Kompromat
ADMINISTRATOR
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 40,366
- Reaction score
- 416
- Country
- Location
The Indo-Pakistan War and its Analogies
The ways in which Pakistan can meet the challenge to her vital interests can best be considered by seeing how she stands in the world. Indeed, an assessment of Pakistan's international position and her attitude to world issues is of paramount importance in evaluating how she will be able to resist foreign intervention in her internal affairs.To some extent the policies of the United States and India run parallel, but fortunately for Pakistan their ultimate objectives differ. In the interest of its sovereignty, it is essential for Pakistan to conduct its diplomacy in such a way as to divide the parallel lines and enlarge the contradictions. India seeks to bring Pakistan back to "Mother India", but is not anxious to become entangled in a global conflict against China.
The United States wants to see meaningful co-operation between India and Pakistan with the purpose of encircling China and, if this is to be the purpose, India would hesitate to have that kind of co-operation with Pakistan. India would equally resent the growing interference in her internal
affairs aimed at making her an active instrument in the cold war.Pakistan has no alternative but to resist foreign interference inimical to her national interest and to carry on the struggle for the vindication of its legitimate rights in the sub-continent.
The success or failure of her diplomacy will depend not only on her bilateral and direct relations with India, on the one hand, and with the United States on the other, and with them jointly, but on the manner in which she discharges her international obligations and conducts her general foreign policy.Although the principal challenge to Pakistan comes from India and the brunt of the international pressure from the United States, it would be wrong to lose sight of the rest of the world in this context. Just as it was necessary to trace the evolution of United States' relations with Pakistan in order to interpret properly that country's recent actions affecting Pakistan, it is equally necessary for Pakistan to define and determine her place in the world, in Asia, and in the
subcontinent, for meeting the challenge of the times.
Pakistan has a moral obligation to support de-colonization and to strive for a more equitable economic and social international order. Afro-Asian unity is a powerful force for emancipation and Pakistan, as a member of the Afro-Asian community, has to be in the vanguard of the Afro-Asian movement. It can be justly demanded from Pakistan that she should continue to identify herself with the aspirations of the peoples of these continents. Like us, most of Asia and Africa was in bondage for centuries. As a newly independent country, it is our bounden duty to accelerate the progress of freedom and economic emancipation.
We cannot expect other states to support us in our righteous cause if we are reluctant to put our weight behind the just causes of others. It is only when we are prepared to share in the common struggle and exercise our influence in a spirit of comradeship and equality that we can expect to enhance our prestige and find increased support for ourselves. Afro-Asian solidarity is neither a myth nor an abstract philosophy, but a condition necessary both for our individual advancement as well as our collective protection. The underdeveloped nations,the bulk of which are in Asia and Africa, are the proletarian nations of the world.
Though individually they may be as weak and impoverished as is a single workman or peasant, together they are as formidable as a collective movement of the laboring masses.So far, Pakistan has been able to identify herself with the aspirations of Asia and Africa and our support for these countries has been of significant advantage to us. In Asia and Africa, as in Europe, there are certain key states which require Pakistan's particular attention. In Africa she must cultivate better
relations with the French-speaking countries, as well as with Muslim states and Commonwealth nations; and in Asia, we must concentrate our attention on our neighbors and such countries as Japan, Cambodia, and the heroic nation of Vietnam, which deserves our special sympathy.
Japan is the most prosperous country in Asia on account of its highly developed economy. Like the Federal Republic of Germany, it is at present under heavy American influence. In many ways it is the most important country in Asia as regards the United States' grand strategy against China. For years after the Second World War the Japanese took little part in international affairs, but are
now increasingly exerting their influence in Asian and world affairs. However, Japanese interests are not likely to deviate from those of the United States for a long time. To give one example, Japan refused to allow Pakistan International Airlines to touch Tokyo in continuation of its flights to Canton and Shanghai. Wemust learn to live with such problems and be patient, for it is essential that we improve our economic and cultural co-operation with Japan; and if, in the
meantime, we cannot get Japanese support, we should try to assure their neutrality in questions important to us.
Pakistan has a primary responsibility to foster comradeship among Muslim nations in accordance with its traditional foreign policy, which derives from the obligations imposed by the country's Constitution and ideology.We share with the Muslim states stretching from Morocco to Indonesia a number of affinities,and even before Independence, Muslims of the sub-continent gave what support they could to Islamic causes. This movement of solidarity is a factor which cannot be ignored by the Great and Global Powers in the formulation of their policies.Although Pakistan's policy has always been to develop the friendliest possible relations with Muslim countries, she has on occasion’s encountered difficulties.
