Turkey 'fully supports' Pakistan’s position on Kashmir: Turkish FM

[-xXx-]

The UN has no internationally agreed definition of terrorism and the reason is that some organizations (OIC, Arab League etc.) define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination". The member countries (of these organisations) won't accept any definition of terrorism which may declare Palestinian Freedom Fighters as Terrorists. This Dead Lock continues to this day and the UN has not adopted the convention on international terrorism.

So, as long as the UN does not "define" terrorism, the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters cannot be declared Terrorists, nor can be their insurgency declared legitimate (In case the UN chooses to define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination") .....


As far as International Law is concerned, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does recognize the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations as a valid source of International Law. This category may also include the work of organizations and private institutions. Opinions expressed by experts carry significant weight in International Law.


And here is what some experts on International Law have to say regarding the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters:


(The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)

http://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/33/

And they are not gospel truths, especially this report which was extremely biased and was rejected outright by India.

UN do not recognize any freedom fighter. Or else present the definition.

You have continuously based all your debates on this particular report and such fact finding missions allegiance depends upon then prevailing geo political influences.

The Premises are false, Your argument fails.

Without going into details of Right of Self Determination and its recognition under the UN and International Law, I will just point out that In case of Kashmir, the right to self-determination has been given to the people of Kashmir by the United Nations Security Council itself. The U.N Security Council passed 23 resolutions in this regard. The relevant UNSC Resolutions, as clarified by the UN Representatives on several occasions, are still valid.

India was partitioned on the basis of Indian Independence act 47 with no provision of right to self determination apart from North West Frontier province.

If India offered a referendum to solve the issue with Pakistan, that doesn't grant any right to Kashmiri people or impinge upon the instrument of accession of Kashmir to Indian state.

Anyways Resolutions were non binding under Chapter VI and conditional in nature and India and Pakistan have rejected many of them.
However 72 Simla agreement is binding on Pakistan.

So lets not go back in circles again.

@Joe Shearer

 

[Abingdonboy]

Pakistan should ask Turkey to use its influence so all Central Asian countries support Pakistan in this conflict. As Central Asian countries have cultural and historical link with Turkey/Ottoman Empire.

Pakistan should lobby to get full support of all 57 OIC countries and China.

No one, not Turkey, not China, not the US, not OIC, not even the US is going to make the slightest bit of difference as far as India is concerned.

As per the Shimla agreement the Kashmir dispute is a bilateral issue, I don't understand why Pakistanis are so eager to drag others into this matter. Their seeming fixation on this issue is seriously hindering Pakistan's foreign policy and needlessly diluting its foreign policy.

Pakistan needs to start acting like a mature nation, it can have disputes with xyz but that doesn't mean you continue to cut off your nose. India and China both have disagreements but their bilateral trade is almost $100BN USD and both have enourmous influence in the world as they put their interests first, they don't take their disputes and put them at the forefront of their foreign policies.

@Indian Members
----------------------------

I have not seen any statement from India on this...Irrespective of why this happened it is still a set back and gain for Pakistan position. Why has our MEA not issued a statement on this or summoning Turkey's envoy and reminding them to shut the fukc up??...I mean we should learn a lesson or two from China on this...no??

As has been pointed out, this has been Turkey's position for a long time so there is no need to blow this out of proportion. Turkey's comments do not materially affect anything, why should India care? Let the Ummah look out for one another, Turkey is hardly a priority for India as it continuously puts Pakistan ahead of India. They've made their bed, let them sleep in it.

If they think they can play these games and ignore one of the world's largest growing markets then more fool them.

Eh? Who import s"Gurkhas" from Nepal to do your hard fighting? Mr No friggin balls? India is probably 20% of earth - It is humonghous. Bigger than all of Europe, Russia combined. And if any Turks read this - this is exactly the comparison. India has nearly 7:1 advantage compared to Pakistan.

Even then India has to import Gurkhas from Nepal to do the hard fighting - so much for "balls". Most Indian's, 90% are certified pu*ssies of the highest order. No body or balls. Why else a country with 1.3 billion people has to import Gurkhas?

