Pakistan, where is your sovereignty?

[Pokemon]

This is not 1965.

Exactly this is not 1965 and we wont like it to be the same. But What according to you will save India if ind and china will go for all out conventional war??

 

[gambit]

Osama Bin Laden's Killing is exciting news around the world. The evil finally dies. But put this news aside, I'm surprised to find Laden was killed at a city so close to the capital-Islamabad, and was killed by a foreign force-American Seals Special Force, instead of Pakistani soldiers.

Pakistan is an independent country. But a foreign country's military air craft, drones can fly everyday above her sky; foreign troops can choose when, where, who and how to attack their target, eliminate their enemies in her territory. While thousands of innocent Pakistanis fall victims of such "collateral damages", Pakistan government just sit there idle with empty "protesting". How ironical it is. Isn't it a little shameful?

Pakistan people deserve better life. But the government needs to act like one for Pakistan people. As an observer, I just hope Osama's death is the end of miserable period for Pakistan and all Muslim countries around the world, and the beginning of peace and prosperous for good people living in that land.

Easy question to answer, whether you actually seek an answer or not...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/200

THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL POWERS

Article 1. The territory of neutral Powers is inviolable.

Art. 2. Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or convoys of either munitions of war or supplies across the territory of a neutral Power.

Art. 3. Belligerents are likewise forbidden to:
(a) Erect on the territory of a neutral Power a wireless telegraphy station or other apparatus forthe purpose of communicating with belligerent forces on land or sea;
(b) Use any installation of this kind established by them before the war on the territory of a neutral Power for purely military purposes, and which has not been opened for the service of public messages.

Art. 4. Corps of combatants cannot be formed nor recruiting agencies opened on the territory of a neutral Power to assist the belligerents.

Art. 5. A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory.
It is not called upon to punish acts in violation of its neutrality unless the said acts have been committed on its own territory.

Art. 6. The responsibility of a neutral Power is not engaged by the fact of persons crossing the frontier separately to offer their services to one of the belligerents.

Art. 7. A neutral Power is not called upon to prevent the export or transport, on behalf of one or other of the belligerents, of arms, munitions of war, or, in general, of anything which can be of use to an army or a fleet.

Art. 8. A neutral Power is not called upon to forbid or restrict the use on behalf of the belligerents of telegraph or telephone cables or of wireless telegraphy apparatus belonging to it or to companies or private individuals.

Art. 9. Every measure of restriction or prohibition taken by a neutral Power in regard to the matters referred to in Articles 7 and 8 must be impartially applied by it to both belligerents. A neutral Power must see to the same obligation being observed by companies or private individuals owning telegraph or telephone cables or wireless telegraphy apparatus.

Art. 10. The fact of a neutral Power resisting, even by force, attempts to violate its neutrality cannot be regarded as a hostile act.

The US and al-Qaeda are interested belligerent parties. IF Pakistan claim neutrality, then Pakistan must take credible steps to ensure articles 2 thru 5 are not violated ON PAKISTANI SOIL...!!! Or let me put it another way: If Pakistan (or any country) expect other countries to respect Article 1 when there are armed conflicts in the neighborhood, then Pakistan (or any country) must make it clear to all parties, belligerents or neutral, that Pakistan is neutral and will take measures to make it publicly known that violations of Pakistani borders by anyone for the purpose of gaining tactical or strategic advantage at Pakistan's expense will not be tolerated.

Anything less than absolute enforcement of articles 2 thru 5, either by refusal or incompetence, will make Pakistan vulnerable to exploitation by one side seeking to gain tactical and strategic advantages over its enemy, and will justify the other side's violation of Article 1 of Pakistan's sovereignty in order to negate said tactical and strategic advantages. This kind of understanding of the rules of war have been around for hundreds of years in various forms of documentations but most notably today with the Geneva Conventions. We know that Afghanistan refused to enforce articles 2 thru 5 and Afghanistan was invaded by US. Pakistan is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the American public sentiment that Obama may not be able to refuse.

 

[black eagle]

Didn't Pakistan sold their sovereignty to US & China long time ago???????

 

[p2prada]

Easy question to answer, whether you actually seek an answer or not...

