ARMY VETERAN’S ‘SPLIT PAK INTO 4’ TALK SPARKS OUTRAGE

[Joe Shearer]

@-xXx-


Attention is drawn to the Text of the Karachi Agreement at Para 'B' sub section 2.

2. The cease-fire line runs from MANAWAR'in the south, north to
KERAN and from KERAN east to the glacier area, as follows:

http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf


The alignment is as under

The Pakistanis made a blunder at the treaty, thereby recognising the accession as they did not contest the Kathua-Jammu-Sambha-Akhnoor boundary, which ended up being uncontested, hence an International Border.

This may have been due to their aim to simply take control of the Kashmir valley only, which would, in a military sense, have made a perfect sense, as in those days, it would have led to Ladakh being forced to accede as being contiguous area (my speculation), and also denied concentration of forces for further offensive operations into Poonch and south.

Whatever be the reason, the Pakistanis realised their blunder (especially in aftermath of the Dixon Plan) and have since tried to project the boundary as 'Working Boundary' which finds no mention in any agreements till date. And whenever they have fired on Indian positions over the past few years, it has been across this region, in order to highlight it as a ceasefire violation of the ceasefire of 2003 signed across LOC, which, it is not.

All the incidents of firing across this area are violations of International Border, an act of war.

Unfortunately, due to sheer ignorance and inability to appreciate this very vital point, our media is playing right into Pakistani hands by perpetuating it as a ceasefire violation thereby slowly allowing the narrative to shift from violation of an International Border to a non-existene LOC there.

These are mere tactics of Pakistan to renege from its own mistakes of the aforementioned agreement.

If you are still on line, I request you to read my irritated response to yet another Anglo-Pakistani with attitude, where I have pointed out the original reason for Nehru's harping on a plebiscite: not Mountbatten's dictation - Mountbatten only dictated that fatuous reference to the UN, viewing it as an extension of the Cairo Conference, in his simplistic mind - but Sheikh Abdullah's mortal fear of the proclivities of Hari Singh, and his knowledge of the views of the pro-Pakistan Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak.

The article itself is one of the worst pieces of trash, and contradicts itself in many places.

@-xXx-


Attention is drawn to the Text of the Karachi Agreement at Para 'B' sub section 2.

2. The cease-fire line runs from MANAWAR'in the south, north to
KERAN and from KERAN east to the glacier area, as follows:

http://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN PK_490729_ Karachi Agreement.pdf


The alignment is as under

The Pakistanis made a blunder at the treaty, thereby recognising the accession as they did not contest the Kathua-Jammu-Sambha-Akhnoor boundary, which ended up being uncontested, hence an International Border.

This may have been due to their aim to simply take control of the Kashmir valley only, which would, in a military sense, have made a perfect sense, as in those days, it would have led to Ladakh being forced to accede as being contiguous area (my speculation), and also denied concentration of forces for further offensive operations into Poonch and south.

Whatever be the reason, the Pakistanis realised their blunder (especially in aftermath of the Dixon Plan) and have since tried to project the boundary as 'Working Boundary' which finds no mention in any agreements till date. And whenever they have fired on Indian positions over the past few years, it has been across this region, in order to highlight it as a ceasefire violation of the ceasefire of 2003 signed across LOC, which, it is not.

All the incidents of firing across this area are violations of International Border, an act of war.

Unfortunately, due to sheer ignorance and inability to appreciate this very vital point, our media is playing right into Pakistani hands by perpetuating it as a ceasefire violation thereby slowly allowing the narrative to shift from violation of an International Border to a non-existene LOC there.

These are mere tactics of Pakistan to renege from its own mistakes in the aforementioned agreement.

Please also indicate on the map where General Malik had planned his thrust towards Chhamb.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Not UN but UN charter which is a guideline for conduct for nations, to be precise.

There is a reason why UN has two types of chapter: VI and VII.

VI is non binding and there UN provide recommendations and if they are not enacted, its not violation of UN mandate.

VII is binding and enforceable and denying implementation of it is violating UN.

Simla is binding and do not violate UN charter of conduct. UN charter itself ask nations to respect bi lateral agreements.

