hinduwoman

[IslamOnline & News Agencies (islamonline.net).] Published at the Palestine Chronicle

Declassification by George Washington University's National Archives has made documents of Nixon presidency accessible to public. These documents show extreme disappointment of U.S. consular personnel in Dhaka and of their diplomats in New Delhi with the administration' s pro-Pakistan policies.

In a telegram sent by U.S. Consul General in then East Pakistan and signed by 20 consular officials they complained, "Our government has failed to denounce the suppression of democracy. Our government has failed to denounce atrocities. Our government has failed to take forceful measures to protect its citizens, while at the same time bending over backwards to placate the West Pakistan government."

The telegram was addressed to Kissinger. Consul General Archer Blood soon sent another telegram, describing the West Pakistani military crackdown on East Pakistan civilians as " selective genocide". To suppress the India-backed separatist uprising in its eastern wing, Pakistani generals created new records of human rights violations, thus alienating them further.

Consul Blood telegrammed again in March 1971 from East Pakistani capital Dhaka: "Here in Dacca we are mute and horrified witnesses to a reign of terror by the Pak military. Evidence continues to mount that the Martial Law Administrators (MLAs) authorities have a list of Awami League supporters whom they are systematically eliminating by seeking them out in the homes and shooting them down."

Blood was horrified at U.S. government's "posture of pretending to believe" Pakistan government's "false assertions". He also talked about "non-Bengali Muslims" attacking poor people's quarters and " murdering Bengalis and Hindus" .

However, the U.S. was more concerned about Indian maneuvers (with Russian help) to "dismember" Pakistan rather than protecting human rights and democracy. In his remarks on a six-page document prepared by Kissinger regarding the situation, President Nixon wrote, "Don' t squeeze Yahya at this time." Nixon underlined the "Don't" thrice to emphasize his point. That shows the famous "tilt" towards Pakistan referred to so frequently in discourse regarding U.S. policy in South Asia.

_____________________________________________

Where to find the original documents?

leonarde

Sorry, Hinduwoman, but I don't know the answer to
your question.
But perhaps you could answer a few of mine since
I believe most of us Americans are ignorant of this time period/place.

1)This was in 1971, when East Pakistan (Bangladesh) declared independence from West Pakistan, am I right?

2)East Pakistan was aided (only economically or
militarily as well?) by India?

3)India was perceived by Washington through a Cold War prism as "tilting" towards the Soviets (but against the Chinese)?

4)Was the separation movement based on ethnic/
linguistic differences? (ie Bengali speakers versus Urdu speakers?)

Really, any info you can give us (including URLs)
would be useful (and helpful) to me.

Cheers!

hinduwoman

!) Yes, I am referring to Bangladesh's war of Independance in 1971.

2) Yes, India gave both economic and military aid.

3) Yes; because India was socialistic in principle, USA tried to counter it by supporting Pakistan and its dictators.

4) There was a great deal of discontent in Bangladesh because of racial and linguistic differences. The only thing the two had in common was Islam. But Pakistanis felt that Bangladeshis were an inferior breed and so gave all govt. jobs to their own people. Economic policies also favoured the Pakistan portion.

I managed to dig up three links so far:

http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/his...ependence.html

http://www.pressroom.com/~jaybangla/page1/surender.html

http://www.chetona.com/bangladesh/html/history.asp

emphryio

Ford and Kissinger also gave the go ahead to Indonesia's dictator in 1975 to attack East Timor. The result was 200,000 (1/4 the population) dead and not a word during the 70's that it even happened in the US media.

lpetrich

Henry Kissinger's idea of international politics was pure Machiavellian anything-to-win power struggle; he considered "human rights" to be nothing more than a stick to beat the Soviet Union with.

Even detente was motivated by such considerations; the Soviet Union and China were too big to successfully dominate, and a war with either would produce the ultimate Pyrrhic Victory -- at best. So Kissinger reached back into his knowledge of 19th-cy. European politics for hints -- to try to maintain good relations with both and to play one against the other, using their hostility to advantage.

leonarde

I don't think you're completely wrong about Kissinger, just a little one-sided. He would certainly not dispute the value of reading a book
like "The Prince" (actually it's a standard of
political science classes just about everywhere)but it would be excessive to say that he believed ONLY in power. He was, to begin with, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany. He certainly doesn't believe that what Nazis did was "okay" because they had the power.
But he probably thinks of himself as a PRACTICAL
participant in international politics. His writings emphasize that aspect of international
relations. Perhaps excessively so.

On the question of detente/the China opening: OF COURSE it was viewed as a means to an end! But that was its primary value. If we had waited until China respected human rights to have truck with them we would STILL be almost entirely incommunicado with them. If we had waited until the Soviets respected human rights we wouldn't have had diplomatic recognition until the 1980s. PRACTICAL POWER-POLITICS take precedence in many instances over idealistic we-can't-have-anything-to-do-with-tyrants reticence.

Cheers!

Thieving Magpie

Hey, what's the big deal? Hasn't everyone promoted genocide at one point or another in their professional careers? I sure have. That's why I'm now a milkman.