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/200

The US and al-Qaeda are interested belligerent parties. IF Pakistan claim neutrality, then Pakistan must take credible steps to ensure articles 2 thru 5 are not violated ON PAKISTANI SOIL...!!! Or let me put it another way: If Pakistan (or any country) expect other countries to respect Article 1 when there are armed conflicts in the neighborhood, then Pakistan (or any country) must make it clear to all parties, belligerents or neutral, that Pakistan is neutral and will take measures to make it publicly known that violations of Pakistani borders by anyone for the purpose of gaining tactical or strategic advantage at Pakistan's expense will not be tolerated.

Anything less than absolute enforcement of articles 2 thru 5, either by refusal or incompetence, will make Pakistan vulnerable to exploitation by one side seeking to gain tactical and strategic advantages over its enemy, and will justify the other side's violation of Article 1 of Pakistan's sovereignty in order to negate said tactical and strategic advantages. This kind of understanding of the rules of war have been around for hundreds of years in various forms of documentations but most notably today with the Geneva Conventions. We know that Afghanistan refused to enforce articles 2 thru 5 and Afghanistan was invaded by US. Pakistan is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the American public sentiment that Obama may not be able to refuse.

Good to see you again sir.

The neutrality clause only applies to a sovereign country and not to a country which only claims sovereignty on paper.

 

[gambit]

Good to see you again sir.

The neutrality clause only applies to a sovereign country and not to a country which only claims sovereignty on paper.

That is a matter of rhetorics, not facts and reality. The facts are that Pakistan has governmental institutions such as the presidency, a legislature, a judiciary, and a military. The reality is that Pakistan has membership representation in the UN and ambassadorial representation the US. Finally, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, of which the weapons themselves are credible deterrence towards the defense of sovereignty. Pakistan has all rights and duties befitting that of a sovereign nation-state.

 

[p2prada]

That is a matter of rhetorics, not facts and reality. The facts are that Pakistan has governmental institutions such as the presidency, a legislature, a judiciary, and a military. The reality is that Pakistan has membership representation in the UN and ambassadorial representation the US. Finally, Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state, of which the weapons themselves are credible deterrence towards the defense of sovereignty. Pakistan has all rights and duties befitting that of a sovereign nation-state.

None of that is actually being used.

When it comes building a well for some random village in Baloch the governmental institutions such as the presidency, a legislature, a judiciary would come into the picture. When it comes to framing foreign policy and budget allocation, the military comes into the picture. Sovereignty has less to do with what's on the paper and what's on the ground.

An engineer with passing marks and an engineer who topped his class are both the same, engineers. However there is a world of a difference between them in specific POVs. Pakistan is a sovereign state and so is the US.

North Korea and Iran are more sovereign than Pakistan is. Even Libya is more sovereign as of today.

 

[A chauhan]

They desperately need financial support and they can't face US pressure, so nothing strange if Pakistan looses her sovereignty.

@Chinese members - If your country tries to do the same job what USA has done within Pakistan,then Pakistan will easily and surely give you access because they need your financial as well as military support.In the name of friendship they will be ready with your country to fight against the terrorism (Pakistan sponsored terrorism).

When it's money matter, i wonder they even forget the concept of sovereignty. USA says they killed Osama with the help of Pakistan , on the contrary Jardari is saying it was not a Joint Operation. And today morning i read in the newspaper that local villagers were surprised seeing that attack and Pakistani Army persons were standing there.

 

[gambit]

None of that is actually being used.

When it comes building a well for some random village in Baloch the governmental institutions such as the presidency, a legislature, a judiciary would come into the picture. When it comes to framing foreign policy and budget allocation, the military comes into the picture. Sovereignty has less to do with what's on the paper and what's on the ground.

An engineer with passing marks and an engineer who topped his class are both the same, engineers. However there is a world of a difference between them in specific POVs. Pakistan is a sovereign state and so is the US.

North Korea and Iran are more sovereign than Pakistan is. Even Libya is more sovereign as of today.

