World Agenda: Kashmir - the elephant in the room

[Rafael]

Some people may indeed think that way. They don't seem to matter a great deal!

Milliband said that Kashmir needs to be resolved and thought that it is leading to terror in the region. He will learn with time.

Let him first find out the root cause of the London bombings.



I surely don't need you as a mediator to know what the world thinks of India!

We have as much access as you, possibly more. I have many friends in the USA and Canada. We interact with people on the forums from all over. There is nothing new that you can tell me about these issues except what you think or would like to think.

About terrorist state, you remember I gave you a simple google formula about a year back.

It is still valid, try that!

Dude Obama too has shown his intentions in solving this issue..along with milliband (which UK said is a state policy) when your pm sent a letter to uk govt..

you like it or not...but they have had enough of india's dumbness.

 

[roadrunner]

Some people may indeed think that way. They don't seem to matter a great deal!

Milliband said that Kashmir needs to be resolved and thought that it is leading to terror in the region. He will learn with time.

Let him first find out the root cause of the London bombings.



I surely don't need you as a mediator to know what the world thinks of India!

We have as much access as you, possibly more. I have many friends in the USA and Canada. We interact with people on the forums from all over. There is nothing new that you can tell me about these issues except what you think or would like to think.

About terrorist state, you remember I gave you a simple google formula about a year back.

It is still valid, try that!

EDITED: Personal attack

For this reason, I will break this up so you can understand.

India is breaking INTERNATIONAL LAW.

It is breaking its obligations under the UN.

For this reason it is defined as a TERRORIST STATE that is acting unilaterally.

And the root cause of the London bombings was the same as the root cause of the Glasgow ones. Probably Kashmir had something to do with both. You clearly accept British viewpoints only when it suits you.

 

[Vinod2070]

Vinod, I realized you lacked brains a long time ago.

For this reason, I will break this up so you can understand.

India is breaking INTERNATIONAL LAW.

It is breaking its obligations under the UN.

For this reason it is defined as a TERRORIST STATE that is acting unilaterally.

EDITED: Personal attack

Since when have the Taliban (and terrorist) supporters started worrying about the "INTERNATIONAL LAW" and "obligations under the UN"!

 

[roadrunner]

I guess you had copious quantity of the only world famous produce from Afghanistan before that realization dawned.

Since when have the Taliban (and terrorist) supporters started worrying about the "INTERNATIONAL LAW" and "obligations under the UN"!

I see you have no response to the Indian terrorist action that breaks all legal international law, and so are resorting to name calling. Yet you can't name anything Pakistan has done that contradicts a single UN resolution.

You should think twice about who is the terrorist. India is the one breaking international law.

 

[Vinod2070]

I see you have no response to the Indian terrorist action that breaks all legal international law, and so are resorting to name calling. Yet you can't name anything Pakistan has done that contradicts a single UN resolution.

You should think twice about who is the terrorist. India is the one breaking international law.

Reasonably, there was a UN resolution that was non binding.

As we understand it could not be implemented due to the fact that the preconditions required for it's fulfillment were not present. I know you have a different opinion but obviously we have a difference there.

So there is no breaking of international law. If there is, why is Pakistan not going to the ICC, or even the UN?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

As we understand it could not be implemented due to the fact that the preconditions required for it's fulfillment were not present. I know you have a different opinion but obviously we have a difference there.

No - Nehru's quotes and instructions to his party members make clear that they were not implemented becasue Nehru decide to violate the commitments and agreements made.

As for the pre-conditions - the UNSC resolutions laid out the pre-conditions, and Owen Dixit's mission failed because India wanted to change the pre-conditions in her favor, her motive now clear when we see what Nehru had to say on the subject - again, clearly proved in the UNSC resolutions thread.

So there is no breaking of international law. If there is, why is Pakistan not going to the ICC, or even the UN?

Surely you see how absurd this is - We did go to the UN - there are multiple resolutions on the issue, that India and the world community agreed to.

What point is there dragging the issue to another international forum when India clearly cannot live up to her existing commitments?

 

[Vinod2070]

Surely you see how absurd this is - We did go to the UN - there are multiple resolutions on the issue, that India and the world community agreed to.

What point is there dragging the issue to another international forum when India clearly cannot live up to her existing commitments?

I am not aware of any resolution other than the non binding 1949 (?) resolution.

Do let me know of the multiple resolutions part.

The fact still remains: Neither India nor the UN itself nor Pakistan really think that the UN resolutions are the way forward. Everyone has moved on and is looking for newer and more out of the box solutions that are not win-lose but possibly win-win.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am not aware of any resolution other than the non binding 1949 (?) resolution.

Do let me know of the multiple resolutions part.

The fact still remains: Neither India nor the UN itself nor Pakistan really think that the UN resolutions are the way forward. Everyone has moved on and is looking for newer and more out of the box solutions that are not win-lose but possibly win-win.

You are kidding right?
Kashmir in the United Nations

Sorry, but the UN resolutions do not have a time frame. One SG's opinion on the issue is not the UN's opinion, and until the GoP determines that it is wiling to accept a different solution, the resolutions continue to stand, and are valid since they were accepted by all the parties involved.

 

[Vinod2070]

Well, I guess you are not planning to come out of the time warp any time soon.

I hope our countries would.

 

[Vinod2070]

You are kidding right?
Kashmir in the United Nations

Thanks for sharing this. I was not aware of this list.

But I see no activity after 1971. Possibly hinting at the understanding reached in the Simla agreement?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Thanks for sharing this. I was not aware of this list.

But I see no activity after 1971. Possibly hinting at the understanding reached in the Simla agreement?

Possibly a lack of ability in building a consensus - the growing cold war would have put the USSR with a veto power strongly on India's side.

 

[roadrunner]

Reasonably, there was a UN resolution that was non binding.

As we understand it could not be implemented due to the fact that the preconditions required for it's fulfillment were not present. I know you have a different opinion but obviously we have a difference there.

So there is no breaking of international law. If there is, why is Pakistan not going to the ICC, or even the UN?

Your wrong. The UN resolutions became binding. Because there was a trilateral agreement between India, Pakistan, and the UN.

And we've been through Simla in detail. India is at fault. Look up the Kashmir resolutions thread.

 

[Vinod2070]

Your wrong. The UN resolutions became binding. Because there was a trilateral agreement between India, Pakistan, and the UN.

Well, I would like to see a proof of that.

I don't think a resolution becomes binding after agreement.

It is either a binding resolution or not. I understand it was non binding, if you think otherwise please provide a proof.

 

[roadrunner]

Well, I would like to see a proof of that.

I don't think a resolution becomes binding after agreement.

It is either a binding resolution or not. I understand it was non binding, if you think otherwise please provide a proof.

The resolutions on Kashmir are binding.

They are enforceable even due to this.

Look up the definition of a binding resolution.

 

[Nihat]

Not that I endorse it but any movement on Kashmir will happen only on PAk's push , use military , use UN , mobilize Intl community , Insurgency - the works.

Talks were ongoing on Sir Creek and other issues but not sure how fruitful they were or whether they were going in any direction. India seems to have put a big "NOT INTERESTED" board on the LoC , Pak must act unilaterally on this to force India , if not then Status Quo prevails.