Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
It is a relatively neutral arbiter, and those particular UNSC resolutions were accepted by both sides, therefore their legitimacy. I also qualified my comments with the argument that the people of Baluchistan and NWFP chose of their free will to join Pakistan, something that has not been allowed in Kashmir, which sets Kashmir apart.
While agreeing that the UN is all we have got as a supposedly "neutral" arbiter, the fact remains that any one of the 5 permanent members can block any resolution and that seriously compromises its moral authority.
So you can't have any resolution on Tibet passed in the UN even if it was supposedly highly required. The USA will block any resolution against Israel etc. You get the drift.
Well anyway we will do well to avoid converting this to a Kashmir thread. There is nothing new that can come out from any of us.