What does China think about Kashmir. My POV

[saadee]

But you say all others support you, so how did Russia stops all other to deliver for you?

And what all others who supports you did for you?

Did US/UK/China bring any resolution in support of you? ---- NO

Did they help you directly in any war? -----NO

Did Russia have to stop any resolution? --- NO, because it never came.



Kids are hillarious these days.

How can they bring resolution when security council member Russia is vetoing it? Common sense.

Did they help you directly in any war? -----NO

THE ANSWER IS STUPIDITY AT ITS EXTREME. THE WAR WAS IN BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA NOT IN BETWEEN INDIA VS PAKISTAN,CHINA,UK AND FRANCE.

Did Russia have to stop any resolution? --- NO, because it never came.

CASE WAS IN U.N AND YOUR SRE STILL SLEEPING. MY LORD! HELP THESE INDIANS

Here is the biggest example of your stupidity

Did they help you directly in any war? -----NO

They are the members of U.N SECURITY COUNCIL and you are asking them to join Pakistan in the war against India.

Did Russia have to stop any resolution? --- NO, because it never came.

Both countries took the matter to U.N and you are claiming that matter was not in U.N

 

[PoKeMon]

How can they bring resolution when security council member Russia is vetoing it? Common sense.

Now hold on to this.

So according to you, Russia must have vetoed any resolution? Yes or No?

Look kid - Let me chalk out the process for you -

Step 1 -
Some nation brings out a proposal in front of P5.

Step 2 -
Anyone of P5 can veto the proposal to prohibit its adoption.

So how can Russia exercise the Step 2 without Step 1 already taken place.

If you say Step 1 had taken place and then 2, quote me the instance.

Dont fool around if you dont know anything.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Now hold on to this.

So according to you, Russia must have vetoed any resolution? Yes or No?

Look kid - Let me chalk out the process for you -

Step 1 -
Some nation brings out a proposal in front of P5.

Step 2 -
Anyone of P5 can veto the proposal to prohibit its adoption.

So how can Russia exercise the Step 2 without Step 1 already taken place.

If you say Step 1 had taken place and then 2, quote me the instance.

Dont fool around if you dont know anything.

The threat of a veto alone is enough to stop people bringing resolutions to the UNSC.

US is known for vetoing any condemnation of Israel, so what's the point in bringing a resolution?

Same as Taiwan's bid to become a UN member, no one brings the resolution since it would be pointless, we would veto it.

Many resolutions die before they even have a chance to come before the UNSC.

 

[saadee]

Now hold on to this.

So according to you, Russia must have vetoed any resolution? Yes or No?
I think I answered that part many times over and over.

Look kid - Let me chalk out the process for you -

Step 1 -
Some nation brings out a proposal in front of P5.
agreed

Step 2 -
Anyone of P5 can veto the proposal to prohibit its adoption.
which is true

So how can Russia exercise the Step 2 without Step 1 already taken place.
First part presentation, Second part if any member of p5 disagree with the proposal then proposal can't be effective.




Step 1 -
Some nation brings out a proposal in front of P5.
PRESENTATION

Step 2 -
Anyone of P5 can veto the proposal to prohibit its adoption.
It is a fact. You are answering your own question.
First part presentation, Second part if any member of p5 disagree with the proposal then proposal can't be effective.

Many resolutions die before they even have a chance to come before the UNSC.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point

 

[Tameem]

Here is my snippet about China's stance on Kashmir. Much of this has been behind closed doors and you won't see it being discussed in the media often.

China is wary of the Kashmir issue and is trying to balance their act of being a good ally with Pakistan- when it comes to stating their support. Very rarely will you see China speak on Kashmir and support Pakistan’s position all out. Rather most for what you will official see is at best a tactic support.

The reason for this and what I've encountered is twofold:
On one end, China does not want to open the Pandora’s Box to then give any sort of legitimacy to groups in Taiwan, HK, Tibet and SCS. Can you imagine a plebiscite call or any U.N negotiations in those regions?

On the other end, they do not want to write off India. For China to be successful as far their global ambitions go, they truly need India to be their Canada, if not a somewhat prickly Mexico.

Feel free to discuss the merit of what I submitted, and I'll try to answer as much as can.

