What's new

"SCO is about to admit India and Pakistan as full members"

The Hindu : Front Page : India poised to join Shanghai grouping

Krishna lauds its constructive role in Afghanistan

SCO consists of Russia, China and four Central Asian countries

India, Pakistan and Iran are among those with Observer status


ASTANA: The six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), which could play an important role in stabilising Afghanistan after the drawdown of foreign troops, opened its doors for India's membership at its 10th anniversary summit being celebrated in the heart of the Great Steppes on Wednesday.

Besides Afghanistan, India feels an expanded SCO could encourage Pakistan to weed out terror outfits based on its soil as well as promote connectivity that in turn could boost economic activity.

These points were made by External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna during his intervention at the SCO summit that was attended by nine heads of state, including the Presidents of Russia, China, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Iran and Tajikistan.

Lauding the SCO for its “constructive and forward looking role in contributing towards peace in Afghanistan,'' Mr. Krishna hoped that by becoming involved with the SCO, Afghanistan could become the geo-strategic bridge between Central and South Asia as well as a trade and transit hub. Afghanistan is poised to be upgraded from Dialogue Partner to an Observer that would give it access to all discussions of importance at the SCO.

The SCO consists of Russia, China and four Central Asian countries (barring Turkmenistan). India, Pakistan and Iran are among those with Observer status. All these nations virtually ring Afghanistan that shares ethnic linkages with most of them.

As officials explained, after Afghanistan becomes an Observer, South Asia would become contiguous to Central Asia in the SCO. This would help all neighbouring countries achieve the two aims they desire in the region for Afghanistan — the country becomes a geo-strategic bridge as well as a terror free zone. India has already been involved with the SCO's Regional Anti-terrorism Centre (RATS) and some intelligence-sharing is taking place. “We told them about the obvious fact of the terror machine being based in the neighbourhood,'' said sources in the government. “We see the RATS as an important regional answer to the terrorism challenge,'' said Mr. Krishna.

On Pakistan, officials said India had so far been working through the United States to pressure Islamabad into folding up the militant organisations that were operating with the benign acquiescence of the administration in Islamabad or the General Headquarters of the Pakistan Army in Rawalpindi.

The SCO has the potential to be an additional forum through which Pakistan could be urged to rein in those spouting hatred and violence against those not in agreement with their end goals. Besides, as neighbours, these countries could develop sustainable economic linkages that would help Pakistan in the long run. “It will be different when Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, for instance, tell Pakistan to dismantle the terror infrastructure,'' said the sources.

Without mentioning any country, Mr. Krishna hoped that the SCO region would emerge as a terror-free zone, free of safe havens and sanctuaries for terrorists.

India, as do many other countries in the region, feel that the SCO, along with countries to the west, would be able to more comprehensively tackle the problem of Islamic militancy attempting to make inroads not just in but the entire arc that begins much further up in the north in an area called the Ferghana Valley, which was artificially divided in the 1920s into three Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. This division did not take into account the scenario of divided clans and ethnic communities when the three provinces were converted into nation-states following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This marks a departure from India's lukewarm attitude towards the SCO as it thought the body to be China dominated and, during the Bush years, tended to bait the West. For four years, after India became an Observer at the SCO, its delegation was led by the then Petroleum Minister Murli Deora. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh did attend the Yekaterinburg summit in 2009, but he had few options because a back-to- back BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) summit at the same venue was also scheduled.

This attitude changed and a senior Foreign Ministry official told Beijing last year about New Delhi's eagerness to join the SCO. This happened around the same time India wrote to Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev, requesting the then SCO Chairman to consider its request for membership.

Since then, Mr. Krishna has attended the two summits that have followed to signal India's keenness to join the SCO.
 
.
Regarding Simla or the UN resolutions, it states very clearly in the Simla Agreement that (i) That the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.

Article 103 of the UN Charter states that members' obligations under the UN Charter override their obligations under any other treaty.

So the Simla Agreement does not over rule the UN resolutions.
 
.
@roadrunner

I see that you have again mis-characterized what I said. The point is are UN resolutions relevant? IF even the 1172 resolution that asked for both India and Pakistan to resume bilateral negotiations on Kashmir don't mention the previous resolutions; and if important "partners" of Pakistan, US, China, Saudis, Turks all talk about bilateral negotiations then what more proof do you need of the irrelevance?