Sovereignty is BOTH claimed and tacitly respected among peers. Sovereignty is claimed when a nation staked out a piece of territory and asserted ownership by some arguments. Sovereignty is respected when neighbors and distant peers accepted what is claimed. The less difficulty and obstacles exist the faster the nation and the territory become a nation-state. These are the minimum criteria and arguments that all nation-states agreed upon. Among friendly peers, a nation-state does not need to flaunt its military capability to assert its territorial sovereignty. But among hostile or even non-friendly peers, that flaunting of military capability is necessary. So minimally speaking, Pakistan is already a sovereign nation-state, on paper and on the ground. Failure or refusal to enforce responsibilities does not nullify what peers, friendly or non-friendly or even hostile, accepted since the founding of the nation-state, whenever that was.

 

[hit&run]

@Gambit: Most of the people joining different forums try to go beyond the text book definitions. I can see you are an American and will try to place America on some high moral grounds with some text book logics. We know your defence will fail if you try to join others who think Pakistan has failed to save its sovereignty.

@P2: May be you will find it easy to read between the lines and highlight Pakistan as a dysfunctional state who has lost its sovereignty. But given the work USA is doing against these terrorist deserves some kind of political correctness for an Indian.

For discussion sake I can not see that Pakistan is a unique case or hasn't lost its sovereignty because from Pakistan COAS, parliament, media and to its President they all are opposing drone attacks. They all represent public opinion especially Parliament which embodies the will of the people of Pakistan.

I think both of you Gents are pre occupied while presenting your assertion because the states using terror as an instrument of their state policy and terrorist organization working on their own have global approach i.e. they have already done the deterritorialisation of all the states.

Territorial integrity and territorial sovereignty is defined as one and the same thing in international law, and in the UN charter and is referred as the idea that within its boundaries a state is sovereign and no external interference allowed.

What Bush, Blair and allies did by invading Afghanistan, Iraq was something else. An excuse to change the regime for better global stability has nothing to do with UN definition of sovereignty. Only the extent of territory (territorial integrity) was preserved but textbook definition of territorial sovereignty was over sighted.

The same case is with Pakistan, its territory and regime is intact but she is unable to implicate its national interests or is on a pause or is done with deception and lies (OBL in Pakistan). Why on earth Bush has to ask if you are on our side? Why they were bullied to be sent back to Stone Age? Why Musharaf of his national address before joining global war on terror referred to Islamic history of temporary treaties being made with Infidels for greater causes of saving Islam. A sovereignty of a state was subject of a state only i.e. how they will define it, but not anymore now.

The 'war on terror' and range of previous conflicts in the post-Cold War world, including Kosovo are another good examples to challenge these definitions.

It's a high time when people should rediscover the definition of sovereignty. Territories have been reconfigured in past and will be in future because the WOT is still not over and countries like Pakistan, Iran and N. Korea requires/pending long treatment. How Libya and Afghanistan will be negotiated with all parties involve is still not known. Therefore for the sake of this discussion one must be flexible with their approach.

 

[chex3009]

They have allowed this operation without thinking of their sovereignty, afterall they have "BIG HEARTS". Let that SOB Zaid Hamid shout that they have the ability to send back packing any military in the world.

 

[p2prada]

Sovereignty is BOTH claimed and tacitly respected among peers. Sovereignty is claimed when a nation staked out a piece of territory and asserted ownership by some arguments. Sovereignty is respected when neighbors and distant peers accepted what is claimed. The less difficulty and obstacles exist the faster the nation and the territory become a nation-state. These are the minimum criteria and arguments that all nation-states agreed upon. Among friendly peers, a nation-state does not need to flaunt its military capability to assert its territorial sovereignty. But among hostile or even non-friendly peers, that flaunting of military capability is necessary. So minimally speaking, Pakistan is already a sovereign nation-state, on paper and on the ground. Failure or refusal to enforce responsibilities does not nullify what peers, friendly or non-friendly or even hostile, accepted since the founding of the nation-state, whenever that was.

You see, the big bullies the small. This is true for kindergarten as well as foreign policy. Taking a six year olds lunch money is nothing different from forcing another country to fight a war for you. Pakistan has lost more soldiers fighting the WoT than all of America and NATO put together in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US tried bringing India into Afghanistan as well if you remember.

