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."
It's the same type of dogma that is invoked in the cases of Chile, E. Timor and a hundred other instances, whenever the left wants to denigrate the foreign policy of the Nixon administration.
From my perspective, accusing the United States and Israel, respectively, of "human rights abuse", without placing their military actions within their proper context, is idiocy.
It is the equivalent of harping on every single case of excessive force used in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without elaborating upon the historical and political forces, both pre and post-1989, which occasioned those actions.
I still stand by my earlier statement, with regard to Indira's popularity.
Namely, that a certain percentage of Indians supported her administration-because of their favorable position within the political construct created by the Congress Party-while a huge plurality, which encompassed everyone from Muslims, to persecuted Christians and Sikhs, to nationalist Hindus, despised her.
Again, if she enjoyed such widespread, populist support, why did two of her family's closest, most trusted confidants-and putative bodyguards-murder her in cold blood?
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Yes, Hitch is also incapable of realizing that he was wrong in the 1960s. Kind of like India. And yes, Chomsky shines right on through.
From my perspective, accusing the United States and Israel, respectively, of "human rights abuse", without placing their military actions within their proper context, is idiocy.
Well it was you who brought out the topic of human rights abuse under Indira Gandhi and it was you who completely lost sight of the proper context. In fact you commented that Indira Gandhi did not respect the essential human rights of religious minorities. This is completely untrue. Even her political opponents actually accuse her of pampering and appeasing the minorities. And if you are taking about Sikh killings, most of it actually happened after she died (anti-Sikh riots after Indira Gandhi's death). And in any case as many innocent Hindus were killed at the hands of Sikh terrorists but then for international human rights watch groups only the rights of minorities matter, the rights of the majority doesn't count. You repeatedly mentioned the persecution of Christian, Muslims and Sikhs but glaringly left out the Hindu persecution in Kashmir. As many as 500,000 are purged out of their homes (and a huge number of Hindus have been butchered) in Kashmir and they live as refugees in what is there own country. It is only an indication how many Americans (including the US administration) selectively looks at the issue of Human Rights abuses.
As for Christian persecution, you can ask sukhoi-30mki as to how much "Christian persecution" took place under Indira Gandhi. ( sukhoi-30mki is a Christian).
It is the equivalent of harping on every single case of excessive force used in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without elaborating upon the historical and political forces, both pre and post-1989, which occasioned those actions.
But then thats exactly what the US administration did till 9/11 happened. It is only after 9/11 that America started seeing things our way ...... or perhaps not.
Namely, that a certain percentage of Indians supported her administration-because of their favorable position within the political construct created by the Congress Party-while a huge plurality, which encompassed everyone from Muslims, to persecuted Christians and Sikhs, to nationalist Hindus, despised her.
Sikhs and nationalist Hindus maybe, but the Christians and Muslims never despised her. As much as you want to believe otherwise the fact remains that you have not correctly assessed Indira Gandhi's popularity. The vast plurality you talk of have actually voted Indira Gandhi to power even after "emergency". And the majority seats that she could secure in her time is something that today's Congress or BJP can only dream of.
post #88 was for you as well.
You can't take selective quotations from a particular conversation that occurred years ago, and then retroactively apply them to specific historical events, in order to bolster your argument.
Secondly, I don't believe that the United States-contrary to the repetitive, and vehement assertions of some-is hypocritical in the way it approaches the issue of international terrorism.
Simply because a nation's foreign policy is nuanced in certain respects, does not, ipso facto, make it disingenuous.
Under ideal circumstances, the Kashmiri issue would be resolved peacefully. However, the conditions that would precipitate that ultimate resolution are inconceivable, as things currently stand.
If it were in the hands of the Kashmiris, I'm sure that the vast majority of them would want to have an internationally-monitered plebiscite-that would encompass both the Pakistani and Chinese controlled areas, as well-which would allow them to vote in favor of self-determination.
& if an internationally monitored poll was held in Iraq now to ascertain whether they would want American troops out-what would your reaction be???
Kashmir's greatest leader,Sheikh Abdullah opposed the then Hindu Maharajah in 1948.His initial preference was for independence,but the Brits convinced him that was close to impractical,so it would be India or Pakistan.He sided with the ex-King in choosing to accede to India.