This does not mean the UN resolutions are irrelevant. It means India is a violator of UN resolutions.

Turkey etc can say what they like. That does not mean India is not acting illegally.

And India did object for the illegal assimilation of Gilgit Baltistan
The Hindu : Today's Paper / NATIONAL : India objects to Pakistan actions in Gilgit-Baltistan

Assimilating GB into Pakistan as a 5th province is a clear violation of the UN resolutions among many others that Pakistan has done again reaffirming the irrelevance of the UN resolutions.

And do you remember where Ilyas Kashmiri was from? Yes a Kashmiri fighting against the Pakistani state and army regardless of what his stated aims where,

There is no resolution against Gilgit-Baltista being incorporated into Pakistan.

If there is then you can say Pakistan is acting illegally. At the moment only India is.

As for Gilgit-Baltistan, it NEVER legally was a part of the state of Jammu & Kashmir.

The two treaties defining the geography of Kashmir in recent times were the Treaty of Lahore and Treaty of Amritsar from the mid 1800's. No other.

BOTH of these stress lands to the West of the Indus River are part of legal Jammu & Kashmir. The Northern Areas do not fall into this region.

Although by 1900, Hari Singh had annexxed the Northern Areas through force and made them pay tribute to him for his "protection".

This only means Hari Singh was acting illegally and a terrorist. He had no right to be in the Northern Areas.

Finally the people of the Northern Areas are not Kashmiri. They speak the various dialects like Shina.
 
.
According to a news item at Reuters, India and Pakistan will not be accepted as full members (according to Russia) until they solve their territorial issues. Let's wait and see on what this Summit really says.
 
.
According to a news item at Reuters, India and Pakistan will not be accepted as full members (according to Russia) until they solve their territorial issues. Let's wait and see on what this Summit really says.

Obviously according to Russia, the Chinese can't say that themselves. I bet no much they would say. I guess potentially would enhance military corporation. The key word I guess will be Lybia and debt ceiling before August 1st. Yawn!
 
.
According to a news item at Reuters, India and Pakistan will not be accepted as full members (according to Russia) until they solve their territorial issues. Let's wait and see on what this Summit really says.

Are you serious?
Here we are waiting anxiously to be admitted into SCO, just to be rejected?
Why doesn't SCO choose Pakistan? I mean there are actually something to again by choosing Pakistan and not India!

LOL

China has territorial issues with India, but China is still in SCO.

They should just choose Pakistan, if they want anyone to take SCO seriously and to have any development in the region!
 
.
@roadrunner

When no in international govt.s are calling for the UN resolutions to be a basis of resolving Kashmir - it becomes irrelevant.

As I mentioned, wether its EU, US, China, Saudis, Turks: everyone have called for BILATERAL negotiations between India and Pakistan.


And GB not being part of J&K is just unnecessary. Even separatists have repeatedly said that J&K state includes the areas of GB. 30 Assembly states are set assigned for GB in J&K assembly and GoI officially claims the entire area as part of its territory.

You asked for examples of Pakistan violating the UN resolution, assimilating GB is a clear violation. Making excuses that GB people are not Kashmiri and it was in 1900 or 1800 this or that happened does not count. Present day Durran line was created by the British occupation by illegally invading the independent state of Afghanistan that has an older history than Pakistan. Then will Pakistan return back the lands illegally occupied and conquered by the British Indian forces?

The fact of the matter is that the entire J&K state as per 1946 included GB and that is what matters.

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:29 PM ----------

According to a news item at Reuters, India and Pakistan will not be accepted as full members (according to Russia) until they solve their territorial issues. Let's wait and see on what this Summit really says.

Only membership criteria and negotiations will start from this summit. Full membership was going to happen next year.
 
.
@roadrunner

When no in international govt.s are calling for the UN resolutions to be a basis of resolving Kashmir - it becomes irrelevant.

As I mentioned, wether its EU, US, China, Saudis, Turks: everyone have called for BILATERAL negotiations between India and Pakistan.

Gilani recently called for UN resolutions to be implemented.

