signings of these deals. It will be a mutual beneficial deal.
Afghanistan would be connected via Chabhar port.
Pakistan might get a lot of incentives in power transmission
if they would have sign this deal under SAARC agreement.
Now they will sign separate deal for it with India and may bought power from us with less incentives.

 

[Kiss_of_the_Dragon]

Maybe the best way is for Pakistan to come out of SAARC, and create its own bloc.
India's leadership role (either because of its size or because of its own) is not taken in by Pakistan, doing so has scuttled development for itself and in a more lesser extent, India as well.

May be Pakistan can make an Iran, Afghanistan, Free Kashmir, + a few central asian countries. But for SAARC or any other bloc to function with India and Pakistan as its "bigger" powers, its not going to function.

That not a bad Idea, ---> Pakistan with SAARC countries + China - India