India barely accepts any Nepalese into its ranks although there is free movement of people between the two nations (with common language).

The vast majority of Indian army Gurkhas are recruited from its NE.

 

[kaykay]

Sorry Turkey but you are no body.....too insignificant for us.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Best solution is: Let people in each district of Jamu and Kashmir vote for their destiny: whether they want to be with Pakistan, India or be independent. Nothing else is a fair deal.

A very sensible post sir but I would take issue with this last part.

Thanks to the Pakistani-backed Jihadis the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been ethnically cleansed of its minority inhabitants who had lived in Kashmir for centuries. Allowing for a refurendum now would be totally inappropriate as the voices of all Kashmiris would not be heard, only those who remain in Kashmir, those who were not driven out in the 90s.

When india committing genocide in Kashmir and rejecting to accept Kashmiris right to decide their own fate, it is NOT a "bilateral" issue. In the civilized world human rights and freedom are international issues.

You clearly have NO clue on these matters. The Shimla agreement signed by BOTH nations supercedes international law and made the Kashmir disupte a bilateral affair.

All those intentionally ignoring this point are truly embrassing themselves. I suppose international law has relevence to them when it suits them and when it is all too inconvenient they ignore it....

Pakistan signed the Shimla agreement, if they want to change the terms now then they have to do so in logical manner, bringing their "friends" into the matter is childish.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

Pakistan and India are 2 mature countries, and we are sure that Kashmir issue can not be solved by war unless 2 countries are wiped off the map. So, I think countries supporting either Pakistan or India may be a good gesture for the related side, but won't really solve the issue.

If both of 2 countries don't agree on a solution and if the whole world backs one side, even then this issue will not be solved, because history has shown the other side won't compromise.

Best solution is: Let people in each district of Jamu and Kashmir vote for their destiny: whether they want to be with Pakistan, India or be independent. Nothing else is a fair deal.

We are agreed with it but India will never give this choice to Kashmiri people as they know that they will either vote for Pakistan or will wish independent Kashmir and these boht choices are not acceptable for India so they will continue this illegal occupation of Kashmir by oppressing the rights of kahsmiri peopel..so called democrazy

A very sensible post sir but I would take issue with this last part.Thanks to the Pakistani-backed Jihadis the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been ethnically cleansed of its minority inhabitants who had lived in Kashmir for centuries. Allowing for a refurendum now would be totally inappropriate as the voices of all Kashmiris would not be heard, only those who remain in Kashmir, those who were not driven out in the 90s.

Jammu and Kashmir had a Muslim majority (77% Muslim by the 1941 census)..it was expected that Kashmir would join Pakistan if follow the logic of partition i.e Muslim majority areas will join Pakistan . Your forces occupied it illegally againt the will of people so you are responsible for what happened next

 

[M. Sarmad]

UN do not recognize any freedom fighter. Or else present the definition.

.

The UN does not recognize Freedom Fighters as Terrorists either. So, as long as the UN does not define "Terrorism", You may choose to call the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters Terrorists or whatever else you want. And we will continue to recognize them as Freedom Fighters.

And they are not gospel truths, especially this report which was extremely biased and was rejected outright by India.

Of Course they are not. They are just opinions. Opinions expressed by a few experts on International Law. But such opinions carry significant weight in IL and cannot be ignored or rejected outright ...

India was partitioned on the basis of Indian Independence act 47 with no provision of right to self determination apart from North West Frontier province..

If India offered a referendum to solve the issue with Pakistan, that doesn't grant any right to Kashmiri people or impinge upon the instrument of accession of Kashmir to Indian state..

Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.

Anyways Resolutions were non binding and conditional in nature and India and Pakistan have rejected many of them..

https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/

However 72 Simla agreement is binding on Pakistan..

The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.





Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

 

[-xXx-]

The UN does not recognize Freedom Fighters as Terrorists either. So, as long as the UN does not define "Terrorism", You may choose to call the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters Terrorists or whatever else you want. And we will continue to recognize them as Freedom Fighters.






Of Course they are not. They are just opinions. Opinions expressed by a few experts on International Law. But such opinions carry significant weight in IL and cannot be ignored or rejected outright ...