There have been failures, which can be ascribed partly to our lack of experience in international affairs and partly to the internecine conflicts of the Middle East.The traditional problems of the Middle East always appear to be colossal,but they have been surpassed by those introduced with the Arab-Israel war of June 1967. This brief conflict has, temporarily at least, changed the map of the region and radically altered the balance of power. It has done incalculable harm to the Arab peoples, but the sting of defeat may provide their leaders with a final opportunity to rally and remedy the wrongs they have suffered. Internal Arab disputes, which were getting more and more complicated, can perhaps now be smoothed out.
One of the main causes of antagonism between the Arab states lies in their conflicting social systems, but, if Capitalism and Communism can coexist,it should not be beyond the reach of human endeavor to establish a working accommodation between Arab socialism and Arab conservatism; especially as Islam, language, and geography form permanent links of cohesion.
The scars of war and the need to redress the consequences of defeat should furnish the incentive for an urgently needed modus vivendi between the Arab socialist and conservative regimes. Since the United Arab Republic occupies a special place in the Arab World and in Africa, and for other obvious reasons too,Pakistan should cultivate its relations with that country.
This need not be inconsistent with her cordial relations with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.
The war in the Yemen has bedeviled inter-Arab relations and must be brought to an early end to permit Arab unity to counter the threat of Israel. Had Arab forces not been engaged in such large numbers in the Yemen, they could have been deployed to better use against Israel in the last war.The tragedy of this futile war in the Yemen is that a treaty to terminate hostilities, called the Jeddah Agreement, already exists between the United Arab Republic and Saudi Arabia; but although it has been in existence for over a year,there has been not the slightest movement towards its implementation. It could in no way be construed as an act of interference if friendly states were to urge the implementation of an agreement which has already been voluntarily arrived at by the two states.
If the war in the Yemen does not come to an end and if the disorders in Aden and its surrounding territories become more serious, this sensitive region could become the cockpit of a bitter conflict involving not only an enlarged quarrel between Muslim states, but also attracting Great Power
intervention. The Arabs do not need to be told what it means to invite Great Power intervention. Even before the Arab-Israel war, the interference of Great Powers in their region had caused them innumerable difficulties. There are many ways of resisting the interference of Great and Global Powers: one is to remove the conditions which attract their intervention. The problems of the Gulf region will have to be looked at anew by the Arab states in order to eliminate intervention by the Great Powers and to prevent regional tensions.
What is needed is to prevent the plunder of the fabulous wealth of the poverty-stricken people of the region. Federations of the sheikhs are being considered to facilitate collective exploitation. The blessing of freedom does not create a void. On the contrary, a free people are the best guardians of their rights. The theory of 'political vacuum' is a product of neo-colonialism, and the departure of the British will create no such vacuum. The people of the Persian Gulf region will have to resolve their differences like a truly independent people unwrapped by the prejudices left behind by colonialism. Pakistan must keep a vigilant eye on such potential trouble spots; for circumstances could place her on the horns of a dilemma. She must work for the reduction of tensions and make what contributions she can towards shaping peaceful co-existence among fraternal Islamic states.
The internal Arab quarrels, the conflict in the Yemen, and the rivalries between progressive and conservative regimes in the Arab world, have all been overtaken by the Middle East war of June 1967. No event since the end of the Second World War has caused greater territorial changes. It has called in question the raison d'etre of the balance of terror between the Global Powers and
given substance to China's criticism of the doctrine of co-existence. In considering these events, it is important to make comparisons and learn their lessons. Before unleashing its aggression on Pakistan, India conducted some probing military operations in the Rann of Kutch to test Pakistan's resolve in resisting encroachments on her territory. Similarly, Israel conducted probing operations against Jordan in November 1966 and against Syria before embarking on aggression. Prime Minister Shastri and the Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol chose exactly the same words with which to threaten the victims of aggression, saying that they would attack at a time and place of their choosing.
