Sir, Chinese arms landing with the terrorists means they're lazy, alright, that point is conceded. But what explains China's continuous protection of terrorists and terror groups at the security council? If the Chinese do not support them, then why did they go to the extent of blocking any moves against terror groups such as Jamaat-ud-Dawa? Not once, but three times! It took a 26/11 and more than 170 people had to die until international pressure finally forced the Chinese to back the ban on the terror group. Sir, There is a reason why there is such a deep lack of trust for the Chinese.Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Three times? Wow. That must be a record.
Oh wait, the US vetoed for Israel more than that. Then there is Russia for Iran. ... and let's not forget that France never allowed the US to goto war with Iraq through the UN.
See the pattern? The Chinese were backing their client, Pakistan.
AS IT SHOULD BE! Nobody trusts nothing.
Chimo
Sir, a world of a difference in vetoing for a nation state, and vetoing for a terrorist organization. China vetoed to protect a terrorist group, not Pakistan. That their actions were in behalf of Pakistan makes it no better, they still supported a group whose sole aim was to carry out terrorist strikes in India.
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory
Israel, Iran and America aren't terrorist organizations. Justifying such a move is walking on a very slippery slope. The Pakistani's can justify the massacre of civilians as protecting their interests as well. Al Qaeda can justify their actions as well under that unbrella.
You're right. It's worst. Israel got the bomb. Iran is going to get the bomb.
Their sole aim was to protect Pakistan from the very legal justifications that the US used to declare war on Iraq during the Kuwait War.
Israel is accused to destroying schools and hospitals in Lebanon, Iran took the US Embassy as hostage. The US is accused of deliberaely bomobing civilians.
The legal excuse the Chinese used ... and the Brits as well was that the Indians did not bring forth enough proof.
Chimo
Colonel,
Preventing sanctions on JuD does not protect Pakistan from a war. There are dozens of other proscribed organizations based out of Pakistan - including AQ, LeT and HJI - that can be used as legal justifications for being attacked. What protects Pakistan is its force ratios (conventional and nuclear), geographical layout, and the lack of political will in India.
The only thing that the Chinese managed to do was keep the funds flowing for JuD (i.e LeT front). And a good portion of the JuD funds flowed from Mirpuri immigrants in Britain (Mirpur - a district in PoK). A classic case of NIMBY.
Indians were stupid to campaign to have ROC's UNSC seat transferred to PRC; and now they are stupid to ask for P5+3 expansion... when they should be asking for P5 and India as one of the five - period. Or walk out of that charade completely and keep bilateral relations with individual states.
The UN has prevent ZERO wars in all her history and started 2 and supported 3. Regardless if India had the legal justification or not, if she wins, she can write all the legal justification she wants. If she loses ... well, let's say nobody cares enough to rescue Pakistan after India plummels her, not even the Chinese, ... especially the Chinese.
Come to think of this, the only country that would be interested in rescueing Pakistan is India ... in order to keep the Pakistanis in Pakistan.
India did not have the political clout back then, ie she was not staring down either the US or USSR to have major superpower support one way or the other.
The same reason why Russia maintained her seat in the P5 after the collapse of the USSR. She had the clout to say screw you.
At the time, if India walked out, nobody would have cared. However, both Moscow and Washington cared a big deal on which side of the Cold War China would jump on if it turned hot.
And if you had not noticed, a veto power is not almighty and without limits. Taipei had it and could not even veto its own ouster from the P5. If the Super 2 gang together than, nothing the other 3 do matters.
Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 13 Dec 09, at 18:43.
Chimo
But what will happen to all the pretenses when the P5 laughs it off?Indians were stupid to campaign to have ROC's UNSC seat transferred to PRC; and now they are stupid to ask for P5+3 expansion... when they should be asking for P5 and India as one of the five - period. Or walk out of that charade completely and keep bilateral relations with individual states.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
Exactly my point. That said, it would be lot easier to write out the legal justification if one is a veto-wielding member of the UNSC. It is also the reason why so many Americans tolerate and fund an otherwise corrupt, useless and noisy organization on a prime piece of their real-estate. If that is not possible, it is somewhat okay to stay out of the framework altogether (as India is doing with the N-NPT).
That is the general idea. If you are locked into a situation you can't get out of, have others help you out
Only if you care about such things. African countries couldn't care less.
However, if you noticed why US veto anti-Israeli votes, Russia vetoing anti-Iranian, and China anti-Pakistan is that if the vote did passed, then sanctions automatically follows. Whatever their faults, none of the P5 had failed to at least pay lip service to the Resolutions they've allowed to pass. Obviously, China refuses to put Pakistan on an embargo.
Chimo
Then what? Still no sanctions on Pakistan and still the Pakistani military defending Pakistan.That is the general idea. If you are locked into a situation you can't get out of, have others help you out
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
That is totally beside the point. Even if India becomes one of the P5, it still cannot unilaterally declare sanctions against Pak and expect others to follow suit. What you say they can't reach, they don't seek. The power is in the veto; the power of the veto is limited to those in the UN. Initially the vested few can gang up and make noise, but at the end of the day each can be negotiated with independently - as in case of the N-NPT.
Then why the bluff? If you have nothing to gain by leaving the UN, and whatever voice you have in the UN, you will lose, then why bank replacing one of the P5 (forget US and China, they're the only ones with the money keeping the financial fiasco from caving in and you won't dare to touch Russia)?
Chimo
It's a bluff with no teeth, no rational person would cave in. India lacks the influence and power to warrant booting off France or the UK.That is totally beside the point. Even if India becomes one of the P5, it still cannot unilaterally declare sanctions against Pak and expect others to follow suit. What you say they can't reach, they don't seek. The power is in the veto; the power of the veto is limited to those in the UN. Initially the vested few can gang up and make noise, but at the end of the day each can be negotiated with independently - as in case of the N-NPT.
So you would have India losing its feel good committee memberships and Pakistan still acting out. It's not Japan walking out on the league of nations so it can keep ghetto stomping China. Pretending you will leave unless given the veto leads to India looking stupid for even trying and weak if it stays.
Last edited by troung; 13 Dec 09, at 22:39.
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: