What's new

Pakistan - United States Mutual Defence Pact

Awesome

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
22,023
Reaction score
5
Pakistan - The United States

Pakistan's relations with the United States developed against the backdrop of the Cold War. Pakistan's strategic geographic position made it a valuable partner in Western alliance systems to contain the spread of communism. In 1954 Pakistan signed a Mutual Defense Agreement with the United States and subsequently became a member of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and CENTO. These agreements placed Pakistan in the United States sphere of influence. Pakistan was also used as a base for United States military reconnaissance flights over Soviet territory. During the Cold War years, Pakistan was considered one of Washington's closest allies in Asia.

Pakistan, in return, received large amounts of economic and military assistance. The program of military assistance continued until the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War when President Lyndon B. Johnson placed an embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan and India. The United States embargo on arms shipments to Pakistan remained in place during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 and was not lifted until 1975, during the administration of President Gerald R. Ford.

United States-Pakistani relations preceding the 1971 war were characterized by poor communication and much confusion. The administration of President Richard M. Nixon was forced to formulate a public stance on the brutal crackdown on East Pakistanis by West Pakistani troops that began in March 25, 1971, and it maintained that the crackdown was essentially an internal affair of Pakistan in which direct intervention of outside powers was to be avoided. The Nixon administration expressed its concern about human rights violations to Pakistan and restricted the flow of assistance--yet it stopped short of an open condemnation.

Despite the United States widely publicized "tilt" toward Pakistan during the 1971 war, Pakistan's new leader, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, felt betrayed. In his opinion, the United States could have prevented India from intervening in Pakistan's civil war, thereby saving his country the trauma of defeat and dismemberment. Bhutto now strove to lessen Pakistan's dependence on the United States.

The foreign policy Bhutto envisioned would place Pakistan at the forefront of Islamic nations. Issues central to the developing world would take precedence in foreign affairs over those of the superpowers. Bhutto called this policy "bilateralism," which implied neutrality in the Cold War with equal treatment accorded both superpowers. Bhutto's distancing of Islamabad from Washington and other Western links was accompanied by Pakistan's renewed bid for leadership in the developing world.

Following the loss of the East Wing, Pakistan withdrew from SEATO. Pakistan's military links with the West continued to decline throughout Bhutto's tenure in power and into the first years of the Zia regime. CENTO was disbanded following the fall of the shah of Iran in March 1979, and Pakistan then joined the Nonaligned Movement. Zia also continued Bhutto's policy of developing Pakistan's nuclear capability. This policy had originated as a defensive measure in reaction to India's explosion of a nuclear device in 1974. In April 1979, President Jimmy Carter cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except for food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. This amendment called for ceasing economic assistance to nonnuclear weapon countries that imported uranium-enrichment technology. Relations between the United States and Pakistan were further strained in November 1979 when protesters sacked the United States embassy in Islamabad, resulting in the death of four persons. The violence had been sparked by a false report that the United States was involved in a fire at the Grand Mosque in Mecca.

Everybody focuses on the betrayal of 1971, however where Bhutto got ticked off with the Americans was after the 1965 war's betrayal. During the course of the war, the United States stopped supplies to both nations - India was already getting theirs from the Soviets mostly so this was no issue for them, but we who had a defence pact with the Americans also missed out. Ayub was obsessed with closeness with the Americans and got crumbs out of it.

How stupid were we that we kept the pact alive after the 1st betrayal. Not only that, at Tashkent General Ayub snubbed the Chinese as well who were bending over backwards for us. Even during the 1965 war they lent us money to keep the country running.

It's remarkable to think that how much we are a colony than a country.
 
.
It's remarkable to think that how much we are a colony than a country.

I strongly agree with you bro. And we can only over come our dependence issue by saying no to aids and support and concentrate even more on our own economic developments. Since our leaders specially the current government are making us more and more dependant on them with a mere Slogan of No Aid, We Need Trade!
 
.
Sooraj humein har shaam yeh darss deta hai
Ke maghrib ki taraf jao ge toh doob jao ge.
-- Allama Iqbal

We need a strong player in Pakistan that has good support from the public and is viewed favorably by the army too and then that leader should work out a Mutual Defence Pact with China.

I think there's not a chance in the world that if India and China goes to war this time, Pakistan won't come in support of China, such declarations should be penned down it just gives our enemies more things to think about.
 
.
I think there's not a chance in the world that if India and China goes to war this time, Pakistan won't come in support of China, such declarations should be penned down it just gives our enemies more things to think about.

You cant be serious while stating this. If Pakistan signs a military pact /defense pact with China then there would be a lot of hue and cry in India and the world.

How will anyone in India feel secure given the overwhemling odds that Indian forces will have to face in order to defend our country.
 
.
You cant be serious while stating this. If Pakistan signs a military pact /defense pact with China then there would be a lot of hue and cry in India and the world.

How will anyone in India feel secure given the overwhemling odds that Indian forces will have to face in order to defend our country.
That is the point...
 
.
Why do you guys think that China and India will go to war.China is very intelligent.why do you think that China is building Pakistani forces so that i doesn't have to face India directly and bring negative PR to it from the worlds perspective and Pakistan is more than happy to accommodate.
 
