Addressing Self Determination

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 22 Nov 2003 20:06

This is the latest in the diplomatic efforts that Pakistan is making, with regard to the Jammu and Kashmir situation.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/296500.cms

It would be useful if we could put together an article addressing what the origins of the term "self determination" is, and what its implications are for people that live under a constitution that guarantees equality under the law.

Forum members' help is solicited to search articles on the history of "self determination" and any articles written on self-determination with regard to places like Guam and Puerto Rico in particular.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2003 20:29

IMO, lobbying against Pakistan regarding this UN General Assembly resolution, and post-resolution, making a fuss about it is a mistake.

For some perspective, all the nations of the world are party to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. How meaningful is it? Why are Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria still UN members or not censured by the UN? So, this UN resolution has no substance, and India used political capital to oppose it and gave Pakistan some capital because "it beat India".

If anything, India should have tried to get references to Sindh, Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas included in the debate and in the resolution.

The resolution is so important that the UN News page mentions it boldly (not!)
http://www.un.org/News/index.shtml

The essay Calvin wants to put together is important, and should be done, but not as a response to this non-event.

-Arun

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2003 20:42

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/57/197&Lang=E

The resolution passed in this 58th General Assembly is basically 57/197 (resolution 197 of the 57th Assembly), and it refers to 56/141, which contains much the same language, and it refers to 55/85.

55/85 in turn refers to 54/155, and 54/155 refers to 53/134, 52/133, 51/84, 50/139, 49/148, 48/93, 47/83, 46/88, 45/131, 44/80, 43/105, 42/94, 41/100, 40/24, 39/18, 38/16, 37/42, 36/10, and 35/35 (the last being Nov 1980). So there has been such a self-determination resolution in *every* General Assembly session for more than 20 years.

You can trace all this at
http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm

54/155 expresses

Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or have already, suppressed, the right to self-determination of sovereign peoples and nations..

Don't tell me that India wastes political capital on these resolutions each year! In fact, since the Desi Dork Media only quotes the Pakistani media, this may well all be Paki nonsense.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 22 Nov 2003 20:42

Pls. remember to include the Demand for Self-Determination of the Southern Confederacy - otherwise known as YOD (Yankee-Occupied-Dixiestan).

First there was the "Shock-n-Awe" where the cities were pulverized and the remnants burned to the ground, and untold atrocities visited upon the civilians. Twenty thousand of our men were massacred in a genocide at what is cynically called "The Battle of Kennesaw". The hill there is now called "Red Top Mountain" for obvious reasons.

Then came the "Reconstruction" where the Yankee Carpetbaggers simply took over all the land and other resources, and now control 99% of the wealth, along with their Informers and other Quislings. The burned remains of several of our cities were simply bulldozed over, and new skyscrapers and highways built right over the buried remains of our Civilization, Gone With The Wind.

Even 138 years later, the Yankees in Tubelightabad control our right to redistrict our own lands, and their so-called "Justice Department" (JUST KIDDING

)

You call this "freedom"? Bah! Humbug! :whine:

Dixiestan Zindabad!

Adi · Post by **Adi** » 22 Nov 2003 20:58

"Self-determination" in the J&K context would imply allowing a military dictatorship and theocracy to take over and enslave a people who currently enjoy freedom and democracy.

This takeover would be based on the principle of the "majority" of the citizens voting to become part of the theocratic dictatorship(this hypothesis is made only for argument's case). What this means is that the minority that desires freedom would be forced to part with fundamental rights or be ethnically cleansed.

It is therefore grossly immoral and unethical to speak in terms of "self-determination" or "independence" that allows violent dictators and theocracy to overthrow democracy. It is the fundamental duty of a democratic state to defend the rights of each of its citizens who desire freedom and equality, even if they happen to be a minuscule minority.

From all indications, this is not the case as a large section of the people of J&K want to stay with India(however much they may criticise the state, as do the citizens of every democracy). India's constitution provides basic rights, freedom and equality to all citizens. Those who are not happy are free to leave the country and seek a new life in the dictatorship next door, or elsewhere. They however do not have the right to impose their will on their fellow countrymen who desire freedom and democracy.

The security forces are not simply protecting the interests of the Government of India. They are participating in the dharmayuddha to protect the freedom of all Indian citizens.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2003 20:59

"The majority of General Assembly resolutions are adopted without a vote. If a vote is taken, it can be documented in two ways: either as a recorded vote or as a summary of the result. Only a recorded vote, which must be requested before the voting is conducted, will clearly identify the stand that a Member State took on the issue under discussion. If such a request is not put forth, only the voting summary (i. e., the number of countries which voted for or against a resolution as well as those who abstained) will be made available, without identification of how an individual Member State voted. "

(from http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/gavote.htm)

55/85 was adopted without a vote.
56/141 was adopted without a vote.
57/197 was adopted without a vote.

Therefore this 58/XXX is presumably the first time a recorded vote was requested on the annual Self-Determination Resolution?

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 22 Nov 2003 21:02

BTW,

a) What is the TSP crowing about in the UN resolution?
b) Which way did Dupleecity and UQ vote? If THEY can support that resolution, India should laugh it off too. (not support it, just laugh it off with a statement like:

Instead of bringing UN Resolutions, Pakistan could consider actually doing something constructive, like withdrawing troops from occupied territories, respecting past UN resolutions, and stopping support to terrorists who attack democratic nations, and the UN/NATO forces trying to bring democracy to Afghanistan.

If the worst wording is what is given in the Times of Islamabad, then it looks like the Resolution was completely watered down to turn into an anti-Pakistan punch in the mouth - sponsored of course by Pakistan.

In that case, this is a brilliant victory for Indian diplomacy at the UN.

I don't see the "Paki Dream" in this resolution. What am I missing?

