Pakistan refuses to sign three multilateral pacts at SAARC summit: officials

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is no plebiscite. Paksitanis do not realise their government has lost the game in the Simla Accord and are not explaining the same to them. Now, we hear this new thing about IWT. Which again the GoP signed. But the baniyas are the culprits.

Please explain to me why you claim that the Simla Agreement invalidates the commitment India and Pakistan made to implement the UNSC Resolutions, but does not invalidate the commitment made under the Indus Water Treaty - both were agreements entered into via third party mediation.

 

[Norwegian]

Isnt Imran Khan pro taliban? Why do you support him?

You are chewing on anti-IK lies and rumors. Spit them out!

 

[surya kiran]

The principles of the UN Charter lay out the framework for UNSC Resolutions, and the governments of India and Pakistan both requested and accepted UNSC mediation, thereby making commitments to implement said resolutions.

Correct, and the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir and UN mediation were in fact initiated at the request of India and Pakistan and therefore meet that standard. On the other hand, one could also argue that the clause does not apply retroactively (in which case it would also invalidate the Indus Water Treaty), and therefore only applies to new disputes that come up after the Simla Agreement, such as Siachen, Sir Creek or LoC violations.

Which part of the wording do you not understand? It makes no mention of the UN resolutions. It was signed after the UNSC resolution. It says bilaterally for the territorial part.

If you say IWT does not hold, why would GoP take it to the tribunal. You took it to the tribunal, which means you accept it. Now is this making sense?

 

[surya kiran]

Please explain to me why you claim that the Simla Agreement invalidates the commitment India and Pakistan made to implement the UNSC Resolutions, but does not invalidate the commitment made under the Indus Water Treaty - both were agreements entered into via third party mediation.

Because, it says 'territorial'. Thats why. It says bi-lateral. Thats why. It does not says UNSC resolution. Thats why. Your leaders seriously messed up the wordings of the accord. Not our fault.

 

[surya kiran]

Now, what query was that; yaar? Anyway I'll visit that thread to find out.

IAF & Russian Air Force pilots take sorties in IAF Su-30 MKIs during Exercise Avia Indra-I

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Which part of the wording do you not understand? It makes no mention of the UN resolutions. It was signed after the UNSC resolution. It says bilaterally. If you say IWT does not hold, why would GoP take it to the tribunal. You took it to the tribunal, which means you accept it. Now is this making sense?

Which part of "the UN Charter defines the framework under which UNSC Resolutions are issued" do you not understand?

Your argument is the equivalent of refusing to follow a law because you "only committed to follow the constitution" - laws are made under the auspices of a constitution, and a commitment to follow a constitution is by extension a commitment to follow laws made under said constitution. Therefore, the commitment of both India and Pakistan in the Simla Agreement to the UN essentially reiterates their commitment to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[Not Sure]

Incorrect - key diplomatic postings tend to go to career foreign service officers, for example the Pakistani Ambassador to India.

Mahmud Ali Durrani - Ambassador to the United States of America, 2006-2008 preceded by...

Jehangir Karamat - Ambassador to the United States of America 2004-2006

I have innumerable examples ranging from Canberra to London.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because, it says 'territorial'.

Where does it say that? "(ii) That the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. "

"Settle their differences" - that applies to all disputes/differences, so, again, explain how exactly the Simla Agreement invalidates the UNSC Resolutions but not the Indus Water Treaty?

Thats why. It says bi-lateral. Thats why. It does not says UNSC resolution. Thats why. Your leaders seriously messed up the wordings of the accord. Not our fault.

See response in my earlier post about how it reiterates the commitment of both States to the UNSC Resolutions. And it does not state Indus Water Treaty either, so how is that not invalidated?

Pakistani leaders actually did a masterful job of conceding nothing in entering into the Simla Agreement

 

[Norwegian]

Note: This discussion is not about Kashmir. Please comment on the topic on hand.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mahmud Ali Durrani - Ambassador to the United States of America, 2006-2008 preceded by...

Jehangir Karamat - Ambassador to the United States of America 2004-2006

I have innumerable examples ranging from Canberra to London.