I think the argument with what China thinks would be Central to Kashmir solution is false & misguided, bcz more than China, this issue central around what USA thinks and desires in world's geo-politics futuristically, as US controls the world PR both militarily and diplomatically all alone.

This is exactly why, i think we could see a movement on this core issue in coming years as it now directly falls in the sphere of US priorities.....thanks to Ukrainin/Crimean Issue. USA needs India's might (Moral, Militaric & economics) support vis a vis her standoff with Russia and China. The current stalemate in which Pakistan possess to have a pointed gun towards its arch enemy is not favoring that narrative but at the same time this stalemate on Kashmir is more favorable to Pakistan and China or Russia for that matter then its to India-USA.

 

[saadee]

Biggest example is recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Who is going to stop the Russia itself is the member of Security Council. They might slap them with few sanctions but what else they can do?

 

[Sanchez]

Hi. Some of you know my background from the initial introduction I made when I joined these forums. And those who did not read it, pretty much assumed my background from the name I've taken here. Something you may missed all the same, was that my background and the theater I was specifically deployed to was the South Asia Theater, specifically Afghanistan / Pakistan and India.

While I’ve been here, I've been struggling with what areas I go into, discuss openly without compromising privileged conversations and communications. Let's face it, even after retirement I'm obliged to keep silent on the very many interactions I've been honored to have as US State department employee.

There some areas I can speak to in broad strokes and I've been thinking that I should here. Forewarning- the nature of these forthcoming posts you may find very cryptic and opaque.

Having stated that - I would like to start introducing and hope to do this from time to time, posts that speak to this specific region and my experiences when dealing with the various diplomatic corps, think thanks and what I qualify as deeply ingrained and deeply experienced people with knowledge of this region.

Here is my snippet about China's stance on Kashmir. Much of this has been behind closed doors and you won't see it being discussed in the media often.

China is wary of the Kashmir issue and is trying to balance their act of being a good ally with Pakistan- when it comes to stating their support. Very rarely will you see China speak on Kashmir and support Pakistan’s position all out. Rather most for what you will official see is at best a tactic support.

The reason for this and what I've encountered is twofold:
On one end, China does not want to open the Pandora’s Box to then give any sort of legitimacy to groups in Taiwan, HK, Tibet and SCS. Can you imagine a plebiscite call or any U.N negotiations in those regions?

On the other end, they do not want to write off India. For China to be successful as far their global ambitions go, they truly need India to be their Canada, if not a somewhat prickly Mexico.

Feel free to discuss the merit of what I submitted, and I'll try to answer as much as can.

The greater Kashmir historically extended its territory to Afganistan, Tibet and Xingjiang. Up to the 1820s-1830s it was a vassal state of Qing dynasty. In 1830s, sikhs and later British colonists invaded Kashmir. Eventually Kashmir became a "princely state" of British India. China's stance is to claim parts of Kashmir where Tibetans and other minorities traditionally reside. For the rest China supports Pakistan‘s claim as well as their suggestions to solve the "Kashmir issue“. UN had a resolution on Kashmir referendum of self determination. Pakistan agreed but India refused.

Since the independence and partition in 1947 India goverment tried everything to grab the former "princely states" of British India. It included Kashmir, Burmar, Manipur and other Northeast parts of present day India. India succeeded through a few "stapled agreements” with Kashmir, Manipur and etc, but not Burmar. If you read more about these areas you'd find out that Indians cared only about Hindus and the size of their territory. They never did anything good to the people of these "gained-by-the influence of Brits" territories.

 

[PoKeMon]

The threat of a veto alone is enough to stop people bringing resolutions to the UNSC.

US is known for vetoing any condemnation of Israel, so what's the point in bringing a resolution?

Same as Taiwan's bid to become a UN member, no one brings the resolution since it would be pointless, we would veto it.

Many resolutions die before they even have a chance to come before the UNSC.

They die because no one is serious to pursue them since the ramifications are quite higher than benefit they will reap.

CD I assume atleast you know the difference among merely lip service, well wishing and sincerity and will.

When it comes to Pak -

US/UK/France - merely lip service

China - Perhaps well wishing

No one - sincerity and willing

They never bring up a resolution because they knew they wont succeed rather lose India badly in return. So interest were somewhere while tongue somewhere else.