About holding a plebiscite,do you know the pre-conditions that the UN laid down for it??The first being,all Pakistani soldiers must vacate from the regions they occupied in 1948 & again,the only choices the plebiscite allows are either India or Pakistan.Successive (national & international)opinion polls held in J & K have proved that the people there overwhelmingly favour India over Pakistan.OTOH,international agencies can't do anything in the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir & even if you were to hold a plebiscite,you think it will be valid???Do you have any idea to the kind of demographic manipulation Pakistan has done in POK??Clue-it's similar to what China has done in Tibet by pumping in Han Chinese from the Mainland.On the contrary,the Indian constitution(Article 371) guarantees a special status to J & K,so no non-Kashmiri can buy land there.
PS-under Ideal circumstances,America should get the hell out of the Middle East & stop selling arms to it's pals in Saudi Arabia,Egypt & UAE & whatnot.
Even their putative "successes", e.g. in the supervision of the Cambodian elections, the vote for self-determination in E. Timor, etc., are much more checkered than they are willing to admit.
In fact, a strictly non-Asian, multinational military force-something along the lines of NATO, would probably be preferable.
The allegation that the United States is provoking problems-by its intervention into the Middle East-is a canard, which is most often trotted out by ahistorical, pseudo-scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and adherents to the tendentious philosophy devised by the late Edward Said.
While there are some issues, e.g., our cossetting of the House of Saud, our insertion of ourselves-on behalf of the wrong side-in the Suez conflict, among other situations, on which I disagree with the policymakers in any given administration, overall, America has brought more stability-and now, freedom-to the region than any other single force.
Under ideal circumstances probably even the US can consider a referendum in Texas. I'm sure that the vast majority of them would like to have an independent Republic of Texas.
The question of whether the Kashmiris would rather remain a part of India or be annexed by Pakistani posits a false choice, if you want my honest opinion.
It is misleading because it excludes the one option that a majority of Kashmiris-despite the inhuman conditions they've had to endure, both from within and without, for the past half century-would overwhelming favor.
"In fact, a strictly non-Asian, multinational military force-something along the lines of NATO, would probably be preferable."
Well I am sorry, you dont know what you are talking about. You must either be out of your mind or you are simply saying this to bait Indians. A multinational military force-something along the lines of NATO on Indian soil? For such a millitary force get into Kashmir they will have to first fight a war with India (and also China). You forget India is a sovereign country and will never allow any such millitary force on its soil. Not even from friendly countries and least of all the United States. India never allowed even the Soviet army on its soil when we had the best of relations. If the UN can goof up I dont think the NATO will prove to be any better except ofcourse they will take orders from the United States and the US will be running the show (to their advantage). And we have good reasons to be suspicious of US intentions. We can be friends (even allies) but only as long as we keep a safe distance from each other. If UN presence on Indian soil is unacceptable, US/NATO presence is even more unacceptable. No disrespect but Americans are most welcome to our country as guests but not as arbitrators of territorial disputes.
It is misleading because it excludes the one option that a majority of Kashmiris-despite the inhuman conditions they've had to endure, both from within and without, for the past half century-would overwhelming favor.
It excludes that option because it is not practical nor acceptable to any party (India, Pakistan or China) no matter how much the US would like to see an independent Kashmir. Do you seriously believe China or Pakistan will allow an independent Kashmir to exist?
Tell you what, certain parts of India like Bihar, Orrisa and Andhra Pradesh have had to endure much worse than Kashmir. American concern for Kashmiris is not genuine concern but only because it sees an opportunity for itself (in a geostratigically important location) especially with the third option. America should be more concerned about the condition of Iraqis (they have already endured enough inhuman conditions post Saddam) rather than going after new territory.
Barring the third option and provided Pakistan creates no trouble, Kashmir's future lies best in the hands of democratic India.
Thankfully sensible people exist in the current US administration (or so it seems) and so far they have had no such lofty ideas about independent Kashmir (unlike Bill Clinton). However that is no guarantee against the future and India has more reasons to be wary of US intentions.
By that logic,such multinational forces should supervise elections everywhere,including in Iraq,Afghanistan etc.If you didn't know,Most NATO members have differing when it comes to dealing with the big boys like India or China.France,Germany,Great Britain,Poland & Italy all have very strong ties with India & would put an end to any multinational wet dream some folks have!!
I brought up the American experience in Iraq,not to blame the US,but to point out that the rest of the world sees most problems(Like Iraq,Kashmir etc) in the same light.You cannot keep shifting the goalposts according to your own whims & fancies.If India is responsible for human rights violations in Kashmir,So is the US in Iraq.
Christian persecution in India is non-existent -- there is no official persecution. There do appear to be a number of crazy groups like the Bajrang Dal etc. who commit acts, but the true demonstration of India's inherent tolerance is that these acts were reviled and condemned by the majority of Hindus.
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.