AgNoStIc MuSliM said:
More cherry picking and selective interpretations. The 'dispute' was the disputed territory of J&K, of which Siachen is a part, hence the applicability of this clause.
The Indian violation of Simla here is clear.
Firstly, if you had carefully read what Pakistan accuses India of and why so, you would have realized, that its not me who is "cherry picking".
Secondly, if, by occupying the heights of Siachen, there is no alteration of LoC (which Pak accuses India of), then there is no alteration of "the situation" (which your are accusing India of), because, the whole "dispute" of J&K, is about the legal recognition of its territory and is linked directly to LoC. If India has not annexed any of the territory under Pak, then it means, that status quo is not violated.
Case closed.
It apparently is rocket science since it took you this long to actually accept the point I have been making that the agreements and commitments made in the UN are just as binding, or not, as any other agreement arrived at between India, Pakistan or any other nation, including Simla. To single out the UNSC resolutions for this litany of 'non-binding' excuses, in order to justify reneging on the commitments made in the UNSC, is where this intellectual dishonesty on the part of Indians comes into play.
I guess, in post #79, I gave my opinion on Shimla agreement's legal stand point.
Probably you do not understand this, but there is a difference between bilateral agreements (e.g Shimla agreement) and UN resolutions.
Bilateral agreements, in most of the cases, come under no international law, and therefore not legal documents, in the stricter sense of law. These can be ratified under the respective laws of the individual countries, but then, these become applicable within the political boundaries of those countries only, because, most of the laws (excluding laws like foreign exchange) are not applicable beyond its boundaries. So if one party "reneges on her commitment", one can question her morality, but not the LEGALITY of infringement.
However, when UN is involved, then every single resolution is under UN Charter, thereby backed by some legal framework. Unlike laws of individual countries, these are applicable equally to all countries. If one party "reneges on her commitment", one can question her morality as well as the LEGALITY, and can seek appropriate remedy, if available. However, there is a catch. All resolutions that are recommendatory in nature, although these continue to be backed by UN Charter, do not bind any party to any LEGAL obligation.
Hence the quibble of UNSC resolutions, being non-binding. If it were, then it would have given Pakistan a huge diplomatic leverage. That Pakistan has to fall back of issues of commitment, every now and then, falling just short of begging, is because, it can't officially accuse India of any illegality.
Then again, if she did, she would be equally guilty, ironically, by the same logic she would be using against India.
That is the point here, India agreed and committed to a certain position in the UNSC as did Pakistan, and India reneged on that agreement and commitment by refusing to implement the UNSC resolutions. As I said, you can construct convoluted excuses and go around in circles all you want, but the simple fact is that India entered into commitments and agreements in the UNSC, and violated her commitments and agreements, enforceable or not, binding or not - so call a spade a spade.
The argument on the binding or nonbinding nature of the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir is therefore irrelevant, the perfidious nature of the Indian state, as amply demonstrated by Nehru's own words in 'presenting one face to the world while doing the opposite' (in reference to his intent to never implement the UNSC resolutions).
My irony meter went boom there. I am being asked to call spade a spade, by someone who is constantly calling it a screwdriver. Anyway.
India did not "renege" on her commitments. The official position of India is that, since Pakistan never fulfilled her commitment (of removing all the tribesmen), India is therefore not obligated to fulfill her own (of holding plebiscite).
MEA said:
The UNCIP taking note of the developments adopted a resolution on August 13, 1948, divided into three parts. The first part called for a cease-fire. The second part called for Pakistan to withdraw its nationals and tribesmen and to vacate the territory occupied by it. Then after the above stipulation had been implemented India was to withdraw the bulk of its forces from the State leaving an adequate number behind to ensure that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir maintains law and order and peace, a clear indication that the UNCIP believed that Jammu and Kashmir was a part of India. Part (3) of the Resolution, to be implemented after parts (1) and (2), stated that both India and Pakistan had reaffirmed their wish that the future status of Jammu and Kashmir shall be determined in accordance with the will of the people.
Yet the ensuing months, after the adoption of the resolution, saw Pakistan brazenly advancing deep into Baltistan and Ladakh, hundreds of kilometres to the east while the so-called Azad Kashmir forces, which were to be disbanded, were expanded and consolidated and formed what the UNCIP Military Adviser described as a "formidable force".
A subsequent resolution was adopted by the UNCIP on 5, January 1949 on the same issue. However, this resolution was to be binding only if the stipulations of the resolution of August 14, 1948 had first been met. India accepted this resolution also. It is noteworthy that while India accepted the two resolutions, Pakistan balked at implementing even the first one and has still , even after the passage of fifty years, not vacated the territories of Jammu and Kashmir seized by it. Indeed, the portion of the State now called the Northern Areas, has been declared a part of Pakistan, separate to the entity named "Azad Kashmir".
The United Nations: Jammu & Kashmir; Embassy of India - Washington, DC
So once again, instead of harping the same "reneged-on-her-commitments" argument, why don't you clearly point out the commitments that India had "reneged" on ? I will be obliged, if you can cite the resolution number together with the clause and sub-clause.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - I am not suggesting that Pakistan has no commitments of her own to fulfill, I am pointing out that when the Indian position continues to be one that rejects the UNSC resolutions completely, asking Pakistan to fulfill her commitments under the same UNSC resolutions is rather absurd logic.
When and if India decides to reverse her decision of reneging on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions, the argument of Pakistan implementing her own commitments under the UNSC resolutions becomes a valid one.
Nope, India does not ask Pakistan to fulfill her UNSC commitments, because, as you have rightly pointed out, that would be like accepting the applicability of UNSC resolutions, which she rejects following the Shimla agreement. She asks Pakistan to settle the dispute through mutual agreement, as per Shimla agreement.
It is when some smarty pant in Islamabad tries to get smarter by asking for plebiscite, India reminds him that her commitment comes with a string attached to a noose that nicely decorates Pakistan's neck. If UNSC is indeed applied, then it will be Pakistan who will choke first.
Some Pakistani, tends to forget that.