It is of no concern to any of the other governments.

However what you state is the usual lies (i dont know if its you or the indian media). The OIC, of which Azerbaijan, Saudi, and Turkey are a part of have stated recently they support the UN resolutions on Kashmir.

http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2011/Jan/21/oic-supports-un-resolutions-on-kashmir-32.asp
(The final declaration expressed “strong support for the resolution of the longstanding Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN resolutions and the wishes of the Kashmiri people.”)

They are relevant and India chooses to ignore them. Pakistan wants them implemented.

And GB not being part of J&K is just unnecessary. Even separatists have repeatedly said that J&K state includes the areas of GB. 30 Assembly states are set assigned for GB in J&K assembly and GoI officially claims the entire area as part of its territory.

So before seperatists are terrorists, now their word is good :lol:

The seperatists can claim what they want (some work for the GoI). They cannot change the history of Gilgit Baltistan.

If you think the history I quoted is wrong, explain how.

You asked for examples of Pakistan violating the UN resolution, assimilating GB is a clear violation. Making excuses that GB people are not Kashmiri and it was in 1900 or 1800 this or that happened does not count. Present day Durran line was created by the British occupation by illegally invading the independent state of Afghanistan that has an older history than Pakistan. Then will Pakistan return back the lands illegally occupied and conquered by the British Indian forces?

You're missing the point. There were two treaties that governed the formation of Kashmir. None of them included the Northern Areas. Whether those treaties were illegal is something else. There was a treaty for the Durand Line also. There was NO treaty for the Northern Areas becoming part of Kashmir. It was annexed by Hari Singh through force and noone signed any treaty declaring the Northern Areas part of Kashmir.

They are a distinct people with a distinct language to Kashmri.

The fact of the matter is that the entire J&K state as per 1946 included GB and that is what matters.


Then you should be able to show me the Treaty that followed the Treaty of Amritsar which states that the Northern Areas have been handed over to Kashmir.
 
.
@roadrunner

We are talking about head of states and their position. Gilani may be the PM of Pakistan but you and I both know that what he says is irrelevant WITHIN Pakistan let alone on FP issues. Zardari would have more credibility that him because he actually controls the PPP.

Besides neither Kayani nor Musharraf both of them PA chiefs have raised this and Musharraf himself agreed to the 4 point formula. So even the real power center in Pakistan the PA knows how irrelevant the UN resolutions are.

It is sad that these truths are unknown to the common people of Pakistan.


And gain, on GB, no matter which historical perspective you look at, GB was part of the state of J&K in 1947 and UN resolutions apply to GB as well.

It is pointless to argue further because all you're doing is going back in history to claim whether GB should have been part of J&K or not. I can go back and claim the same about Pakistan or India as well. That is not the point. The point is when the UN resolutions were formulated GB was part of the territory that was the problem. And by changing ground realities like assimilating GB as a province, Pakistan has herself shown how important the UN resolutions are.

I hope those intelligence people in Pakistan will realize that how they have been taken for a ride in the name of UN resolutions. The best way to resolve it is to reach an agreement something similar to the Musharraf-Singh understanding with autonomy to Kashmirs on both sides.

Suffice to say that even China hesitates to refer to Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan because of Indian pressure - atleast publicly confirming the disputed status of that area.
China withdraws reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as ‘northern Pakistan'
 
.
@roadrunner

We are talking about head of states and their position. Gilani may be the PM of Pakistan but you and I both know that what he says is irrelevant WITHIN Pakistan let alone on FP issues. Zardari would have more credibility that him because he actually controls the PPP.

Besides neither Kayani nor Musharraf both of them PA chiefs have raised this and Musharraf himself agreed to the 4 point formula. So even the real power center in Pakistan the PA knows how irrelevant the UN resolutions are.

It is sad that these truths are unknown to the common people of Pakistan.


And gain, on GB, no matter which historical perspective you look at, GB was part of the state of J&K in 1947 and UN resolutions apply to GB as well.

It is pointless to argue further because all you're doing is going back in history to claim whether GB should have been part of J&K or not. I can go back and claim the same about Pakistan or India as well. That is not the point. The point is when the UN resolutions were formulated GB was part of the territory that was the problem. And by changing ground realities like assimilating GB as a province, Pakistan has herself shown how important the UN resolutions are.

