Kissinger is one of the most overrated historical figures. His policy was gobbledygook, and he didn’t achieve one thing diplomatically. What’s that you say, the China Thaw? What, like they weren’t going to go on roughhousing Russia without us? Or as if we wouldn’t buy their stuff on the open market once they veered capitalist without making a show of recognizing them?
In hindsight, it’s a good thing that Nixon and Kissinger failed.
The problem was that Indira Gandhi chose, for whatever reason, to side with the USSR, perhaps in part because of the Chinese threat to India’s northern borders, perhaps in part from lingering resentment of the British colonization. That pretty much forced the U.S. to side with Pakistan in response, even though it is clear that India is a far more civilized country with far more in common with us than Pakistan.
Indira Ghandi appointed herself as leader of the “Third World” in the UN. The first and second worlds were the U.S. and Europe vs Russia and the Communist states. But in most instances, Indira Ghandi stood with the USSR, and persuaded numerous other third world countries to stand with her and vote in the UN against U.S. interests.
So, the Nixon-Kissinger policy is understandable—if regretable. We sided with Pakistan because (as I thought at the time) second best was the only choice we were offered.
Ping for later
Ping for later
I have a few bones to pick with this article.
First off, it must be noted that the Nixon administration had a stake in preserving the integrity of Pakistan, longtime US ally during the Cold War that Nixon was using Pakistan as a go-between in its ongoing secret diplomacy with China.
In 1971, Nixon and Kissinger feared that India would use the Bengali revolt in East Pakistan as a pretext to “destroy” Pakistan. Furthermore, India abandoned its longstanding policy of “nonalignment” and became a Soviet ally when it signed the Indo-Soviet Treaty of “Peace, Friendship and Cooperation” in 1971—not 1970, as the article states. Shortly thereafter, Soviet armaments began pouring into India.
The writer also doesn’t mention the fact that the Nixon administration was trying to solve the conflict between the Pakistani government and the Bengalis by pressuring Islamabad to grant sweeping concessions to East Pakistan that would have eventually led to its independence. The Nixon administration also tried to get the Indians and Pakistanis to agree to a troop withdrawal from their borders and offered to have the US assume responsibility for the millions of Bengali refugees that were pouring into India, but got no response from India’s premier Indira Gandhi.
The article implies that the Soviet navy successfully faced down the US naval force, an eight-ship fleet known as Task Group 74. However, in no accounts of the conflict have I read of a naval face-of, and the message from the British commander to the US commander that the Soviets had arrived with a “fleet of battleships” sounds bogus, because the Soviet navy had no battleships.
In any case, when the war ended with West Pakistan intact, Kissinger remarked to Nixon, “Congratulations, Mr. President. You saved West Pakistan.”
Everything then was seen through a Cold War lens. India was seen as favoring the Soviets, and that was enough. Even at that, though, I saw it as very wrong when we sided against India when they liberated Bangla Desh.
I’m glad those days are done. One of the things Bush seemed to focus on was building a real alliance with India, and India has been valuable in the good-cop-bad-cop diplomacy with Pakistan the last few years.
We need to continue to build on the natural affinity we have for one another.
The Russian military-industrial complex and/or elements of the Indian industrial complex that subcontracts building Russian arms is in desperate competition with the US now that Russian arms are increasingly obsolete relative to US/UK/French/Israeli offerings to the Russians.
The article makes out the Soviets to be such wonderful friends of the Indians and invites Indians to view today's Russians in the same light.
The article available at the same link to how Chuck Yeager's personal plane got shot up by the Indians during the last Indo-Pak war was very interesting and a clear anti-US propaganda piece:
“How India brought down the US’ supersonic man”
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/01/17/how_india_brought_down_the_us_supersonic_man_14208.html
See also propaganda piece of Australia's new Darwin outpost for US troops:
“Australia’s Darwinian blunder”
December 13, 2011
Rakesh Krishnan Simha, specially for RIR
“Australia’s decision to host a permanent US military presence in the northern city of Darwin is likely to spark a fierce arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.”