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

[surya kiran]

You do understand that even in the expired UNSC resolution 47, it is clearly written that after Pakistan completely withdraws its troops from Kashmir, India will still reserve the right to keep minimum forces in there while the plebiscite is conducted, right?

For a change, please try to look at it from India's viewpoint. India will be breaking the Simla accord if it agreed on the UN mandated plebiscite. The UN has no power between the bilateral relations of any two countries. Pakistan and India both are on the same page that Kashmir issue should be resolved bilaterally - Simla agreement is that page.

Dude the UNSC 47 resolution is non-binding. Its under section 6 which does not make it mandatory.

 

[Norwegian]

Dude the UNSC 47 resolution is non-binding. Its under section 6 which does not make it mandatory.

Same goes for UN resolution for Palestine; its unbinding

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is a suggestion. It is not mandatorily applicable. Which means parties to the dispute need not pay heed to it. Had GoP used its brains it would be under Section VII. That is mandatory. So legally you have no ground there.

India and Pakistan asked for UN mediation, received it, and committed to implementing the UNSC Resolutions. The Indian government and Prime Minister are on record in making that commitment. Once that commitment was made, those resolutions became an agreement between the States like any other. For example, if India and Pakistan refuse to honor the Simla Agreement, what repercussions can there be? There is no international enforcement action that can be used to make one or the other country abide by the Simla Agreement, so how is India and Pakistan's commitment to the Simla Agreement any different from their commitments to the UNSC Resolutions? Neither are enforceable.

Now in plain legal speak, the Simla Accord is binding, UNSC 47 is not. Here the binding agreement is more important. Like I said, you guys need good lawyers while signing agreements.

How exactly is the Simla Accord more binding than the UNSC Resolutions that both India and Pakistan also officially committed to?

 

[Not Sure]

And there are "innumerable" examples of non-military figures being appointed as Ambassadors in key States as well:

Current Ambassador to US: Jalil Abbas Jilani
Former Ambassador to US: Sherry Rehman (2011-2013)
Former Ambassador to US: Husain Haqqani (2008-2011)
Former Ambassador to US: Maliha Lodhi (2002-2004)

The last 3 or 4 High commissioners to India.

etc.

What is wrong with you today?

Are we arguing just for the heck of filling these pages?

This is what I wrote:
And as far as I know (you can correct me if I am wrong here), quite often retired military officers end up becoming diplomats to key countries. Pakistan is becoming not what Pakistan should be, rather what the Pakistani Army wants it to be.



I did not say "always". But you yourself went on to say, no, incorrect! I say okay, I give you examples... and then you repeat yourself saying "key postings".

Ambassador to the United States of America - is that not a key posting? That too not once but twice in a row? Is Australia not a key posting? Is London not a key posting? I understand that Pakistani Ambassador to Mexico won't be called a key posting (it is another matter that a retired general was the ambassador there till late).

The whole world knows who forges the foreign policy in Pakistan, just because you decide to read and reply selectively and repetitively, won't make any difference.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What is wrong with you today?

Are we arguing just for the heck of filling these pages?

This is what I wrote:
And as far as I know (you can correct me if I am wrong here), quite often retired military officers end up becoming diplomats to key countries. Pakistan is becoming not what Pakistan should be, rather what the Pakistani Army wants it to be.



I did not say "always". But you yourself went on to say, no, incorrect! I say okay, I give you examples... and then you repeat yourself saying "key postings".

Ambassador to the United States of America - is that not a key posting? That too not once but twice in a row? Is Australia not a key posting? Is London not a key posting? I understand that Pakistani Ambassador to Mexico won't be called a key posting (it is another matter that a retired general was the ambassador there till late).

The whole world knows who forges the foreign policy in Pakistan, just because you decide to read and reply selectively and repetitively, won't make any difference.

My point is that your assertion that somehow key diplomatic postings are primarily given to military figures is incorrect. You raised the issue, not me. I provided you with examples that show, at the very least, that key diplomatic postings are primarily held by civilians.

 

[Icewolf]

India is NOTHING in the political and economic arena. We don't need to do anything with it, what exactly are they gonna trade us? Curry?
We need to focus our trade on the big fish like USA, China, Russia, Germany and other nations instead of worrying about small minnows like India.

 

[definitelynotIndian]

You are chewing on anti-IK lies and rumors. Spit them out!

Heard it over here. He is called Taliban Khan

 

[Icewolf]

Let me know how you are planning to get road transit, or power connection to other SAARC countries without going through India.

Bangladesh and Nepal!! Wow!! I can't believe we have not already started trillion dollar trade with these emerging superpowers!

 

[surya kiran]

India and Pakistan asked for UN mediation, received it, and committed to implementing the UNSC Resolutions. The Indian government and Prime Minister are on record in making that commitment. Once that commitment was made, those resolutions became an agreement between the States like any other. For example, if India and Pakistan refuse to honor the Simla Agreement, what repercussions can there be? There is no international enforcement action that can be used to make one or the other country abide by the Simla Agreement, so how is India and Pakistan's commitment to the Simla Agreement any different from their commitments to the UNSC Resolutions? Neither are enforceable.

How exactly is the Simla Accord more binding than the UNSC Resolutions that both India and Pakistan also officially committed to?

Because, my friend, by nature there are 2 types of agreements. Let me try and explain.

Father tells son. I think you should marry that girl. Suggestion. He has option of marrying someone else. Non-binding.
Father tells son. You are marrying that girl. Order. Binding.

