Pakistan, where is your sovereignty?

[Oracle]

Pakistan, where is your sovereignty?
Pakistan lost it's sovereignty when it adopted terrorism as a state policy. The clouds are gone, and the results have just started to show. Hopefully more would follow.

 

[gambit]

You cannot change facts with what suits your agenda.

I have changed no facts. If anything, am willing to bet that no one here know about the Geneva Conventions that so clearly outlined the rights and responsibilities of neutral parties in any conflict. New facts always change the current popular beliefs and sometimes eliminate them.

I am talking about Chinese claim over Tawang, Taiwan and over the Japanese islands in the South China sea. Add the disputed Philippines islands as well.

Those disputes have the same denomination: that of sovereignty. Whose and legitimacy are different issues and each must be discussed in its own right.

Like I said, you cannot argue with what suits you best. We walked into Sri Lanka in 1987. We walked into Portugese held Goa and asked the French to leave their territories(Pondicherry) as well. It was your aircraft flying over the Bay of Pigs, not some random mercenary air force.

But it is YOU are arguing what suits you. The question is about sovereignty and so far you have failed to prove that Pakistan never had sovereignty over Pakistani soil.

We don't know entirely. However reports have indicated infiltration. Let's not forget there are border violations reported over the Indo-China border every other day. Suffice to say the 60s and 70s is too old for open source info.

Then innuendos are irrelevant.

Iraq was sovereign and as Ray sir put it, the action was illegal. You did not even have UNSC mandate over the invasion on Iraq.

The legality of the Iraqi invasion is distinct from the legitimacy of Iraqi sovereignty, which we know was legitimate under Saddam Hussein despite its dictatorial nature.

Taliban is not recognized by the US Govt. Please read up on your history text book. Taliban regime was not part of the UN and was only recognized by the govts of Pakistan, UAE and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan did not have a constitution and nor is it a sovereign state. As of September 22, 2001 only Pakistan recognized Taliban as a govt. US recognized the Taliban as renegade fundamentalists and were dealt with as such. Or are you going to suggest otherwise just to win over an argument?

Whether we recognized the Taliban as legitimate governors of Afghanistan or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the US respected Afghanistan sovereignty until Sept 11, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.[1] It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided. In theoretical terms, the idea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Hobbes, has always necessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it.

The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a defined territory. According to current international law norms, states are only required to have an effective and independent system of government pursuant to a community within a defined territory.

Even if the US did not recognized the Taliban, were the Taliban 'supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.'? Yes. Before Sept 11, 2001 we tried to negotiate with the Taliban to have them evict Osama bin Laden. We negotiated with no one else. The fact that we were compelled to negotiate with the Taliban rendered our refusal to recognize them as legitimate governors pointless. In other words, we had to deal with them whether we like it or not.

Sorry but you have't brought forward anything meaningful to the entire discussion. All you have given is meaningless definitions on what a Sovereign state should be.

Those definitions are not meaningless and I challenge you to convince any diplomat to your opinion. You will fail.

You have passed over Drone attacks and special ops as something that is very usual in the American context and must be overlooked because of circumstances. All of it impinge on the sovereignty of another nation no matter how you put your points forward.

I have never dispute the fact that we violated Pakistani sovereignty. But YOU consistently refused to acknowledge that as ruling authority in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has responsibilities that it either refused or was incompetent to uphold.

Pakistan isn't fighting the war on terror because they had a choice. War was inevitable. They only had the choice of picking the side.

Your arguments have no substance at all.

As of 2011, US is the most sovereign state in the world and perhaps the only sovereign state. Nobody dictates to the US, not even NATO.

You confused sovereignty with everything else. That or you need to constrict the definition of sovereignty in order to make Pakistan as innocent a victim as possible.

 

[p2prada]

I have changed no facts. If anything, am willing to bet that no one here know about the Geneva Conventions that so clearly outlined the rights and responsibilities of neutral parties in any conflict. New facts always change the current popular beliefs and sometimes eliminate them.