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 22 Nov 2003 21:05

Arun: The post was certainly stimulated by the UN resolution, but the article is not intended to focus on Kashmir, but on the general principle of Self-Determination that then destroy's the Pakistani case for Self Determination in Kashmir.

Folks (and Aditya_C): I think we are aware of the broad consensus on this forum regarding Kashmir. The question pertains to

(a) how self determination is defined. There are probably multiple definitions, and we should get as many as possible.

(b) what was the origin of the concept. Did it originate in the colonial past?

(c) what have people written about self-determination in societies where there is "equality under the law" - examples, obviously, Guam, Puerto Rico, and as N^3 alludes, white-southerners, and blacks in the US.

But let us not get caught up in the aforesaid UN Resolution, nor of what our opinions are regardnig this subject.

Here is one article that I found... http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks16.html

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Nov 2003 21:09

Amusing is UN General Resolution A/RES/58/7 :

Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba : resolution / adopted by the General Assembly

This had a recorded vote.

Voting Summary
Yes: 179, No: 3, Abstentions: 2, Non-Voting: 7, Total voting membership: 191

India voted Yes on this btw, Israel, US, and Marshal Islands were No.

(BTW, the Paki press reports 88-3 for the self-determination resolution, should it be 188-3 really, or did more than a hundred countries abstain? Anyway, the database is only upto A/RES/58/13 so far, we'll probably have to wait a few days.
http://unbisnet.un.org/ipac-cgi/ipac
)

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 22 Nov 2003 22:31

Yes, sounds like the US, UK and 98 other nations abstained / ignored TSP.

TSP and their terrorist buddies voted FOR, and India made the point very clearly that we don't side with the Pakis.

This should go in "Next Act of the Road Runner Show". YET another complex Paki effort, all laughed off in the end and turned into a "Pakistan Sponsors Anti-US Resolution at UN" in the end.

Man! WHERE is the TOI office located? Mumbai City Dump? Were those pictures that RS posted, of Pakis or TOI Editors? I mean the two little kids smoking the Holy Air of Pakistan?

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 23 Nov 2003 18:47

Pls. remember to include the Demand for Self-Determination of the Southern Confederacy - otherwise known as YOD (Yankee-Occupied-Dixiestan).

First there was the "Shock-n-Awe" where the cities were pulverized and the remnants burned to the ground, and untold atrocities visited upon the civilians. Twenty thousand of our men were massacred in a genocide at what is cynically called "The Battle of Kennesaw". The hill there is now called "Red Top Mountain" for obvious reasons.

Then came the "Reconstruction" where the Yankee Carpetbaggers simply took over all the land and other resources, and now control 99% of the wealth, along with their Informers and other Quislings. The burned remains of several of our cities were simply bulldozed over, and new skyscrapers and highways built right over the buried remains of our Civilization, Gone With The Wind.

Perhaps, adding to the above .....

Earlier, a comment was made on this forum by someone justifying (implied part)terrorism in J&K as it (terrorism in J&K) is indigeneous (?). Implications of that comment are well known. Wonder how the same commentator/s would react to the following..

The Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

In framing the Constitution of the Confederate States, the authors adopted, with numerous elisions and additions, the language of the Constitution of the United States, and followed the same order of arrangement of articles and sections. The changes made in this adaptation of the old Constitution are here shown. The parts stricken out are enclosed in brackets, and the new matter added in framing the Confederate Constitution is printed in italics.]

http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm

If that is history, then how does the following (current)sounds, coming from Americans themselves..

GET OUT of the UN....I mean the US....same thing.

"With proud hearts and strong arms we are more determined than ever to apply every energy until our independence is achieved."

I would join my life with others of like mind to war as our forefathers did against the tyranny of this illegitimate government

The Southern States should be loosed from the bondage of re-construction or be allowed to remove itself from the Union it was forced to join. We have never been forgiven for the seceeding from the United States and we have never been given the full benefit of being American citizens. The Yankee occupation of the Southern States has resulted in the exploitation of our children, our culture, our history, our labor, our schools, and our resources. We have been discriminated against because we are the decendants of Confederates, decendants of a proud Southern people who dared to defy the almighty US Government. We will not apologize for the efforts made by our ancestors to be a free people and we never will.

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?union&51

All the above quotes have been taken from an on going debate (links to the quotes from there)taking place among Americans (some are lawyers)themselves on US Civil War.

Added couple of hours later ...

Davis was a true American he was a West Point graduate, he served seven years in the army, he was a congressman, a colonel in the Mexican/American war where he served with distinction, he was a US senator and Secretary of War. He gave most of his life to the US. Lincoln, on the other hand, was treaonous. He totally disregarded the Constitution in order to maintain power over fellow Americans that had the moral and legal right to go their own way.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 23 Nov 2003 19:14

Interesting Petition. In fact this provides a valuable point of reference, in the light of the "Jefferson Davis" comment made by the US House Subcommittee Chair to characterize The Hon Rep. "Mullah Omar" Dana's comments supporting the secession of Hawaii from the USA.

Point is, 138 years after the issue was "settled" by Generals Sherman and Grant and their armies, secessionist opinions have not entirely died down. In 1864, millions of Americans were willing to die for secession, and hundreds of thousands did die.

None of those were enough to permit the disintegration of the USA. And today, though such wacko sentiments persist, the US is wealthy and powerful precisely because it does not have a jehadi southern neighbor trying to march on Washington DC or nuke New York, and doing GUBO to the United Kingdom or Cuba to get weapons to overthrow the elected government of the USA.

And while its fine to wave secessionist flags and go around in red pickups with gun-racks and "RUSSIA SU**S" bumper stickers, the US does NOT tolerate these nutcases organizing themselves into terrorist outfits sending "Nightriders" covering their pointy heads with bedsheets and going around terrorizing neighborhoods.

No "negotiations" with Cuban dictator Castro are being demanded to "solve the Confederacy Problem", and Castro is not called the "greatest al-lie in the Farce About Terrorism" by the US President. The US sends SWAT teams after anyone who picks up a gun and threatens the neighborhood, and they shoot to kill.

