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

[EagleOne]

If Asia can control terrorism through SCO, it would be a great burden off of us. We can then focus on our economy and Chinese troops can do peacekeeping in Afghanistan. But that is not what SCO is for. SCO is a nascent organization for hoarding of resources of Central Asia through hegemony by Russia and China to keep Europe and North America out. Will they be able to do it? Only time will tell.

Welcome to the big leagues.

 

[roadrunner]

You are taking this statement of Dixon as an accustation on India. The statement is absolutely correct but only since Pakistan failed to withdraw all of its forces and instead tried to negotiate their stay.

rubbish

"In the end I became convinced that India's agreement would never be obtained to demilitarisation in any form or to the provisions governing the period of plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion, permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled.'

This is UNCIP's quote ^^

Since the plebiscite could not be impartial unless both India and Pakistan withdrew their forces from Kashmir, a stalemate was created. This stalemate has now lasted for more than fifty years"

The above quote is not from UNCIP ^^. you've just put it in quotes.

you are a devious but not very intelligent individual.

Here is what the 6th resolution says for plebiscite:-

http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc13aug48.htm

Part 2:Truce Section. Para A Section 1.- Explicitly says that in order to conduct a plebiscite in the state of Jammu and Kashmir,Pakistan will be the first party to withdraw its armed forces from the disputed region as it is the aggresor in the 1948 situation.

"As the presence of troops of Pakistan in the territory of the State of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation since it was represented by the Government of Pakistan before the Security Council, the Government of Pakistan agrees to withdraw its troops from that State."

"agrees" being the keyword here (Pakistan did agree to withdraw its troops down to 6,000 as UNCIP had suggested)

Not "Pakistan must withdraw all troops"

Now come to Para B Section 1 which says that ONLY WHEN THE COMMISSION WILL NOTIFY INDIA THAT PAKISTAN HAS WITHDRWAN ITS TROOP THEN THE GOI WILL REMOVE THEIR TROOPS AND PLEBISCITE WILL BE CONDUCTED AND A TRUCE SIGNED"

Another obvious lie. I dont know why you bother. It does not say Pakistan has withdrawn all its troops. It says that a) the tribesmen have gone (which they did), and b) that Pakistan starts withdrawing its troops, see underlined bit next (which it did).

After this all occurred UNCIP tried to get India to reduce its troop numbers down to 18,000. It refused. That led to UNCIPs quote above of India at fault.

"(1) When the Commission shall have notified the Government of India that the tribesmen and Pakistan nationals referred to in Part II A 2 hereof have withdrawn, thereby terminating the situation which was represented by the Government of India to the Security Council as having occasioned the presence of Indian forces in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and further, that the Pakistan forces are being withdrawn from the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the Government of India agrees to begin to withdraw the bulk of their forces from the State in stages to be agreed upon with the Commission"

And i provided you the 27 resolutions to prove to me if they say anywhere that Pakistan will not remove all of its army.

I dont know why you're lying so blatantly. You're not fooling anyone outside of India.

None of the quotes you've mentioned say Pakistan must remove ALL its army before India agrees to withdraw.

Use your brain. If Pakistan removes all its troops, India will be able to attack and overrun Kashmir. That is why UNCIP did not ask Pakistan to withdraw ALL its troops. A balance of troops from both sides was needed.

 

[roadrunner]

Yeah, you have got that one right, one has to post links to show that they still exist...... in the archives.

UN resolutions do not disappear.

They never have done.

Resolve Kashmir according to UN resolutions Galloway Lastupdate:- Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com

 

[roadrunner]

If Asia can control terrorism through SCO, it would be a great burden off of us. We can then focus on our economy and Chinese troops can do peacekeeping in Afghanistan. But that is not what SCO is for. SCO is a nascent organization for hoarding of resources of Central Asia through hegemony by Russia and China to keep Europe and North America out. Will they be able to do it? Only time will tell.

Welcome to the big leagues.

Chinese troops arent going to do any peacekeeping in Afghanistan. The Russians definitely won't be there. Pakistani troops won't be either. Security in Afghanistan comes from understanding the region and not destabilizing it.

You really haven't a clue about southwest asia.

 

[W.11]

If Asia can control terrorism through SCO, it would be a great burden off of us. We can then focus on our economy and Chinese troops can do peacekeeping in Afghanistan. But that is not what SCO is for. SCO is a nascent organization for hoarding of resources of Central Asia through hegemony by Russia and China to keep Europe and North America out. Will they be able to do it? Only time will tell.

Welcome to the big leagues.

clear the mess, pack up and leave

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

UN resolutions do not disappear.

They never have done.

Resolve Kashmir according to UN resolutions Galloway Lastupdate:- Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com

Perhaps not but in the light of what has taken place over 60 odd years , they have become irrelevant ......

