How well known is this aspect of American foreign policy? [Bangladesh]

Much of American foreign policy is, I think, pretty widely agreed to be…less than optimal, even by most Americans, at least on this board. The Economist has recently highlighted an entirely new aspect of this to me - America’s involvement(or lack thereof) in the creation of Bangladesh.

While the broader historical details of Bangladesh’s creation were known to me, the bits about America’s reaction was not. To my admittedly biased eyes(I’m Indian), the decisions and behaviour of Nixon and Kissinger are pretty ugly. Has this book gotten much(or any) traction in the US? Do people know or care that their government sided with Pakistan as it carried out genocide?

I saw the same thing, and it was news to me. God damn, there’s another US intervention supporting a brutal dictatorship?

I suppose this particular episode is not covered in most history treatments since it coincides with the end of the Vietnam War. Plus there are no shortage of other horrifying geopolitical moves by Nixon and Kissinger.

http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041.html

It’s sort of a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don’t situation. The United States certainly didn’t push the Pakistanis to kill the Bangladeshis. The Pakistani government was determined to fight what they saw as a rebel secessionist movement. If the American government had pressured the Pakistani government to allow Bangladesh to secede then we’d have people complaining about how the United States had bullied Pakistan and interfered in their domestic affairs.

I think the main problem was India’s Russian backing. But Nixon was quite the foul person. The only reason Bush has such a bad reputation is people have forgotten Nixon. He’s a big part of the problem we have with Iran to this day.

And nobody has claimed that they did.

A rebel secessionist movement? It was a side that won the elections and weren’t allowed into power, followed by what your own diplomats apparently described in no uncertain terms as a genocide which resulted in 10 million refugees. This is the thing that’s new information here. Nixon and Kissinger were told what was going on by their own people, there’s no need for them to rely on the Pakistani or Indian account.

“Not pressuring Pakistan to stop a brutal rebel suppression”, while a poor enough position to take, is a wee bit different from “Supplying the Pakistani army with weapons as they carry out what your own diplomats call genocide”

Hmm, yeah I thought something like this would be the case, especially since the unpleasant aspects of the US (non?)intervention were news even to me. I’m considering getting the book. Another thing that surprised me is the upper number of casualties that the Economist has listed. The most common number that Bangladesh bandies about is 3 million killed by the Pakistani army. I’m not saying that’s necessarily credible, but if they were going to throw in a “some say more than 1m” were killed, it should at least have been the number that many actually do say.

Are you saying that the Pakistanis wouldn’t have been able to carry out the genocide without the American weapons? I find it hard to believe that Pakistan lacked sufficient weapons in 1971 to kill people. And if that’s the case, the additional American weapons had no real effect on what happened. Especially when we’re talking about tanks and aircraft - those weren’t needed to fight Bangladeshi civilians. Those were intended to fight the Indian military if India intervened.

And India did intervene. India was sending weapons to the Bangladeshis. The Soviets were sending weapons to India. And the Chinese were sending weapons to Pakistan. I don’t see any reason to single out American weapons as being an issue in a situation where weapons were already crossing every border.

I’m not disputing that the deaths occurred. Are you disputing that Bangladesh was trying to separate from Pakistan? Because that’s what rebel secession means.

So what exactly are you saying should have happened? Should the United States have taken action against Pakistan? Is that part of a general policy? Should the United States take action against other countries when they’re acting immorally?

Ideal thing would have been to put pressure on pak through unilateral and UN sanctions. But US chose to look the other way while the genocide was happening.

Shouldn’t have put pressure on india by deploying aircraft carriers during war. Shouldn’t have supported pak after the genocide.

This is a ridiculous interpretation of my statement, and a strange position for you to take. If the US is providing arms to a military government that is carrying out genocide, you’re saying that’s OK, since, yknow, those arms aren’t needed to kill people directly, just to keep those doing the killing in power so that they can keep on with their genocide.

Does it help if I remind you that the US was, in full knowledge of what was going on, materially supporting a military government that was carrying out genocide? You seem to be losing sight of that fact in your desire to draw an equivalence between the actions of the various players in this drama.

Not that I see where you’re going with this, but yes, sure, I am happy to dispute your characterisation that the Pakistani army was out to suppress rebel secessionists. The army’s decision to repress political demands of elected representatives of the East Pakistani people with murderous force is what made the Bangladeshis into rebel secessionists From wikipedia

The US should not, at the very least, have taken action to support Pakistan as they did, knowing what they did about what was going on. It could have easily used its not inconsiderable influence with Pakistan to prevent the murder of a million people, but perhaps that’s expecting too much, eh?

So you do feel that the United States should be able to pressure other countries into accepting America’s moral judgements of their internal affairs? Do other countries have this right or is it an exclusively American thing?

You might want to debate this issue with truthSeeker2. He’s arguing the United States “shouldn’t have put pressure on India”.

Bldysbba and I are on the same page.

My own position is this. Pakistan killed a large number of Bangladeshis. Pakistan bears the moral responsibility for those deaths.

The United States did not kill any Bangladeshis. It did not encourage Pakistan to kill them. Pakistan did not need American support or permission to kill them. If America had withheld its support, it would not have stopped the killings. So I do not see how America has to assume moral responsibility for those deaths.

Then the two of you might want to work on reconciling the apparent contradictions between your positions.

Indira Gandhi toured the world many months before the actual war to get west to oppose pak when the genocide was going on. She likened it to Jewish genocide of ww2 in world media and UN. If not for American support to pak, india itself would have attacked pak much before it actually did.
US even deployed its aircraft carrier to support pak in war.

The real reason for supporting pak was India’s proximity with soviet union in cold war era. US didn’t do the right thing, did the wrong thing infact due to this reason.

Ah, the wilful blindness of nationalism. Of course the US can do no wrong.

Not at all. The United States has done many things wrong in its history and is morally responsible for them.

My position is that the United States is not some special exception in world affairs. It does not hold some special moral authority over other countries or have a special duty to right wrongs in other countries.

Where’s the contradiction?

I’m quite surprised at how easily you can write off the selective genocide of hundreds of thousands, quite possibly millions, of people as something that requires ‘moral judgement of internal affairs’.

It’s quite straightforward. A military force allied to the US, one which the US had a reasonable amount of influence with, was, in the judgement of US diplomats on the ground, carrying out genocide against its people. Instead of condemning or attempting to halt this genocide, the president and secretary of state of the US contrived to arrange affairs - through supplying arms, maneuvering their own military assets, and asking other countries to maneuver theirs - so as to force India to leave this military force in power, i.e it actively took steps that would allow a genocide to continue longer than it may have otherwise.

Do you understand this distinction? The US didn’t just stand by and refuse to pass judgement on an allied military that was carrying out genocide(which would perhaps be a defensible position, though I’m not sure how). It chose to actively side with them.

Can you give an example of a genocide the US prevented, that they got criticized for “interfering in” ?