Settle Kashmir and Get the Reward!!!

[ahmeddsid]

Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

it might not affect the resolution itself, but it does affect the likelihood of demands being made that it be implemented.

If his statement carries no legal or enforceable value, then it does not affect anything, especially since the man isn't even there now.

All it is is one mans opinion of something - the charter of the UN does not change and the UN resolutions and the obligations of UN members in implementing them do not change.

And lets not get self-righteous here. Its not like Pakistan was ever sincere about implementing it.

Oh yes we were - the fact is that Pakistan has never deviated form the stance of implementing the UN resolutions - India has, when she decided that she would rather occupy a people and steal land by violating international commitments instead of honoring them.

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Its not about what you want - its about implementing your agreements and your governments obligations under the rules of partition and under the charter of the UN, and the UNSC resolutions to resolve a territorial dispute. India took the case to the UN, asked for arbitration, and accepted the decisions made.

Nope it is about what penalty we have to pay in case we do not honour the agreement.

The decision is to allow the Kashmiris to determine their final status, and its rather immoral of you to claim to keep a people against their will and refuse to implement an agreement made on settling a territorial dispute - usually people who do this are called thieves and land grabbers.

What is immoral is for us and the global powers to decide.. "Immoral" - Is'nt it a relative term to begin with.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????

Certainly - how about we start with honoring the international commitments made and hold a fair plebiscite under the auspices of the UN to settle the dispute.

As the thread starter suggested, 'settle Kashmir and get the reward'.

That is after all something India herself took to the UN and agreed to.

Is honoring commitments made under the UN charter that hard for India to do?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Nope it is about what penalty we have to pay in case we do not honour the agreement.

Should have thought about that before you took the case to the UN, or even earlier when the rules of partition were being framed. Or even better, before becoming a member of the UN.

Commitments are commitments, otherwise land grabbers and thief's is all that comes to mind.

Read the UN charter, especially the part about the obligations of UNmembers to implement UN resolutions.

What is immoral is for us and the global powers to decide.. "Immoral" - Is'nt it a relative term to begin with.

Refusing a people the right to determine their own destiny, when that is precisely what the rules of partition indicated, and India agreed to in the UN, is immoral and illegal.

Occupying a people against their will can never be moral.

 

[Omar1984]

Cant we all just let Kashmir be as it is, and Help it become the Heaven it was prior to the 80s and then Live in Peace????

Not if India builds dams in Kashmir and steals Pakistan's water.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Reaffirming Legitimacy of Self-determination​

By Dr. Shireen M. Mazari

While debate continues over what should constitute a comprehensive international convention on terrorism, the international community has once again reaffirmed its commitment to the right of self-determination for people remaining under foreign occupation (II:15) through the Almaty Declaration of June 4, 2002. This Declaration was adopted by the Heads of State/Government of Member States of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). Both Pakistan and India are parties to this Declaration. Not only does the Declaration reaffirm the principle of self-determination, it emphasizes that this principle must be exercised “in accordance with the UN Charter and international law”. Non-fulfillment of this will pose a threat “to regional and international peace”.

For Pakistan, the Almaty Declaration once again proves its contention that the international community - including India - has to fulfill its obligations regarding Kashmir in accordance with the UN Resolutions and international law. While self-determination may have become unfashionable, it is a legitimate goal under international law and contrary to what Kofi Annan may claim, in his realpolitik game plan, UN resolutions and international law are not time barred or outdated. Almaty has clearly shown that.

Also, unlike the notion of terrorism, self-determination has been clearly identified within international law and it still remains a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens). This norm (of self-determination) is not only a part of customary international law, but is also enshrined as one of the principles of the UN as laid out in Article 1:2 of its Charter. Self-determination is seen within the context of people fighting against colonialism, foreign occupation and to enforce international commitments made to them by the United Nations. The strength of the self-determination norm is such that international conventions dealing with terrorism have always acknowledged and distinguished between struggles for self-determination and acts of terrorism and the Almaty Declaration is no exception.

The 1973 UN General Assembly Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Terrorism also drew the now established distinction between terrorism and struggles for self-determination, and this was further backed up by Article 7 of the General Assembly’s 1974 Definition of Aggression, which stated:

“Nothing in this definition, and in particular Article 3 (which gives an inventory of the acts that are regarded as aggression) could in any way prejudice the right of self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter, of peoples forcibly deprived of that right and referred to in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes or other forms of alien domination; or the right of these peoples to struggle to that end and seek and receive support ...”.

