SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: HighTech who wrote (42098)1/14/2002 7:15:20 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
We Pakistani are cheap mistresses of USA..<How can we really believe this will amount to anything? Why hasn't Pakistan taken care of this before? > you want to know what we have been doing, when India was sitting in the laps of USSR and praising their intervention in Afghanistan.. this is what we were told to do by our masters the Americans who never fail to kick us on our back side once the job is done.... read on... we are in this mess for some reasons of our own other of betrayal..

'Those bastards must pay,' William Casey..

'Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.'

Winston S. Churchill, broadcast addressed to President Roosevelt, 1941.

IT was always during darkness that the aircraft arrived. Usually at around 9.00 p.m. or just before dawn General Akhtar and I, along with the local CIA staff, would be waiting at Chaklala Air Base for the huge black C-141 Starlifter to taxi up to a secluded part of the terminal. No US Embassy personnel were ever present, either at the planes' arrival or departure. In order to distract attention it was normal practice on these occasions for the Ambassador to arrange a diplomatic dinner at the Embassy. Although the control tower guided the aircraft in, no Air Force personnel were involved with its reception on the ground. None of the passengers would be subjected to any form of immigration or customs formalities; even the baggage would be handled entirely by the Americans.

The aircraft had flown non-stop from Washington, some 10,000 miles, with KC10 tanker aircraft based in Europe or the Middle East intercepting it for mid-air refuelling. The crew were always in civilian clothes, as were all the passengers. Apart from the US markings on the outside there was no way of identifying the plane. Inside, the enormous transporter had been transformed into a flying hotel and communications centre. Up front, the VIP area was luxuriously appointed with couches, easy chairs, beds and washing facilities - super first class. The rear portion contained the ultra-sophisticated communications that allowed the occupants to speak securely to Washington, or anywhere else in the world. The aircraft was protected by the latest electronic jamming devices and radar to counter incoming missiles. When on the ground, a US crew member was always on board on a 24-hour basis. While in Pakistan the ISI would provide an armed outer perimeter guard, but our personnel could not enter the aircraft.

As the plane came to a stop the waiting cars would creep forward in single file, while outside the base an ISI security vehicle would patrol the route the cortege was about to take to the US Amhassador's residence in Islamabad. The vehicles were lined up - ISI escort, US security car, VIP car, US security car, ISI escort, and then the others. The man descending the steps was tall, very old, and was nicknamed 'Cyclone' in recognition of his propensity for anti-communist outbursts, or the 'Wanderer' from the frequency of his flights to CIA stations around the world. He headed the intelligence organization of the most powerful nation on earth. William Casey was President Reagan's principal adviser on intelligence matters, Director of Central Intelligence reporting to the National Security Committee (NSC), Chairman of the US Intelligence Board, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was arriving on one of his annual two-day visits to Pakistan for discussions with General Akhtar and myself on the situation in Afghanistan. Occasionally either his wife or daughter accompanied him. Sometimes his deputy would come, but always he would bring the head of the Afghanistan and Far East desk at CIA headquarters. This man, who is still serving so I will call him Mr A, had been in the US Special Forces and I found him to be one of the very few senior CIA officials whose military knowledge was sound, and to whom we in ISI could relate.

For the next 48 hours security for our guest was a major headache. His two-man advance party would arrive several days beforehand to discuss the arrangements, check the route and test their communications. Mr Casey's visits were the only time I saw CIA officials 'flapping' or badly agitated. Keeping his stay under wraps was far from simple and involved many men, much forethought and meticulous planning. We even went to the extent of referring to our visitor as 'Mr Black' in conversation or in writing.

The following morning the CIA and ISI would confront each other across the conference table at the main ISI headquarters in Islamabad. Casey would be flanked by the US Ambassador on one side and Mr A on the other, with the rest of his team, including the local CIA chief and various analysts, on either side. Opposite were General Akhtar, myself, a staff officer and analysts from ISI. I would watch Casey closely. At times he appeared to be dozing while the analysts droned on, but once a topic of importance was mentioned he came alert at once. He had a quick brain, with a bold and ruthless approach to the war against the Soviets. He hated communism. In fact, like many CIA officers, he regarded Afghanistan as the place where America could be avenged for its defeat in Vietnam. The Soviets must pay a high price in blood for their support of the North Vietnamese was his oft-repeated view. 'Those bastards must pay,' summed up his philosophy on the war, and he appeared none too squeamish about the methods to be used. Probably his years making millions as a New York businessman had added that callous, combative streak to his character.