@saadee My all exercise is to make you understand that whom you consider as supporters are not that supporting and have always looked to their interests which was never in passing a resolution against India.

Israel - who actually wants anything against them out of P5?

Taiwan - What US will get what they are not getting as status quo?

Only those things die which are not worth fighting for.

 

[acid rain]

I believe Pakistan's position on Kashmir is wrong. It would be much better to rally the international community behind the Pakistan Administered Kashmir for a free and fair referendum. If AJK chooses to become an independent state and India doesn't reciprocate by holding a referendum in Indian administered Kashmir, it would become easier and more legitimate for an independent AJK to take its narrative to the international community for 'reunification'. In my opinion the Kashmir issue is very similar to the East and West Germany. Both parts were administered by two different powers with conflicting interests, the area was heavily militarized and the real people suffering from it were the German people. In Kashmir the Kashmiri people suffer from the conflicting interests of Pakistan and India. The ideal solution that will stand the test of time is the reunification of Kashmir into a new and sovereign nation state. If that happens, the very long held dream of ''breakfast in Dehli, Lunch in Islamabad and dinner in Kabul can be realised ''.

Where is the legitimacy in your elections - in any of your elections? The recent elections as been termed has bogus by a major portion of your population...so how are going to convince anyone of the legitimacy in this plebiscite if it happens?. Especially when a large portion has been ceded to China and the rest has been overrun by non kashmiris?.

Such an exercise would be a wasteful exercise and nobody will trust the authenticity of it when pakistan hasn't run a legitimate election till date.

 

[Foggy_Bottom]

In that case, your conclusions are neither incisive nor groundbreaking. China's "inaction" with regards to Kashmir mirrors China's "inaction" with regards to the Ukraine. Because it's China's official stance not to meddle in sovereignty issues when it comes to other nations, as is stated by China itself time and time again. Maintaining a neutral stance is reflective of China's desire to avoid accusations of hypocrisy etc when China tells other nations to butt out of its own affairs.

Even if China *were* to get more involved in the Kashmir issue, I couldn't envision any kind of PR "nightmare" as severe as what you're implying because for one, the Kashmir issue is important to Indians and Pakistanis only. I doubt India could drum up enough support or exert enough influence to create a "crisis" for China with regards to HK, Taiwan, or any other region because India simply lacks the clout. The US (the only one who could in theory do something of the sort) would strive to appear neutral and/or simply not give a crap about the dispute at all, as is the case presently.

The fact that you ascribe so much undue influence to and place so much emphasis on Indian power and machinations with regards to keeping China out of the Kashmir belies your emotional investment in the issue due to your likely Indian heritage. Furthermore, that you feel the need to repeatedly state your professional pedigree rather than let your knowledge be self-evident, leads me to believe that you are decidedly not a retired US state department official with 50 years experience or whatever the hell you're claiming.

In the future, when pretending to be an important anonymous internet official, try adding "Doctor", "President", and "Lord Commander" in front of your username. Like "Dr. President Lord Commander of the US State dept, retired". It will lend gravity and credence to your posts and may fool more people...like Superboy.

Comparing Ukraine to China -Pakistan relations is quite an imaginative stretch. As is the claim of 'China does not interfere in the sovereign issues of any country'. May I remind you that China took a part of the disputed Kashmir region and also Aksai Chin, one being clearly a disputed part of another country, and the other being a sovereign boundary/territory of India. Of course, let's not also forget how China is trying to muscle itself into sovereign territories in SCS, and claims the right to do so on the basis of some historical map.

Now I fully expect you come back at me with some revisionist historical claims, but that's always been the excuse. .

Also- At no point did I say India is going to drum up any interference on Taiwan, HK, Tibet , SCS etc. How difficult is it proving for you to comprehend a couple of sentences? My submission here was based on what the Chinese diplomats have said for eons, behind closed doors and off the record. Take it or leave it. But after all the spin you have tried to pull off here, after all the obfuscations and attempts at twisting my words - You seem to conveniently ignore, at the end of day, that my assertions are the ground realities of today.

 

[American Pakistani]

There is not going to be war unless we see another 26/11. Which if it were to happen, would mean Pakistan would be heavily sanctioned and isolated. Even then, it will be a limited engagement ( mini war), and there is no chance of Pakistan using any nuclear weapons because of the limited nature of the engagement.

