Pakistan - United States Mutual Defence Pact

[Awesome]

Don't you think if this happens India would sign such treaties with Russia and even USA.

Both India and the US have serious problems with each other's conflicts. America goes to war world over and India will be forced to commit forces to their wars. But what do I care about that?

I'm surprised Pakistan's leaders have long ignored this when back in the 60s the Chinese made strong overtures to Pakistani leadership, not to mention when they came forth in our support when the US wouldn't even after a defence pct.

 

[xenia]

deleted...

 

[xenia]

deleted....

 

[k_n]

The point was India was getting its gear Soviets included and now as you've added that others too.

There was nothing except Mig 21 . You are a senior member and must have the gist of 1965 War threads here , you must be aware how 'Recent' and 'Few'the Mig 21 were in 1965 !

 

[k_n]

Who really did commit the act of war is still up for debates even today.

Update yourself !

One would say the continual occupation of Kashmir is by itself a continuous act of war by India. Moreover Pakistan's actions were focused solely on disputed territory recognized by the UN - Kashmir.

Don't be selective . UN recognised Pakistan forces NOT Indian forces as agressors . The same reputation was carried forward by PA in 1965 by launching Op Gibralter . By your logic its satisfactory for me and every Indian to believe the 'Direct Action Day' to be the begining of an act of war by people adhering to Two Nation Theory , something Pakistanis promptly point towards when claiming their affinity with the Kashmiris .

It was India that launched an invasion of Lahore and was thwarted by great sacrifice to human life by even civilians of Lahore as we didn't have the matching military equipment.

You were short of equpimement after fighting had continued for 4 weeks . Thats how you should have put it .

America shouldn't have blocked our supplies when it was pretty much our only source for military gear back then. When you sign a deal, you honor it and work out the morality of it later on.

There were no laws preventing the support. Gen. Ayub had pressed full fledged support to the US on the Vietnam war, while most other nations of the region were willing to just call themselves "Non-Aligned" It were the Pakistanis that came all out in support of the Americans.

Anyway these things happened a life time before I was born, I'm not writing this to encourage any sort of hatred but I would choose to learn from these mistakes and finally employ the strategy that was quashed by military dictatorship in Pakistan back then - Align with China.

interesting read for you --> Pak – American Affairs A’ Amour

some excerpts

Of the three pacts that Pakistan entered into only the Manila pact imposed treaty commitments on the US. The Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement was an arms supply agreement that contained no assurance of American support against aggression. The US was not a signatory to the Baghdad Pact and it took care to emphasize that its participation in the Military Committee of the pact was specifically related to “communist aggression”. The Manila Treaty was vaguely worded and it too restricted US obligations to “communist aggression”. The wording of the treaty permitted unilateral determination by the US of its course of action in the event of an appeal for assistance from another signatory. The Pakistani leaders were lulled by assurances given by Dulles and other American leaders that the US would take serious note of any threat to the independence and territorial integrity of Pakistan. What American policy-makers had in mind was publicly expounded by Secretary of State Dean Rusk several years later:

“The commitments do not bind us to any particular course of action. Most of them state that in the event of aggression we would act to meet the common danger in accordance with our constitutional processes. How we act in fulfillment of these processes will depend upon the facts of the situation. Some situations require less participation on our part than others. What is fundamental to the fulfillment of our obligations under these agreements is that we act in good faith to fulfil their purpose”.

Roedad Khan

your american friends might help you in exploring the scope of treaties further

 

[xenia]

asim..there was no mention n SEATO or CENTO that US will support pakistan in any war (aggression/defence) other than with rival soviet block (USSR n proxies)..at times m shocked why pakistan even joined such pacts..they were zero sum games for pakistan..
as far as USSR was concerned..remember the rawalpindi conspiracy..
either pakistan should have entered into a bilateral defence pact with US or should have stayed unaligned (although presumably that was not a choice)..

 

[EjazR]

Well historically there was not much of a choice in wether Pakistan had choice to choose between the Soviet or Allied blocs because this was part of the fundamental reasons that British supported the creation of Pakistan.

The research and the Book by Sarila In the Shadow of the Great Game is a must read on this topic. The Congress was perceived to be pacifist and under Gandhi's influence and moreover had opposed the war right in the middle of WWII when they launched the quit India movement in the 1942. Personally I think it was ill advised in hindsight.
On the other hand the ML leaders including Jinnah had offered full fledged co-operation to the British and Liaqat Ali Khan had promised a defence pact if the British supported the creation of the new dominion in muslim majority areas. Even though ML did not represent all muslim viewpoints in British India such as for example in the NWFP and Punjab provinces. Churchill himself despite not being in the govt. offered guidance to Jinnah in secret letters during the 46-47 Indian Independence negotiations with Lord Mounbatten.

And so when Pakistan was created, the ML leaders fulfilled their side of the bargain by establishing close ties with the British and later their successors the Americans. It was part of the "deal" where the NW part of British India would serve as a Bulwark against the Soviets as well as server as base to secure the "(oil) wells of power" in the ME to use a term in British memos of that time.

And that strategy did succeed brilliantly for the British and the US. You had U2 spy planes flying out of Pakistani air bases spying over the USSR right form the 1950s itself. And later the Afghan-Soviet war which bled USSR dry was after all primarily launched from Pakistan.


Now that is part of history and we can only learn from it. To rectify it Pakistan and India (and possibly all SAARC nations) must conclude a mutual defence pact as envisioned by Allama Iqbal in his 1930 address.
This may not happen now due to present mutual distrust. But this will be necessary to prevent Pakistan or other countries for that matter to be used as proxies by the foreign powers for their interest in the sub-continent. It was US last time, it might be some other country next.

 

[Kinetic]

According to news reports on TV Pakistan getting new F-16s, choppers and $600 million aid from USA. Thats a huge plus point.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Liquid Ali Khan , Why did you turned down USSR offer for official visit .

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Liquid Ali Khan , Why did you turned down USSR offer for official visit .

trust me that was the "Mistake" that pakistan has been paying for even today.

having america as an enemy is not good,but being america's friend is even worst

gen.ayub khan

 

[lhuang]

Pakistan has been trying to enter the SCO for a while. Hasn't happened yet.

India has been asked to join the SCO, they however don't want to, but might be forced to sooner or later.

 

[Awesome]

Update yourself !

Don't be selective . UN recognised Pakistan forces NOT Indian forces as agressors . The same reputation was carried forward by PA in 1965 by launching Op Gibralter . By your logic its satisfactory for me and every Indian to believe the 'Direct Action Day' to be the begining of an act of war by people adhering to Two Nation Theory , something Pakistanis promptly point towards when claiming their affinity with the Kashmiris.

BS. The UN clearly said all foreign forces have to exit Kashmir it didn't just pin point out Pakistan. Kashmir resolutions are not the scope of this thread.

 

[Awesome]

asim..there was no mention n SEATO or CENTO that US will support pakistan in any war (aggression/defence) other than with rival soviet block (USSR n proxies)..at times m shocked why pakistan even joined such pacts..they were zero sum games for pakistan..
as far as USSR was concerned..remember the rawalpindi conspiracy..
either pakistan should have entered into a bilateral defence pact with US or should have stayed unaligned (although presumably that was not a choice)..

It was a trick on the Pakistani public by means of the military dictatorship in Pakistan. Ayub either knew squat about Pakistani politics or was silenced by the money that came in from the US. His son Gohar Ayub's antics are well known and recorded. At the time the Ayub Khan family became worth $20m, Bhutto was actually supported by elements within the Pak Army in indirect ways to have him removed - he lashed back by promoting Yahya Khan over 7 more senior generals and you know what Yahya Khan did.

Pakistan's Soviet ball buster was not our support for democracy vs Communism. Ayub Khan is on record to have scorned democracy and was of the opinion that "Our people can't handle democracy" - true as it may be even today it should always be tried and not replaced with dictatorship.

The ball buster was when we allowed US monitoring bases and of course the U2 incidents which cemented Pakistan as a Soviet enemy.

There was nothing good that was being done from western principles we took the very worst from the west, no freedoms no democracy.

 

[xenia]

Pakistan has been trying to enter the SCO for a while. Hasn't happened yet.

India has been asked to join the SCO, they however don't want to, but might be forced to sooner or later.

who said india dosnt want to be part of SCO?india n pakistan are observers n there are chances that if they become members,SCO will become playground for politics like SAARC..

 

[k_n]

BS. The UN clearly said all foreign forces have to exit Kashmir it didn't just pin point out Pakistan. Kashmir resolutions are not the scope of this thread.

I know the scope of the thread very well . Kindly go and check yourself .