Peace in Afghanistan Will Not be Possible Until Kabul Acknowledges The Durand Line'

[Flash_Ninja]

Because until then the Afghans were not forbidden to migrate to and from what became Pakistani territory.

Oh right so a hard border was immediately enforced before Pakistan's UN membership vote in 1947, where Afghanistan was the only country to vote against it.

In fact the millions of Afghans residing in Pakistan completely contradict this idea that Afghans were forbidden; but either way it's ridiculous to think that the only solution to gain access to land is to claim it and invade and antagonise the owners for eternity.

 

[Solomon2]

...Pakistan is legally the rightful successor of the British rule before 1947 -

The Afghans' sticky bit is whether rights, legal or not, unexercised by the Brits could justly be exercised by Pakistan.

As I've pointed out, similar issues existed between the U.S. and the British Empire: the boundary before the American War of Independence was an political-administrative one, not a barrier to commerce or even the applicable migration-equivalent, fishing grounds. It was resolved by the parties agreeing on borders but yielding to the Americans a bit on economic rights: just as before the Revolution, Americans could fish on the Grand Banks and dry their catch on British territory. In exchange, U.S. claims on Canadian territory and efforts to encourage Canada to secede ceased.

Oh right so a hard border was immediately enforced before Pakistan's UN membership vote in 1947, where Afghanistan was the only country to vote against it.

You're stating the opposite of the case.

 

[MultaniGuy]

The Afghans' sticky bit is whether rights, legal or not, unexercised by the Brits could justly be exercised by Pakistan.

As I've pointed out, similar issues existed between the U.S. and the British Empire: the boundary before the American War of Independence was an political-administrative one, not a barrier to commerce or even the applicable migration-equivalent, fishing grounds. It was resolved by the parties agreeing on borders but yielding to the Americans a bit on economic rights: just as before the Revolution, Americans could fish on the Grand Banks (which remained under British control) and dry their catch on British territory. In exchange, U.S. claims on Canadian territory and efforts to encourage Canada to secede ceased.

You're stating the opposite of the case.

Listen, you have been already proven wrong.

But anyways, what do you suggest Pakistan do?

Tell us all right now!

 

[Flash_Ninja]

The Afghans' sticky bit is whether rights, legal or not, unexercised by the Brits could justly be exercised by Pakistan.

As I've pointed out, similar issues existed between the U.S. and the British Empire: the boundary before the American War of Independence was an political-administrative one, not a barrier to commerce or even the applicable migration-equivalent, fishing grounds. It was resolved by the parties agreeing on borders but yielding to the Americans a bit on economic rights: just as before the Revolution, Americans could fish on the Grand Banks (which remained under British control) and dry their catch on British territory. In exchange, U.S. claims on Canadian territory and efforts to encourage Canada to secede ceased.

You're stating the opposite of the case.

Your point is that Afghans were satisfied/accepting of the agreement as the British allowed limited numbers of them to continue migration.

Pakistan upon independence in 1947 cannot have immediately applied border checks or a hard border for atleast a decade or more, yet Afghanistan not only voted against Pakistans membership of the UN but also attempted to invade several times based on its claim of the land.

Now please tell me that Afghanistan is simply correcting injustice by evil Pakistan

 

[Solomon2]

...Pakistan upon independence in 1947 cannot have immediately applied border checks or a hard border for at least a decade or more, yet Afghanistan not only voted against Pakistans membership of the UN -

I think it was only 2-5 years later? But your point that Afghanistan opposed Pakistan's membership is a good one. It's not all a one-sided affair but it's obviously one where the Pakistani leadership behaved without sympathy and, IMO, without much wisdom: this strikes me as a resolvable dispute. Let the Afghans (not Pakistan's pet Talibs) talk about what they want and need in detail and engage with them on that basis.