.
Pakistan - The United States



Everybody focuses on the betrayal of 1971, however where Bhutto got ticked off with the Americans was after the 1965 war's betrayal. During the course of the war, the United States stopped supplies to both nations - India was already getting theirs from the Soviets mostly so this was no issue for them, but we who had a defence pact with the Americans also missed out. Ayub was obsessed with closeness with the Americans and got crumbs out of it.

How stupid were we that we kept the pact alive after the 1st betrayal. Not only that, at Tashkent General Ayub snubbed the Chinese as well who were bending over backwards for us. Even during the 1965 war they lent us money to keep the country running.

It's remarkable to think that how much we are a colony than a country.

I am disappointed Asim, the mutual defense pact did not give Pakistan carte blanche to commit an act of war against another nation.

The Government of the United States will make available to the Government of Pakistan such assistance as the Government of the United States may authorize in accordance with such terms and conditions as may be agreed. The furnishing and use of such assistance shall be consistent with the Charter and resolutions of the United Nations.

We were bound by the UN charter and at least five UN resolutions and our own laws. The entire world including the Soviets were trying to get India and Pakistan to cease fire in 1965. I've said this elsewhere the Soviets did not have the same compunctions as us, they have on several occasions circumvented the UN, their own laws in support of politburo whims.

Ayub Khan made a mistake when he offered Pakistan as an US ally, Pakistan would've been better off in the Soviet bloc while we should've been supporting a democratic India all along.
 
.
India was already getting theirs from the Soviets mostly so this was no issue for them

Armour was of British Origin . Remember Centurion and Sherman ?
Air Force , the less said the better . Well , 1 sqn of Mig-21 remaining French and British birds !

Please , prove your above statement with an authentic link . :rolleyes:
 
.
chocolate i completely agree with your last post pakistan must have choose soviet over america that was our biggest mistake u must have been happy with democratic india and we must be happy not to give you land for soviet war or WOT or bringing china close to you and giving link to soviet to the middle east oil supply.How happy we would be without any US interference and how happy you would be with your democratic india.
 
.
Why do you guys think that China and India will go to war.China is very intelligent.why do you think that China is building Pakistani forces so that i doesn't have to face India directly and bring negative PR to it from the worlds perspective and Pakistan is more than happy to accommodate.

i agree that china is not too enthusiastic on going to war with any one but its not allaying with Pakistan so pak can fight its war ..china wants india to be in pressure and surrounded so before starting a military campaign against any one india ll have to think twice ...its is same like the slogan ARMS FOR PEACE . only now it deterrence for peace
 
.
I am disappointed Asim, the mutual defense pact did not give Pakistan carte blanche to commit an act of war against another nation.



We were bound by the UN charter and at least five UN resolutions and our own laws. The entire world including the Soviets were trying to get India and Pakistan to cease fire in 1965. I've said this elsewhere the Soviets did not have the same compunctions as us, they have on several occasions circumvented the UN, their own laws in support of politburo whims.

Ayub Khan made a mistake when he offered Pakistan as an US ally, Pakistan would've been better off in the Soviet bloc while we should've been supporting a democratic India all along.
Who really did commit the act of war is still up for debates even today. 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. 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.

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.
 
.
i agree that china is not too enthusiastic on going to war with any one but its not allaying with Pakistan so pak can fight its war ..china wants india to be in pressure and surrounded so before starting a military campaign against any one india ll have to think twice ...its is same like the slogan ARMS FOR PEACE . only now it deterrence for peace
It's not a question of going to war, but its a question of deterring war. Alliance between two strong nuclear weapons with large Armies would definitely form as a deterrent. China has its own fair share of enemies. The United States's has always flirted with the idea of using India against China whenever there is any conflict between the US and China. Ensuring this pact would be favorable for China as they'd know we'd be there to keep India at bay.

Once Pakistan and China take the initiative there will be many other volunteers to this plan.
 
.
Armour was of British Origin . Remember Centurion and Sherman ?
Air Force , the less said the better . Well , 1 sqn of Mig-21 remaining French and British birds !

Please , prove your above statement with an authentic link . :rolleyes:
The point was India was getting its gear Soviets included and now as you've added that others too.
 
.
i agree that china is not too enthusiastic on going to war with any one but its not allaying with Pakistan so pak can fight its war ..china wants india to be in pressure and surrounded so before starting a military campaign against any one india ll have to think twice ...its is same like the slogan ARMS FOR PEACE . only now it deterrence for peace

I agree with you except the bold part do you guys still think that India will be the aggressor in a war believe me Indian leadership don't have the balls to do that.
 
.
It's not a question of going to war, but its a question of deterring war. Alliance between two strong nuclear weapons with large Armies would definitely form as a deterrent. China has its own fair share of enemies. The United States's has always flirted with the idea of using India against China whenever there is any conflict between the US and China. Ensuring this pact would be favorable for China as they'd know we'd be there to keep India at bay.

Once Pakistan and China take the initiative there will be many other volunteers to this plan.

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