Accession of Kashmir is different from accession of any other Indian Princely State as the accession has been placed before the UN Security Council for arranging a ratification or otherwise by the people of the State under the auspices of the United Nations. Therefore, the arrangement caused through the accession of 26 October 1947 has been taken over by the interests of 195 countries of the UN (including Pakistan as a member nation of UN and as a party). Pakistan as a party to the dispute administers two administrations of the State on its side of cease fire line.





https://defence.pk/threads/the-kashmir-resolutions-explanations.7904/







The Simla Agreement does not preclude raising of Kashmir issue at the United Nations:


1) Para 1 (i) specifically provides that the UN Charter “shall govern” relations between the parties.

2) Para 1 (ii) providing for settlement of differences by peaceful means, does not exclude resort to the means of pacific settlement of disputes and differences provided in the UN Charter.

3) The UN Security Council remains seized of the Kashmir issue which remains on the Council’s agenda.

4) Articles 34 and 35 of the UN Charter specifically empower the Security Council to investigate any dispute independently or at the request of a member State. These provisions cannot be made subservient to any bilateral agreement.

5) According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

6) Presence of United Nations Military Observes Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) at the Line of Control in Kashmir is a clear evidence of UN’s involvement in the Kashmir issue.





Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

Not again

The UN resolutions were passed on complaint of India under Chapter VI which is non binding.

You do not trust me, hear from the boss aka Kofi Annan itself -

Answering a question on why the UN resolution on Kashmir could not be implemented on the lines of the resolution on East Timor, Mr Annan said there were two types of UN resolutions.

“The UN resolutions that come under chapter 7 of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter 7 needed cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation.

“The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter 7 and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking,” he said.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010312/main1.htm

Do you want me to quote Ban as well?

More so over bilateral agreement take precedents over non binding UN resolution since bilateral ones are self imposing.

So please don't peddle false statements.

Moreover, this Indian claim has been refuted by various UN representatives who, on several occasions, have clarified that, only a bilateral agreement, which solves the problem, would legally supersede the numerous existing UN resolutions on that dispute. Also, in the absence of any fundamental change in the circumstances, the UN resolutions can become invalid only when the UN Security Council declares them null and viod. For example in 1956, the then UN Secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold, had clearly stated that ‘the UN decision is valid until it has been invalidated by the organ which took it. ......In April 1990, the UN Representative, Francis Guiliani, clarified: ‘a bilateral agreement, which solved the problem, would supersede the resolution aimed at solving the issue. However, as long as the problem remained, the resolutions would remain in effect regardless of when they were adopted .....

Who deny that they are not valid but only as a recommendation which is not binding.

Good Morning and I am going to sleep now.

@Joe Shearer

 

[Śakra]

: Let people in each district of Jamu and Kashmir

When did Jammu come into this? pakistanis are claiming Kashmir

 

[Talwar e Pakistan]

Finally Pakistan managed to find someone to support their stand. Congratulations.

Actually many countries already do; this is just an annual assurance from the Turkey.

OIC, an international organisation consisting of 57 member states recognize J&K as an "Indian occupied territory" and support Pakistan's stance.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Not again

The UN resolutions were passed on complaint of India under Chapter VI which is non binding.

You do not trust me, hear from the boss aka Kofi Annan itself -

Answering a question on why the UN resolution on Kashmir could not be implemented on the lines of the resolution on East Timor, Mr Annan said there were two types of UN resolutions.

“The UN resolutions that come under chapter 7 of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter 7 needed cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation.

“The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter 7 and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking,” he said.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2001/20010312/main1.htm

Do you want me to quote Ban as well?

More so over bilateral agreement take precedents over non binding UN resolution since bilateral ones are self imposing.

So please don't peddle false statements.

Good Morning and I am going to sleep now.

Yes, Please do quote Ban where he said that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are Non-Binding and Unenforceable



While a recommendation by itself may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).




