I understand your frustration and in general I agree with it. However, the UN just does not intervene without some kind of entre to do it. If the UN wished to act, but was resisted by either party, then they could barely get to Kashmir, much less do anything about it.
What would you have the UN do? Demand talks? So long as there were cross border excursions, India would not be satisfied. The best that could be hoped for is negociationg a cease fire, but could Pakistan guarantee a ceasefire?
In a bizzare sense, the fact that both parties have nuclear weapons may make Kashmir a priority for the UN. But until a week ago, Palestine was dominating world attention. It may well take another armed conflict to convince the UN that an observer force is necessary. But so long as there are parties that would rather fight than negociate the UN would be rendered useless.
I understand your frustration and in general I agree with it. However, the UN just does not intervene without some kind of entre to do it. If the UN wished to act, but was resisted by either party, then they could barely get to Kashmir, much less do anything about it.
**
[/quote]
Remember Kuwait? Trust me if UN wants to get involved it will be given a red carpet welcome from AK side.
But UN is for the interest of 5 members. If you are trying to tell us UN went all the way to librate some camel jokes from Iraq you are fooling no one.
I would rather dive from a 100 foot tower into a vat of quicksand than negociate a setttlement to a 50 year conflict. Kuwait was sudden and violent. Kashmir is so convoluted by years of conflict that getting all sides to agree would be a nightmare.
Now, at the appropriate time the UN could supervise elections, help with an interim government, or place observers. But unlike Kosovo, the terrain makes it impossible for the UN to have convincing force inplace to command a cease fire. And by the way, where is China in all of this? Is there not one more nuclear power with it's foot in Kashmir?
[quote]
Originally posted by Ohioguy:
**I would rather dive from a 100 foot tower into a vat of quicksand than negociate a setttlement to a 50 year conflict. Kuwait was sudden and violent. Kashmir is so convoluted by years of conflict that getting all sides to agree would be a nightmare.
**
[/quote]
hehehe as if Iraq agreed to withdraw from Kuwait. Kuwait was violent but kashmir is not. OH, find the jokes forum please....stop eating the bahdwidth.
I have been on this forum since Oct. I have heard absolutely every claim of US hypocracy that you guys can think up. Somehow, I am sure we will all come up with a theory as to why Kashmir is the fault of the US, the UN and NATO.
One presumes that Nuclear powers have their heads about them and know the phone number to the UN. And frankly, China has it's foot in Kashmir and is a member of the Security Council. Will somebody wake them up please! It is certainly in their best interest to promote regional stability.
OG...there are many different ocassions in which the US has exposed its "interests". They have even supported military dictators when and where they suited them.
[This message has been edited by zaavia (edited May 22, 2002).]
Yes, we have also driven totalitarian regimes into the ground through the cold war. What is the point of this? This thread is on Kashmir and nuclear options. If there is some particular issue where you believe that the US has screwed up, post it on Wolrd Affairs and we can discuss it.
Frankly I was looking forward to discussing Kashmir, where I believed there to be very little chance of anyone blaming us for this one! But we are big boys, go ahead, blame away!
OG...I agree with you that in the problem of Kashmir, US has got no direct role to play. But being a super power, which virtually after the fall of the Soviet Union, holds control of all the big world organizations, could have done much in helping solve this problem once for all.
LOL, would the andhras, sanghavashyas (or whateva), kamarukns, andhaqanoons, vijays care to explain why the world thinks Pakistans troops are considered better? Their nuclear arsenal is also considered alot better, though lesser in quantity…
Its just like our cricket team, we have a population alot less than urs, but the talent level at our side is skyhigh… This explains the Pak vs India cricket stats…
Pardon me, but Pakistan has been in almost constant political tumoil. As I understand it, with Kargil in 1999, Clinton virtually had to tell your President that the Army was readying nuclear weapons.