In both the Indo-Pakistan war and the conflict between Israel and the Arab states, aggression was committed by the usurpers of territory. Even so, some Western Powers were critical of the victims of aggression for acts of war, forgetting that the United Nations Charter provides for self-defence and general international law permits wars of liberation under the well-established doctrine of Bellum Tustum. Just as Pakistan did not immediately come to the aid of the freedom fighters in Jammu and Kashmir, the Arab states also did not carry their action to a logical conclusion after closing the Gulf of Aqaba, as they had a right to do under international law.
Neither Pakistan nor the Arab states completed the plain exercise of their rights, and all suffered as a result. In both cases the initiative was left to the aggressors, who took the fullest advantage by striking first with all their might. In the Indo-Pakistan war, the Air Force of Pakistan gained mastery of the skies and this supremacy had its effect on the fortunes of the war. In the Middle Eastern conflict, Israel with its surprise attack gained the decisive air superiority. In both wars the aggressors violated cease-fire agreements and occupied strategic territories after the cease-fire; in both,sanctions were threatened by the Global Powers. After the Indo-Pakistan war, the Indians committed genocide in Kashmir, driving Muslims from their homes and replacing them by Hindu Dogra populations. Similarly, Israel has now begun to evict Arabs from the territories they occupied and is calling for fresh Jewish immigration from other countries in order to replace the indigenous population and to reduce the Arab majority into a minority.
The Great Powers' attitudes displayed even more striking similarities. The United States proclaimed its neutrality in the Indo-Pakistan war, but in the event its attitude caused difficulty to Pakistan. Similarly, in the Arab-Israel war it proclaimed its neutrality, but was sympathetic to Israel. After the ultimatum given to India by the People's Republic of China, the Anglo-American Powers threatened Pakistan with dire consequences; and a few days before the Israeli attack the American Ambassador to Cairo made a demarche to President Nasser. In both conflicts, the United States and the Soviet Union co-operated in the United Nations and demanded ceasefires. Under cover of the Security Council the United States and the Soviet Union got together to hammer out a resolution to put an end to hostilities without settling the merits of the disputes.
Commenting on the effect this co-operation had, Senator Fulbright says: Soviet-American co-operation in bringing about the cease-fire in the India-Pakistan war in September 1965 is one example of the kind of beneficial collaboration that the Vietnamese war makes increasingly difficult. That cooperation—or 'parallelism', as it was called—was possible because the Kashmir war was one of the very few international conflicts of the postwar era, and perhaps the most important, in relation to which Russia and America had similar interests. As a result of their shared interest in a cease-fire that would humiliate neither India nor Pakistan while also having the effect of restraining China, the Soviet Union and the United States brought decisive influence to bear for the acceptance by both sides of the United Nations Security Council cease-fire resolution.
The interplay of Global Powers working in unison behind the screen of the United Nations to produce resolutions on the Middle East was strikingly reminiscent of the treatment given to Kashmir from the time of the first conflict twenty years ago to the day when the Security Council again demanded another cease-fire in September 1965. The same story is being written again with unimaginative repetition. The same man, Gunnar Jaring, carrying the same briefcase, has been dispatched to the capitals of the Middle East in the same way in which he travelled between India and Pakistan little less than a decade ago.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations was deputed in both instances to plead for a cease-fire and the United Nations was used as a cover by the Super- Powers to co-ordinate their policies. In both the wars, once agreement was reached between the Super-Powers, the Security Council demanded a cease-fire and threatened sanctions. In both the wars, the Soviet Union did not want the hostilities to be enlarged into a conflict of the Great Powers and for this reason was anxious to terminate them at all costs. In the Arab-Israel war, the Soviet Union took a wavering position as it did in the Indo-Pakistan war and, in the final analysis, in both cases, it collaborated with the United States to enforce their common will. In the search for peace, France played a commendable role in both conflicts by looking beyond mere cease-fires, while Britain in both stood behind the United States. As in the case of the Indo-Pakistan war, it is being suggested that the United Nations' resolution for the withdrawal of Israeli forces can only be effective with Anglo-American and Soviet collaboration; and, again, that if the United Nations are unable to effect a settlement, the four Great Powers, excluding China, should make an attempt to secure peace in the Middle East.
China came out with unqualified support for the victims of aggression in both wars, as did the bulk of the Third World. Soon after the Indo-Pakistan war came to an end, the United States became active in pressing Pakistan and India to collaborate on joint economic ventures. Hardly has the smell of cordite disappeared from the Middle Eastern battlefield, when obtuse suggestions of joint economic collaboration between Israel and the Arab states are emanating from the United States. As in the case of India and Pakistan, the benefits of sharing the river waters are being extolled in the Middle East. After a reappraisal of policy, in April 1967, the United States terminated its military aid to Pakistan and India.