I hope those intelligence people in Pakistan will realize that how they have been taken for a ride in the name of UN resolutions. The best way to resolve it is to reach an agreement something similar to the Musharraf-Singh understanding with autonomy to Kashmirs on both sides.

Suffice to say that even China hesitates to refer to Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan because of Indian pressure - atleast publicly confirming the disputed status of that area.
China withdraws reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as ‘northern Pakistan'

Musharraf was just looking for another way out, most people rejected his proposal.
Both most Pakistanis and Indians rejected his proposal. Although I heard the government of Pakistan and India were close, it just didn't work out, because everybody knows the reality.

RR challenged you, in bringing a treaty that said the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan had to be handed over to the maharajah of Kashmir. This is perfectly revelant, because if the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan were never an integral part of the maharajah's realm, the UN resolutions are void on Gilgit-Baltistan.
There is no such treaty. You are bringing irrelevant arguments about how you could say the same about India and Pakistan.
How could you possibly say that?
Thats ludricrous! India and Pakistan parted by choice, while the maharajah conquered some territories in an injust way.
Where's the comparison?
Therefore the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan were never an integral part of the maharajah's realm, thus making the UN resolutions void on the areas of Gilgit-Baltistan, but still perfectly applicable in Indian Occupied Kahsmir.
Stop wasting our time.
Even Sir Owen Dixon blamed India for not cooperating.


Not quite sure what trash you are reading, but on the Xinhua they use Gilgit Baltistan

More helicopters required in Pakistan to help flood victims: UN

This is an August article. Why didn't India protest before then, why wait still september 3 or 4 or 5?
In your article it uses " nothern part."

In the Xinhua it uses"Nothern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan"
The date of this article is September 24, 2010, many days after your Indian article.
Pakistani president thanks China for additional flood aid

Another article:
Also on September 24, 2010, many days after your article.
Pakistan welcomes Chinese assistance in infrastructure rebuilding

Notice how the Xinhua says "Northern areas of Gilgit-Baltistan", and not northern part of Pakistan.

Seriously go check the source, you have been lied to. Your Indian media is pure trash.

And I laugh at you for saying India is pressuring China, I mean what a joke! India finds itself unable to pressure Pakistan, forget Pakistan for a moment, India can't even pressure Nepal to give up its territorial dispute with India!!!.:laugh::laugh::lol::lol::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
.
@Pakshah

A ranting post does not mean you are right. The UNCIP had made maps of the disputed territories and that includes Gilgit Baltistan including the areas like Shaksam valley that Pakistan illegally gave away to China. There are also independent maps by the India office of Britain that shows the J&K kingdom. Why else would the areas of Gilgit Baltistan be returned as per the lease requirements back to the Maharaja in 1947?

The rest of your post is again inane points. GB is part of the disputed territory. Only those who have no knowledge of the dispute will claim otherwise.

Also, let me add that under Musharraf the entire Army leadership backed his proposal. This included Kayani as well as the Corp commanders. The PA at least realizes now that Kashmiris in the valley do not want to join Pakistan and hence is no longer a core issue. The UN game is being played only as a source of leverage against India and that is about it.
 
.
@Pakshah

A ranting post does not mean you are right. The UNCIP had made maps of the disputed territories and that includes Gilgit Baltistan including the areas like Shaksam valley that Pakistan illegally gave away to China. There are also independent maps by the India office of Britain that shows the J&K kingdom. Why else would the areas of Gilgit Baltistan be returned as per the lease requirements back to the Maharaja in 1947?

The rest of your post is again inane points. GB is part of the disputed territory. Only those who have no knowledge of the dispute will claim otherwise.

Also, let me add that under Musharraf the entire Army leadership backed his proposal. This included Kayani as well as the Corp commanders. The PA at least realizes now that Kashmiris in the valley do not want to join Pakistan and hence is no longer a core issue. The UN game is being played only as a source of leverage against India and that is about it.


We will let the mods decide what is rants and what is not rants, as far as I am concerned I believed I had raised valid points.
And, EjazR, your rants doesn't make you right either.
Its the merit of your arguments that make you right or wrong.