Although people can put up these Petitions etc., if they really organize against the Federal government, and support any sort of armed attemt to overthrow the elected government, they can expect a few big guys with dark glasses to come pay them a visit right away.

That's all the freedom that any nation affords its citizens, if it is to stay united. And that's all we need to cite about this "self-determination" stuff. "Kashmiri" nutcases can keep posting Internet Petitions and railing against the Indian Central Government for the next 100 years. But if they fund or otherwise help armed terrorism, well, they need to be arrested, tried for treason and hanged.

Incidentally, isn't that what happened to Mullah Jefferson Davis?

Raj Singh · Post by **Raj Singh** » 23 Nov 2003 20:24

Incidentally, isn't that what happened to Mullah Jefferson Davis?

No, he was not tried for treason (if I am not mistaken)for there was no Jury in the state of Virginia, where he was to be tried, who would have returned/given the verdict, guilty as charged (treason). Since it was unlikely that verdict favouring Union/prosecution would have been given by the Jury so to save itself (Union)from an embarrasment (spl?), Davis was not tried for treason.

However, it may be worth noting that President Jimmy Carter did re instate/restore his (J Davis's)citizenship, effective 1868 (it was US Congress who passed a resolution and Jimmy Carter signed it).

Anoop · Post by **Anoop** » 24 Nov 2003 04:46

Googling for 'Self Determination' brought out this:

Foreign Policy in Focus - Take on Self- Determination

They have a list of places they track on the basis of this issue (click on the tabs to the left). The write up on J&K mirrors much of the usual 'repression' crap, but I am hoping to do a more detailed study of other regions and compare and contrast it with the J&K situation.

From their site:
Historical basis of the concept of Self-Determination

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 24 Nov 2003 04:54

Anoop - great work. This is an interesting site, and the insight it provides is that the notion of "self-determination" is intimately related to violence, and the definition of self-determination is apparently governed by the constructs that seek to reduce drivers for conflict.

This is obviously not a derivation from the fundamentals of individual rights at all. It further suggests that the issue of the self-determination of the Kashmiri Muslim is going to be viewed from the prism of whether there is conflict or not, not whether he has the freedom to exercise his will, or not.

Interestingly, it provides a glimpse into why these high-priests of international behavior are unconcerned about the plight of the Gilgitis and Baltistanis, or the Chakmas.

Kumar · Post by **Kumar** » 24 Nov 2003 05:00

A fundamental flaw with the idea of " right to self-determination" is who is supposed to confer and impose this right?

If entity A's interests are endangered by entity B's actions, then why should entity B expect entity A to support its "right" to self-determination? How about entity A's own right to determine its own self-interests?

If some kashmiris want to scede from India, then its their desire. It doesn't automatically make it morally or otherwise binding on rest of India to come to their aid.

Why should rest of India endanger its security by giving up on Kashmir? Kashmiris get same rights as any Indian so what is the rationalization for separatism?

In a most cynical view, the proxy war is being fought in Kashmir, why would rest of India like the proxy war frontier's to move even closer by giving in?

And who is to decide the geographical limits for self determination? If in the valley a "majority" want to secede, then I am sure in whole of India, the "majority" doesn't want to give up Kashmir. And if it is a question of minorities then is anyone asking Kashmiri pandits?

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 24 Nov 2003 05:06

Ashok, these are very good questions. From a philosophical standpoint, one might say that in a constitutional republic where individual rights are guaranteed, every citizen has the right to self-determination.

Anyone wanting to secede, is ipso facto, attempting to create a nation where individual rights are not guaranteed and is therefore guilty of aiming to take away the rights of self-determination.

Note, of course, in a constitutional republic where individual rights are guaranteed, the majority cannot do as they please, if they please to take away the rights of the minority.

In the Indian context, the religious majority cannot take away the rights of the religious minority, and equally at the state level, the desire of the religious majority to run a government that takes away the rights of the religous minority (Pandits) cannot be respected.

This is the price that every citizen pays to protect his rights of being a minority of one.

sanjay_chawla · Post by **sanjay_chawla** » 24 Nov 2003 06:09

Originally posted by Ashok Kumar:
If some kashmiris want to scede from India, then its their desire. It doesn't automatically make it morally or otherwise binding on rest of India to come to their aid.

Why should rest of India endanger its security by giving up on Kashmir? Kashmiris get same rights as any Indian so what is the rationalization for separatism?

According to International law Kashmir is disputed territory. Therefore technically the question of "giving up Kashmir" does not arise because India does not have Kashmir. That is the big post-colonial trap that India has not been able to shake-off.

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 24 Nov 2003 06:11

Wonderful logic indeed.

According to International law Kashmir is disputed territory

Which International law is that, please?

Just because some jackass "disputes" something, one does not feel any obligation to "negotiate" it. Last I checked, J&K was very much part of India. Tie a katyusha to the jackass and send it to Eyerak.

Anaath · Post by **Anaath** » 24 Nov 2003 06:18

As recently as 1994, Sovereign India's (democractically elected) parliament, reaffirmed that all of the former princely state of Jammu & Kashmir is Indian territory. This includes PoK and CoK.

Anoop · Post by **Anoop** » 24 Nov 2003 06:45

Calvin,

That's a neat point you raised about the 'definition' of self-determination viz. the presence of violence as opposed to a genuine grievance related to the denial of fundamental rights. Now of course, the standard counter to that revelation is that violence exists as a response to the denial of freedom, but that argument is flawed for obvious reasons. Firstly, it is incumbent on the advocates of self-determination to prove that all other avenues of appeal except violence has been exhausted. The fact that this situation is totally inapplicable in J&K should be obvious from the fact that since 2000, the GoI has been more keen for a negotiation with Kashmiris (as opposed to Pakistanis) than the self-proclaimed representatives of Kashmiris have been for a dialog with GoI! Strange situation.

