Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Pakistan8217;s official spokesman is reported to have stated that the Simla Agreement as well as the Lahore formula are still a valid basis for dialogue to resolve outstanding issues between the two countries, but that the UN resolutions remain on the table as well. He affirmed that UN resolutions are 8220;valid, legal and operative8221;. Perhaps he had not familiarised himself with these UN resolutions. The fact is that they had required Pakistan to withdraw its army from J038;K before any other step could be taken. The problem why the implementation of UN resolutions could not move forward was that Pakistan never implemented the provisions of those resolutions to withdraw from the state that had legally acceded to India. Obviously the UN recognised India8217;s sovereignty over the state through those resolutions. And China, even 15 years later, accepted Pakistan8217;s control over what is Occupied Kashmir as provisional in its treaty of March 1963.
At the same time, Pakistan8217;s willingness to start the dialogue on the basis on the Simla and Lahore agreements is refreshing and welcome. But the problem is that unless there is some credible evidence beyond mere promises that Islamabad is willing to respect the provisions of previous agreements, entering into future dialogue appears meaningless, and could easily become counter-productive. For example, the 1972 Simla Agreement 8212; which incidentally was a precursor to the Helsinki Accords of 1975 8212; commits both countries to the sanctity of the mutually accepted Line of Control LoC. Para 4 ii specifically states, 8220;Neither side shall seek to alter it LoC unilaterally, irrespective of mutual differences and legal interpretations.8221; But the terrorism sponsored from across the LoC for the past 15 years is an obvious attempt to alter the line, and the military aggression in the Kargil sector in 1999 was an unabashed violation of that agreement. It also destroyed the harmony that had been achieved at Lahore a few months earlier.