And there are "innumerable" examples of non-military figures being appointed as Ambassadors in key States as well:

Current Ambassador to US: Jalil Abbas Jilani
Former Ambassador to US: Sherry Rehman (2011-2013)
Former Ambassador to US: Husain Haqqani (2008-2011)
Former Ambassador to US: Maliha Lodhi (2002-2004)

The last 3 or 4 High commissioners to India.

etc.

 

[IceCold]

Nawaz has personal business interests in India, that makes his position as PM of Pakistan compromised. For him looking tough is basically for domestic consumption because he did come under alot of criticism during the recent Indo Pakistan border escalation for keeping his tongue sealed lip against India.

Modi government on the other hand is playing hard ball. They are well aware of Nawaz's position and therefore are not willing to offer him any concession.

 

[Not Sure]

The entire territory of J&K is considered disputed by the international community, and under that status either both India and Pakistan are occupying territory, or neither is.

Also, the UNSC resolutions call for engagement between India and Pakistan to determine the how and when of demilitirization prior to a plebiscite being held, negotiations that India is currently refusing to engage in, so it is India that is violating the UNSC resolutions, not Pakistan.

You do understand that even in the expired UNSC resolution 47, it is clearly written that after Pakistan completely withdraws its troops from Kashmir, India will still reserve the right to keep minimum forces in there while the plebiscite is conducted, right?

For a change, please try to look at it from India's viewpoint. India will be breaking the Simla accord if it agreed on the UN mandated plebiscite. The UN has no power between the bilateral relations of any two countries. Pakistan and India both are on the same page that Kashmir issue should be resolved bilaterally - Simla agreement is that page.

 

[Norwegian]

Modi government on the other hand is playing hard ball. They are well aware of Nawaz's position and therefore are not willing to offer him any concession.

LOL. That's exactly the case. Nawaz might not be a PM once he is returned.

 

[surya kiran]

Which part of "the UN Charter defines the framework under which UNSC Resolutions are issued" do you not understand?

Your argument is the equivalent of refusing to follow a law because you "only committed to follow the constitution" - laws are made under the auspices of a constitution, and a commitment to follow a constitution is by extension a commitment to follow laws made under said constitution. Therefore, the commitment of both India and Pakistan in the Simla Agreement to the UN essentially reiterates their commitment to the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

Its legalese. That's why its called a legal document and not a sentimental, 'We both understand document'.

Now, please check under what was UNSC 47 passed. It was passed under Section VI. Do you know what that means? It is a suggestion. It is not mandatorily applicable. Which means parties to the dispute need not pay heed to it. Had GoP used its brains it would be under Section VII. That is mandatory. So legally you have no ground there.

Now, even if I were to humour you and say, "Lets look at Simla Accord and UNSC resolution 47 together and over look the bi-lateral part", I still dont need to hold the plebiscite. While you still need to solve the problem bi-laterally.

Now in plain legal speak, the Simla Accord is binding, UNSC 47 is not. Here the binding agreement is more important. Like I said, you guys need good lawyers while signing agreements.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You do understand that even in the expired UNSC resolution 47

Please explain how UNSC resolutions expire, specifically this one.

it is clearly written that after Pakistan completely withdraws its troops from Kashmir, India will still reserve the right to keep minimum forces in there while the plebiscite is conducted, right?

As I pointed out in my earlier posts, subsequent UNSC Resolutions called for India and Pakistan to enter into negotiations to determine the "how" of demilitarization, which means that Pakistan was not longer required to unilaterally withdraw without first accepting a plan of demilitarization entered into with India.

For a change, please try to look at it from India's viewpoint. India will be breaking the Simla accord if it agreed on the UN mandated plebiscite.

No it won't be breaking the Simla Accord, as I have explained several times now.

The UN has no power between the bilateral relations of any two countries. Pakistan and India both are on the same page that Kashmir issue should be resolved bilaterally - Simla agreement is that page.

Commitments entered via mediation by third parties are just as valid as commitments entered into bilaterally, otherwise the IWT would have no standing either.