The corollary to demolishing the specious argument that violence is a necessary companion to the struggle for self-determination is the successive attempts of Quebec to legislate it's way out of the Canadian Union without recourse to violence. If interested Kashmiris can swing a 2/3rd vote in the Indian Parliament for a separate country, the Indian nation as a whole can (and would have) accept(ed) the formation of an independent country of Kashmir. Until then, no dice.

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 24 Nov 2003 07:35

http://www.kashmir-information.com/LegalDocs/140.html

The JK constitution is here. 2/3 majority amends the constitution of JK, except for the sections proclaiming it an integral part of India. This is no different than the states of teh United States which don't have the right to secede (anymore).

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Nov 2003 09:14

The UN's record of its proceedings is as follows (and shows how dorky the Indian media is!)

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/gashc3770.doc.htm

The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) approved 10 draft resolutions today on human rights questions, the right to self-determination and on the elimination of racial discrimination. Out of those approved, five were adopted by recorded votes.

Several draft resolutions were also introduced today on issues related to alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights, as well as specific human rights situations.

Deeply concerned at the continuation of acts or threats of foreign military intervention and occupation that are threatening to suppress, or had suppressed, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations, the Committee approved a draft resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination by a vote of 88 in favour with 64 abstentions, to 3 opposed (Bhutan, India, Mauritius) (see Annex I). The draft would have the General Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, and call upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories.

Many speakers said it appeared that the universal principle of self-determination had been used to refer to the specific situation between India and Pakistan. Believing that the context that had prevailed was not appropriate or within the spirit of the universal principle of the right to self-determination, some delegations, including Benin, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Botswana and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.

Explaining his vote, the representative of India said that the statement made by the main sponsor – Pakistan -- while introducing the draft resolution, had challenged the unity and territorial integrity of India. The right to self-determination must not be construed to condone any action that would disrupt or threaten the territorial integrity of a State. India would oppose any attempts to misuse the principle of the right to self-determination for ulterior motives.

The representative of Pakistan expressed his gratitude to all delegations that had reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of self-determination. A vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any specific issue –- it was a vote for the principle of self-determination -– a principle central to the United Nations Charter.

Further down in the document, notice how most of those who voted for the resolution said that it does not apply to the bilateral issue between India and Pakistan :

The Committee had before it a resolution on the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.31).

The draft would have the General Assembly declare its firm opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, since those acts have resulted in the suppression of the right of peoples to self-determination. It would have the Assembly call upon those States responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in, and occupation of foreign countries and territories and all acts of repression, discrimination and maltreatment.

The representative of Singapore said he had co-sponsored the draft resolution and that his Government believed in the right of peoples to self-determination. The draft did not address any specific situations, and he believed that a case-by-case approach needed to be mentioned in the draft. The representative of Singapore would therefore have to reconsider its co-sponsorship next year.

The representative of Algeria told the Committee of his country’s experience of colonialism and deep belief in the right of self-determination.

A vote was called for by the representative of India.

The representative of Pakistan, in a point of order, appealed to the representative of India to not call for a vote on this resolution that had been adopted year after year by consensus.

The representative of India, explaining his vote before the vote, said that some of the references made by Pakistan, on behalf of the co-sponsors, challenged and threatened the territorial integrity of India. It was therefore clear that for Pakistan the universal right of people to self-determination was a mere excuse to pursue its own political agenda. The draft was selective and unbalanced and did not deal with the right to self-determination in its entirety. Any attempt aimed at the disruption of the territorial integrity of a nation State went against the purpose and principles of the Charter.

The right to self-determinations implied free elections, democracy, equality, secularism and the rule of law, he said. The Pakistani people had been deprived of those rights for most of their history. The Government of Pakistan must therefore ensure the right to self-determination to its own people, before tabling resolutions on the universal right to self-determination. The representative of India would therefore vote against the draft resolution.

In a general comment, the representative of Pakistan said that the representative of India had said that the draft resolution was unacceptable to India; however, India had joined the consensus on the text for several years in a row. This represented new thinking in New Delhi, and one must wonder what the causes were for this change. When a territory’s final status was to be determined through the exercise of the right to self-determination through a United Nations plebiscite, it could not be described as an integral part of a State. It was a disputed territory.

Both India and Pakistan had emerged as sovereign States through the right of self-determination, he said. He reserved the right to respond to the gratuitous remarks made about the Government of Pakistan and stressed that a Government made up of fascists and fanatics had no right to criticize any other Government.

The representative of Benin, making a general statement, said that she had not expected things to be so complicated. The concern of the draft was to support the general decolonization process, not issues between India and Pakistan. She therefore withdrew her co-sponsorship, since it seemed the draft was no longer about the universal right to self-determination.

A representative of the Dominican Republic said his delegation was co-sponsoring the draft, since it agreed with the spirit of the universal right to self-determination. However, he did not agree with some of the things said by the main co-sponsor. The Dominican Republic was therefore withdrawing its co-sponsorship too.

The representatives of Kenya and Botswana joined others and withdrew their co-sponsorship.

The representative of Comoros said that he would like to co-sponsor the draft resolution.

A representative of Malaysia, a traditional co-sponsor of the draft resolution, said she regretted the attempts to muddy the important issue of self-determination.

Opening the Committee’s afternoon meeting, the representative of St. Vincent and the Grenadines said she would withdraw her co-sponsorship due to the alteration of the context within which it would be approved.