Kashmir is clearly a case of self-determination against foreign occupation, as defined in the UN resolutions on the issue. India itself recognized that it was an international dispute which required peaceful resolution through UN intervention. That is why India took the Kashmir issue to the UN under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which deals with Pacific Settlement of Disputes - as opposed to Chapter VII which deals with Aggression. In this connection, the April 21, 1948 UN Security Council resolution delineated the UN position on the Kashmir dispute. Inter alia, this resolution stated: “... both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”.

It was in the same vein that the UN Security Council recognized the “inalienable right of the people of East Timor to self-determination and independence in accordance with the principle of the Charter of the UN ...” and eventually the international community lived up to this commitment. Why the same has not been done for Kashmir is an interesting question - but the fact that the East Timorese were Christians fighting a Muslim power while the Kashmiris are primarily Muslims, may well comprise at least part of the answer!

Now the Almaty Declaration has stressed once again the continuing relevance of UN resolutions and international law within the context of struggles for self-determination. India’s signature on this Declaration clearly implies that India has renewed its acceptance of the legitimacy of self-determination that it made in the forties at the UN - within the context of Kashmir, since by any legal criteria the Kashmiri struggle is one of self-determination against foreign occupation.

In fact, the Almaty Declaration has gone one step further to clarify even further the notion of self-determination as being distinct from separatist struggles and acts of terrorism. In this context, the Declaration sees separatism as one of the “main threats and challenges to the security and stability, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states.” (II:18) As such all CICA member states are bound not to aid and abet, in any manner whatsoever, such movements. Separatist struggles are clearly those which the international community through the UN has not recognized as struggles against foreign occupation.

The fact that India is a party to this Declaration should imply that India is now renouncing its historical support for separatist movements in the region - be they the LTTE in Sri Lanka or separatist groups in Bangladesh, or the Dalai Lama of Tibet and so on. Presently, the Maoist uprising in Nepal has its leadership based in India and the cross-border terrorism into Nepal has not been dealt with firmly by India in the form of sealing of its border with Nepal!

A very important aspect of the Almaty Declaration in this context is the fact that major powers like China, who are facing separatist movements, now have a clear condemnation of these from the international community. Also, the delinkage between self-determination and separatism should allow these states to become more vocal on the issue of self-determination. For Pakistan this is very important because its most important ally China should now be able to take up the case of the Dalai Lama with India at this level also; and be more forthright on Kashmir without having any parallels drawn in the context of the separatist terrorists of Xinjiang. Interestingly, the US in its long list of terrorist groups has not included the Xinjiang separatists and members of this group who have been arrested by Allied forces in Afghanistan and have not been handed over to the Chinese authorities - one wonders why?

In many ways, the Almaty Declaration is a step forward, not only in once again reaffirming the legitimacy of self-determination struggles in international law and within the UN framework, but also in moving the international community closer to a consensus on terrorism. The distinction between self-determination and separatism will also add clarity to international law and to a comprehensive terrorist convention which does not have to shy away from a working definition of the concept. For Asian states the CICA, through the Declaration, has given itself substance for meaningful cooperation in the future. It has shown that Asian states can cooperate on sensitive issues, without external inputs from outside actors. But the test will come when all the signatories to the Almaty Declaration begin to implement it. For us in South Asia, there is a need to push for this implementation more actively and collectively in order to establish regional peace and security.

Pakistan Link - Letter & Opinion

 

[ahmeddsid]

Not if India builds dams in Kashmir and steals Pakistan's water.

Exactly, It all comes down to Resources! Pakistan is telling it is fighting for the people, but here it goes, right from the horses mouth! Its not people dummy, its WATER!!!!

 

[Omar1984]

Exactly, It all comes down to Resources! Pakistan is telling it is fighting for the people, but here it goes, right from the horses mouth! Its not people dummy, its WATER!!!!

Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory.

 

[ahmeddsid]

Millions of people in Pakistan will die if India steals our waters through the dams theyre building in Indian Occupied Kashmir, and Pakistan always sided with Kashmiris even before India made plans on these dams so it is about the people...you dont see Pakistan making dams to steal water from India's territory.

because u really cant steal much water from India. Look, lets be open, Kashmir is Strategically important in all aspects. India wont Give up, Better to let status quo be maintained. Bleeding India thru separatism wont work, because it is a 2 way road.

 

[beetel]

For you kind information
Taken from International Boundaries consultants


India-China (Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh)

In the 1962 Sino-Indian War, China seized a Switzerland-sized area, Aksai Chin (Aksayqin), and overran Arunachal Pradesh (an Indian state the size of Austria). There are also other, smaller pockets of disputed area.[1] The PRC withdrew from virtually all of Arunachal Pradesh to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), which approximates the McMahon Line that is found in a 1914 agreement initialed by British, Tibetan, and Chinese representatives.[2] Chinese and Indian forces clashed in the Sumdorong Chu valley of Arunachal Pradesh in 1986-87. Relations began to thaw in 1988.