Moreover even if a resolution is mutually agreed upon, the UN allow disagreement if comes further on. That's beauty of chapter VI. Since we got issues in implementation of original Aug 13, 1948 resolution, we have in all right, provided by UN, not to implement recommendation and still respect UN charter. I wont even go into detail why issues came in implementation and whose fault was that, its waste of time.

UNSC Chapter VII and Chapter VI Resolutions derive from the UN Charter, so your argument that 'Chapter VII Resolutions are binding', while declaring the UN Charter to be a mere 'guideline for conduct', is a contradictory position.

Second, there is no language in the UN Charter that specifically declares Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions to be 'binding' and Chapter VI UNSC Resolutions to be 'non-binding'. The major difference between Chapter VI and Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions is the principle of 'enforcement'. Chapter VII UNSC Resolutions allow the UNSC to exercise the option of recommending 'enforcement actions' (whatever those might be in a particular case). The legal argument over 'binding vs non-binding' is essentially over 'enforcement' - beyond that Chapter VI and Chapter VII Resolutions are equally 'binding' for UN Member States. However, before you get too carried away over the issue of 'enforcement', please keep in mind that many international (bilateral or multilateral) treaties and agreements do not have any kind of 'enforcement' mechanism built in.

For example, how exactly is the Simla Agreement enforceable? How is the Indus Water Treaty enforceable? If either India or Pakistan decided to walk out of the aforementioned agreement/treaty, what recourse does the remaining party have?

Without some kind of punitive enforcement mechanism, 'binding' essentially refers to two or more parties agreeing to implement XYZ Agreement, Treaty or Resolution. India and Pakistan both officially and explicitly agreed to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir, agreed to implement the Simla Agreement (which does not negate the UNSC Resolutions as I pointed out earlier) and agreed to implement the IWT. On what basis do you consider the latter 2 'binding' and the former 'non-binding'?

Now you understand what damage Simla agreement did to you. A war lost always cause some harm, isn't it?

Simla did not do the damage you claim - the Indian government had decided to renege on its commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions long before the war. The Pakistani attempt in 1965 was a result of India's refusal to move forward on the UNSC Resolutions and an attempt to force India to change her approach.

So Pakistan is in breach of the Treaty by referring the Kashmir matter to the UN;

An excellent post overall - one of the points I disagree with is that quoted above. Pakistan is not 'referring the Kashmir dispute to the UN', the dispute was already referred and UNSC Resolutions passed (with India and Pakistan officially agreeing to implement them) long before the Simla Agreement.

Given that there is no explicit language in Simla that overrides any bilateral or multilateral commitments, agreements, or treaties (the Indus Water Treaty was signed in 1960, also prior to the Simla Agreement, and would be void if the Indian interpretation of Simla WRT the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir were to be entertained).The UNSC Resolutions (and UN mediation) are therefore entirely within the scope of the language of Simla that states:

"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."
​

 

[-xXx-]

beyond that Chapter VI and Chapter VII Resolutions are equally 'binding' for UN Member States.

Ahh this binding vs enforceable debate again. Let me take only the part of your post which need to be countered

I will not fall into advocating based on my personal opinions, lets see what "who matters" says -

From USIP -

Chapters 6 and 7
Sections of the United Nations Charter that deal most directly with dispute resolution. Chapter 6, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” stipulates that parties to a dispute should use peaceful methods of resolving disputes, such as negotiation and mediation. It authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations, but they are generally considered advisory and not binding.

http://glossary.usip.org/resource/chapters-6-and-7

From the UN itself -

The nature of the resolution determines if it is considered binding on States.

See, for example, the Secretariat's legal opinion of 9 May 1986, on "Questions relating to the voting procedure and decision-making process of the General Assembly—General rule applicable to the calculation of the majority required for the adoption of resolutions and decisions by the General Assembly—Exceptions to the rule—Effect of absence or non-participation on the binding force of resolutions and decisions", published in the UN Juridical Yearbook, 1986, p. 274 (English) (see link below).