Pakistan is not a neutral country in the fight and neither is the Aghan govt. All are neck deep in sh*t and that cannot be denied.

Osama is the belligerent and US and Pakistan are the allies in this fight. Pakistan has repeatedly questioned the drone attacks and also the need for drone attacks from across the border.

Those disputes have the same denomination: that of sovereignty. Whose and legitimacy are different issues and each must be discussed in its own right.

Sovereignty is not birthright. It is up for sale to the highest bidder. The bidding value could be monetary benefit or a threat of invasion. The more powerful nation has the more legitimate right for reasons as simple as bullying.

But it is YOU are arguing what suits you. The question is about sovereignty and so far you have failed to prove that Pakistan never had sovereignty over Pakistani soil.

Can I personally prove the F-117 is a stealth jet? NO. Only you can and we have to believe you for it.

Pakistan wanted to be neutral in the war on terror. Your country was the one who forced their hand;
Donald Rumsfeld: If you are against us we will bomb you back to the stone age.

Do you deny this was ever told?

There was even Bush's "you are with us or against us" comments.

The legality of the Iraqi invasion is distinct from the legitimacy of Iraqi sovereignty, which we know was legitimate under Saddam Hussein despite its dictatorial nature.

Yes. Iraq was a sovereign country. An illegal war later we have a dead dictator(good) and a half dead country(bad). I am not saying what you did in Iraq was good or bad. However we cannot deny that US did impinge on sovereignty without proof.

Whether we recognized the Taliban as legitimate governors of Afghanistan or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the US respected Afghanistan sovereignty until Sept 11, 2001.

Even if the US did not recognized the Taliban, were the Taliban 'supreme, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a territory.'? Yes. Before Sept 11, 2001 we tried to negotiate with the Taliban to have them evict Osama bin Laden. We negotiated with no one else. The fact that we were compelled to negotiate with the Taliban rendered our refusal to recognize them as legitimate governors pointless. In other words, we had to deal with them whether we like it or not.

No. You got the concept mixed up with the renaissance term.

The United Nations currently only requires that a sovereign state has an effective and independent government within a defined territory.

This is the only proper definition of a sovereign state and the most important aspect of accepting sovereignty is by recognizing the govt by the UN.

Taliban isn't recognized by the UN, hence is not a sovereign state.

The only countries who claimed Taliban is a legitimate govt were 3 countries and only they have the duty to accept Taliban's sovereignty. Had India run major ops in Afghanistan, then we wouldn't be charged with impinging on her sovereignty as it is not a govt we recognize.

You dealt with Taliban diplomatically at first only because you wanted to avoid war. Nothing stopped you and nothing was going to stop you from the Afghan invasion.

Those definitions are not meaningless and I challenge you to convince any diplomat to your opinion. You will fail.

Even India is burdened by the yoke of maintaining sovereignty. Haven't you consistently heard that we have had a seemingly independent foreign policy even after all the rough weather during sanctions in the media. Our MRCA shortlist and our policy of non alignment are proof of our struggle in maintaining sovereignty.

When I said "meaningless" I meant particularly in the context that we are talking about. US has and perhaps will exercise her vast power for her own gains. This is a fact.

US may not control Pakistan's day to day life, but you surely do control their foreign policy to a large extent.

I have never dispute the fact that we violated Pakistani sovereignty. But YOU consistently refused to acknowledge that as ruling authority in Pakistan, the Pakistani government has responsibilities that it either refused or was incompetent to uphold.

You confused sovereignty with everything else. That or you need to constrict the definition of sovereignty in order to make Pakistan as innocent a victim as possible.

Pakistan is neither incompetent nor are they victims. They are merely hapless and have no choice. They cannot stop the war you have started even considering the losses they have suffered has been as much or more than the US. We have no way of knowing how the Tribals and terror organizations would react once US leaves Astan for good. But it would be naive in assuming US is a goody two shoes and that Pakistan has complete control over their foreign policy even when the ground situation dictates otherwise.

 

[Ray]

Whatever they may 'feel' does not negate the reality that the muslims dominated their own territories, established their own economies, printed their own currencies, created their own governmental institutions, and perpetuated their own cultures. They have all the visible trappings of sovereign nation-states. They control their own media and if they are incompetent at presenting their own viewpoints on any issue, that is not the fault of those who criticized them.

That by no means indicate that they are not sovereign nations.

The competence of otherwise is not material to their sovereignty.

At this rate if those who control their media are not sovereign, then China by that definition is not sovereign. Try telling that to China.

What has the viewpoint projected by the Muslim countries got to do with violation of their sovereignty?

The General Assembly members agreed that for inter-states issues that may create tensions that may escalate into armed conflicts, the Security Council should be the final arbiter of those issues. You need to study up on how the UN operate.

Security Council may feel that they are the final arbiter, but they are not. The US did not care what the UNSC had said and went right ahead in Iraq as they interpreted what was right for them!

I don't have to study how the UN operate, because I was with the UN itself!

Neither was the Kuwait invasion by Iraq. Neither was the Soviet invasions of assorted Eastern European countries that created the once Soviet empire. I did not bring those up to justify US actions in Pakistan but to point out the truth that when nation-states are in conflicts that could threaten their existence, UN blessings are irrelevant. Certainly al-Qaeda did not seek UN sanctions. But your entire argument still does not explain how Pakistan is not a sovereign nation-state.

On the one hand, you state that the UNSC is the final arbiter and in the same breath, you claim when nation-states are in conflicts that could threaten their existence, UN blessings are irrelevant.

AQ is not a nation state and so your using the AQ, as if it were a nation state, is flawed.

For any country to be in conflict, one has to declare openly a war. Is the US and Pakistan at war?

My entire argument was that Pakistan is a sovereign state and thus any offensive action by a foreign country is violation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. Therefore, your contention -your entire argument still does not explain how Pakistan is not a sovereign nation-state - is an attempt to obfuscate the issue in a disingenuous manner.

Are you really that naive? But let us grant that Pakistan really does not know Osama was living in comfort right next a Pakistani military academy...

No, I am not naive. Not at all. In fact I don't even buy your contention that the Kakul Academy which trains cadets and has merely demonstration troops are hardly geared or trained for anti Heliborne operations. I wonder if you know these are troops who have been turned over after a hard operational posting and they psychologically are attuned to take a well deserved break, by doing routine duties like demonstrations for Section and Platoon tactics.

Normal troops are not intelligence gathering outfits that they would know who all are in town, more so, chaps who do not show their faces in the neighbourhood or the market.

First...When we use the word 'United States of America' we do not restrict that label to the US government but also include the recognized borders that indicate to us the cartographic 'United States of America'.

- Nation: A group of people who shares a common bond.
- State: A political body that governs the nation.
- Country: A geographical locale.

Second...Before the establishment of Israel, world Jewry is a nation, in effect a people without a government and a territory. Today, we have something similar with the Gypsies in Europe. The American Indian tribes are highly autonomous nation-states but they are without territories. The reservations are only parceled out for them and their rule over the reservations are at the convenience of the US government. The word 'country' has at least dual meanings, a distinct region such as Africa or America or Asia, and to mean a territory that is claimed by a nation-state. In other words, Africa is a country that contains many 'countries' or 'nation-states'. Same for Asia or Europe or America.

Third...In inter-states relations, the response by one nation-state to a crime committed against it that harmed that nation-state in some ways is preferably proportionate to the crime itself. For example, we do not go to war against France if a Frenchman swindled an American bank out of some money. We would prefer to let our respective law enforcement agencies apprehend the criminal in a collaborative manner. However, if we look at Mexico and the internal turmoil that threatens US citizens on American soil, then the Mexicans should be glad that they are not living next to the Russians for the Russians would have invaded and established control of parcels of Mexican territory a long time ago.

