UN backtracks on role of its observers in Kashmir, says limited to LOC

[M. Sarmad]

There is no confusion but its you who are trying to build something out of thin air.

1- UN resolutions comes under Chapter 6 which are non binding by definition.
2- Self determination was proposed under a non binding resolution and that too was conditional on many pre requisites being completed first, which were never attained.
3- India has/had full legal right of not going ahead with any resolution, and no one including UN and pakistan can do $hit about it.

1) While a recommendation under Chapter 6 by itself may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).


2) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. Moreover, The Principle of Self Determination, as already stated, is inherently binding under international law when it is a basis for negotiation for settlement of a dispute


3) Yes, India can choose NOT to implement the UN Resolutions, But J&K will remain a disputed territory (and not an integral part of India) under international law until and unless the people of Kashmir exercising their right to self-determination (in a plebiscite held under UN auspices) decide to join India.

When asked about why UN is not enforcing its resolution, Kofi Annan said-

Secretary General said "You are comparing apples and oranges" When it comes to implementation of resolutions, I think we have to be clear here. The UN has two types of resolutions -- enforcement resolutions under Chapter VII and other resolutions. The resolution you are referring to here comes under Chapter VI, which require cooperation of both parties to get implemented. the two parties discussing these issues and finding a peaceful way is the route I recommend.

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the UN will not disengage itself from Kashmir problem. According to the UN Charter any resolutions approved under chapter VI , it is the duty of UN Member States to persuade both the parties for a dialogue. On record the UN and its member States are no doubt fully complying with the UN Charter and persuading both Pakistan and India for bilateral dialogue.

http://www.contactpakistan.com/PakEmbassy/latestnews/news235.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010312/main1.htm

As stated clearly, the best UN can do for articles under chapter VI is just persuade the members to follow and can not bind them to follow. Here even that question doesn't arise when the very first step was not fulfilled of UN resolution, which gives all the moral right to India for disengage from implementation of any resolution voluntarily.

Now coming to latest from Ban Ki Moon -

UNITED NATIONS: Expressing sorrow over the recent outbreak of violence in Jammu and Kashmir, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has underscored the need for Pakistan and India to resolve the “longstanding” issue, saying his good offices are available if both sides agree to his mediation. -
See more at: http://awaztoday.pk/News_Ban-Ki-moo...5970_Political-News.aspx#sthash.7XFnmOyr.dpuf

Ban categorically said that his office is available only if both parties agree to its mediation, if UN resolutions are binding on India and pakistan, why UN have to wait for invitation and do not take cognizance of matter and act?

The fact is, you have lost everything and no one listens or peddle your line anymore.

Yu can try and twist each and every line and present a convoluted logic, but the situation on ground is Pak is crying from deepest of its throat, UN is silent and waiting for Indian approval to intermediate.

So much of binding here we can witness.

I have covered almost all which should have been, let the reader be judge. Good Night.

Let me remind you, my friend, that you claimed:


"Both have categorically said the whole resolution is non binding"

And when asked for Source, the link you yourself provided says exactly the opposite:

"Spokeswoman rejects Kofi Annan said UN resolution on Kashmir not binding"



Yes, Let the Reader be Judge


Good Night

 

[-xXx-]

Let me remind you, my friend, that you claimed:


"Both have categorically said the whole resolution is non binding"

And when asked for Source, the link you yourself provided says exactly the opposite:

"Spokeswoman rejects Kofi Annan said UN resolution on Kashmir not binding"

Gone crazy?

I have quoted the exact wordings of Kofi Annan, and can be interpreted accordingly which in line with the nature of Chapter VI.

Are you questioning that Kofi Annan did not said what exactly what is being quoted, interpretation aside?

Moreover its reported by pakistani source that spokeswoman said "She said it is weird, Secretary General can never term a UNSC resolution as non-binding. I believe this is the source of the misunderstanding."

When we all know all resolution apart from chapter & are non binding.
Poor Pakistani source trying to placate things.

And how comfortably you avoided Ban Ki Moon.

 

[M. Sarmad]

I have quoted the exact wordings of Kofi Annan, and can be interpreted accordingly which in line with the nature of Chapter VI.

That, my friend, exactly is the problem. Pakistanis and Indians always interpret Resolutions/Agreements/Statements in the way that suits them and they seldom agree on something.

Kofi Annan never said that the UN resolutions were Non-Binding. He only said that those resolutions were not self-enforcing and required cooperation from both parties and that the Resolutions were important.

You can interpret his words in any way you like but the fact remains that what he said was exactly in line with the position maintained by the UN (and Pakistan too) since 1948.

Moreover its reported by pakistani source that spokeswoman said "She said it is weird, Secretary General can never term a UNSC resolution as non-binding. I believe this is the source of the misunderstanding."

When we all know all resolution apart from chapter & are non binding.
Poor Pakistani source trying to placate things.