The representative of India, explaining his vote before the vote, said he would cast a negative vote on the draft resolution. The statement made by the main sponsor, while introducing the draft resolution, challenged the unity and territorial integrity of India. For Pakistan, the universal realization of the right to self-determination was a mere excuse for pursuing its own political agenda. The right to self-determination must not be construed to condone any action that would disrupt or threaten the territorial integrity of a State. Such attempts were incompatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

In today’s world, self-determination implied freely held election, freedom of ethnic and religious minorities to preserve their identity, democracy, secularism and the rule of law, he said. For Pakistan to talk about self-determination, that Government must first ensure that the right to self-determination was granted to its own citizens. India would oppose any attempts to misuse the principle of the right to self-determination for ulterior motives.

In a vote of 88 in favour and 64 abstentions, with 3 opposed (Bhutan, India, Mauritius), the draft was approved (see Annex 1).

Speaking after the vote, the representative of Myanmar said she had supported the resolution.

The representative of the United States explained why he had abstained. The United States believed that the best solution would be a mutual resolution of issues between India and Pakistan, taking into account the interests of all parties.

The representative of Argentina said the text must be applied in keeping with General Assembly resolutions, particularly as related to the situation in the Malvinas Islands. Regarding these islands the principle of territorial integrity must be applied.

The representative of Armenia said the draft dealt with a fundamental and universally recognized international law. She considered that bringing into bilateral issues, on a matter of a universal nature, did not serve the purpose of the draft. It was her understanding that the Committee had approved the text of the draft and not the introduction of the draft.

A representative of Cyprus said he had abstained with great regret even though his Government attached great importance to the principle of self-determination. However, the context that prevailed was not appropriate, and had not allowed him to vote in favour of the draft.

A representative of Burkina Faso said that the draft brought up the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. The Committee was not part of the bilateral controversy.

The representative of the United Kingdom said, in response to what had been said by the representative of Argentina, that his country’s position on the sovereignty over the Falkland Islands was well known.

The representative of Indonesia said that his country was committed to the right to self-determination. However, since the draft had been open to interpretation and could cause difficulties for other States, he had abstained. It was hoped that next year’s draft would be better formulated to allow those who believed in the right to self-determination to support the draft.

A representative of Nepal said he would have preferred this draft would have been approved without a vote. Despite his commitment to the principle of self-determination, he would have abstained.

The representative of Canada speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, explained that these countries had voted in favour of the universal right to self-determination. However, they deplored the tenure of the debate that had taken place surrounding the draft resolution and hoped that it would not happen again.

A representative of Liechtenstein said he regretted that his delegation had felt the need to abstain.

The representative of Ethiopia said she had voted in favour of the draft resolution based on the spirit of universality of the principle of self-determination.

The representative of Portugal said she had supported the draft, but regretted that the debate had focused on specific situations rather than the principle, in general.

A representative of the Dominican Republic said that if he had been in the room, he would have voted in favour of the resolution. It was a shame that this draft resolution had not been approved by consensus, as had been the case in previous years.

His vote in favour must be considered to mean his support for the universal principle of self-determination only, said the representative of Mongolia.

The representative of Turkmenistan would have voted in favour had he been in the room.

The representative of Fiji had not been in the room, she said. If she had been present, the Government of Fiji would have abstained.

The representative of Austria said that he had voted in favour of the draft resolution entirely on the basis of its text.

A representative of Cape Verde had voted in favour of the draft resolution.

The representative of Pakistan said his delegation wished to express its gratitude to all delegations, who had reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of self-determination. A vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any issue; it was a vote for the principle involved, a principle central to the United Nations Charter and the basis for the existence of the United Nations. It was not Pakistan’s intention to introduce controversy or polemics with India in the context of the resolution. Pakistan had introduced this resolution for almost one dozen years. He said it was a matter of record that over the years, Pakistan had mentioned Palestine, Namibia and also Kashmir in its statements related to the resolution. What happened this year was that the context had been changed, and polemics introduced by India. What changed was that India felt it could bully the United Nations and bully Pakistan into halting its advocacy of the cause of Kashmir. Pakistan would continue to support Kashmir, whether other delegations supported it or not.

He noted that 80,000 Kashmiris had been killed by the Indian army and thousands of others had been maimed, and women raped. Kashmir was a disputed territory, wherein the Security Council had determined that people must be given the right to choose their destiny, as to whether to be a part of India or Pakistan. The territory of Kashmir shown on the map of the United Nations was disputed territory; it was not part of India and would never be a part of India. The people of a disputed territory should not be denied its right to self-determination.

The representative of Bangladesh said her delegation fully subscribed to the right of people to self-determination and was on the list of co-sponsors. Its own sovereignty was the product of the exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. Her country was therefore committed to supporting the resolution.

The representative of Malaysia said that as a former colony, Malaysia was more than a little concerned about this resolution.

The representative of Iran said Iran had been traditionally a co-sponsor of the resolution on the right of people to self determination and also this time because the resolution reaffirmed the right of people to self-determination was enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

The representative of Ireland said his country had voted in favour of the resolution because it believed in the right of people to self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

The representative of Cuba said his delegation would like to stress that the only reason why it had voted in favour of the draft was because Cuba supported the right of people to self-determination, as a basic principle of the United Nations Charter. His delegation had tremendous respect for that principle, and this was the main reason why it voted in favour of the resolution.

The representative of India said his delegation did not intend to respond to any points made by the representative of Pakistan. It rejected completely all his accusations. However, his delegation wished to point out that if any delegation had any doubts as to the real motives of Pakistan’s sponsorship of the resolution, then the general statement made by the representative of Pakistan would not leave any doubt.

The representative of Thailand said his delegation subscribed to the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. It did so again this year as a reconfirmation of its commitment to this right.

The representative of Nigeria said Nigeria had traditionally supported this resolution, and on that basis it had voted in support of this resolution. Over the years Nigeria had taken the lead against the cruel practice of apartheid, and it continued to support the resolution.

The representative of The Republic of Korea voted in favour of the resolution despite the debate and the not very desirable exchange of views. It decided to continue to support the text because in the end, what was important was what the resolution said.