 

[MultaniGuy]

I think it was only 2-5 years later? But your point that Afghanistan opposed Pakistan's membership is a good one. It's not all a one-sided affair but it's obviously one where the Pakistani leadership behaved without sympathy and, IMO, without much wisdom: this strikes me as a resolvable dispute. Let the Afghans (not Pakistan's pet Talibs) talk about what they want and need in detail and engage with them on that basis.

You have already been proven wrong, as there is no expiry date to the treaty of Rawalpindi 1919.

So what do you suggest Pakistan do.

@Dubious @waz This @Solomon2 is a trouble maker.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

The current Afghan government is led by mostly former NA leaders (Abdullah 2 and the other followers of Ahmad Shah Massoud, Sheikh Rabbani) and US’ post-occupation paid Kabul Pukhtoon lackeys (like Karzai and Ghani.)

The Pukhtoon majority and native population of Afghanistan has been marginalized, hence forcing them to eke out a meager living as refugees or via illegal activities.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has been blamed by all sides thanks in large part to US, India, and Israel fanning the flames to create disunity.

It seems finally that history has given us a chance to reset the conversation between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Recent events like the success of the Taliban, threat of a new civil war between Pukhtoons/Non-Pukhtoons in Afghanistan (#WeAreNotAfghans, bitterness of Abdullah 2,) and most importantly a new independent leadership under Imran Khan.

If Afghans are headed toward disaster, only Pakistan can offer them a third option which provides peace, security, and development of both.

However under the current servile government, Afghanistan is unlikely to talk anything but blame games against all its neighbors. We will wait for the next government in sha Allah.

 

[Dubious]

As I've pointed out, similar issues existed between the U.S. and the British Empire: the boundary before the American War of Independence was an political-administrative one, not a barrier to commerce or even the applicable migration-equivalent, fishing grounds. It was resolved by the parties agreeing on borders but yielding to the Americans a bit on economic rights: just as before the Revolution, Americans could fish on the Grand Banks and dry their catch on British territory. In exchange, U.S. claims on Canadian territory and efforts to encourage Canada to secede ceased.

Again this situation is not the same as America VS Canada! You can not forcefully impose something on a people half way around the globe assuming the 1 model fit all scenario!
You have been proven wrong but you seem adamant to catch anyone who would listen to you! Why the need to use the same America/Canada model when clearly the situation isnt the same? Are you not flexible enough to think outside the box or do you view everything from your limited knowledge and thus try to superimpose it everywhere ....even if it doesnt fit?

I think it was only 2-5 years later? But your point that Afghanistan opposed Pakistan's membership is a good one.

Pakistan itself has voted FOR india but that doesnt automatically mean anything more than international stage!

obviously one where the Pakistani leadership behaved without sympathy and, IMO, without much wisdom: this strikes me as a resolvable dispute. Let the Afghans (not Pakistan's pet Talibs) talk about what they want and need in detail and engage with them on that basis.

THIS shows your mentality and discredits anything you have to offer on this thread!

 

[M. Sarmad]

The Afghans' sticky bit is whether rights, legal or not, unexercised by the Brits could justly be exercised by Pakistan.

As I've pointed out, similar issues existed between the U.S. and the British Empire: the boundary before the American War of Independence was an political-administrative one, not a barrier to commerce or even the applicable migration-equivalent, fishing grounds. It was resolved by the parties agreeing on borders but yielding to the Americans a bit on economic rights: just as before the Revolution, Americans could fish on the Grand Banks and dry their catch on British territory. In exchange, U.S. claims on Canadian territory and efforts to encourage Canada to secede ceased.

You're stating the opposite of the case.

The International Court of Justice holds the principle of Uti possidetis juris which states that executed bilateral agreements defining international borders with or between colonial powers are “passed down” to successor independent state.

Whether Afghans accept it or not, the fact remains that the Durand Line agreement of 1893 and all other subsequent agreements that defined and confirmed boundary between Afghanistan and British India stand valid and Afghanistan cannot revoke them unilaterally.

