# How well known is this aspect of American foreign policy? \[Bangladesh\] **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [October 3, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309 "2013-10-03T23:03:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/1 "2013-10-03T23:03:19Z")
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](http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21586514-new-history-sheds-fresh-light-shameful-moment-american-foreign-policy-blood) has recently highlighted an entirely new aspect of this to me - America’s involvement(or lack thereof) in the creation of Bangladesh. > [@](#): > > The split into Pakistan and Bangladesh was perhaps inevitable. It began in late 1970, after Pakistan’s first national elections. > > … > > Bengalis flocked to join the rebel forces who were fighting for independence. West Pakistani soldiers stationed in the east, plus a few local supporters, began targeting students, writers, politicians; especially the Hindu minority. Soldiers massacred civilians, burned villages and sent millions fleeing to India. Eventually some 10m became refugees, mostly Hindus. At least 300,000 people were killed; some say the death toll was over 1m. > > Seen from America, where Richard Nixon was president, the war was a domestic Pakistani affair. India’s leader, Indira Gandhi, claimed otherwise. She called the floods of refugees a humanitarian disaster that threatened regional stability. She wanted international action, demanding that America tell Pakistan’s leaders to stop the killing. Nixon, urged by his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, refused. > > In “The Blood Telegram” Gary Bass, a Princeton academic (who once wrote for The Economist), sets out to assess America’s handling of the war. > > … > > At the behest of Mr Kissinger, Nixon sent military planes and other materiel to Pakistan, even though he knew this broke American law. He deployed an American naval task force to the Bay of Bengal to intimidate India, which had begun helping rebels in East Pakistan. Most extreme, he secretly asked China to send troops to India’s borders. He did so accepting a risk of Soviet retaliation, even that nuclear bombs might be “lobbed” around in response. > > Nixon and Mr Kissinger stood with Pakistan, even as they knew of the extent of the slaughter. Their own diplomats told them about it. The centrepiece of Mr Bass’s gripping and well-researched book is the story of how America’s most senior diplomat in East Pakistan, Archer Blood, the consul-general in Dhaka, sent regular, detailed and accurate reports of the bloodshed. Early on he stated that a “selective genocide” was under way. > > Blood and his colleagues protested that America should not support Pakistan’s rulers. Then, 20 of them sent a dissenting telegram (the “Blood telegram” of the book’s title) condemning America’s policy. It was an extreme and idealistic step for a diplomat, whose career was soon cut short. Though the telegram did not change American policy, it rates as an historic document. Such open dissent is extremely rare. > > Mr Bass does a good job of explaining Nixon’s wilful support of Pakistan. Using newly released recordings of White House conversations between the president and Mr Kissinger, he sets out with admirable clarity what else was at stake. In part it was personal. Nixon, a man of few friends, was notably fond of Pakistan’s military ruler, Yahya Khan, a gruff, dim-witted, whisky-drinking general. Nixon compared the Pakistani favourably to Abraham Lincoln. By contrast he despised India’s wheedling civilian politicians, reserving a particular dislike for Gandhi, whom in private he frequently called a “bitch” and “witch”. > > … > > Ultimately, Mr Kissinger did much to set America’s course. He argued that America should pay no heed to domestic horrors in Pakistan, saying “you can’t go to war over refugees”, and warned that India was a greater threat to international order. Indian “bastards”, he agreed with Nixon, needed a “mass famine” to cut them down to size. 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? ---
**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/2 "2013-10-04T01:41:07Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/3 "2013-10-04T03:54:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Washington DC, December 3, 1971, 10:45am. > US President Richard Nixon is on the phone with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, hours after Pakistan launched simultaneous attacks on six Indian airfields, a reckless act that prompted India to declare war. > Nixon: So West Pakistan giving trouble there. > Kissinger: If they lose half of their country without fighting they will be destroyed. They may also be destroyed this way but they will go down fighting. > Nixon: The Pakistan thing makes your heart sick. For them to be done so by the Indians and after we have warned the bitch (reference to Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi). Tell them that when India talks about West Pakistan attacking them it’s like Russia claiming to be attacked by Finland. > > Washington, December 10, 1971, 10:51am. > A week later the war is not going very well for Pakistan, as Indian armour scythes through East Pakistan and the Pakistan Air Force is blown out of the subcontinent’s sky. Meanwhile, the Pakistani military in the west is demoralised and on the verge of collapse as the Indian Army and Air Force attack round the clock. > Nixon: Our desire is to save West Pakistan. That’s all. > Kissinger: That’s right. That is exactly right. > Nixon: All right. Keep those carriers moving now. > Kissinger: The carriers—everything is moving. Four Jordanian planes have already moved to Pakistan, 22 more are coming. We’re talking to the Saudis, the Turks we’ve now found are willing to give five. So we’re going to keep that moving until there’s a settlement. > Nixon: Could you tell the Chinese it would be very helpful if they could move some forces or threaten to move some forces? > Kissinger: Absolutely. > Nixon: They’ve got to threaten