Posted on 02/28/2005 1:36:19 AM PST by CarrotAndStick
WASHINGTON, Feb 27: The United States believed that an overwhelming majority of UN members were against the division of Pakistan in 1971 but Russian vetoes prevented the world body from playing any role in the crisis.
This assessment is included in a set of classified documents the US State Department released this week to the media on US relations with the United Nations from 1969 to 1972.
Summing up the UN role during the 1971 crisis, the US permanent mission at the United Nations informs the State Department: "On Dec 7, the UN General Assembly, acting under the Uniting for Peace procedure, recommended by an overwhelming majority a cease fire and withdrawal of troops to their own territories and the creation of conditions for voluntary return of refugees." These were Bengali refugees who had fled to the Indian state of West Bengal after the 1971 military action in former East Pakistan.
As many as 104 member states voted for the resolution, 10, including India and the former Soviet Union, voted against it and 11 abstained. "The vote showed the strong sentiment in the United Nations against the use of military force to divide a member state," the US mission observes.
In a separate memo assessing the proceedings of the 26th General Assembly which dealt with the 1971 crisis, the US permanent mission writes: "The overwhelming majority (voted) for a resolution calling for a cease fire and withdrawal of troops in the Indo-Pakistan war (but) the Security Council was prevented from acting by Soviet vetoes."
Despite the world body's failure to enforce a cease fire, the US mission says that "in the India-Pakistan crisis, the General Assembly showed its utility. Early attempts by Secretary General U. Thant to persuade the permanent members of the Security Council to address the crisis over East Pakistan had foundered mainly on Soviet objections."
The memo points out that in December 1971, following the outbreak of hostilities, the US had brought the dispute before the Security Council but repeated Soviet vetoes blocked action.
"The Security Council belatedly adopted a resolution endorsing a cease fire and pointing toward withdrawal of troops, political accommodation, and humanitarian relief under UN auspices," says the internal memo.
In an earlier memo sent to the US permanent mission at the UN on Sept 3, 1971, the State Department predicts that the 26th UNGA could well be "a turbulent one" and the situation in Pakistan, "fraught with danger of conflict, could also lead to heated debates."
The memorandum suggests that the then US Secretary of State William Pierce Rogers "should give major emphasis to South Asia" in his address to the 26th General Assembly, underlining the dangers of war in the area, and especially focusing "attention on the humanitarian problem in India and East Pakistan".
"The secretary should underline the UN role of leadership in dealing with these problems and should provide vigorous support to the secretary-general's appeal for contributions and support from the world community," the memo says.
The memo urged Mr Rogers to include the following points in his speech: a) the threat to peace poses dangers not only to India and Pakistan but to the world community, b) the threat of famine in East Pakistan and the problem posed by the influx of refugees into India must also concern the international community, c) the international community, and India and Pakistan, have a responsibility for ensuring the peace, for averting famine and relieving human misery, d) we look to the UN to continue asserting vigorous leadership and coordination of efforts to deal with the food situation in East Pakistan and refugee relief in India.
We intend continuing our support for these efforts, e) we recognize that the political problems in Pakistan must be resolved by the Pakistanis themselves, f) we trust both India and Pakistan will avoid actions which can increase tensions and will also be alert to the opportunities for dealing with the refugee problem so as to reduce tensions.
Mr Rogers, who died at the age of 87 four years ago, delivered his speech on Oct 4, 1971, focusing on the points suggested by his aides. Another State Department memo, written after the speech, says that both Indian and Pakistani representatives (Agha Shahi) commented that the speech was clear and balanced.
"Naturally Indians would have preferred greater stress on political settlement in East Pakistan and Pakistanis less, but in general their reactions were decidedly favourable."
There is evidence to prove that Nixon was personally concerned about Yahya & wanted India to take the pressure off & he with Kissinger were willing to tie up with Mao,who mobilised a few divisions on the Indo-Sino border(which were deterred by Soviet warnings).Nixon's personal affiliation towards India is not too pleasing as well-There are reportedly transcripts where he made fun of the "reproductive habits" of Indians & Indira Gandhi's stubborness,which was more than revealed in the 1974 nuclear test,India's first.
INS Vikrant,the first Asian aircraft carrier after WW2 with her complement of Hawker SeaHawk fighters.My dad was on the INS Beas,a frigate which was part of the Vikrant battlegroup, deployed against East-Pakistani Coastal installations in the 71 war!!
There were comments made by Nixon-while he was still in office-that many would construe as being grotesquely antisemitic.
Yet, this man-a devout Quaker-had some of his closest personal and political relationships-throughout his career in public service, and beyond-with Jews, and was one of the staunchest defenders of the state of Israel ever to occupy the Oval Office.
America's longstanding-if turbulent-relationship with Pakistan is something that predates Nixon, and which has existed, in one form or another, since the Eisenhower administration.
To paint India-which was governed, for much of this period, by a nationalist, Communist-affiliated dictator, who did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities within her own nation-in a completely benign light is as ridiculous as whitewashing the sins of Pakistan.