The representative of Croatia said Croatia had voted in favour of the resolution on the merits of the text, although it deeply deplored the discussion that took place this morning.

The representative of Bulgaria voted in favour because it consistently supported the principle of the right of people to self-determination, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Bulgaria deeply regretted however, that the resolution was adopted after such an acrimonious debate and hoped that next year it would be adopted by consensus.

The vote was as follows :

ANNEX I

Vote on Right to Self-Determination

The draft resolution on universal realization of the right to self-determination (document A/C.3/58/L.31) was approved by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 3 against, with 64 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, Iran, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen.

Against: Bhutan, India, Mauritius.

Abstain: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Botswana, Cambodia, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malta, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, San Marino, Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Belarus, Central African Republic, Chad, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Iraq, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Liberia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nepal, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

kashmal · Post by **kashmal** » 24 Nov 2003 09:23

UN vote on self-determination a setback for Pakistan?

WASHINGTON: The resolution on the “realisation of the right of self-determination” adopted by a vote on November 20 by the United Nations General Assembly is being viewed as a setback to Pakistan because in the past the same resolution that Pakistan moves every year had been adopted by consensus.

This year, it was India which called for a vote. The results came as a shock to Pakistan because out of total of 191 UN members, only 88 voted in favour of the resolution with India, Bhutan and Mauritius voting against. Four out of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained.

A Pakistan diplomat who did not wish to be identified told Daily Times, “This resolution had been our creation and was adopted for years through consensus and without a vote. It used to be a genuine moral victory for Pakistan. This year, for whatever reason, India called for a vote, and the end result has been a major setback not only to the very concept of self-determination, a cardinal principal of the UN Charter, but also to our own stated cause. This vote has grave symbolic importance. The principle of self-determination has lost the traditional consensus support it always enjoyed, having received less than 50 percent of the UN votes in favour while the overwhelming majority of member states abstained or deliberately absented themselves only because the resolution was viewed largely in the context of India-Pakistan relations. In fact, some countries even withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution because they felt the prevailing context of the solution was not ‘appropriate’, nor within the spirit of the universal principal of the right of self-determination. I feel deeply disturbed at this development because it has weakened the moral weight of a concept that Pakistan has always used in support of its position on Kashmir.”

<a href="http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 6">Link</a>

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 24 Nov 2003 11:17

Here are some useful links ..

First edition written in 1914...
The Right of Nations to Self-Determination
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/

From the link ...

The Right of Nations of Self-Determination
1.What Is Meant By The Self-Determination Of Nations?
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch01.htm

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 24 Nov 2003 11:19

Self-Determination of Nations and Self-Defense
http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebknecht-k/works/misc/self-determination-nations.htm[/ URL]

V. I. Lenin
THE RIGHT OF NATIONS
TO
SELF-DETERMINATION
[url=http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/RNSD14.html]http://www.marx2mao.org/Lenin/RNSD14.html

http://www.dialoguebetweennations.com/Speople/English/englishdetermination.asp

Captive Nations and the Self-Determination Threat
http://www.cwis.org/seminars/capnaton.html

Competing Claims: Self-Determination, Security and the United Nations
http://www.ipacademy.org/Publications/Reports/Research/PublRepoReseCompClaims_body.htm

http://www.afn.ca/Fact%20Sheets/first_nations_self.htm

Prateek · Post by **Prateek** » 24 Nov 2003 11:26

Self-Determination
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/self.htm

Self-Determination in the Information Age
http://www.isoc.org/HMP/PAPER/230/abst.html

Simple Meaning:The simple meaning of self determination is nations have the rights
to establish their own governments on their own lands, adopt any system they ...
www.emunix.emich.edu/~khailany/ files/KNC_Speech_2002.ppt

2. The Right of Self-Determination
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp

Conference on Self-determination
http://www.tibet.ca/wtnarchive/1996/3/14_2.html

Kuttan · Post by **Kuttan** » 24 Nov 2003 17:36

Calvin: One last post on the Times of India claim that "Pakistan gets its Dream UN Resolution".

Arun says it:

shows how dorky the Indian media is!

The Times of India failed to report that the resolution was "passed" with 88 in favor, 3 against, 64 abstaining, and 36 absent.

The US, UK, Russia, France and 60 other countries came there and sat on their hands. 36 other countries simply ignored the resolution. India made it a point to tell the Pakis the equivalent of :p

The Pakis thus scored another "dream" victory - irritated their masters, and got ignored by most of the world. Except for the Editors of the Times of India, Mumbai.

The only Pakistani victory here is that we had to read the better analysis in the LaHore Daily Crimes:

UN vote on self-determination a setback for Pakistan?

WASHINGTON: The resolution on the “realisation of the right of self-determination” adopted by a vote on November 20 by the United Nations General Assembly is being viewed as a setback to Pakistan because in the past the same resolution that Pakistan moves every year had been adopted by consensus.

This year, it was India which called for a vote. The results came as a shock to Pakistan because out of total of 191 UN members, only 88 voted in favour of the resolution with India, Bhutan and Mauritius voting against. Four out of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained...."The principle of self-determination has lost the traditional consensus support it always enjoyed, having received less than 50 percent of the UN votes in favour while the overwhelming majority of member states abstained or deliberately absented themselves only because the resolution was viewed largely in the context of India-Pakistan relations. In fact, some countries even withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution. "

Wonder if Gen. Dostum would lease containers to send the Editors of the Times of Islamabad and the Kolkotta Traitorograph to their favorite nations...

Nikhil Shah · Post by **Nikhil Shah** » 24 Nov 2003 19:05

Calvin:

This is an excellent thread. There is a lot of academic aspect about self-determination. Which is good, don't get me wrong, but one of the most practical implementations of self-determination has been (1) Its the economy stupid (2) lead them by b@lls and hearts and minds will follow.