Now the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee is reported to be considering the establishment of sub-committees to study American Aid to the Middle East, and it has been suggested that the Great Powers should collaborate to limit armaments to the Middle East. In both cases, the United States is insisting on 'an overall settlement' between the belligerents. Perhaps the most important similarity between the two situations was the dark shadow of the Vietnam war, which paradoxically provided both the opportunity for starting the wars and the compulsion for bringing them to a rapid end.
The points of difference are of equal interest, in so far as they illustrate even more fully the complex realities of the international situation. The most significant difference between Pakistan's situation and that of the Arab states appears in the fact that, while China supported us unequivocally and without reservations and, as an immediate neighbor, was in a position effectively to implement its ultimatum, the Soviet support to the Arab World turned out to be disappointing at the height of the war. On the military side, shortly before the cease-fire Pakistan was better placed; whereas in the Arab-Israel war, Israel had attained its military objectives and was still advancing when the cease-fire was agreed upon.
Events, if they are properly controlled, and opportunities, if they are properly grasped, will put an end to Britain's 'East of Suez' role. The United States, in spite of its successes, has damaged its long-term position in the Middle East. The prestige of the Soviet Union has suffered and, unless it stages a spectacular come-back with massive military assistance and other measures of tangible support, its position in the Arab World is unlikely to recover quickly. It is reported that Cuba charged the Soviet Union with 'scandalous capitulation'. In an attempt to repair the damage to Soviet prestige, diplomatic relations with Israel were severed, the Russian Prime Minister went to the General Assembly, and the President to Cairo, Damascus, and Baghdad; but unless the Soviet Union succeeds in making Israel relinquish captured territory, and takes other concomitant steps to reassert its claim to world leadership, its prestige will not easily be restored.
There was disillusionment in Arab countries over the attitude of the Soviet Union to their war with Israel. The explanation given for the Russian compromise was that its intervention would have led to a Third World War. Had another world war taken place, it would not have been confined to the destruction of the Soviet Union. If the Anglo-American Powers were prepared to face these consequences, or at least give the impression that they would face them in the fulfillment of their commitments to Israel, the change in the Soviet Union's attitude cannot be explained away on the ground that its intervention on behalf of the Arab states would have led to a major war. The truth of the matter is that the Soviet Union cannot continue to make one compromise after another without relinquishing its claims to the leadership of revolutionary causes. There is little room left for any further accommodation. Russia must either re-establish her authority as the protector of oppressed peoples' just causes, even if the fulfillment of this responsibility carries the risk of war, or forsake her commanding position in international affairs.
It has been a long road from the militant and uncompromising attitude of Stalin to Khrushchev's spirit of Camp David and now to Prime Minister Kosygin's Glassboro summit meetings, which President Johnson is already beginning to describe as the spirit of Holly bush. If the spirit of Hollybush is the continuation of the journey from the spirit of Camp David, instead of a return to the road which brought the Soviet Union to the pinnacle of power, it would mean the end of the
Soviet Union's outstanding authority in international affairs. The near future will show whether Hollybush has been a continuation of the journey from Gamp David or is an about-turn in the direction of an uncompromising position on fundamental problems affecting the Third World within the framework of the Soviet Union's ideological responsibilities.
China has now emerged as the undisputed champion of oppressed peoples and their just causes, and will strive to regain ground lost in Asia and Africa after the failure to hold the Second Afro-Asian Conference and the reverses in Indonesia and Ghana. As a manifestation of the United States' growing influence in the sub-continent, India will find reasons for taking a more conciliatory attitude towards Israel. President Nasser and other Arab leaders will have to subject their policies to extensive reappraisal. They will need to work out priorities, reduce points of conflict, and decide which is the greater threat; Israel or their own inter-Arab rivalries. They will have to review without prejudice the problems of the Yemen and the Persian Gulf, establishing a more durable
working arrangement between progressive and conservative regimes. Generally speaking, the United Arab Republic's policies will have to become more inwardlooking for some time to come. Most important of all, genuine efforts must be made to bring about a rapprochement between Iran and the United Arab Republic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Pakistani Prime Minister 1973-1977.
Book: The Myth of Independence.