Yep the same "communist dictator" you talk about would have been forced to tilt towards the West if the Johnson administration had acted with common sense w.r.t the subcontinent.FYI,the UK,France & US were India's largest arms suppliers till Johnson came into the picture.Things went further downhill with Indira & Nixon.
If Indira didn't show a bit of respect to the rights of India's minorities,India would have ceased to exist over 20 years back.That's not been the case.
About Israel,let's face the fact-If the US didn't resupply the Israeli military with conventional arms,they would have unleashed their 13 nukes on the Arab hordes-including ones like Saudi Arabia(American ally since 1945) for good measure.
"Winning the Coldwar using China & Islamic fundamentalism(as seen in Afghanistan in the 80s) has created many a new headache for the US."
*yawn* How often do we need to debunk this lie?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html
Qwinn
Nobody referred to OBL anywhere.But the CIA DID help out Pakistan set up training centres in it's territory to train "Freedom fighters"-what does the US call those folks now??& who supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets???
Are you forgetting the authorised armssales to the PRC from the late 70s till Tianammen????If im not mistaken,Bill Clinton was a nobody back then & republican presidents held the White House for a good chunk of that period.Sales of items like torpedoes(check out China's current ASW torp),helos,LM-2500 gas turbines,avionics & dual use systems took place during that period.It was around the sametime that Deng XioPing realised the pathetic state of the PLA & saw the sore need for modernisation.So was the US & Europe(yep France,Britain,Germany all had their pies too) responsible in part for helping in the start of the modernisation of the PLA???It's something a lot of folks won't like to ponder over.
However, supplying arms to a nation that is led by an aspiring despot is another matter altogether.
The relationship between India and the United States only began to truly solidify under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi, who was a pro-Western, democratic, anti-terror ally.
Non-sequitur. Big difference building competitors to the Soviet Union and continuing to build them after the Soviet Union. Also, when people you aid later turn on you, the treachery and ingratitude also changes the equation. We have been fortunate that for the last 100 years recipients of aid, Russia, Germany, Japan, China, the mujahadeen, have all been stupid enough to act or telegraph their real or new intentions before gaining a decisive advantage.
Still, knowing you are being followed is not quite the same as having a lock on your quarry's noisy propeller.
You forgot Reagan who had a great personal equation with Rajiv!!!His first words when he met Indira Gandhi were "let's put the past behind us".Reagan was a person who mixed pragmatism with values-hence he was both considered as an adversary to the USSR & yet could be seen as an understanding friend.Nixon doesn't come anywhere near him.
PS-Nehru enjoyed a pretty good rapport with Eisenhower & to a lesser extent with Kennedy.
Differences exist only because we want to see it that way.China armed folks like (Mullah infested) Iran & communist rebels in Africa while the USSR was still around.
The US support to the PRC during the Soviet years made an cripple capable of walking on it's own.Anyone aware of the PLA's progress will know that it started in the late 70s.To blame it all on Clinton is just childish.
However, the one-party, socialist model that he embraced-like that of his Mapai/Labor counterparts in the early days of Israel-forced his country to squander numerous opportunities for prosperity and growth.
If Jawaharlal Nehru had been able to divest himself of his timeworn socialist nostrums, perhaps India wouldn't have had to wait until the mid-90s in order to experience an economic and political renaissance.
Nope!!I have a rather different take on it.A lot of economists(including "rightist" types) say that Nehruvian socialism was understandable & in some cases,necessary for India till the 70s-it set India on the path to industrialisation,agro-self sufficiency & indegnious science & technology initiatives(if you remember a lot of countries,including Britain had similar policies then).If India had begun liberalising the 70s instead of the late 80s,she would'nt be far behind the PRC.But not only did Indira do nothing,she made the socialist setup entrenched.
You brought up China. How much of the Soviet-India 'alliance' of that period was due to the border war fought between India & China? Perhaps the Soviets were a more effective counter to Chinese territorial ambitions in the Himalayas? Don't know myself. Just asking.
It's so pathetic to see you try to justify your affinity with the Soviet Union during the darkest depths of the Cold War. It's also quite revealing of India's lack of moral clarity. Keep it up, though. Don't let me discourage you at all.
During the 62 war,India was allied to the US,which infact supplied weaponry to India.The Soviets appeared to stay "neutral" as they were allied to the PRC & actively wooing India.This continued till upto around the middle of 1965,when the equations was reversed-the Soviets started squabbling with the PRC & India felt snubbed by the US & UK at the expense of Pakistan & on the issue of armssales.This brought India close to the USSR,which was a big deterrent against further Chinese ambitions,while Pakistan chipped in by helping out on US-China relations.
Allying with folks like Imperial Iran & Pakistan was not exactly moral clarity on America's part.Let's face it,if you want to get things done,you have prepared to get into bed with scumbags.India & America have both done it.
"Nobody referred to OBL anywhere.But the CIA DID help out Pakistan set up training centres in it's territory to train "Freedom fighters"-what does the US call those folks now??& who supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets???"
I'll assume that by "Pakistan" you meant "Afghanistan".
The answer to your first question - "What does the US call those folks now??" - is the "Northern Alliance", who sided with us when we deposed the Taliban.
Given that, the answer to your 2nd question doesn't matter much.
Qwinn
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.