or they’ve got to move, one of the two. You know what I mean? > Kissinger: Yeah. > Nixon: How about getting the French to sell some planes to the Paks? > Kissinger: Yeah. They’re already doing it. > Nixon: This should have been done long ago. The Chinese have not warned the Indians. > Kissinger: Oh, yeah. > Nixon: All they’ve got to do is move something. Move a division. You know, move some trucks. Fly some planes. You know, some symbolic act. We’re not doing a goddamn thing, Henry, you know that. > Kissinger: Yeah. > Nixon: But these Indians are cowards. Right? > Kissinger: Right. But with Russian backing. You see, the Russians have sent notes to Iran, Turkey, to a lot of countries threatening them. The Russians have played a miserable game. > If the two American leaders were calling Indians cowards, a few months earlier the Indians were a different breed altogether. This phone call is from May 1971. > Nixon: The Indians need—what they need really is a— > Kissinger: They’re such bastards. > Nixon: A mass famine. But they aren’t going to get that…But if they’re not going to have a famine the last thing they need is another war. Let the goddamn Indians fight a war. > Kissinger: They are the most aggressive goddamn people around there. [http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/20/1971\_war\_how\_russia\_sank\_nixons\_gunboat\_diplomacy\_14041.html](http://indrus.in/articles/2011/12/20/1971_war_how_russia_sank_nixons_gunboat_diplomacy_14041.html) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/4 "2013-10-04T04:14:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Glazer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a88e57/32.png) [@Glazer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glazer)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/5 "2013-10-04T04:34:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/6 "2013-10-04T04:34:18Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. And nobody has claimed that they did. > [@](#): > > The Pakistani government was determined to fight what they saw as a rebel secessionist movement. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. “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” ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/7 "2013-10-04T04:42:05Z")
> [@lazybratsche](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/8 "2013-10-04T06:29:21Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > “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” 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. > [@bldysabba](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/9 "2013-10-04T06:42:00Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/10 "2013-10-04T07:28:44Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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. > [@](#): > > 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. 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 > [@](#): > > On 25 March 1971, after an election won by an East Pakistani political party (the Awami League) was ignored by the ruling (West Pakistani) establishment, rising political discontent and cultural nationalism in East Pakistan was met by brutal[22] suppressive force from the ruling elite of the West Pakistan establishment,[23] in what came to be termed Operation Searchlight.[24] > > The violent crackdown by West Pakistan forces[25] led to Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman declaring East Pakistan’s independence as the state of Bangladesh on 26 March 1971 > [@](#): > > 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? 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? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/11 "2013-10-04T08:27:49Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > 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”. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/12 "2013-10-04T08:35:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/13 "2013-10-04T08:37:13Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/14 "2013-10-04T08:38:56Z")
> [@truthSeeker2](#): > > Bldysbba and I are on the same page. Then the two of you might want to work on reconciling the apparent contradictions between your positions. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/15 "2013-10-04T08:43:52Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Virgil\_Tibbs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c4cdca/32.png) [@Virgil\_Tibbs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Virgil_Tibbs)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/16 "2013-10-04T08:55:14Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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? Ah, the wilful blindness of nationalism. Of course the US can do no wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/17 "2013-10-04T09:02:43Z")
> [@Virgil\_Tibbs](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![truthSeeker2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7cd45c/32.png) [@truthSeeker2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthSeeker2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/18 "2013-10-04T09:10:13Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Then the two of you might want to work on reconciling the apparent contradictions between your positions. Where’s the contradiction? ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/19 "2013-10-04T09:33:47Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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? 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._ ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2013, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309/20 "2013-10-04T10:41:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > 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. Can you give an example of a genocide the US prevented, that they got criticized for “interfering in” ? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-well-known-is-this-aspect-of-american-foreign-policy-bangladesh/670309.md?page=2)