There is only one way for both countries and most importantly for Pakistan to get back to being economy focused and successful. That is accepting current boundaries.

I've had this discussion a hundred times with different people in different governments. Sixty plus years = statute of limitations has expired.

This thing has run its course.

You mean if Russia occupies Alaska, US must forget and move on and just focus on economy. With due respects, Sir...are you sure you are using your brain atm?

 

[Kaniska]

Guys..it does not matter to India wheather China supports Pakistan with Kashmir or not..At the end of the day, It is Gov of India's call about how they would like to deal with Kashmir issue...India really does not really care what others think about Kashmir...forget about China, even India do not care what US or Russia even think of..

Another news, BJP is the 2nd largest party in Jammu and Kashmir election that has help recently...So of course, every one now understand what does that signifies in the perception game..

 

[American Pakistani]

@Horus - The above is a valid and critical argument to any plebiscite taking place on Pakistan's side of Kashmir, and as you've suggested.

It can't happen on your side with any legitimacy because a portion has been handed off to China.

Does that make sense, my friend?

You really need to read the history thoroughly. Pakistan had never controlled that territory.

Negotiations between the nations officially began on October 13, 1962 and resulted in an agreement being signed on 2 March 1963 by foreign ministers Chen Yi of China and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan.

The agreement resulted in China withdrawing from about 750 square miles of territory, and Pakistan withdrawing its claim to about 2,050 square miles of territory that, in practice, it neither occupied or administered.

LOL, so this @US_statedept_retired doesn't know that my city Hong Kong is not disputed territory, not a single government in the world thinks it is?

Absolutely no relation to Kashmir whatsoever. Talking about the UN is ludicrous, not a single UN state considers my city to be a disputed territory.

Claiming to be a member of the US state department without proof, I guess that would be a criminal offence.

This man clearly seems very weak in history or is otherwise false flag Indian.

 

[Kaniska]

The greater Kashmir historically extended its territory to Afganistan, Tibet and Xingjiang. Up to the 1820s-1830s it was a vassal state of Qing dynasty. In 1830s, sikhs and later British colonists invaded Kashmir. Eventually Kashmir became a "princely state" of British India. China's stance is to claim parts of Kashmir where Tibetans and other minorities traditionally reside. For the rest China supports Pakistan‘s claim as well as their suggestions to solve the "Kashmir issue“. UN had a resolution on Kashmir referendum of self determination. Pakistan agreed but India refused.

Since the independence and partition in 1947 India goverment tried everything to grab the former "princely states" of British India. It included Kashmir, Burmar, Manipur and other Northeast parts of present day India. India succeeded through a few "stapled agreements” with Kashmir, Manipur and etc, but not Burmar. If you read more about these areas you'd find out that Indians cared only about Hindus and the size of their territory. They never did anything good to the people of these "gained-by-the influence of Brits" territories.

Come on man...when you gran Tibet, then it is good for you...And when India grabbed Kashmir it is a problem...You should stand one side of your principle....As i told earlier, forget all the rules regulations and UN, India is not going to vacate Kashmir...Rest of the world has to accept it now or may be later...It is up to them to decide....For India, it is bussiness as usual in Kashmir.

 

[kbd-raaf]

What about Chuck Hagel's comment and my view on it? Can you show where it was pro India or will this be yet another figment of your imagination and a charge you levy on me. I clearly stated in that thread that India is involved in talks with balochistan separatists. Are you just throwing out accusations based on a vivid imagination?

As I stated previously. I'm fully prepared to have people like you attack me because of my views, and because what I have laid out does not suit your bais. But since you are claiming that I have a bias, let me help you out on what topics I have opened in my short time here.

Irony is that I have got snide remarks from the Indians for posting my opinions too, and I'm sure tomorrow when I post about Pakistan and the future U.S funding, several of them will be upset with me.

Outrage over Lakhvi but not Swami Aseemanand?
Congratulations Pakistan on gaining CERN membership
Who are these people called well wishers of terrorists
US economy growing at quickest pace for 11 years
What does China think about Kashmir. My POV

Your first thread was thoroughly disproved.