Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Nope, you gave evidence of a trade contract between Afghanistan and British India. Nothing to do with Pakistan.
The Durand Agreement of 1893 demarcated Afghanistan's Eastern border with (at the time) British India - the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 all specifically confirmed Afghanistan's acceptance of the boundaries defined in the previous treaties going back to the Durand Agreement in 1893. Under existing precedents in international law, the treaties continue to apply between Afghanistan and Pakistan (a successor State to the British).
And how exactly did you come up with the position that the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 were merely 'trade contracts' and did not reaffirm/ratify Afghan commitment to the Afghan borders demarcated in the Durand Agreement of 1893?
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
The Durand Agreement of 1893 demarcated Afghanistan's Eastern border with (at the time) British India - the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 all specifically confirmed Afghanistan's acceptance of the boundaries defined in the previous treaties going back to the Durand Agreement in 1893. Under existing precedents in international law, the treaties continue to apply between Afghanistan and Pakistan (a successor State to the British).
And how exactly did you come up with the position that the treaties of 1905, 1919 and 1921 were merely 'trade contracts' and did not reaffirm/ratify Afghan commitment to the Afghan borders demarcated in the Durand Agreement of 1893?
I'll say it reeeaaaalllllyyyy slowly.
Afghanistan did and does consider the Durand agreements with British India as executory clauses, that is in the nature of a trade agreement, where the line was a line of control beyond which neither side transgressed.
Afghanistan has never agreed with Pakistan to the Durand line being a sovereign boundary.
It's really not that hard a concept to understand.
Why is there still a grudge between Afghanistan and Pakistan? They should be very connected, instead we have reversed situation on the ground.
Brothers fight gone bad?
Brothers? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis belong to ethnic groups that are racially and historically Indian (over 75% are native speakers of Indic languages). What do Afghanistan's various ethnic groups have in common with these majority Indo-Pakistanis? Minus Islam, nothing at all.
I would also suggest that the non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan (perhaps with the exception of its Baluch population) do not care much for the Durand border issue. They have other reasons why they hate Pakistan, which are not hard to find.
Brothers? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis belong to ethnic groups that are racially and historically Indian (over 75% are native speakers of Indic languages). What do Afghanistan's various ethnic groups have in common with these majority Indo-Pakistanis? Minus Islam, nothing at all.
Well just because they are ethnically different, doesn't mean they should hate each other. The reasons for Afghans hating Pakistanis lie in the extensive Pakistani support for and involvement with the Taliban.
The damaged border post seen in the video looked more like a temporary bunker built out of sand-bags and some awnings - that a surprise mortar and RPG attack on a lightly defended post would cause the troops manning the post to retreat initially before pounding the ANA back across the border with additional support does not seem that unusual to me.
This means that the post was recently made and the Afghans are right, about PA encroaching on their part of the spur/ridge.
The damaged post appears to be in Afghan hands now, PA is nowhere near it.
This means that the post was recently made and the Afghans are right, about PA encroaching on their part of the spur/ridge.
The damaged post appears to be in Afghan hands now, PA is nowhere near it.
A recently constructed bunker does not automatically imply that Pakistani forces were 'encroaching on the Afghan part of the spur/ridge'.
What are you basing your observation on, that the Pakistani post is in Afghan hands now?
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Afghanistan did and does consider the Durand agreements with British India as executory clauses, that is in the nature of a trade agreement, where the line was a line of control beyond which neither side transgressed.
Afghanistan has never agreed with Pakistan to the Durand line being a sovereign boundary.
It's really not that hard a concept to understand.
Say it as slow as you want - what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter given that precedent in international law is clear about treaties between two States being applicable in the case of a successor State.
Please point out where exactly the Durand border demarcation is listed as 'line of control for trade purposes'. The treaty language is clear in establishing a border between an 'Independent State of Afghanistan and British India'.
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Well just because they are ethnically different, doesn't mean they should hate each other. The reasons for Afghans hating Pakistanis lie in the extensive Pakistani support for and involvement with the Taliban.
Afghan hostility towards Pakistan goes back earlier than that:
1. The Afghan's sheltered Baloch terrorist/separatist groups during the Khan of Kalat's time, and have continued to do so
2. They were the only country to vote against the admission of Pakistan into the UN
3. They tried to foment rebellions in Pakistan's FATA and even sent Afghan forces to support the rebels and were beaten back by Pakistan
All of the above occurred before any Pakistani involvement with the Mujahideen and Taliban.
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Please see the following excerpt from a British document on the territorial demarcation aspects of the Afghan-British treaties and how they apply to Pakistan (I recommend reading the entire document): http://graanafghanistan.com/wp-conte...han-Treaty.pdf
Article 2.-The first part of this' article lays down the frontier, and everyone is agreed that this frontier cannot be altered merely by the lapse of the treaty, even if it did lapse, The second part of the article confers upon the Afghan authorities certain rights as respects the drawing of water from what is now Pakistan territory, and for certain navigational rights in Afghan territory in favour of persons in Pakistan. It is true that the latter rights are expressed to be in favour of •• British subjects," but, as the rights and obligations are essentially of a territorial character as between two neighbouring territories, there seems no reason to regard them as having lapsed. Incidentally, it is not entirely clear that Pakistan are not still technically rebus sic stantibus.
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Text of Article 2 of the Anglo-Afghan Treaty of 1921:
ARTICLE 2: The two high contracting parties mutually accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under article 5 of the treaty concluded at Rawalpiudi on 8th August, 1919, .corresponding to the 11th Ziqada, 1337 Hijra, and also the boundary west of the Khyber laid down by the British Commission in the months of August and September 1919, pursuant to the said article, and shown on the map attached to this treaty by a black chain line; subject only to the realignment set forth in schedule 1, annexed, which has been agreed upon in order to include within the boundaries of Afghanistan the place known as Tor Kham, and the whole bed of the Kabul River between Shilman Khwala Banda and Palosai and which is shown on the said map by a red chain line...
This is not a 'trade agreement', this is a treaty demarcating the borders of two States - keep fishing Parihaka ...
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Whether the Durand line is settled under Uti_possidetis_juris as Pakistan contends or as an executory clause as Afghanistan contends (they've never ceded anything as a nation to Pakistan) is irrelevant. It simply comes down to who has the force to hold it, which lies securely with the Pakistanis.
Now all you need to do is realise the same applies to Pakistan in relation to the drone strikes :)
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Ah, makes me proud. We return to my original statement
Now all you need to do is realise the same applies to Pakistan in relation to the drone strikes :)
Taking pride in your disingenuity (truncating my comment to suit your flawed argument) only illustrates how weak your position is - the entire comment was, "what the Afghan's want to believe or not does not matter given that precedent in international law is clear about treaties between two States being applicable in the case of a successor State"
There is no US-Pakistan treaty or agreement governing drone strikes, past ICJ rulings have rejected the arguments of unilateral use of force in case of another State being 'unable and/or unwilling', the Pakistani government and courts have officially demanded an end to US drone strikes and called them violations of international law and the UN investigation into US drone strikes in Pakistan agrees with the Pakistani position. Again, keep fishing ...
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim
Comment