Whatever his personal motivations, the result for us was always positive. He would often turn on his staff, who were perhaps disputing some request of ours, with the words; 'No, the General [Akhtar] knows what he wants'. For myself I found his visits stimulating, and I developed an admiration for his industry, dedication and unwavering determination to defeat communism.

He had little patience with politicians. He headed an agency with the fastest growing budget among all the executive branches of the US government. In 1987 the CIA received funds totalling$30 billion, a 200 per cent increase over 1980. With Reagan backing clandestine operations in Nicaragua and Angola as well as Afghanistan, Casey was on the crest of a wave. He was contemptuous of Congress's right to know what was happening m covert operations. He fought ferociously with the Senate Intelligence Committee, withholding information if he possibly could, and reporting only sporadically. His ridicule of rules and regulations worked to our advantage. Once, when one of his staff tried to explain that the delay in our obtaining sniper rifles was due to some obscure edict classifying them as terrorist sabotage weapons, Casey yelled, 'To hell with politicians, we're fighting a war.' It was good to have him on our side.

Casey had a flair for innovation, for bright ideas, for the James Bond unorthodox approach. As an ex-OSS man from World War 2, he seemed at times merely to have substituted the Soviets for the Nazis. His detractors called this his 'night parachute drop syndrome', but he had, along with Mr A, the rare ability within the CIA hierarchy of being able to discuss military matters sensibly. He understood strategy and the practical problems of fighting a guerrilla campaign.

Casey always flew out of Islamabad as he had arrived, at night. Invariably he was on his way to Saudi Arabia to meet his opposite number, Prince Turkie, for discussions on that government's financial contribution to the Jehad for the coming year. Although the security burden was lifted, I was normally sorry to see him go. He was a powerful and practical ally in the American camp, who understood both the abilities and shortcomings of the Mujahideen. He was prepared to listen to, and frequently accept, our arguments or reasoning on operational matters. He did us the courtesy of respecting our professional judgement as soldiers with an intimate knowledge of what could, or could not, be done in Afghanistan. If only some of his subordinates had done the same, countless millions of dollars and not a few lives might have been saved.

My first meeting with Casey was in early 1984 and I was to meet him again on several occasions during the coming months. As I quickly appreciated, the chances of success in Afghanistan were dependent on the quality and quantity of the arms we received. In this regard we were beholden to the CIA, and through it to our financial backers, the US and Saudi governments. My experiences with the CIA were spread over the four years I was with ISI, but I have gathered together the highlights in this chapter, as I believe this to be the best way for the reader to judge the real significance of its activities.

The foremost function of the CIA was to spend money. It was always galling to the Americans, and I can understand their point of view, that although they paid the piper they could not call the tune. The CIA supported the Mujahideen by spending the American taxpayers' money, billions of dollars of it over the years, on buying arms, ammunition and equipment. It was their secret arms procurement branch that was kept busy. It was, however, a cardinal rule of Pakistan's policy that no Americans ever become involved with the distribution of funds or arms once they arrived in the country. No Americans ever trained, or had direct contact with, the Mujahideen, and no American official ever went inside Afghanistan. To my knowledge this last was only broken once for Congressman Charles Wilson (R. Texas), as related previously, against the explicit orders of President Zia. To admit Americans directly into the system of supply and training would not only have led to chaos but would have proved the communist propaganda correct. All along, the Soviets, and their Afghan agents in KHAD, endeavoured to subvert the Mujahideen supporters and families by claiming they were not fighting a Jehad, but merely doing the dirty work of, and dying for, the US. Their assertion that the Afghans had no real quarrel with each other but were pawns in a superpower conflict would have been impossible to refute if Americans became overtly involved inside Pakistan. A high proportion of the CIA aid was in the form of cash. For every dollar supplied by the US, another was added by the Saudi Arabian government. The combined funds, running into several hundred million dollars a year, were transferred by the CIA to special accounts in Pakistan under the control of ISI. This money was quite separate from, and additional to, that used for arms purchases. Nevertheless it was critical to the war effort. As was to be continually brought home to me, without money nothing moves - particularly in Pakistan.