In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter.

http://ask.un.org/faq/15010

India proposed the solution but Pakistan chickened out and thus resolution could not be implemented then.

Now we feel 7 decade old resolution are not implementable, so not following an advisory which UN itself has decided to be non binding is definitely not a breach UN charter.

Binding is characterised by obligation. As per ICJ definitions, decisions are binding, recommendations are not.

I rest my case.

@Joe Shearer Do you ever get a feel of being bored engaged in these repetitive arguments?
Pakistan somehow wanted to throw the book on us?

Simla did not do the damage you claim - the Indian government had decided to renege on its commitment to implement the UNSC Resolutions long before the war. The Pakistani attempt in 1965 was a result of India's refusal to move forward on the UNSC Resolutions and an attempt to force India to change her approach.

​

65, 99 war are another reason why UN resolutions are useless as they fail to get the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” which is the soul of chapter 6. Once you chose to get violent, you breached the UN charter, now don't run crying foul.

Simla binds you not to reach out to 3rd party for any issue with India.

Now coming to what if you do not follow your commitment made in a bilateral treaty -

1- Repercussions
2- Loss of faith in international community.
3- You may refuse to abide, but we can show the same to the 3rd party who you may want to engage. They will respect it. Do you wonder why UN always ask for Indian invite to be a mediator anymore? Not to forget it has all the authority to take suo motu action.
4- In cases you can be dragged to ICJ or UN where you may get slapped with binding resolutions.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Ahh this binding vs enforceable debate again. Let me take only the part of your post which need to be countered

I will not fall into advocating based on my personal opinions, lets see what "who matters" says -

From USIP -

Chapters 6 and 7
Sections of the United Nations Charter that deal most directly with dispute resolution. Chapter 6, “Pacific Settlement of Disputes,” stipulates that parties to a dispute should use peaceful methods of resolving disputes, such as negotiation and mediation. It authorizes the Security Council to issue recommendations, but they are generally considered advisory and not binding.

http://glossary.usip.org/resource/chapters-6-and-7

From the UN itself -

The nature of the resolution determines if it is considered binding on States.

See, for example, the Secretariat's legal opinion of 9 May 1986, on "Questions relating to the voting procedure and decision-making process of the General Assembly—General rule applicable to the calculation of the majority required for the adoption of resolutions and decisions by the General Assembly—Exceptions to the rule—Effect of absence or non-participation on the binding force of resolutions and decisions", published in the UN Juridical Yearbook, 1986, p. 274 (English) (see link below).

In general, resolutions adopted by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter, are considered binding, in accordance with Article 25 of the Charter.

http://ask.un.org/faq/15010

India proposed the solution but Pakistan chickened out and thus resolution could not be implemented then.

Now we feel 7 decade old resolution are not implementable, so not following an advisory which UN itself has decided to be non binding is definitely not a breach UN charter.

Binding is characterised by obligation. As per ICJ definitions, decisions are binding, recommendations are not.

I rest my case.

@Joe Shearer Do you ever get a feel of being bored engaged in these repetitive arguments?
Pakistan somehow wanted to throw the book on us?

​

65, 99 war are another reason why UN resolutions are useless as they fail to get the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes” which is the soul of chapter 6. Once you chose to get violent, you breached the UN charter, now don't run crying foul.

Simla binds you not to reach out to 3rd party for any issue with India.

Now coming to what if you do not follow your commitment made in a bilateral treaty -

1- Repercussions
2- Loss of faith in international community.
3- You may refuse to abide, but we can show the same to the 3rd party who you may want to engage. They will respect it. Do you wonder why UN always ask for Indian invite to be a mediator anymore? Not to forget it has all the authority to take suo motu action.
4- In cases you can be dragged to ICJ or UN where you may get slapped with binding resolutions.

I suspect you have not tried to read @AgNoStiC MuSliM 's note in its fullest sense. Actually the two notes have much in common and differ only in minor matters. My evaluation: I would be obliged if you look at it with a view to merging it with yours.

Most important: you have a treaty, what happens if it is breached?

