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."
Well put. It's not so sad that online spokesmen for India would be frustrated about our decisions with respect to Pakistan and the split. What's really sad (and revealing) is that they'll continue to justify India's love affair with Stalinists instead of pledging "never again." I wonder how closely this matches official Indian attitudes?
If I were Nepalese, I'd be very worried about Indian communists supplying the Maoist guerillas today. Maybe the problem isn't so "historic" after all?
We won the Cold War with the help of Pakistan. That's more than we can say for India. Now we have new problems. We'll have to deal with them, too. Where is India with respect to our war on terror, namely on Iraq? Don't answer, because I already know: useless if not worse. Just hating and wanting us to denuke Pakistan does not make a helpful strategy. As usual, India is looking out for itself and itself only. When India grows up and starts thinking about defending the freedom of the whole world instead of just its own people, then it can start criticizing the US. Meanwhile, it's just pathetic to see you ranting about Pakistan. But hey, I bet the Russians would keep working with you today if you ask.
Pfooey! The Northern Alliance were Afghan resistance fighters, armed and trained solely by the Russians and Indians, they had pretty much nothing to do with the US. In fact, the US was going wink-wink at the Pakistan in all the years the Pakistanis were Propping them up.
Make no mistake, the "Mujaheddin" later formed the Taleban that the Americans vanquished in 2001-02. And the Northern Alliance were pro-India, pro-Russia. Although I must admit that a few Mujaheddin did turn around to join the Northern Alliance. Can you be so naive to think that an army that had led to the fall of the USSR (Mujaheddin with US aid) could turn the tables and become friendly with their greatest foes, like how you suggest that the Mujaheddin became the Northern Alliance? A simple google search with "northern alliance russia india" will get you results from pretty reliable sites. Do try it.
No,I mean't Pakistan alone-take a look at the maps of Pakistan's frontier regions near Peshawar.
Ever heard of Mullah Mohammad Omar,the one-eyed creep??Gulbuddin Hekmatyar??Both of those folks weren't part of the Northern Alliance till 5 pm today & GWB is spending millions to finish off folks like them.
The Northern Alliance existed till November of 2001,because countries like Uzbekistan,Iran,Russia & India funded the disparate Shiite,Uzbek & Tajik militias which now compose the N.A against the Pakistani & Saudi backed Taliban.
It's so pathetic to see you try to justify your affinity with the Soviet Union during the darkest depths of the Cold War.
Affinity or whatever you call it we did what was necessary for our security. You find it pathetic? Chill.
It's also quite revealing of India's lack of moral clarity.
Moral clarity? What moral clarity did the US have when it supported a regime that carrying out a genocide? Oh yeah you were saving the "World" right?
Remember, favours must always be reciprocal.
& who will help India fight the terrorists who recieving funding & help from American allies like Pakistan,Saudi Arabia(who have just been offered PAC-3 missiles) or the UAE.If you forgot,It has been fighting the scum you face now for over 20 years.
About denuking Pakistan,well it's not my fault,that they use AMERICAN BUILT C-130s to fly nuclear parts all the way to North Korea & proliferate to international celebrities like Gadhafi.
I think that a lot of so-called developing nations have confused the expedient policy of corporatism with the systematic philosophy of capitalism.
The free market-left as unfettered as is humanly possible-will always produce better results than a command and control economy, both domestically and abroad.
Nixon's tilt towards Pakistan even as the latter killed about a million of its own citizens in East Pakistan would rank as one of the lowest points in the history of American diplomacy. And it was all unnecessary IMHO.
"What does the US call those folks now??" is the "Northern Alliance", who sided with us when we deposed the Taliban.
-----Wrong answer. The CIA trained the Mujahideens later joined groups such as Gulbudin Hekmatiyar faction, the Hizbul Mujaheedijn and of course the *TALEBAN*. Northern Alliance was armed and helped by Russia, India and Iran.
The second question:
If you dont like to answer the second question, let me help you.
who supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets???"
*I was the US of A that supplied Stinger missiles to those freedom fighters to take out Soviet helos & jets.*
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtml
India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.
Military sources in Delhi, claim that the opposition Northern Alliance's capture of the strategic town of Bamiyan, was precipitated by the four countries' collaborative effort.
The 13 February fall of Bamiyan, after several days of heavy fighting, threatened to cut off the only land route from Kabul to Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan. However, media reports indicate that Taliban forces recaptured the town on 17 February.
India is believed to have supplied the Northern Alliance leader, Ahmed Shah Massoud, with high-altitude warfare equipment. Indian defence advisors, including air force helicopter technicians, are reportedly providing tactical advice in operations against the Taliban.
Twenty-five Indian army doctors and male nurses are also believed to be treating Northern Alliance troops at a 20-bed hospital at Farkhor, close to the Afghan-Tajik border. The Statesman newspaper quoting Indian officials said the medical contingent is being financed from Delhi.
Several recent meetings between the newly instituted Indo-US and Indo-Russian joint working groups on terrorism led to this effort to tactically and logistically counter the Taliban.
Intelligence sources in Delhi said that while India, Russia and Iran were leading the anti-Taliban campaign on the ground, Washington was giving the Northern Alliance information and logistic support. Oleg Chervov, deputy head of Russia's security council, recently described Taliban-controlled Afghanistan as a base of international terrorism attempting to expand into Central Asia. Radical Islamic groups are also trying to increase their influence across Pakistan, he said at a meeting of Indian and Russian security officials in Moscow. "All this dictates a pressing need for close co-operation between Russia and India in opposing terrorism," he said.
Military sources indicated that Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are being used as bases to launch anti-Taliban operations by India and Russia. They also hinted at the presence of a small Russian force actively assisting Massoud in the Panjsher Valley. "The situation in Afghanistan cannot be ignored as it impinges directly on the 12-year old Kashmir insurgency," an Indian military official said, adding that the Northern Alliance's elimination by the Taliban would be "disastrous" for India.
Nixon was cozying up to dictators like Khan and commie lords like Mao.
Note: Islamic fundies -- like Hekmatyar and the Mujahideen (you know the guys depicted as the 'good guys' in Rambo), the predecessors to the Taliban (who were also sponsored and created by our 'good buddies' the Pakis)
Kissinger chose short term gains at the expense of creating long-term headaches -- by cozying up to Pakiland and the Chicoms, he forced the republic of India to cozy up to China's other giant neighbor -- the USSR.
Ah, yes, Reagan. Isn't it funny how the Presidents the lib media call dumb were actually the ones who did the most for this country?
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.