For peace to be a reality, there must be political stability, and agreements between the sides must be enforecable. When could the US have moved this conflict to the UN Security Council for action? I agree that this conflict should have more attention, but I am very unsure aas to how you believe that something could have been done to diffuse the situation.
Ohio guy, You just said, what I have been telling for ever. There should be political stability for peace. Pakistani political instability is the main problem for problem with India.
When there is stable leadership, however ambitious the leadership may be, over the course of time, will realize, what it wants, what it needds, what it can get and what it cannot get.
When one over-ambitious dictator realizes he cannot go further, he dies and democracy come back. When democracy realizes that it cannot do much more, it is kicked out and another over-ambitious general takes over.
For the last 55 years Pakistan has been struggling to establish an internal political system. How do you think they can think in terms of international peace?
ahem, thats why india don’t want to play against PAK and they are trying to get more and more matches with zim, kenya, bangaladesh to get average better
Hold on, Pakistan never had sincere leader through Elections. Pakistan is lucky to have Musharraf as a Head of the State. If it is problem of the world, then you people should Stick to your own problems. Strange but true, this military government is far better than pathetic elected goverments.
Pakistan have always looked forward for International Peace. It is India, who doesn’t want any dialouges with Pakistan. How do you say Pakistan would response to that? If there are internal problems in Pakistan, then damn world shouldn’t be worry about that as well as keep their nose out of Pakistan’s internal problems.
Take Your Best Shot At Me
[This message has been edited by Pakistani Tiger (edited May 22, 2002).]
After some thought, I am convinced that Democracy is not just the leader at the top. It is a country that fights corruption, a court system that works, a military that absolutely positively will follow civilian control. It is political freedom for all citizens, and elections that are trusted and a police force that follows strict procedures.
Beyond that, the people must have a desire to assume the yoke of responsibility. Nowhere is this more true than in a country that has nuclear weapons. Given the above, my only concern was that of the last "referrendum". Moving towards democracy means that the election process must be as clean as snow. This has not yet been evident. When all of the prerequisites for a democracy are in place, then a lasting peace can be agreed upon.
Hopefully Musharraf wants to finish his five years and leave the country with a real peace contract. If that is indeed his plan, then having this showdown with India during year one will allow him some time to work on a peace plan by year five.
I think his calls for international help have been very timely, and the appropriate thing to do. Unfortunately for him to be able to really sign a Peace Agreement, he must be able to guarantee his side of the agreement. That will meant that the semi-lawless territories must become part of the country, rather than ill-behaved step children. Let's hope that the five year plan will assume that Central Pakistan will be able to assure that it's side of the agreement, is enforced by law and protected by it's weaponry, not the other way around.
[quote]
Originally posted by Ohioguy: ...Hopefully Musharraf wants to finish his five years and leave the country with a real peace contract...
[/quote]
This he does. Unfortunately, the Indians are doing everything in their power to stop this. It is not in their interest.
Hopefully Musharraf wants to finish his five years and leave the country with a real peace contract. <<
Ohioguy, think about it this way. Actions speak louder than words.
As far as India is concerned Mushraaf is responsible directly or indirectly as the head of Pakistan.
The only room left for argument is his intetions.
He has to convince India that he means business THIS time around.
Indians you have to concede have grounds enough to be sceptical.
REmember this ‘Tamasha’ has been going on for a long time now.
THe only way to avoid a war would be to convince India AND US/UN about the steps he wants to take.
Instead of trying to bluff about Nuclear weapons, he could start by turning over the 20 people India wanted!!
Yes, it is reasonable to expect that he cooperates. One would hope that given the heightened world anxiety regarding Kashmir that elections, real and honest be promised as part of a final solution. The Indians must realize by now that Musharraf is in a precarious political position. They can either help along his position or they can destabilize him. Unfortunately with one of the key moderates assasinated the extremists may have the upper hand. Elections cannot be fair under the threats of assasinations and violence.
The solution seems so simple from far away, but given the complex history, untangling the emotions will be far more difficult.