Perhaps I’m missing something here, but why is there an assumption America should have had anything to do with the Bangladeshi situation at the time, much less a responsibility to sort it out?
I mean, I’m not seeing any displeasure in this thread for the British, who partitioned the Raj into several countries that didn’t like each other… so, can someone explain why the Bangladeshi war of independence was something that America needed to get involved in, rather than (say) Britain?
Because it supported and sold weapons to the people crushing Bangladesh at the time. Knowing what the Pakistani were doing with them.
So just because I say “America was balls, man !”, I can’t also think the British Empire was balls ? Or should I have to disclaim and water down any criticism of 1970s America with “but the limeys were cunts too, in their way” ?
Again, it’s not necessarily something the US needed to get involved in. It something it *did *get involved in. On the wrong side. Because COLD WAR PINKO COMMIES. Again.
wonderful people but a very desperate place. had a methol cocktail thrown in my hair on the way to the airport earlier this year in dhaka.
there is no $$$ there for the u.s or anyone else to get involved. countless facories burn down in the name of expensive brands and the islamists going ape over something that happened over years ago.
check al jazeera for more.
the end of the year will see the dish blow up.
You are missing something. Kobal has responded, but I will re-quote my response to Little Nemo, with relevant parts in bold.
The US has a long history of backing Tyrants and Dictators if their enemy happens to be allied with our enemy.
Tyrants and dictators who’re carrying out genocide? And anyway, the point of starting this thread was not “America is teh bad”. It was to find out if there was much/any knowledge of this instance of “teh bad”
I don’t think it’s all that surprising. The Soviets were constantly trying to expand their influence into South Asia, partly because they wanted to spread communism and partly because they wanted a warm-water port. A strong Pakistan was important to the US’ major foreign policy goal in South Asia: keeping the Soviets from annexing Pakistan. Having said that, they hadn’t invaded Afghanistan yet so maybe it wasn’t a worry yet. I think it’s pretty clear by now that US interest in peace and regional stability there - as elsewhere - was secondary to its interest in beating the commies.
ETA: I wasn’t aware of US aid to Pakistan, though I knew Nixon had refused Gandhi’s request for Western intervention.
I hadn’t know of it, and I don’t much approve, but it was Nixon, it was the Cold War, it was an ugly time in the history of the three countries in question, and it was a long time ago.
If the Soviet Union and China had remained neutral, that would have made it a lot easier for the U.S. to remain neutral. Since the entire thrust of the Cold War was proxy wars and support for countries (good or bad) that supported the major players, it makes a horrible but perfect sense. If the Soviet Union had stayed out of Vietnam, we could have also. (If France had stayed out of Vietnam, the Soviet Union could have also. And so it goes.)
Self-determination is a noble and respected ideal. But so is national unity. Rebels and secessionists aren’t always the “good guys” nor are they always the “bad guys.” In this case, the Bangladeshis were more admirable than the Pakistanis, but the U.S. had treaty ties with Pakistan and felt it best not to renege on them.
If I (or Little Nemo) had been President of the U.S. at the time, there are a lot of things I (and he) would have done differently.
In this case, it was fairly obvious who the good guys were. The East Pakistani government didn’t just occupy (then) West Pakistan. They were killing off politicians and intellectuals by the thousand.
I think you got East and West mixed up there. And I think I’ve made a mistake by leaving the OP so neutrally worded and long. Quite a few of the people posting don’t seem to have read it. For instance,
Trinopus - in this case your own diplomats were putting their careers on the line trying to tell Nixon that he was supporting genocide. That’s what is new information. And you’re trying to draw the same type of equivalence here that Nemo was about the Pakistani military fighting a war against secessionist rebels of some sort. This is not the case. Also, it is not clear that the Soviet Union was involved in this episode at all, certainly not to the scale the US was. As for China - the US was trying to get China involved on the Pakistani side.
Got your E/W identifiers backwards.
And in the end the described situation: No, not commonly known, but entirely unsurprising both in terms of the players and of the time. Tricky Dick and Henry K supported Pakistan in 1971, would go on to support Pinochet’s 1973 coup in Chile, and generally held fast to the policy of propping up rulers along the “but he’s our SOB” standard whenever it would be claimed to be for the sake of containing Soviet penetrations large, small, real, expected, potential or imagined. Though Nixon was being (as was often the case) gratuituously crass about it, he general thrust of that policy was by no means unique to them during the Cold War period especially pre-Carter(*): A Third World regime often could count on being able to crack the whip at home as long as they showed themselves sufficently antisoviet; yet you could be a proper constitutional democracy but if you did a lot of hardware buying from the Russkies, that made you suspect.
(* And even afterwards we still often hear another, ideology-neutral Great Power’s lament: “But we supported and sustained and called Regime X a valued ally; how trustworthy are we going to look if we now tell them we can’t back them up in **this **case?”)
Yea, you’re quite right, it’s not overly surprising. Here’s the next question, though. Is there any other regime that the US actively supported that it knew was carrying out genocide?
There was another genocide thread, and it helped set the word right. I don’t think Pakistan was committing genocide, proper, in Bangladesh. Large scale murder, perhaps, but genocide is deeper. They weren’t trying to depopulate the entire region, nor to eliminate an entire ethnic group. The word shouldn’t become a synonym for mass murder, as this takes away the particular value (and horror) of the term.
Besides, mass murder is enough to condemn any nation over.
If not for American pressure India would have secured a surrender on the western front also and Kashmir would have been solved once and forever. Fighting had to be stopped due to US pressure after just two weeks after east Pak’s surrender.
Guatemala, during their civil war ? Argentina as well in the mid-70s. Well, those maybe wouldn’t constitute bona fide genocide since AFAIK they weren’t executed along ethnoracial lines, but very large scale mass murder still. Might lump the Contras in the bunch as well, if you want.
Saddam Hussein’s actual genocide of the Kurds (along with other racial minorities) happened with informed US diplomatic support. The US also delivered lots of shit to Saddam back then, including chemical warfare precursors - he was still “our SOB” against Iran at the time.
Well not full-scale genocide but Bosnia, Kosovo, Libya, and now Syria were all mass murders the US tried to prevent yet have been criticized by the far-left for doing so.
In syria, you are supporting alqaeda against a secular option. Against an established regime, a resourceful , motivated army resulting in 110000 deaths and counting so far. Many of these 110000 lives could have been saved if the rebels were not armed , funded, given a moral legitimacy and strength.
Not all the rebels are Al-Qaeda, anymore than the entire French Resistance was Communist.
Al nusra front is main combat unit of syrian rebels is linked with al qaeda.
Plus ofcourse, US isn’t gutsy enough to ever commit feet on ground. Aerial strike will only prolong war and cause more deaths. And even if the regime is overthrown by force, non-sunnis in syria will be greatly persecuted.
They were trying to eliminate the entire Hindu population of Bangladesh by murder or by trying to drive them into India. That counts as genocide to me.