Joint statements don't matter

International relations are governed by what two nations agree upon and state the same jointly. The same is then formalised in form of treaties. But astonishingly, a man who served as an under-secretary at the UN and with much international exposure came up with this ridiculous defense of Manmohan Singh's betrayal of India in Egypt -

[...] MoS for external affairs Shashi
Tharoor on Thursday downplayed the significance of the controversial
India-Pakistan joint statement and said it was a "diplomatic paper" and not a
legally binding commitment.

[...] "It (the joint statement) is a
diplomatic paper that is released to the press different from legal papers,"
[Link]

If that's the logic, how can Singh claim victory at Pakistan's mere admission of it's involvement in Mumbai attacks. It could very well amount to nothing since it's not legally binding.

And that's exactly how the Indo-US Nuclear deal too is playing out. The deal that was eventually sold to us ordinary folks was far from what the joint statement of 2004 mentioned.

This doesn't reflect well on a whole lot of things. Tharoor himself, the Congress's intentions, the UN and the general functioning of bodies like the UN. If this is the thought, then the UN and similar bodies are completely ineffective (not that they have been for long).