Now, if agreements are signed under non-binding clauses, they cannot be enforced. Bi-lateral treaties there are only 2 parties. They are not suggestive in nature. IWT, for example, if the International tribunal rules in court in favour of Pakistan, we have to comply. There is no question about it. Hope this clarifies.

Which is why I am saying, your government fails to understand long term repercussions of contracts.

 

[Not Sure]

Please explain how UNSC resolutions expire, specifically this one.

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, subsequent UNSC Resolutions called for India and Pakistan to enter into negotiations to determine the "how" of demilitarization, which means that Pakistan was not longer required to unilaterally withdraw without first accepting a plan of demilitarization entered into with India.

No it won't be breaking the Simla Accord, as I have explained several times now.
Commitments entered via mediation by third parties are just as valid as commitments entered into bilaterally, otherwise the IWT would have no standing either.

No, when a bilateral agreement is signed, it puts even the binding UN resolutions to rest. The UN itself is a multilateral agreement between many countries, nothing else. Even in practice, you too are suggesting the same. That India and Pakistan have to solve the "demilitarization" together. Fine, that's what India too says, that both countries have to do it bilaterally.

It is not like the UN will say "na teri na uski, jo main bolunga wahi hoga". Ultimately both the countries will have to resolve this issue bilaterally, whether anyone likes it or not.

The Indus water treaty is not mediated through the UN. It was brokered between India and Pakistan by WB.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because, my friend, by nature there are 2 types of agreements. Let me try and explain.

Father tells son. I think you should marry that girl. Suggestion. He has option of marrying someone else. Non-binding.
Father tells son. You are marrying that girl. Order. Binding.

Now, if agreements are signed under non-binding clauses, they cannot be enforced. Bi-lateral treaties there are only 2 parties. They are not suggestive in nature. IWT, for example, if the International tribunal rules in court in favour of Pakistan, we have to comply. There is no question about it. Hope this clarifies.

Which is why I am saying, your government fails to understand long term repercussions of contracts.

That is a horribly irrelevant analogy, and the Indian and Pakistani commitment to the UNSC Resolutions is nothing along the lines of this "father son marriage example.

India and Pakistan officially (India initiated it in fact) went to the UN and officially asked for UN mediation. The UN Security Council took up the matter and passed multiple resolutions. India and Pakistan officially accepted the resolutions and committed to implementing them. This is all a matter of official record and therefore makes India and Pakistan's commitment to the UNSC Resolutions just as valid as their commitment to the Simla Agreement.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No, when a bilateral agreement is signed, it puts even the binding UN resolutions to rest. The UN itself is a multilateral agreement between many countries, nothing else. Even in practice, you too are suggesting the same. That India and Pakistan have to solve the "demilitarization" together. Fine, that's what India too says, that both countries have to do it bilaterally.

In this case the bilateral agreement (Simla) does not override the UNSC Resolutions, and in fact reiterates the commitment of both States to the UNSC Resolutions (as explained previously). Yes, India and Pakistan have to engage in discussions to resolve their differences over demilitarization, but that demilitarization is part of the process of holding a plebiscite in according to the UNSC Resolutions.

The Indus water treaty is not mediated through the UN. It was brokered between India and Pakistan by WB.

It was still mediated by a "third party", so if India is going to argue that the Simla Agreement invalidates previous commitments that involved third parties, then why hasn't India argued that the IWT is invalid?

 

[surya kiran]

That is a horribly irrelevant analogy, and the Indian and Pakistani commitment to the UNSC Resolutions is nothing along the lines of this "father son marriage example.

India and Pakistan officially (India initiated it in fact) went to the UN and officially asked for UN mediation. The UN Security Council took up the matter and passed multiple resolutions. India and Pakistan officially accepted the resolutions and committed to implementing them. This is all a matter of official record and therefore makes India and Pakistan's commitment to the UNSC Resolutions just as valid as their commitment to the Simla Agreement.

Ok. I tried to oversimplify it for you. Sorry for that.

UNSC - Officially asked. Officially handled. Mandatory to comply? No. Why, because GoP failed to pass it under Section 7.
Simla - Officially accepted by both. Bilateral, mandatory to confirm.
IWT - Officially accepted by both. Bilateral. mandatory to confirm.

Hope this clears things?

 

[Not Sure]

My point is that your assertion that somehow key diplomatic postings are primarily given to military figures is incorrect. You raised the issue, not me. I provided you with examples that show, at the very least, that key diplomatic postings are primarily held by civilians.

Your assertion is fictitious because I never used the term "primarily", I actually went on to use the phrase "quite often". By using that specific term "primarily", you are putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

And with the examples we both had to show, it is quite apparent that you cannot back your last sentence up with proof - that at the very least, key diplomatic postings are primarily held by civilians.

No, they are not. If you have examples showing civilian diplomats, I have just as many examples (if not more) showing retired generals (some times brigadiers too) appointed to key diplomatic postings at different times.

 

[surya kiran]

In this case the bilateral agreement (Simla) does not override the UNSC Resolutions, and in fact reiterates the commitment of both States to the UNSC Resolutions (as explained previously). Yes, India and Pakistan have to engage in discussions to resolve their differences over demilitarization, but that demilitarization is part of the process of holding a plebiscite in according to the UNSC Resolutions.

It was still mediated by a "third party", so if India is going to argue that the Simla Agreement invalidates previous commitments that involved third parties, then why hasn't India argued that the IWT is invalid?

No it does not. It is what Pakistan 'feels' it should be. But 'legally' its not.

Simla agreement does not invalidate IWt because it is a binding contract, unlike UNSC 47, which is not.