 

[-xXx-]

I suspect you have not tried to read @AgNoStiC MuSliM 's note in its fullest sense. Actually the two notes have much in common and differ only in minor matters. My evaluation: I would be obliged if you look at it with a view to merging it with yours.

That's why I took only the part I do not agree with i.e. the nature of UN resolutions. Though not explicitly explained in the original text of chapters, the nature of UN chapters are well explained by UN itself and aptly interpreted by legal authorities all over like USIP.

Most important: you have a treaty, what happens if it is breached?

Chaos.

Explained in my later part of post, perhaps you skipped that.

 

[Joe Shearer]

That's why I took only the part I do not agree with i.e. the nature of UN resolutions. Though not explicitly explained in the original text of chapters, the nature of UN chapters are well explained by UN itself and aptly interpreted by legal authorities all over like USIP.



Chaos.

Explained in my later part of post, perhaps you skipped that.

I didn't. In fact, if you look through some of my past posts, that is exactly, precisely the point I raised

Then there is no point in treating with such a state; it is better to arrive at a series of military conclusions, and leave them and their consequences on the ground in lieu of treaties between states.

 

[-xXx-]

I didn't. In fact, if you look through some of my past posts, that is exactly, precisely the point I raised

I concur.

Then there is no point in treating with such a state; it is better to arrive at a series of military conclusions, and leave them and their consequences on the ground in lieu of treaties between states.

One may argue for either side, but this is one of the possibility explored on our side. We are holding on for not being saint, but because of global aspirations we have. Its all a trade off and a profit loss analysis.

As they say, we are a banya state.

In fact, we are actually going through a series of military conclusion: conventional and non conventional. The only difference is we are in defensive mode.

Do you still think resolutions passed in the quest of PACIFIC SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (chapter 6) still holds when we have 65, 71 and 99 among plethora of covert non peaceful actions? Amusing.

 

[xyxmt]

Retarded Major General G D Bakshi's 'jingoistic' speech at IIT Madras has come under intense criticism on the social media after a student objected to it and brought the speech to the notice of the director of the institute. Gen Bakshi delivered the speech during a special Independence Day lecture on Thursday.

Spelling mistake corrected, no need to thank me

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ahh this binding vs enforceable debate again. Let me take only the part of your post which need to be countered

You are, once again, overlooking a key part of what constitutes 'binding' and ignoring the language on the UN page you quoted that says "In general" and also qualifies its answer to that question by saying, "Legal scholars have various opinions on this question".

Again, what makes a bilateral or multilateral treaty/agreement 'binding' (take Simla and the IWT as an example again) without the presence of 'punitive enforcement mechanisms'?
Nothing - The only thing 'binding' here is the commitment of the two States to those agreements.

The Indian and Pakistani governments agreed and committed to the UNSC Resolutions officially. That is what makes them binding. Had these resolutions been passed with India boycotting the proceedings and outright rejecting them, your position might have some validity. But as it stands, India's commitment to implementing the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is in the same category as her commitment to the Simla Agreement, the IWT and any other bilateral or multilateral treaty/agreement it is a party to.

You offered the following potential repercussions for violating commitments in a bilateral or multilateral treaty/agreement, and I'll address them:

1- Repercussions: Invalid - the question is about what repercussions a party would face for violating a bilateral/multilateral agreement/treaty - you can't argue that 'the repercussions will be more repercussions'.

2- Loss of faith in international community: Nations overwhelmingly deal with each other on a 'cost vs benefit' basis. Loss of faith means little to nothing provided the guilty party continues to offer material and/or strategic benefits to other States with which it wishes to engage with.

3- You may refuse to abide, but we can show the same to the 3rd party who you may want to engage. They will respect it. Do you wonder why UN always ask for Indian invite to be a mediator anymore? Not to forget it has all the authority to take suo motu action.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here - you'll have to be clearer.

4- In cases you can be dragged to ICJ or UN where you may get slapped with binding resolutions
They are only 'binding' if the UNSC agrees to exercise punitive action (sanctions and/or military force to enforce the decisions) in support. There are binding judgments against Israeli occupation of Arab land after all, which Israel continues to blatantly violate. What repercussions is Israel facing?