A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution
of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949): the Prime Minister emphasized that, if the Government of India were to accept the plebiscite proposals, no action could be taken in regard to them until parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August had been fully implemented; (2) that in the event of Pakistan not accepting these proposals or, having accepted them, not implementing Parts I and II of the Resolution of 13 August, the Government of India's acceptance of them should not be regarded as in any way binding upon them )


.
As U.N. members consenting to be bound by the resolutions to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, India was also bound by its provisional acceptance of the Maharaja's accession and the words of Jawaharlal Nehru.


Therefore, India was bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

More so over bilateral agreement take precedents over non binding UN resolution since bilateral ones are self imposing

According to Article 103 of UN Charter, member States obligations under the Charter take precedence over obligations under a bilateral agreement.

 

[-xXx-]

Yes, Please do quote Ban where he said that the UN resolutions on Kashmir are Non-Binding and Unenforceable

So Kofi Annan was not sufficient?

Here comes the latest from Ban Ki Moon -

The UN chief has told Mail Today that the world body is willing to play a role - if so asked - in resolving the Kashmir issue.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahom...lebiscite-General-Assembly.html#ixzz4GJgqkToT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So much for binding resolution that Ban ki Moon is awaiting invitation from India to intervene.

While a recommendation by itself may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).




A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution
of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well. (Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949): the Prime Minister emphasized that, if the Government of India were to accept the plebiscite proposals, no action could be taken in regard to them until parts I and II of the Commission's resolution of 13 August had been fully implemented; (2) that in the event of Pakistan not accepting these proposals or, having accepted them, not implementing Parts I and II of the Resolution of 13 August, the Government of India's acceptance of them should not be regarded as in any way binding upon them )


.

Bind by letters? Really you come up with this?

Where does the letter says that resolutions were self imposing? Dont play tongue twister now.

Anyways, after the statements from Annan and Ban, there is no room left for any debate on nature of resolutions, more so the fact that they were never ever being imposed on India or pakistan, it tells you the whole story.

As U.N. members consenting to be bound by the resolutions to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir, India was also bound by its provisional acceptance of the Maharaja's accession and the words of Jawaharlal Nehru.


Therefore, India was bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.

From legally bind to bound by words, so at least you made some progress.

Shall we debate on bound by word part in geo politics. The word coming from a politician?

or shall I become too righteous and defend his going back from his words to the actions of pakistan?

Both options are futile and doesn't count legally, so I wont go into it.

@Joe Shearer

 

[M. Sarmad]

So Kofi Annan was not sufficient?

Here comes the latest from Ban Ki Moon -

The UN chief has told Mail Today that the world body is willing to play a role - if so asked - in resolving the Kashmir issue.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahom...lebiscite-General-Assembly.html#ixzz4GJgqkToT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So much for binding resolution that Ban ki Moon is awaiting invitation from India to intervene.





Bind by letters? Really you come up with this?

Where does the letter says that resolutions were self imposing? Dont play tongue twister now.

Anyways, after the statements from Annan and Ban, there is no room left for any debate on nature of resolutions, more so the fact that they were never ever being imposed on India or pakistan, it tells you the whole story.

Not your fault Mate .. : .... You are confusing non-binding with self-enforcing ........ Have you ever wondered why India cannot discard the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir unilaterally despite them being non-binding and mere recommendations ?

 

[Śakra]

Turkey's statement just reaffirms what we already know:

We (non-muslims) can never be friends with muslims.

 

[-xXx-]

Not your fault Pokee .. : .... You are confusing non-binding with self-enforcing ........ Have you ever wondered why India cannot discard the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir unilaterally despite them being non-binding and mere recommendations ?

Ohh man, still? Seriously?

In fact India have, we have discarded the recommendations long back.

Please enforce them on us as they are binding.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Ohh man, still? Seriously?

In fact India have, we have discarded the recommendations long back.

Please enforce them on us as they are binding.

Kashmir still remains on the Agenda of the SC

The UN refuses to terminate UNMOGIP and you haven't kicked them out yet (even 44 years after the signing of Simla)

Discarded ? Not really ... You can't

You just refuse to cooperate ....

From legally bind to bound by words, so at least you made some progress.

Read again. You consented to be bound. You are legally bound. And that's why you can't discard the UNSC Resolutions unilaterally