The British empire was sovereign territory until people from countries such as yours and mine redefined their borders. The Libyans are trying to do the same today. Sovereignty in these cases were indeed breached due to war. The French helped you, the Japanese indirectly helped us and NATO is directly trying to affect the outcome in Libya.

Sovereignty is great on paper and a country can only be truly sovereign if the country has nothing to offer to a bigger country. Once a demand is made by the big country the so called sovereign country will be no different from Pakistan today.

There has been tacit and unanimous belief from the Pakistani govt institutions you named that the drone attacks must stop. Has that happened? The answer to that question is all that matters.

 

[hit&run]

Pakistan: Sovereignty outweighs terror fight
Zardari sends signal to U.S. that cross-border raids will not be tolerated

Shakil Adil / AP

Pakistani protesters burn U.S. flags Friday to condemn recent U.S. strikes in Pakistani territory near the country's border with Afghanistan.

updated 9/20/2008 9:49:21 AM ET

Pakistan's new president told lawmakers the nation will not tolerate violations of its sovereignty by "any power" in the name of fighting terrorism, a clear signal to the U.S. to avoid controversial cross-border strikes.

In his first address to Parliament, Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of slain ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, also called Saturday for a committee to consider reducing presidential powers that had been enhanced under his predecessor, longtime U.S. ally Pervez Musharraf.

A series of suspected U.S. missile attacks and an American-led cross-border ground assault in Pakistan's volatile northwest have signaled Washington's impatience with Pakistani efforts to eliminate hide-outs of Taliban and al-Qaida militants implicated in attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

But the U.S. strikes also have angered Pakistanis, and Zardari has faced some criticism for not being more outspoken against them. On Saturday, his voice rose as he tackled the subject.

"We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism," said Zardari, who is expected to see President Bush in the next few days while leading a delegation to the United Nations.

Zardari, who easily won the presidency earlier this month after Musharraf quit under threat of impeachment, is considered generally pro-American. He warned Saturday that terrorism is a grave challenge to Pakistan and said the government should prevent the country's soil from being used as a base for terrorist attacks against other countries

 

[RPK]

Pakistan: Sovereignty outweighs terror fight
Zardari sends signal to U.S. that cross-border raids will not be tolerated

Shakil Adil / AP


"We will not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in the name of combating terrorism," said Zardari, who is expected to see President Bush in the next few days while leading a delegation to the United Nations.

Zardari, who easily won the presidency earlier this month after Musharraf quit under threat of impeachment, is considered generally pro-American. He warned Saturday that terrorism is a grave challenge to Pakistan and said the government should prevent the country's soil from being used as a base for terrorist attacks against other countries

what?????????????????????

 

[hit&run]

what?????????????????????

see the link and date. I was trying to make my point for the previous post that they were opposing such operations and were concerned about their sovereignty. Today the same person has said that it was an American operation per American Policy.

 

[gambit]

You see, the big bullies the small. This is true for kindergarten as well as foreign policy. Taking a six year olds lunch money is nothing different from forcing another country to fight a war for you. Pakistan has lost more soldiers fighting the WoT than all of America and NATO put together in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US tried bringing India into Afghanistan as well if you remember.

The British empire was sovereign territory until people from countries such as yours and mine redefined their borders. The Libyans are trying to do the same today. Sovereignty in these cases were indeed breached due to war. The French helped you, the Japanese indirectly helped us and NATO is directly trying to affect the outcome in Libya.

Sovereignty is great on paper and a country can only be truly sovereign if the country has nothing to offer to a bigger country. Once a demand is made by the big country the so called sovereign country will be no different from Pakistan today.

There has been tacit and unanimous belief from the Pakistani govt institutions you named that the drone attacks must stop. Has that happened? The answer to that question is all that matters.

The moment there is an independent authority figure over a territory that establishes a local government, laws, economy, currency, etc. historical arguments over who was there first doing what no long apply.