We are not talking about a con man out for some money. We are talking about someone who claimed to speak for a nation -- the muslims -- and who declared that a state of warfare exists between the US and this nation. One country or nation-state -- Afghanistan -- sponsored this non-state organization in this war. The organization is al-Qaeda and its moral leader is Osama bin Laden. His charismatic hold over this nation is good enough that many members of the nation became active sympathizers. The muslim nation transcends political borders such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Europe and even America. Many of them acted on their own as we have recently seen with the many al-Qaeda 'franchises' in many countries, like a fast food franchise. Its greatest combat action was the attack on US soil on Sept. 11, 2001 that netted the organization nearly 3000 enemy killed-in-action (KIA). Osama bin Laden did not do it for monetary but political gains.

Police agencies responds to crimes that are of monetary gains in natures. Nation-states responds not to crimes but to acts of warfare that threatens its citizens and even existence.

So when we say that Pakistan harbored Osama we do not need to specifically mean the Pakistani government but to include the Pakistan territory itself where members of the muslims nation, civilian and military, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, actively assisted Osama to elude US pursuit of an enemy combatant. Allowing that the Pakistani government did not know Osama was living inside Pakistani territory for the last several years and free enough to send his followers moral and spiritual exhortations to continue the war, we can say that this is a clear case of incompetence on the part of the Pakistani government. Incompetence by one nation-state to enforce its rule over its territory justify sovereignty violations by another nation-state when an act of war was committed and a threat continue to exist.

I thought both Bush and Obama stated that the War on Terror is NOT a War Against Islam!!

While on the other hand, you make out a case, without copious examples which can be demolished, that the war is Against Islam!

Either you know better than the Presidents of the US or there is a serious disconnect between the Presidents and you! I would shudder to think the the Presidents of the US did not know what they talk about and claim to be the national policy.

By your logic, the Central American countries would be right to attack the US just because Col Oliver North organised the Contras to devastate their countries. One would wonder how many Central Americans were killed by the paid mercenaries of Oliver North, even if the US did not tacitly OK the ops!!

Never denied it. But it is curious that you and others continue to avoid the justification issue. A firefighter is fully justified in seriously damaging a car that is in his way. A damaged car can be repaired or replaced in short order but not a destroyed neighborhood or even a city. Do we prosecute the firefighter? No. We excuse his action as fully justifiable in the face of the greater threat and the insurance company will pay for the damages to the car or even replace it. Even though there was no higher authority to sanction the US raid into Pakistani territory, no country that has ever suffered a war can legitimately condemn said US action. Yes...They will know and say it was a violation of sovereignty, but that it was fully justified by either Pakistani convenient ignorance or incompetence.

It appears that firefighters in the US are some type of heroes in the US since they seem to hog the limelight. In other countries, they are just doing their duty. Tough and dangerous their duty maybe, but nonetheless it remains just a duty. No one forces them to join as no one forces people to join the Armed Forces. Therefore, this example does not excite one to nod in appreciation or in affirmation of your contention.

How many 'wars', terrorist actions etc has the US has condemned? The US which shouts to the rooftops about Freedom and Democracy has not recognised the Hamas which won an election fairly and legitimately. How many dictators who carry out atrocities are supported by the US? While the US legitimises the air assault in Libya, they conveniently forget the atrocities done by the Sultan of Bahrain over the majority Shias.

So, please do not hector on morality and right to carry out raids and justify the violation of sovereignty of Pakistan.

It is merely another attempt to twist issue to justify the unjustifiable.

If the US has carried out a raid to kill OBL, so be it. If it has violated international niceties, so be it. Why justify? Since when has the US cared for international opinion? They do not even recognise the International Court of Justice!!

Absurd. There are many rights and their corresponding responsibilities. For this discussion, some of them I have outlined. For your argument to be valid for this discussion, you must show how the US have been negligent in exercising authority over US territories and corrective actions when proved incompetent. You must show how the US was either negligent or refused or incapable of exercising authority over a parcel of US territory when that territory was illegally used in a war that the US has no interests in.

You are obfuscating.

Read this part again and correlate how the US has flung all responsibilities as a nation state in the comity of nations and flouted at will the territorial integrity and sovereignty of other nations.

I have not denied that the US violated Pakistani sovereignty, but you and the others have refused to acknowledged Pakistani responsibilities.

