Article

2007-04-08 India-Pakistan

Siachen Glacier talks end without progress

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 India should fly over Siachen dusting it liberally with Norit Activated Charcoal power....

Within a few years there would be no glacier to fight upon and the minerals underneath would be accessible. If they have to fight after that it would be on terrain that is cheaper to defend or attack upon.

Posted by 3dc 2007-04-08 01:26|| 2007-04-08 01:26|| Front Page Top

#2 India wanted Pakistan to demarcate the present troops positions using GPS and with foreign observers present.

Pakistan refused.

This suggests Pakistan has plans to reoccupy the glacier once the Indians leave.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 07:30|| 2007-04-08 07:30|| Front Page Top

#3 dusting it liberally with Norit Activated Charcoal power....

That would affect the Indus river (the glacier is the major water source) and violate the Indus Water treaty.
Under that treaty, Pakistan is granted exclusive rights to the waters from the Indus, the Jhelum and the Chenab rivers. India may not interfere with the water flow.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 07:57|| 2007-04-08 07:57|| Front Page Top

#4 From wiki

Pakistan has launched several attempts to displace the Indian forces, but with little success. The most well known was in 1987, when an attempt was made by Pakistan to dislodge India from the area. The attack was led by Pervez Musharraf (later President of Pakistan) heading a newly formed elite SSG commando unit in the area. A special garrison with eight thousand troops was built at Khapalu. The immediate aim was to capture Bilafond La but after bitter fighting that included hand to hand combat, the Pakistanis were thrown back and the positions remained the same.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 08:00|| 2007-04-08 08:00|| Front Page Top

#5 The Indian Army controls all of the Siachen Glacier and the three main passes of the Saltoro Ridge immediately west of the glacier, Sia La, Bilafond La, and Gyong La, thus holding onto the tactical advantage of high ground.[4] Gyong La (Pass) itself is at 35-10-29N, 77-04-15 E; that high point is controlled by India. The Pakistanis control the glacial valley just five kilometers southwest of Gyong La. The line where Indian and Pakistani troops are presently holding on to their respective posts is being increasingly referred to as the Actual Ground Position Line (AGPL).[5][6]

The Pakistanis have been unable get up to the crest of the Saltoro Ridge, while the Indians cannot come down and abandon their strategic high posts.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 08:01|| 2007-04-08 08:01|| Front Page Top

#6 The glacier is also the highest battleground on earth, where India and Pakistan have fought intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military personnel in the region at a height of over 6,000 metres.

India has built the world's highest helipad on this glacier at a place called Sonam, which is at 21,000 feet (6,400 m) above the sea level, to serve the area.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 08:03|| 2007-04-08 08:03|| Front Page Top

#7 What minerals 3dc?

Posted by Grunter 2007-04-08 09:46|| 2007-04-08 09:46|| Front Page Top

#8 Destroy the glacier and you destroy the Indus river. No amount of minerals is worth the destruction of the second longest glacier outside the polar regions.

The Indus (after which India itself is named) is important in Indian history and culture. It is considered sacred by hindus and India would never destroy it.

Look at this NASA photo

That line at the western edge of the Indian subcontinent is the Indus river. As you can see, Pakistani population and economy is concentrated along the banks of this river.

Destroying the glacier would be a civilizational ending act.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 10:06|| 2007-04-08 10:06|| Front Page Top

#9 I agree it would not do to destroy the glacier, John, but declaring the end of Pakland and all life in it as a "civilizational ending act" severely stretches the definition of "civilization" :-)

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-04-08 10:23|| 2007-04-08 10:23|| Front Page Top

#10 As I wrote that I actually paused to consider the term.. lets give them the benefit of the doubt.. 1000 years of islam may have not totally eradicated the native Indian civilizational memory..

Meanwhile, voices in India call for scrapping the IWT. A Pak general has said in the past that this would be a "red line" that would result in the use of nuclear weapons against India.

A redundant treaty

By M.S. MENON

THE 46-YEAR-OLD history of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is the story of a tragedy that began with hope as demonstrated by past events and confirmed by the recent verdict of Raymond Lafitte, the World Bank appointed neutral expert for the Baglihar project.

The treaty, signed in 1960 between India and Pakistan with the aim of achieving the optimum development and utilisation of the Indus waters, has miserably failed not only in accomplishing the objectives but also in settling water disputes between the two all these years.

A perusal of the treaty would reveal that it is biased in favour of Pakistan, ignoring international rules on equitable distribution of waters. Against India's rightful share of more than 40 per cent of the Indus waters, we got only about 20 per cent in the allocation.

Further, using the loopholes in the treaty, Pakistan succeeded in stalling/delaying Indian projects, 30 in all, planned for the development of Jammu and Kashmir. At every stage, India agreed to the demands of Pakistan such as stopping the Tulbul project works and closing the sluices in the Salal project, only to maintain good neighbourly relations. This conciliatory approach emboldened Pakistan to allege IWT violations by India on the Baglihar hydroelectric project (450 MW).

India had given the project features of Baglihar to Pakistan in May, 1992 as per treaty provisions. Despite many meetings at Commissioner and Secretary levels, Pakistan continued to harp on treaty violations by India on project designs, etc. It was willing for negotiations, if India stopped the work, but this time India did not oblige. Our neighbour then approached the World Bank seeking the appointment of a neutral expert to look into the dispute. Accepting Pakistan's plea, the Bank appointed Raymond Lafitte.