That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china



Fate of land given to China to be decided: *** PM








5Rediff P4C Classifieds
May 21, 2007 18:44 IST
Azad Kashmir Prime Minister, Attique Ahmad Khan, has said the fate of the 12,000 square miles of northern areas ceded by Pakistan to China in 1965 "is to be decided" as the territory came under the undivided Jammu and Kashmir state.

"Every inch of Gilgit and Baltistan is as important as any other part of the state. The future of 28,000 square miles of Northern Areas (under the control of Pakistan) and 12,000 square miles of areas that are under the control of China is to be decided," he was quoted by 'The Nation' as telling a seminar in Muzaffarabad, the capital of ***, on Sunday.

Khan, son of former *** President Sarda Qayyum Khan, said Northern Areas were integral part of the Jammu and Kashmir state before partition and their interests would not be compromised.

His statement was regarded significant as a Pakistani or *** politician seldom refers to the area ceded to China in 1965 as part of the boundary agreement between two countries.

Khan argued that on the areas ceded to China, the Pakistan-China agreement has said their future depended on the future of Northern Areas.

The agreement stipulated that after the Kashmir issue is settled between India and Pakistan, the "sovereign" authority will re-open negotiations with China as to sign a formal boundary agreement. If the authority concerned is Pakistan, the provisions of the present boundary agreement will be maintained in the formal boundary treaty.

Also it was rare that politicians in Pakistan or *** linked Northern Areas to Jammu and Kashmir.

Under Pakistan's tutelage, the areas incorporating Gilgit and Baltistan were not part of ***. The status of *** and Northern Areas figured differently in Pakistan's Constitution.

Both have different sets of councils.

It was not yet clear whether Khan was preparing the ground for the resolution of the Kashmir issue through the current peace process between India and Pakistan as his father spoke optimistically about the progress in that direction after his return from participation in a conference in New Delhi.

Khan said in his view two kinds of Kashmiri public opinion prevailed, one "pro-Pakistan" and another "for independence." He discreetly avoided mentioning pro-India Kashmiris.

He also said it was very difficult to include Kahmiris in the India-Pak dialogue and urged New Delhi to take practical steps to change the ground situation.

Interestingly, he also reportedly said that Pakistan should have diplomatic ties with Israel, which Islamabad had so far not recognised. If Pakistan could have ties with India it should accept Israel, which has "not harmed" Islamabad.

He also supported the "military democracy" headed by President Pervez Musharraf and linked the future of democracy in Pakistan with the civil-military cooperation to make the country politically stable, the newspaper reported.
Fate of land given to China to be decided: Azad Kashmir PM

 

[beetel]

If his statement carries no legal or enforceable value, then it does not affect anything, especially since the man isn't even there now.

All it is is one mans opinion of something - the charter of the UN does not change and the UN resolutions and the obligations of UN members in implementing them do not change.


Oh yes we were - the fact is that Pakistan has never deviated form the stance of implementing the UN resolutions - India has, when she decided that she would rather occupy a people and steal land by violating international commitments instead of honoring them.

Are you sure...?We have 1965 war .,kargil ,terrorism where UN said do all this things and if failed come to us..

 

[ahmeddsid]

Are you sure...?We have 1965 war .,kargil ,terrorism where UN said do all this things and if failed come to us..

UN is a FAILURE! Look how many Resolutions Israels Ignored! Look How USA Invaded Iraq! Where was the UN? UN should be dissolved!

 

[binzaman]

"That is a part of laddakh not kashmir ..Here we are talking about the area of kashmir which has been gifted by pakistan to china"

So here you are telling us that Laddakh is not part of Kashmir????

 

[indiapakistanfriendship]

Should have thought about that before you took the case to the UN, or even earlier when the rules of partition were being framed. Or even better, before becoming a member of the UN.

I agree but then I am asking you what is the penalty we are supposed to pay for our delayed wisdom.

Commitments are commitments, otherwise land grabbers and thief's is all that comes to mind.

Does it matter what you think or Pakistan Governemnt thinks?

Read the UN charter, especially the part about the obligations of UNmembers to implement UN resolutions.

Did I say otherwise, but then it is coming from Pakistan who conveniently recognised Taliban governmnt which incidentally was not recognised by the UN. The point is the penalty you needed to pay was less .

Refusing a people the right to determine their own destiny,

Who said the geographical land mass called Kashmir was the destiny of Kashmiris themselves.

when that is precisely what the rules of partition indicated,

Somrthing that was done under the influence and pressure of the British.

and India agreed to in the UN,

Ok

is immoral.

Ok hypthetically let me agree to what you say, hey but then we are comfortably skirting under the radar, so what the heck anyways.