When you give people freedom to chose their rulers/administrators/whatever-you-may-want-to-call-them and an economic environment where people can prosper and enjoy a good healthy life, they effectively achieve self-determination.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 24 Nov 2003 20:25

Hi,

I am often confused by these words `self determination'. I think these have many connotations and perhaps not all of them really fit well into the alleged meaning of this word.

The phrase `seeking self-detemination' is routinely used by people who have no understanding of what it means. There is small community of people who probably understand the true implications of `self determination' in a context specific way but these are very few people indeed and fewer still understand the more global implications of allowing the defintion of `self-determination' to float in this bizarre fashion.

A vast majority chants out catchwords like `self-determination' in a manner similar to people mouthing the lyrics at a rock concert.

I will present my take on some of these `misconceptions' below:

1) `self-determination' is the same thing as freedom to democratic self expression :

Wrong! democratic self expression only takes hold when a balance of power is exists between the various political interests that seek `self-determination'. Democratic self-determination does not take hold where the movement for `self determination' is led by a bunch of homicidal maniacs and assorted sociopaths. There is no guarentee that `self-determination' necessarily implies a more responsive government.

For example: Pakistani `self-determination' has come at the cost of democratic self expression to the Pakistani people. The government of Pakistan is simply not responsive to the needs of the Pakistani people.

2) `self-determination' means more respect for human rights :

Wrong! `Self-determination' only implies respect of human rights when the basis for making `self-determination' call and the struggle is not colored by sectarian and/or ethnocentric hues. In almost all cases where a specific community spearheads the `self-determination' struggle, it begins to see itself as the sole arbitrator of human values, and this inevitably leads to a systematic denial of basic human rights to people who do not agree with it. On a more general level, culture cannot be preserved merely by asserting the `right to self-determination'.

Example: When the US attained `self-determination' and `azadi' (independence) from Britain, this did not imply that the `Red Indians' were suddenly given `human rights'. Heck black people weren't really considered human beings in the US for the better part of three hundred years after independence.

3) Self-determination implies freedom to choose economic patterns and relationships :

Wrong! This is only possible when the economy of the region is somewhat independent from the economy of the `colonizing power'. In most cases populations are inexorably linked by economic ties going back hundreds of years and there is no way to undo this interdependence. An almost immediate result of hastily gained `self-determination' is an economic disillusionment. Also if the leadership of the struggle has narrow economic interests, then the exact opposite happens, `self-determination' leads to economic subjugation of the people.

Example: India gained the `right to self determination' from Britain in 1947. However this did not immediately imply economic prosperity for the Indian people. The Indian economy still remained betrothed to colonial industrial groups for many decades afterwards and consequently human conditions did not improve. In order to ensure political stability the political leadership of independent India invested in an ambitious and controlled modernization program. This shackled competitiveness in Indian industry and actually worsened the economic conditions in India for four decades.

4) Self-determination implies the ability to define the parameters of one's own relations with neighboring states. It allows a region to choose its `international flight path'

Wrong! The most pressing context of international affairs is a regional one. There is no way to undo geography and cultural ties to neigboring regions. Even a `self-determining' population will be held hostage to these factors. The problems become even more acute when the regional interests are extremely strongly linked to issues of land.

Example: Jammu and Kashmir - self-determination will not end Indian, Pakistani, American or Chinese strategic interests in the region. And as long as there are strategic interests these nations will continue to interfere in the internal affairs of Jammu and Kashmir.

5) Self-determination is a psychological boost to a population. It is a way for them to `feel good about themselves'.

Wrong! This will only happen if there is something to feel charmed about - such as - a successful experiment in nationalism. If the key elements of nationalism fail to come together, then this `feel good' effect will cease to operate and a `feel bad' effect will set in.

Example: East Pakistan gained `self-determination' alongside West Pakistan, but within five years - to a man - east Pakistan leaders were pining to rejoin India. Speaker after speaker from East Pakistan addressing crowds in Calcutta would express a desire to rejoin India. This was the start of the East Pakistani liberation movement which led to formation of Bangladesh in 1971.

manuvaram · Post by **manuvaram** » 25 Nov 2003 03:32

To beat this to death.. note the illustrious voters in favor of this pukie resolution on "Self-Determination". It includes democracies like:

China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia!

Hail Freedom! Hail Self-determination!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 25 Nov 2003 12:24

Theory -
Self Determination:
Date: circa 1670
1 : free choice of one's own acts or states without external compulsion
2 : determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

I am assuming that all of you agree with Rousseau’s argument for a social contract between citizen and government. If so when is it legitimate to overthrow a government?

Locke argued that there were rights that human beings were endowed with by nature – the rights to life, liberty, and property – and that government was entrusted to protect them. Should a government violate that trust, it was no longer legitimate. Then, citizens had a right to overthrow it and establish a new one. Locke’s ideas were tied to the nonviolent “Glorious Revolution of 1688.” However the American founders did use Locke’s argument to support their declaration of independence, and even chose violent means to defend their rights.

Now in the case of Kashmir India did fail to protect the social contract until the last successful elections. Thus if the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination is entirely indigenous it is possible to look upon it as a legitimate struggle. However, should a malignant state (such as Pakistan) decide to instrument such breach in contract between state and citizen to encourage sedition, the state (India) in question then has the right to defend it territorial integrity. It is the duty of the state (India) to protect the very social contract that its citizens (Kashmiri’s) entrust the government to protect. Thus the question of self-determination does not arise in the case of Kashmir unless and until the struggle becomes purely indigenous.

PS: The following article is interesting for those of you wanting to learn about the origins of self-determination and related topics.

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 25 Nov 2003 19:45

Pulikeshi Verma,

Assuming the validity of Rousseau's `social contract' idea, Locke's argument cannot be extended to Kashmir.

There is adequate evidence to support that government of Pakistan repeatedly interefered with every social contract that the Government of Jammu and Kashmir attempted to set into place with its people. The difficulties faced by the J&K Govt. in defining its social contract, found expression in its dealings and contracts with the GoI.