After site visits, discussions with the parties concerned and studying the presentations made by them, the expert has now given his verdict.

Both India and Pakistan have claimed that their contentions have been upheld by the expert. But will the incendiary politics of the subcontinent further trigger more conflicts?

A perusal of the verdict would reveal that while provision of sluices and gated spillway has been accepted by the expert, India would have to modify the design to reduce the height of the dam, limit the pondage and raise the level of the power intake. India has therefore to incur additional costs to carry out these changes and get reduced peak power benefits and flood moderation advantages. By awarding such a decision the expert has overlooked the very basis of the treaty i.e. the maximum utilisation of Indus waters for mutual benefit.

Years of wrangling in the interpretation of the clauses has proved beyond doubt that the treaty has outlived its utility, to address the changing geopolitical situations and emerging norms of international laws. Hence India has to insist on a review of the treaty.

The rights and obligations of the parties to a treaty are well laid down in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969 which inter alia states that "a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context in the light of its object and purpose."

If Pakistan does not agree for a review, India must draw its attention to Article 62 of the Convention which permits terminating or withdrawing from a treaty due to a fundamental change of circumstances.

Pakistan has already cut out its strategy to delay the Indian projects, next in its agenda being the Kishanganga project (J&K). Hence we cannot and should not allow our development efforts in J&K to be sabotaged by Pakistan wrongly using the provisions of a redundant treaty.

(The writer is former Member-Secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage)

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 11:50|| 2007-04-08 11:50|| Front Page Top

#11 #10: "A Pak general has said in the past that this would be a "red line" that would result in the use of nuclear weapons against India."

Well, that's stupid. Doesn't he think India might use them back?

Who has the most? Enquiring minds, etc. ....

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-04-08 12:01|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2007-04-08 12:01|| Front Page Top

#12 Barbara, India probably has the most, and the largest nukes. I don't see Pakistan using nukes against India for any reason - it would be national suicide. At the same time, the only "country" I feel deserves to die more than Pakistan is North Korea. As I've said before, destroy the pakistani army, its military infrastructure, and its government. Divide the former nation of pakistan between India and Afghanistan, along the Indus River. Destroy all the mosques and madrassahs, and hang those that taught at them. Life would become quite a bit more peaceful all across the globe. The only "losers" would be corrupt, Urdu-speaking Punjabis. No great loss for the rest of the world.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-04-08 12:41|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-04-08 12:41|| Front Page Top

#13 India has both a quantitative and qualitative advantage here, having started earlier (first bomb test was in 1974) with a much larger nuclear industry and scientific capability.

Apart from being able to answer Pak's A-bombs with larger H-bombs, Pak is a smaller country. India is more than a million square miles. The former FM Jaswant Singh has noted that India can actually absorb several nuclear strikes (with a population of a billion, spread all over the country, the loss of a few million people changes nothing) while Pakistan would be obliterated by stikes along the narrow populated band along the Indus.

Posted by John Frum 2007-04-08 12:52|| 2007-04-08 12:52|| Front Page Top

#14 When I worked in the mining business, a mineral discovery sometimes resulted in two companies staking claims, with some overstaked on the other. Who owned the claim was based upon who staked it first AND recorded it. Well, this could get to be a sticky wicket, and could result in long and expensive litigation. So, often the disputed claims would be joint ventured if the deposit turned out to be a viable mine.

What is lacking here is good will on the part of the Paks. They have carved out their bit of Islamic heaven on their border, so they have Allan on their side. Nothing will come of an agreement as long as Pak-Land is a land of nut cases. Hell, they cannot even administer their own tribal areas. This treaty that they have is worthless.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-04-08 14:52|| 2007-04-08 14:52|| Front Page Top

#15 ... destroy the pakistani army, its military infrastructure, and its government. Divide the former nation of pakistan between India and Afghanistan, along the Indus River. Destroy all the mosques and madrassahs, and hang those that taught at them. Life would become quite a bit more peaceful all across the globe. The only "losers" would be corrupt, Urdu-speaking Punjabis. No great loss for the rest of the world.

I could not agree with you more, Old Patriot. Pakistan is nothing but a nest of terrorist vermin who are hell bent on perpetuating global jihad. Its utter destruction would not even represent a speed bump for actual history.

Only the Palestinians rival Pakistan for the amount of needless suffering that they cause. I'd wager that due to Pakistan's global spread of its population, they have caused even more. It's long past tea for an end to this murderous charade.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-04-08 16:56|| 2007-04-08 16:56|| Front Page Top

23:05 Cromert
23:03 Zenster
22:57 Lone Ranger
22:44 Sheba Slavimp5283
22:44 gorb
22:39 Sheba Slavimp5283
22:35 xbalanke
22:31 xbalanke
22:27 Frank G
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 trailing wife
22:16 DMFD
22:12 Bunyip
22:12 Frank G
22:11 Frank G
22:05 trailing wife
21:40 Ebbolurt the Bald5358
21:36 Crairt McCoy6887
21:36 Redneck Jim
21:27 Redneck Jim
21:24 Mullah Richard
21:19 Sherry
21:17 Eric Jablow
21:15 Eric Jablow