Maybe the Army may have supported that decision 5 years ago, but the times have changed.
How did Pakistan illegally give Shaksgam valley to China?
China never accepted British imperialism and/ the McMohan line.

Umm, I answered your points on Xinhua not typing Gilgit-Baltistan, and they DID USE GILGIT-BALTISTAN
I proved your source COMPLETELY WRONG, an I proved your source was LYING!!!
I used the ORIGINAL SOURCE which was XINHUA, THIS IS FOR EVERYONE TO SEE, INCLUDING RR!!!
I'm not ranting, if I type alot.
I see you type a lot too, which I see many times full of or either lies or trolling.
You're lucky you've been tolerated this far. I mean the amount of misinformation me and RR had to debunk was way too much!
Mods should put up a new rule for people who perpetually lie or spread misinformation on the forums.


Also lastly, stop sidetracking, if you think India has been right all along,
why did Sir Owen Dixon put the blame on India. Can you refute this?

What about prominent Indian writer Arundhati Roy, who said that a referendum should be done in IOK?
Why would such a prominent Indian say such thing?
About Musharraf,
Musharraf was just simply trying to find another way out.
No one supports his idea now. He is not even in power.
He is even taking refuge in UK!!! Musharraf is now very irrelevant in Pakistani politics.
His political party APML, is his last chance, and perhaps his legacy.
As you know there are certain reasons why Musharraf may also not return to Pakistan, because there are some people in the parliament in Pakistan who think he is responsible for Benazir's death, and want him arrested.

About the Gilgit-Baltistan issue:
On last thing, there is no UN resolution against GB being an integral part of Pakistan, unlike IOK which there was a UN resolution against India trying to integrate it into it's country.

You have been answered, again and again. Stop wasting our time.
 
.
The main test of SCO will lie in making India and Pakistan sit together.
After WW II, Americans worked hard to make west Europeans to go around/solve their numerous territorial disputes to form an economic, political and military alliance.
The onus is on Russia and China to make that happen in case of India and Pakistan.

As I suggested before a small joint (and well paid) deployment of Chinese and Russian peace troops on the Siachen will not only save a lot of money and lives but will also go a long way to build trust and apply lesson learned to elsewhere in the region.

True, both Chinese and Indian economies are galloping but even now they are probably below par compared with what may happen when there is less military expenditure, more trade and tourism.

I hope someone is listening out there.

Why do you think India will accept Chinese presence on the land we consider ours. Remember China is India's biggest rival
 
.
I think it would be very good for the neighbourhood to have India Pakistan in the SCO. However I think it is unlikely to be a strong alliance unless India sorts outs its problems with its neighbours in particular china and pakistan. In fact i think India has already decided that it want to ally the west and if it joins SCO it will be to keep it as a week grouping and not allowing consensus.
 
.
And gain, on GB, no matter which historical perspective you look at, GB was part of the state of J&K in 1947 and UN resolutions apply to GB as well.

So which treaty of agreement made GB legally a part of Kashmir?

It is pointless to argue further because all you're doing is going back in history to claim whether GB should have been part of J&K or not. I can go back and claim the same about Pakistan or India as well. That is not the point. The point is when the UN resolutions were formulated GB was part of the territory that was the problem. And by changing ground realities like assimilating GB as a province, Pakistan has herself shown how important the UN resolutions are.

Pakistan legally seperated from India under the partition rules.

I hope those intelligence people in Pakistan will realize that how they have been taken for a ride in the name of UN resolutions. The best way to resolve it is to reach an agreement something similar to the Musharraf-Singh understanding with autonomy to Kashmirs on both sides.

Noone is being taken for a ride by the UN resolutions. They are/were fair. The only problem is they dont suit India and India violates them constantly.

Suffice to say that even China hesitates to refer to Gilgit Baltistan as part of Pakistan because of Indian pressure - atleast publicly confirming the disputed status of that area.
China withdraws reference to Gilgit-Baltistan as ‘northern Pakistan'

afaik, nagar and hunza acceded to pakistan. if they acceded to pakistan, how could they be part of J & K in 1947 during partition?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom