American mediation on Kashmir

[American Eagle]

As an American who once worked in both Karachi and Peshawar I can tell you "we Americans" want the people of all parts of Kashmir, PAK, IAK, and CAK, to choose what they want, which includes status quo, independence from both Pakistan and India, and of course my recommended, down to earth, practical, and the current status, which is the long term process known as the Andorran Model.

Your either or choices are not going to happen.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Pakistan has been asking for American intervention since their SEATO and CENTO days of being America's most allied ally when India was drumming up nonsense in the NAM - till the 1980s the Americans bought the Pakistani story. Now, they no longer do. So it is a valid question - if both sides agree to America mediating now - Pakistanis would think that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Adding to what has been posted above; indeed Pakistan desired American intervention in the era of SEATO and CENTO simply because Pakistan had become aware of the fact post the 1948 misadventure in Kashmir that Pakistan alone could not wrest Jammu and Kashmir just by single-handed military action. So Pakistan thought that membership of the ant-Soviet bloc organised by USA would lead to a quid-pro-quo of active American support for the Pakistani stance. Which happened to some extent, undoubtedly. But by then USA was getting severely bogged down; first in Korea, then in Viet Nam (apart from other parts of the world like Central and South America and West Africa, albeit to a much lesser extent). So the Americans put the Kashmir matter into the back of their minds. Also along the way; the Americans discovered one fact: that if the status quo was allowed to continue in Kashmir, it did not hurt their interests in any way. Plus this "inactivity" allowed the Americans a chance to (hope and) work for some adjustment with India, if such an opportunity came up. It will be pertinent to remember that USA always was conscious of the fact that post 1947 (independence) that India was always destined to be the larger (actually largest) player in the sub-continent. The fact of the matter was that when CENTO and SEATO were set up, USA first sent feelers to India to join that 'band-wagon'. When India rebuffed them, the US turned to Pakistan.

Now just imagine if history could be replayed back, and Nehru had consented to ally with USA then; would sub-continental history have taken a different turn?

Oddly enough, it was the (erstwhile) USSR that ended up actively mediating between India and Pakistan after the 1965 war, not USA! And that mediation was accepted by both countries then. That is the closest that any third party came to being an active mediator between India and Pakistan

 

[graphican]

Americans are not trustworthy for Pakistan anymore.

 

[American Eagle]

While it is true that the old USSR mediated in 1966, that mediation for all practical purposes was unhelpful.

During the 1965 War, the Soviet Union adopted a neutral stand and offered its good offices for a peaceful settlement between the two warring states. The Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met at Tashkent on January 3, 1966.The conference lasted from January 4–10, 1966, at which they agreed to create good relations in accordance with the UN Charter, to promote understanding and friendly relations and a total pull-out of troops before February 25, 1966 to their pre-war positions. Russia thought they emerged as a peace-maker at a time when the US was involved in the Vietnam War.

The US could hardly have mediated as we had (and I was the Liaison Officer at the US Embassy then in Karachi for) the 6937th Communications Group in Badabur, suburban Peshawar, and were under a bilateral treaty with Pakistan for that base, which was more important to the US fighting the Cold War than a mediation effort could have been.

If you will read the lenghty article I wrote a few months back on the COLD WAR TIMES, an arm of the Smithsonian Museum, the Cold War Museum, as copied by me onto this PDF site, you can see what we (the US Embassy of both Karachi and Delhi, in a joint meeting held in Karachi) did do to slow down and logistically end the 1965 India-Pakistan War.

The US Embassies in both Pakistan and India did more to literally "stop" the 1965 War, ie, we did stop it as no spare parts ended hot actions involving tanks, planes, trucks, etc. on both sides.

As regards CENTO and SEATO Pakistan hosted some social dos I attended as a USAF junior officer held in Karachi both ashore and on a US Navy in harbor war ship. But President Ayub Khan was blatantly trying to use both CENTO and SEATO (focused on the Vietnam War which went hot while I was stationed in then West Pakistan) as a lever...which failed....President Ayub wanted US intelligence (my outfit) used to aide him and FM Bhutto, and General Musa's scheme, to attack India, and we, the US, said flatly NO.

President Ayub's benefit from being a member of primarily CENTO (Pakistan never did anything to help out in SEATO) was a huge US Military Advisory Assitance Program in and to Paksitan, both West and East Paksitan, and tons of US AID programs and related money. Pakistan came out just fine while the allies, including the US, apart from the lease on the base in Peshawar area, sucked air!

 

[Jackdaws]

Adding to what has been posted above; indeed Pakistan desired American intervention in the era of SEATO and CENTO simply because Pakistan had become aware of the fact post the 1948 misadventure in Kashmir that Pakistan alone could not wrest Jammu and Kashmir just by single-handed military action. So Pakistan thought that membership of the ant-Soviet bloc organised by USA would lead to a quid-pro-quo of active American support for the Pakistani stance. Which happened to some extent, undoubtedly. But by then USA was getting severely bogged down; first in Korea, then in Viet Nam (apart from other parts of the world like Central and South America and West Africa, albeit to a much lesser extent). So the Americans put the Kashmir matter into the back of their minds. Also along the way; the Americans discovered one fact: that if the status quo was allowed to continue in Kashmir, it did not hurt their interests in any way. Plus this "inactivity" allowed the Americans a chance to (hope and) work for some adjustment with India, if such an opportunity came up. It will be pertinent to remember that USA always was conscious of the fact that post 1947 (independence) that India was always destined to be the larger (actually largest) player in the sub-continent. The fact of the matter was that when CENTO and SEATO were set up, USA first sent feelers to India to join that 'band-wagon'. When India rebuffed them, the US turned to Pakistan.

Now just imagine if history could be replayed back, and Nehru had consented to ally with USA then; would sub-continental history have taken a different turn?

Oddly enough, it was the (erstwhile) USSR that ended up actively mediating between India and Pakistan after the 1965 war, not USA! And that mediation was accepted by both countries then. That is the closest that any third party came to being an active mediator between India and Pakistan

In 65 USSR played the formal mediator but in reality role was played by both - Soviets and Americans.

Forcing India's hand was also not going to be easy for Americans - for starters India was neither a communist nation nor was it a Soviet ally. The fact that Nehru was such an iconic world leader and started the NAM movement which attracted all developing countries would make it even tougher. If the Americans could solve Kashmir - they would have done so in favor of Pakistan years ago but they didn't ever have leverage over India.

 

[Billa01]

Just listen. America, India, Israel and in some cases England are just trying to destabalise us Muslim Countries. They came out of Iraq after it all was destroyed by their forces and now eventually they will leave Afghanistan. BUT LET ME TELL U SOMETHING V R NOT ASKIN FOR AMERICA'S HElP ON THE KASHMIR ISSUE BECAUSE V KNOW ALLAH WLL HELP US AS KASHMIR IS PAKISTAN'S 5TH PROVINCE & y does evry1 think v need non muslim help. U ALL R JUST JEALOUS OF muslims AND PAKISTAN SO PLZZZZ IF U R NOT MUSLIM OR PAKISTANI THEN MIND UR OWN BUISNESS!!!!!1

 

[American Eagle]

Apparently another young overseas fellow of Paksitani parentage reveling in a war that should never have happened.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

While it is true that the old USSR mediated in 1965, that mediation failed and the hottest part of the 1965 India-Pakistan War ensued after, not prior to, the USSR mediation.

The US could hardly have mediated as we had (and I was the Liaison Officer at the US Embassy then in Karachi for) the 6937tj Communications Group in Badabur, suburban Peshawar, and were under a bilateral treaty with Pakistan for that base, which was more important to the US fighting the Cold War than a mediation effort could have been.

If you will read the lenghty article I wrote a few months back on the COLD WAR TIMES, an arm of the Smithsonian Museum, the Cold War Museum, as copied by me onto this PDF site, you can see what we (the US Embassy of both Karachi and Delhi, in a joint meeting held in Karachi) did do to slow down and logistically end the 1965 India-Pakistan War.

As regards CENTO and SEATO Pakistan hosted some social dos I attended as a USAF junior officer held in Karachi both ashore and on a US Navy in harbor war ship. But President Ayub Khan was blatantly trying to use both CENTO and SEATO (focused on the Vietnam War which went hot while I was stationed in then West Pakistan) as a lever...which failed....President Ayub wanted US intelligence (my outfit) used to aide him and FM Bhutto, and General Musa's scheme, to attack India, and we, the US, said flatly NO.

President Ayub's benefit from being a member of primarily CENTO (Pakistan never did anything to help out in SEATO) was a huge US Military Advisory Assitance Program in and to Paksitan, both West and East Paksitan, and tons of US AID programs and related money. Pakistan came out just fine while the allies, including the US, apart from the lease on the base in Peshawar area, sucked air!

@ American Eagle,
Reference the underlined part, the Indo-Pak conflict took place in Sept 1965. The Cease-Fire was brokered on 23 September 1965. While the USSR mediation effort between India and Pakistan took place in 1966 leading to the Tashkent Declaration signed on 10th January 1966. The Tashkent Declaration led to the disengagement of forces on both sides broadly speaking in the following manner:
The conference was viewed as a great success and the declaration that was released was hoped to be a framework for lasting peace. The declaration stated (inter-alia) that:
*Indian and Pakistani forces would pull back to their pre-conflict positions, pre-August lines, no later than February 25, 1966.
*The nations would not interfere in each other's internal affairs
*Economic and diplomatic relations would be restored
*The two leaders would work towards building good relations between the two countries.

Thus leading to a definite lowering of tensions between the two adversaries and a "cooling off" of the hostile atmosphere.

So my question is: How can one infer (in any way) that "While it is true that the old USSR mediated in 1965, that mediation failed and the hottest part of the 1965 India-Pakistan War ensued after, not prior to, the USSR mediation." ??

Would you care to explain that statement!!

 

[American Eagle]

Yes, I corrected the date sequence in my original post, but you choose to copy and repeat my posting today before I corrected the date. Sorry for my typos, which happen more than I would like due to arthritis in hands and occasional rigamortus in my aging brain!

 

[American Eagle]

Of course the year is now 2011 and pulling back to the pre-war boundaries was never completed.

The Rann of Kutch (where I was wounded January 30, 1965 in a skirmish where our PIA Land Rover innocently drove into a skirmish between Pakistani and India forces) was where the first "flash" took place, Kashmir infiltration of Paksitani regular troops dressed as irregulars or insurgents if you will, a false appearance, came later. A big flare up hit in the Rann of Kutch around April, 1965. Another air battle ensued in around June, 1965, at which time I was rotating from Pakistan back to the USA to my next assignment. The Sept. final battle(s) were shut down due to lack of spare parts, which I detail I explained earlier today on this site can be read about in the article I authored on that topic in the COLD WAR TIMES online of the Cold War Museum, an arm of the Smithsonian Museum.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Yes, I corrected the date sequence in my original post, but you choose to copy and repeat my posting today before I corrected the date. Sorry for my typos, which happen more than I would like due to arthritis in hands and occasional rigamortus in my aging brain!

No problem, Sir. It is not a serious matter.
Just looking back at the events of that time, I do find it not a little ironical that the USSR was afforded a 'mediatory role' by Ayub Khan who was part of an alliance to contain the USSR. But the fact is that both the conflict and its aftermath had a lot to do with another 'player' of that time; Z.A. Bhutto!
And in the end Ayub Khan ended up taking most of the "flak". But Bhutto's 'tryst with destiny' was to happen later; in 1971!
And another General 'carried the can' for him; once again.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Of course the year is now 2011 and pulling back to the pre-war boundaries was never completed.

The Rann of Kutch (where I was wounded January 30, 1965 in a skirmish where our PIA Land Rover innocently drove into a skirmish between Pakistani and India forces) was where the first "flash" took place, Kashmir infiltration of Paksitani regular troops dressed as irregulars or insurgents if you will, a false appearance, came later. A big flare up hit in the Rann of Kutch around April, 1965. Another air battle ensued in around June, 1965, at which time I was rotating from Pakistan back to the USA to my next assignment. The Sept. final battle(s) were shut down due to lack of spare parts, which I detail I explained earlier today on this site can be read about in the article I authored on that topic in the COLD WAR TIMES online of the Cold War Museum, an arm of the Smithsonian Museum.

I had the opportunity to read that piece and some related posts on this forum, with great interest. And found it helpful to help put together the picture of that time. Your writing helped.

 

[American Eagle]

Z. A. Bhutto in my young first hand experience was a corrupt, arrogant, and self assured fellow who thought the Indian military of the 1965 era would be a "push over." Z. A. Butto had a now deceased dear friend of mine (much older), now deceased, retired RAF Air Vice Marshal P. G. K. Williamson, then Group Captain P. G. K. (Pete) Williamson, the RAF Advisor to the Government of Pakistan at the British High Commissioner's Office in Karachi...had Pete declared Persona Non Grata for daring to tell Bhutto to lay off his plans to attack in Kashmir and elsewhere, that no useful purpose could be served and that the people of Pakistan needed basics, not the propaganda distractions which Kashmir has been used for among the poorest, least educated, most needy of the national population throughout all parts of Pakistan.

But, not to be self-contradictory, I favored his daughter, Mrs. Bhutto, who I think could have done some real good as the PPP President had she lived to be elected...and she surely would have been elected. Her husband, the stand in for her after her murder, now the President of Pakistan, does the best he can and the PPP among all political parties seems still to me the most moderate and future oriented...but Pakistani elitists, which includes some elements inside the Pak military, particularly in the ISI, still use Kashmir as a distraction from the real needs of all the people.

It is easy to be an after the fact, arm chair quarterback, but in my humble view religion has been the curse, not the salvation of the nation of Pakistan. Jinnah meant to keep an objective nation with freedom for and representation of all sects, ethnicities, and religions in the Pakistani Parliament. The 1950 Constitution of Pakistan was about as good as Pakistan has ever had. Amendments to and changes to it in the early 1970s, particularly by Z. A. Bhutto, now by the current Parliament of Paksitan regarding the Blasphemy Laws, are an abomination to and further destruction of any hope of a sane governance system for Paksitan, and another major nail in the coffin of democratcy and free speech inside Pakistan.

 

[divya]

What will US do..... Drone attacks in kashmir on indian forces..... Or will attack india to install democracy against the oppressed scheduled caste, muslim, christians, jews, my neighbours doggy, pintu pappu .....

 

[American Eagle]

The US does not have and never has had a dog in the fight over Kashmir. But most in US policy making circles, bipartisanly, defacto, favor the Andorran Model, which is peaceful, in no way using or advocating violence.