If Pakistan claimed and have reasonably credible justifications upon an island and UN peers accepted said claim, must Pakistan stake out a garrison to defend that island? No. Sovereignty is often automatically respected. Take the current conflict over Kashmir for example, if Kashmir is truly Indian territory and there are belligerents in some war that DOES NOT involve India, would Indians tolerate violations of Kashmir for one belligerent's benefits? Of course not. The Indian government would be mortified at even a hint of India being in alliance with a belligerent, let alone allowing Indian territory being used in a war.

What you are arguing is not about sovereignty but about foreign policies that have consequences. Pakistan was involved in Afghanistan long before the current conflict between US and al-Qaeda. Sovereignty for Pakistan still exists but not for Afghanistan and Iraq is somewhere in-between Pakistan and Afghanistan as far as independence from foreign influences go. Violation of territorial sovereignty usually precede subversion of authority but the latter does not have to follow the former. The violator can chose to attempt to overthrow the ruling authority. Violations of territorial sovereignty is temporary. Subversion of authority is more permanent. Violation of territorial sovereignty and subversion of authority happened for Afghanistan and Iraq but not for Pakistan. The US have not establish any garrison, let alone moral claims, upon any parcel of territorial Pakistan. The deceptive argument I am seeing here focus on the action but not the justifications that must be expressed before any violations of territorial sovereignty can proceed. Best of all is the now obvious fact that Pakistan have been harboring the moral leader of a belligerent in this conflict.

As for the drone missions over Pakistani territory, that is an uncomfortable part of war that is a direct result of Pakistani involvement in Afghanistan and covert support for al-Qaeda, a belligerent, and the contradictory alliance with the US, another belligerent. Pakistan is playing both sides and everyone know it so you cannot legitimately criticize US for those drone missions.

 

[Ray]

The issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity can be debated on theoretical grounds.

However, the reality of the manner of governance as is on the ground is what becomes pertinent.

Pakistan is an independent country with full rights to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

However, the theoretical aspects to sovereignty and territorial integrity takes a toss, when a foreign country's intelligence agency, the CIA and the same foreign country's strategic assets like the SEAL operates with impunity or when the same foreign country can demand the release of its defence contractor or when the same country smashes Pakistani hamlets in search of terrorists or demands action against what that foreign country feels are terrorists.

In such circumstances, where a foreign country dictates terms and devastates another country, then, sovereignty and territorial integrity remain theoretical niceties and nothing more.

 

[gambit]

The issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity can be debated on theoretical grounds.

However, the reality of the manner of governance as is on the ground is what becomes pertinent.

Not 'can'...But MUST...And once the theory is agreed upon, or at least major provisions thereof, the theory is formalized into practices that we are comfortable with today. That comfortability none can deny exist, let alone contends over.

Pakistan is an independent country with full rights to sovereignty and territorial integrity.

No one is disputing that, however, rights are accompanied by responsibilities as outlined on previous page.

However, the theoretical aspects to sovereignty and territorial integrity takes a toss, when a foreign country's intelligence agency, the CIA and the same foreign country's strategic assets like the SEAL operates with impunity or when the same foreign country can demand the release of its defence contractor or when the same country smashes Pakistani hamlets in search of terrorists or demands action against what that foreign country feels are terrorists.

In such circumstances, where a foreign country dictates terms and devastates another country, then, sovereignty and territorial integrity remain theoretical niceties and nothing more.

When responsibilities are tossed by a ruling authority, so will rights that are normally respected. Look at sovereignty as a train resting atop the parallel rails of rights and responsibilities.

 

[The Messiah]

Once paid a prostitute has the same level of sovereignty over her body as pakistan has now.

It took money and now it is being fucked. Its as simple as that.

 

[pmaitra]

Once paid a prostitute has the same level of sovereignty over her body as pakistan has now.

It took money and now it is being fucked. Its as simple as that.

Hmmm, interesting. So you have some experience buddy. LOL. Just kidding. I know it was meant in humour.

Question for all:
How many of you are looking forward to a sudden stop in US aid and complete collapse of the Pakistani economy leading to a civil war?

 

[Yan Luo Wang]

Question for all:
How many of you are looking forward to a sudden stop in US aid and complete collapse of the Pakistani economy leading to a civil war?

I'm not that sadistic, to look forward to a civil war in another country.