And how comfortably you avoided Ban Ki Moon.

Well, You yourself quoted that source, didn't you ?

My Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2001/sgt2270R.doc.htm

 

[RISING SUN]

The Kashmir dispute remains on the list of unresolved international disputes on the agenda of the Security Council.

The legal basis on which Pakistan claims J&K are the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. The UN Security resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

These resolutions, as clarified by the UN representatives on several occasions, are still valid.

So, until and unless the Kashmiris decide to join India in a referendum held under UN auspices, Pakistan's claim will remain legally valid.





My Indian friend, that was an inadvertent omission (British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant had not mentioned the Kashmir dispute in the context of unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact that it was included in the annual report) and the UN had set the record straight the very next day when it declared that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the UN Security Councils agenda, while rejecting as inaccurate that it has been removed from the list of unresolved issues.

Some articles today on Kashmir are inaccurate, UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports, especially in Indian media.

He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of continues to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year, the spokesman added.

http://nation.com.pk/politics/17-Nov-2010/Kashmir-still-on-SCs-agenda-UN

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/kashmir-stays-on-unsc-agenda-list-for-this-year/20101117.htm



There is a difference between inadvertent omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of Security Council (While it was duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and was also present on its agenda) and the claims made by the Indian Media that "Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes", describing it as "a huge set back for Pakistan" ....

The next day, on November 16, 2010, the UNO had to clarify that Jammu and Kashmir dispute remained on its agenda and rejected such media reports as "inaccurate".

But the Indian Media obviously didn't make it clear to the gullible Indians that it was a 'mistake' (Maybe it was an intentional deception?) and as a result a lot of Indians still believe that Kashmir Dispute has been removed from the UN list of unresolved disputes since 2010 !!





Wrong again ......


New York: The United Nations’ Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is concerned over the tense situation in Kashmir, following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.

http://nation.com.pk/international/...eral-expresses-concern-over-kashmir-situation






The Agreement between India and Pakistan is binding on both.

Jammu and Kashmir is not in the list of disputed territory, not anymore. Please check the latest status. Legal basis on which Pakistan claims J&K were the UN non binding resolutions based clear directives and conditions which Pakistan needlessly ignored when it should have agreed to it. Yes please refer to official records, not some spokesperson who are influenced by their mother country while having media briefings. Whether J&K people join India or not is between both of us. Pakistan has no legal backing to become mediators(who themselves are responsible for UN resolution faliure.). And there is difference between statement made by UN authority and a Pakistan based spokesperson influencing the statement itself. And when I say UN is concerned about J&K situation I am referring my statement on the basis of acts being done in Indian J&K and Pakistan administered Kashmir.

That, my friend, exactly is the problem. Pakistanis and Indians always interpret Resolutions/Agreements/Statements in the way that suits them and they seldom agree on something.

Kofi Annan never said that the UN resolutions were Non-Binding. He only said that those resolutions were not self-enforcing and required cooperation from both parties and that the Resolutions were important.

You can interpret his words in any way you like but the fact remains that what he said was exactly in line with the position maintained by the UN (and Pakistan too) since 1948.



Well, You yourself quoted that source, didn't you ?

My Source:

http://www.un.org/press/en/2001/sgt2270R.doc.htm

We read the material in straight form as it is. We don't manipulate the wording to suit us when it comes to UN. Now coming on Kofi Annan, what he said is to the point. Unless and until both party agree, resolution can't be enforced, that is non binding. Binding means UN doesn't have to look for co-operation from two or multi parties. What he said could had been applied in 1947-48 that too with both countries co-operation and meeting the specific laid conditions. But after Pakistan agreed to bi-lateral agreement, it lost the even non-binding resolution backing also. Yes and in the link Pakistani spokeswoman seemed helpless when see said how could he say like this, there must be some conspiracy or manipulation done in Kofi Annan statement.

 

[Sneaker]

1 AUGUST 2016

Daily Press Briefing by the Office of the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General


Question: Yeah. I want to thank you very much on behalf of all the journalists here. We have a great opportunity. And my question is not directly related to what you said but it's still an ongoing thing. And it's regarding the Indian-occupied part of Kashmir, the disputed territory, the ongoing atrocities, people are being, you know, killed and there are a number of people who are being hidden [inaudible], what has the United Nations done specifically in this regard and what further United Nations can do, just to stop this act which right now is going on in the disputed territory of Kashmir?

Deputy Spokesman: Well, the United Nations has repeatedly, including just a few weeks ago, put out the message to both sides about the need for them to work constructively with each other on this issue. And we will continue to monitor the situation including, of course, through our monitoring group on the ground, UNMOGIP [United Nations Military Observers in India and Pakistan].

Question: Follow‑up: was the United Nations thing the UN rights are being violated right now in this disputed territory of Kashmir by Indian forces?