You have throughout tried to justify the US action and thus not acknowledging the violations of the US of the internationally recognised principles.

There is no doubt that Pakistan has failed to keep terrorists in check, and if what they claim is right that they did not know that OBL is in Pakistan, they have proved their incompetence.

Everyone is delighted that OBL has been killed, but one cannot pretend that there has been no violation of international niceties.

There has been violations and I would say - Take it or Leave it. The task had to be done and it was done, with or without help!

There is no requirement for the US or anyone to act smug and cover it with disingenuous attempts at morality.

Oh yes, I am here.

I know about Geneva Conventions, if that helps matters.

I had to operate with that as one of the guidelines.

 

[civfanatic]

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??

I would not like a future Indo-Pak War to have the same result as 1965, because in 1965 we only parked in the outskirts of Lahore, but I would prefer that we drive through the whole city. Among others.

According to me, the chances of India and China going for an "all out conventional war" are about as high as Pakistan sending a manned mission to Mars.

 

[Virendra]

I would not like a future Indo-Pak War to have the same result as 1965, because in 1965 we only parked in the outskirts of Lahore, but I would prefer that we drive through the whole city. Among others.

Yeah that was in Barki. I got a pic I uploaded here at DFI sometime back, was of an Indian soldier standing in front of Barki Police station.
Indian Advance at Barki - Lahore - Defence Forum of India Gallery

Regards,
Virendra

 

[SHASH2K2]

Respect Pakistan's sovereignty, China tells the U.S.


Two countries agree deal for 50 JF-17 fighter jets during Pakistan Prime Minister's visit to Beijing, signalling growing Chinese support to Islamabad

Chinese officials told visiting Pakistan Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani they had taken up the country's concerns over the May 2 raid that killed Osama bin Laden in talks with United States officials this month, calling on them to respect Pakistan's sovereignty.
"China supported Pakistan's cause on its own" during this month's strategic and economic dialogue in Washington, Mr. Gilani told reporters here, according to the official Associated Press of Pakistan.
Chinese officials also told their American counterparts "there should be no harm to the Pakistani sovereignty and the US should understand and appreciate concerns of Pakistan," he said.
On Thursday, Pakistan's relations with the U.S. emerged as the focus of Mr. Gilani's on-going four-day visit, with both Chinese and Pakistan officials stressing mutual support to ensure each other's sovereignty amid Pakistani criticism of the U.S. killing of bin Laden.
In a strong indication of China's continuing support to its long-term strategic ally, the two countries agreed a deal for 50 JF-17 Chinese fighter jets to be provided to Pakistan, officials told Pakistani media.
The deal, analysts said, underscored the importance of Chinese assistance to Islamabad, at a time when its relations with Washington have come under strains, with some U.S. lawmakers even calling for a scaling back of assistance.
Chinese officials on Thursday refused to comment on the deal. Officials also sought to downplay differences with the U.S., stressing the common interest both countries had in a stable Pakistan.
While the Pakistani media reported that China had strongly taken up Pakistan's concerns with U.S. officials following the May 2 raid in Abbottabad, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu only said countries needed to respect the "independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan."
"We believe that Pakistan has made great contribution to international counterterrorism efforts, as well as huge sacrifices," she said. "The international community should understand and support Pakistan's efforts to restore national stability and develop its economy."
In a speech at Beijing's Peking University on Thursday, Mr. Gilani said the country was "grateful to China for extending its full support to Pakistan in our own national efforts to safeguard our sovereignty and our core national interests."
He said China was the first country to support Pakistan following bin Laden's killing, against the backdrop of increasing international criticism over the country's efforts to crack down on terror. At a banquet later in the day, Mr. Gilani described China as "the only voice of reason in international affairs."
On Thursday, China's Exim Bank announced its support for the building of a highway from Karachi to the port at Gwadar, which China is helping Pakistan build. The bank has also assisted the building and widening of the Karakoram highway, as well as the setting up of nuclear power plants at Chashma.
Mr. Gilani will hold talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao on Friday, before heading back to Islamabad.