The Jammu and Kashmir Issue

 

[roadrunner]

Perhaps not but in the light of what has taken place over 60 odd years , they have become irrelevant ......

The Jammu and Kashmir Issue

the kashmir resolutions are only irrelvant to India, if India chooses to disregard them, which it does.

imagine breaking the rules of an organization you want to join

 

[Urbanized Greyhound]

the kashmir resolutions are only irrelvant to India, if India chooses to disregard them, which it does.

imagine breaking the rules of an organization you want to join

Am very surprised ...

2 points :

1) India is already a part of U.N ( has been since inception) , as far as I know U.N resolutions are not binding even upon Permanent SC members

2) Resolutions have no timeline stipulated hence disregarding is not = explicitly breaking , a legal loophole if you will .

 

[gubbi]

the resolution says "When it is established to the satisfaction of the Commission set up in accordance with the Council's Resolution 39 (1948) that the tribesmen are withdrawing and that arrangements for the cessation of the fighting have become effective, put into operation in consultation with the Commission a plan for withdrawing their own forces"

Read s.l.o.w.l.y.

-- Tribesmen not regular soldiers.

-- "Are withdrawing" not fully withdrawn.

Semantics.

Tribesmen (and Pakistani army regulars dressed as tribesmen) - pushed into the then independent state of Jammu and Kashmir by none other than Pakistan. The point still stands. UN gave the authority to India, not Pakistan, to oversee plebiscite in all of Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan invaded a sovereign state and created this mess. Period.

Your arguments carry no credibility.

 

[gubbi]

the kashmir resolutions are only irrelvant to India, if India chooses to disregard them, which it does.

imagine breaking the rules of an organization you want to join

What BS!!!

Pakistan invades an independent state - by pushing in its regulars dressed as 'tribesmen' and expects not to be held accountable? Pakistan set the precedence of ignoring UN resolutions, so why should India 'respect' Pakistan's pov?

 

[gubbi]

clear the mess, pack up and leave

Who do you think will fill the vacuum? Pakistan? We saw...err...are seeing what happened/happens.

China? Do they have any vision whatsoever for the region - except maybe hoard the natural resources?

Russia? Do they have the political will and military resources to sustain?

SCO is like a high school club of wannabes. Its got to do more with trade, counter-terrorism exchanges and maybe a little of military exercises here and there. Nothing more.

 

[gubbi]

UN resolutions do not disappear.

They never have done.

Resolve Kashmir according to UN resolutions Galloway Lastupdate:- Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com

George Galloway - an accused in Iraq's Food-for-Oil scandal.

And the article written by your beloved Ms Arundhati Roy!

enuff said.

 

[EjazR]

the kashmir resolutions are only irrelvant to India, if India chooses to disregard them, which it does.

imagine breaking the rules of an organization you want to join

No head of state including "close allies" of Pakistan like the Chinese, Saudis, Turks and even the US raise the UN resolutions for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

They all emphasize bilateral negotiations to resolve the conflict which is basically what is India's position and what Pakistan agreed to and signed up to under ZAB in the Shimla agreement.

And when SCO admits India as a full member it will re-emphasize this fact.

Not to mention the many violations of the same UN resolution pre-conditions that Pakistan is guilty of. If Pakistan herself has no regard for the UN resolutions, then why complain about India?

 

[roadrunner]

Am very surprised ...

2 points :

1) India is already a part of U.N ( has been since inception) , as far as I know U.N resolutions are not binding even upon Permanent SC members

2) Resolutions have no timeline stipulated hence disregarding is not = explicitly breaking , a legal loophole if you will .

it's made kashmir a state of India. India's Constitution violates the UN resolutions calling for plebiscite.

It's odd to admit a country whose consitution violates some of the resolutions that the organization handed out

 

[roadrunner]

No head of state including "close allies" of Pakistan like the Chinese, Saudis, Turks and even the US raise the UN resolutions for resolving the Kashmir dispute.

They all emphasize bilateral negotiations to resolve the conflict which is basically what is India's position and what Pakistan agreed to and signed up to under ZAB in the Shimla agreement.

Shimla Agreement does not have the authority to overrule the UN resolutions.

And when SCO admits India as a full member it will re-emphasize this fact.

Not to mention the many violations of the same UN resolution pre-conditions that Pakistan is guilty of. If Pakistan herself has no regard for the UN resolutions, then why complain about India?

SCO has nothing to do with the UN. The point i was making is that India wants to be a significant member of an organization and doesnt even follow the rules of that body. That's one way to lose all credbility.

Pakistan has not violated any UN resolution as far as i know. If Pakistan has made Azad Kashmir part of the Pakistani Consitution it would have no regard for those UN resolutions but it hasnt.