Deputy Spokesman: I would refer you to the work of our Human Rights colleagues in Geneva, but we have issued periodic communications on this. Yes, Masood?

http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160801.doc.htm


Indian Media is claiming that this statement (the underlined part) by the Deputy Spokesperson has been "clarified" today by the Spokesperson.


Everyone knows the mandate of UNMOGIP. It's mentioned clearly on their website. And it has always been the same.


But look at the Indian Media, It is trying to give an impression as if the UN has backtracked on the role of its observers in Kashmir !!

What a bunch of clowns ... No wonder no one takes Indian Media seriously ...

http://www.un.org/press/en/2016/db160802.doc.htm

"...And, I know there was an exchange of questions regarding the situation in Kashmir, and I just wanted to clarify something, which is that UNMOGIP [United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan], the UN observer presence there, its mandate is to report on the ceasefire between India and Pakistan along the Line of Control. The UN Mission there does not have a mandate there beyond the Line of Control."

 

[Dzz]

The U.N. resolution has made it pretty clear that Pakistani citizens have to leave p.0.k

 

[SamantK]

You can run as much as to 71. It won't change anything. In fact with every passing day it is becoming irrelevant.

1 Kashmir is still disputed and as international it can be.
2 Pakistan has moved on from 71

Legal argument has been given by yourself dear. Look it up again. Kashmir is disputed. It is disputed between Pakistan and India. So Pakistan is a party to dispute and hence can claim Kashmir as its own. As per Pakistan it is an unfinished agenda of partition. So yes we can claim Srinagar.

And I can be funny but you can never be like me. For that you have to be realistic. Start with accepting Kashmir as disputed territory.

Pakistan was made a party by India for illegal occupation of her territory, if you haven't read properly, you should start soon.

 

[Areesh]

Pakistan was made a party by India for illegal occupation of her territory, if you haven't read properly, you should start soon.

Whatever. It would still make us a party to the dispute.

are you one of them ??? it seems you have full coverage of whats going on inside indian media...

We know you well. After all we live in 21st century.

IS PDF funded and run by the ISI, with an IQ of 20, who writes contents like this, what a disgrace! the only idiots who will be pissing their pants are mullahs getting bombed by USA cruise missiles in a few years once the dispensation changes in Washington.

We could not give 2 hoots about your rants, it will go silent in the pages of history.... Dont worry India will be here to make Pakistan a living hell, time and time again!

Ooops you pissed in your pants as expected. Awww. Don't worry and keep waiting for few years and wait for America. After all you monkey face losers can't do sh!t yourself.

And Pakistan would also be here to keep bharat mata moaning just like you are moaning after abandoning bharat mata for Australia.

Under siege by whom? Who is sieging whom - please think and then scurry away

By your country and your security forces. It is under siege since 1947. India is the worst thing that happened to Kashmir.

 

[surya kiran]

By your country and your security forces. It is under siege since 1947. India is the worst thing that happened to Kashmir.

Actually, the invasion of Kashmir by Pakistani backed army, Pakistani army calling themselves mujahideen and Pakistan backed terrorists are the worst things to have happened to Kashmir.

 

[Areesh]

Actually, the invasion of Kashmir by Pakistani backed army, Pakistani army calling themselves mujahideen and Pakistan backed terrorists are the worst things to have happened to Kashmir.

For a delusional bharati fooled by his state education may be. But for a Kashmiri India is the worst thing happened to Kashmir.

 

[surya kiran]

For a delusional bharati fooled by his state education may be. But for a Kashmiri India is the worst thing happened to Kashmir.

At least educated. Cannot say the same for you, though. A state which does not respect the document it signs by its own sovereign government has no locus standing on any topic discussed. And personal attacks, just proves further the point, Pakistanis have no logical view, neither of the history of the dispute nor their standing on the point.

By the way, the delusion, is yours. Propogated by your state. A delusional state is one which says they are on Siachen, when they are not. Delusion is when you claim no genocide happened in Bangaldesh when it did. Delusion is when your army claims its own army men are mujahideen on the Kargil peaks and then refuses to accept their dead bodies. That is delusion. State sponsored delusion.

 

[Deepika Maheshwari]

Whats all this brouhaha about 'right' or 'wrong'. Pakistan supports China's position in SCS. That is against UN arbitration. Now India claims Kashmir with or without UN approval so why is Pakistan getting all pissed. Indian Administered Kashmir will remain with India - With or without Kashmiris. There are only 12.55 million of them. If push comes to shove - they can be rounded up and moved else where in India. The point is simple. If Kashmiris create problem for India, they will be killed - what Pakistan is going to do about it? Go to war with India?

That will be a sure fire way to get completely destroyed as you have no conventional parity with India. Only way is to go nuclear as you often harp and threaten. There will not be any Pakistan left after that and a large part of India will also be gone. Somewhere in Beijing there will be a large celebration.