This interference is at the core of the problems in J&K today. The Pakistanis have repeatedly used the `disputed territory' status of J&K to maul every single political process in J&K. To the Pakistanis, the word `self determination' is a `cover', a smokescreen to deflect attention from their systematic interference in the political process of J&K.

There is one more community that ardently advocates `self determination' for J&K. This is a small community of `scholars' in the US. To these people the words `self determination' do not have a context specific limitations, and the vague nature of this concept, permits them to secure the loyalties of random `Kashmiris' and USG funding by citing `strategic applications to conflict management'. Most of these people and their `Kashmiri Colleagues' do not have a deep understanding of the details of the conflict and consequently cheerfully snort all the `self determination' gas that the Pakistanis pass out.

In sum - the `self determination' concept is an elaborate scam, to embezzle USG funds, and to manufacture support for Pakistani sponsorred terror.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 26 Nov 2003 04:34

Sunil,

I hope you read my arguments and are merely agreeing with me. If you read my last paragraph, I clearly argue that self-determination does not apply in the case of Kashmir as their movement for justice has indeed been hijacked by TSP. India’s duty is to protect the social contract with the Kashmiri’s. Thus we are in clear agreement.

However, self-determination in genral (not in the case of Kashmir) is not bogus concept. For India won her independence with a call for self-determination. It is more important that we argue why self-determination is not applicable in the case of Kashmir. That there was legal accession of power, that there is a democratically elected government that represents the aspirations and the social contract with the people. It is the duty of India to protect and preserve this social contract.

Kashmir would have had a better case at self-determination internationally if they had not GUBO’ed to TSP and other external agencies. This would be the case with the Palestinians as well. Indigenous movements lead by a minority group take longer to develop but are harder to crush. Once these groups become tools to external powers, their cause is hijacked. This usually leads to defeat of the group and the cause for sure. In this way the Kashmiri’s defeated their cause by enslaving themselves to TSP’s agenda.

Rajeev · Post by **Rajeev** » 26 Nov 2003 07:22

The Puerto Rico Self-Determination Act

http://www.puertorico-herald.org/legislat.shtml

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 26 Nov 2003 19:49

There are two distinct issues here. One is the social philosophy underlying self-determination, and the second is the politics of self-determination

Sunil · Post by **Sunil** » 26 Nov 2003 20:42

Pulikeshi Varma,

I was not agreeing/disagreeing with you. I was merely stating that the case for `self determination' in the context of Kashmir is a misapplication of the sociological principles that it represents.

As you correctly point out the case for `self-determination' in J&K would have been stronger if Kashmiris had not falled prey to Pakistani scams perpetrated in the name of religion. If indeed there had been a genuine feeling of `self-determination' in the truest sense of the word in Kashmir, there would have been no scope for the Pakistanis to intervene, the question of `joining Pakistan' would never have arisen. However this is not quite the case.

As Calvin points out there are two overlapping discussions here, the political one and the sociological one and they do not always sit well together.

Whereas from the sociological perspective, it may make sense to bolster the `self- determination' theory, but from a political perspective, it doesn't quite make sense.

This `self-determination' thing could spark the next series of Jihads. The `Defeat a Superpower' philosophy of the 1980s sparked the `Jihad against US and Isreal' of today. Somehow no one seems to have caught on to that.

I mean its all good and fine for Americans to talk about `Self-determination' for Kashmiris in India, or Nagas in India, but what are people going to do when the Muslims in the US start demanding an `Independent Muslim Homeland in the US'? or what if the Hispanic speakers in the US want to declare themselves a separate nation? Oh yes.. I know, thats impossible - just as 9-11 can never happen.... or Gee, why would the US ever have to worry about its government officers being dragged into war crimes trials? that'll never happen..

Right now the `self-determination' pundits are pushing the prospect of using the idea to create political space for the US in the India-Pakistan mess. Little thought appears to have been given to the cost of such space.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 27 Nov 2003 19:15

In the UN resolution that is mentioned at the head of the thread, China voted in favor of the right of self-determination.

Yet it threatens war if Taiwan crosses "a red line" and exercises its right of self-determination.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/27/taiwan.vote/index.html

Everyone says "One China", "One China", because of the fear of war. Everyone wants Taiwan to be "responsible" and not cause a war, though it would be China that actually starts it.

So much for self-determination!

Calvin · Post by **Calvin** » 27 Nov 2003 20:36

It appears to me that "self determination" has a positive emotional cachet, and there is little we can do about that regardless of its origins in social philosophy or as a tool of the IR crowd. However, what we can do is indicate where it is being "misapplied" - IOW, by pushing the concept that there CANNOT be a lack of self-determination in a constitutional republic that guarantees individual rights (i.e., like the US, or India).

JCage · Post by **JCage** » 27 Nov 2003 20:59

Originally posted by Calvin:
It appears to me that "self determination" has a positive emotional cachet, and there is little we can do about that regardless of its origins in social philosophy or as a tool of the IR crowd. However, what we can do is indicate where it is being "misapplied" - IOW, by pushing the concept that there CANNOT be a lack of self-determination in a constitutional republic that guarantees individual rights (i.e., like the US, or India).

The basic fact that needs to be drummed across imho, is that the pakis who holler self determination from the rooftops vis a vis J&K, lack the same in their country. With a military dictatorship and every darn post in the grimy hands of assorted "jarnalis and karnalis" as those of the paki ilk put it.
You are of course, on the dot in stating that a denizen of Srinagar, J &K has all the rights a denizen of Bangalore, Karnataka under a democratic system of Govt. Given that the latter doesnt need to pull out a gun and start massacres in the name of religion, it is evident that there is something "missing" in the paki arguement.
I only hope our MEA is half as active as the Indian diapora in getting the facts about Pakistan across to the world at large.