As for border control and regulation, Pakistan is free to do whatever it considers appropriate as long as it is not in violation of any bilateral agreement signed between Afghanistan and British India (or Pakistan) or the International Law. If someone believes that Pakistan has violated any bilateral agreement or the International Law, he should go to the International Court of Justice and get a judgment in that regard. Until then, what you or the Afghans or anyone else say is merely an opinion which carries no legal weight.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Again this situation is not the same as America VS Canada! You can not forcefully impose something on a people half way around the globe assuming the 1 model fit all scenario!
You have been proven wrong but you seem adamant to catch anyone who would listen to you! Why the need to use the same America/Canada model when clearly the situation isnt the same? Are you not flexible enough to think outside the box or do you view everything from your limited knowledge and thus try to superimpose it everywhere ....even if it doesnt fit?


Pakistan itself has voted FOR india but that doesnt automatically mean anything more than international stage!


THIS shows your mentality and discredits anything you have to offer on this thread!

@Dubious since @Solomon2 does not reply back to me, ask him what should Pakistan do.

Ask what Pakistan should do? lol. Give up land? lol

 

[Dubious]

Because until then the Afghans were not forbidden to migrate to and from what became Pakistani territory.

Why should they be given this "facility" which isnt really mentioned in ink!

Why your fake sympathies with regard to this delusion? We can ask plenty of questions...Considering the DL is internationally recognized and not even disputed on!

 

[Solomon2]

Again this situation is not the same as America VS Canada! ....You have been proven wrong -

I did challenge you to "prove me wrong" but I seem to have missed where you did, would you point that out please?

 

[MultaniGuy]

I did challenge you to "prove me wrong" but I seem to have missed where you did, would you point that out please?

LOL what is this childish nonsense.

@Dubious tell @Solomon2 about the Treaty of Rawalpindi 1919.

He keeps ignoring that.

We have already proven you wrong @Solomon2

 

[Dubious]

I did challenge you to "prove me wrong" but I seem to have missed where you did, would you point that out please?

I asked you to show me in ink that the border was changed...You went back into denial mode instead...
I asked you to show me where this was inked..Since you are claiming it, the onus of the case rest in your court! Kindly do show us where we violated ANY agreement or that the Afghanis did ask to bring their animals over for grazing like your American/Canada case!
You have been going in circles and have yet to provide anything written that can prove your "fake sympathy" for Afghanis!

I did challenge you to "prove me wrong" but I seem to have missed where you did, would you point that out please?

Why are you rejecting an internationally valid treaty called Treaty of Rawalpindi:

The Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed on 8 August 1919 and changed on 22 November 1921. It was an agreement between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. The UK said British India would not go past Khyber Pass

@Solomon2

Instead of beating about the bush about imaginary pain of grazing....Try to understand the situation with respect to Pakistan and Afghanistan....in respect to the treaty the 2 signed!

In order for you to advocate anything on behalf of Afghanistan, they need to acknowledge, recognize the present border as per the treaty in 1919!

If they recognize it, we dont need a new treaty...If they dont, they cant cry for a new treaty! It is as simple as that! Basic politics 101!

 

[MultaniGuy]

I asked you to show me in ink that the border was changed...You went back into denial mode instead...
I asked you to show me where this was inked..Since you are claiming it, the onus of the case rest in your court! Kindly do show us where we violated ANY agreement or that the Afghanis did ask to bring their animals over for grazing like your American/Canada case!
You have been going in circles and have yet to provide anything written that can prove your "fake sympathy" for Afghanis!


Why are you rejecting an internationally valid treaty called Treaty of Rawalpindi:

The Treaty of Rawalpindi was signed on 8 August 1919 and changed on 22 November 1921. It was an agreement between the United Kingdom and Afghanistan in the Third Anglo-Afghan War. The UK said British India would not go past Khyber Pass

Now @Dubious ask him about treaty of Rawalpindi, or threaten to ban him.

Because @Solomon2 keeps ignoring the Treaty of Rawalpindi 1919.