I was not personally involved with the distribution of all these funds. This was the responsibility of General Akhtar and his Director of Administration. Nonetheless, I was well aware that lack of money was a never-ending anxiety, with the usual monthly allocation for recurrent expenditure seldom lasting more than two weeks. When one considers that there was a month-in, month-out requirement to meet the needs of tens of thousands of Mujahideen it is not surprising that the logistic requirements soaked up cash as a sponge does water. Take vehicles as an example. CIA money was used to purchase hundreds of trucks for ferrying arms and ammunition up to the border. Often the Parties used vehicles for taking supplies into Afghanistan, so they too needed their own transport. Every vehicle needed fuel and maintenance, so for this alone the bill was huge. Add to this the purchase, or hire, of thousands of mules, horses and camels, plus their fodder; add again the need for building materials, tools and equipment, for the construction of warehouses, bases, training facilities, then add tentage, clothing, winter equipment, rations and medical expenses, and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear. As an example, in 1987 some 30-35 million rupees ($1.5 million) were required monthly for the movement of stores inside Pakistan and Afghanistan.

All this was money spent in Pakistan or Afghanistan, but the bulk of the CIA/Saudi Arabian funds was spent outside these countries, buying arms and ammunition. The system worked like this. In advance of the US annual budget allocations the CIA would give us a suggested list of types and quantities of arms that they considered we needed. I would examine this, but as I was never told either the amount of money available or the cost of the various weapons, it was impossible to alter the lists other than by guessing whether the changes were within, or over, the allocation. If we overshot we had to review our needs again. More time wasted.

A never-ending source of friction between ourselves and the CIA arose over their apparent total ignorance of military logistics. At times even basic common sense seemed lacking. Invariably we wasted days, if not weeks, going through their lists pointing out errors and inconsistencies. They seldom related our ammunition needs to the weapons. For example, it was agreed that as a rule twenty rockets would be provided for every RPG-7 launcher purchased. In 1985 we were to receive 10,000 RPGs along with 200,000 rockets, but our CIA friends in Washington failed to take into account all the RPGs we had already received since 1980 (less an annual wastage rate of 15 per cent). It had not occurred to them that we needed ammunition for them as well. Similarly with anti-aircraft ammunition, the CIA lists were often woefully inadequate as no account was taken of the very high rate of fire of these weapons. So much time and effort could have been saved had the CIA given us a ceiling on funds, some idea of costs, and left us to prepare our annual requirements taking into account existing stocks, operational needs and wastage. Alas, that was not to happen.

Having agreed what was wanted, it was up to the CIA to provide it. They had to purchase all the items and get them by ship to Karachi or, for a small proportion, by air to Islamabad. Until 1985 it was a firm policy that only communist block weapons could be bought. This was part of pretending that the West, and America in particular, were not backing the Mujahideen with material assistance. So the CIA buyers with their shopping lists were limited as to sources. During 1983 approximately 10,000 tons were received, rising to 65,000 tons in 1987. The type of weapons purchased ranged from small arms through to anti-tank and anti-aircraft (AA) rocket launchers and guns.

The great bulk came from China, Egypt, and later on from Israel. I had no idea that Israel was a source until quite recently, as, had it been known, there would have been considerable trouble with the Arab nations. It would not have been acceptable to wage a Jehad with weapons bought from Israel. These were weapons that had been captured in large quantities during Israel's invasion of the Lebanon and which they were delighted to sell. That the Americans spent funds in Israel is not surprising, but they were careful to conceal the source from us.

The CIA would arrange and pay for shipment to Karachi, notifying us of arrival dates. Once the vessel docked the ISI took over storage and distribution. It has often been stated in the world press that China supplied arms overland via the Karakoram highway, the old Silk Route. This is not so. Not one bullet came that way, although that was the route used to bring us hundreds of mules. On occasion arms would be flown to Islamabad in Chinese, American, Saudi or PAF planes. For some reason Saudi aircraft never kept to their schedules and caused endless problems for our planes going to pick up cargo in Saudi Arabia, so we were forced to stop all such flights and rely on the USAF. Not that Saudi Arabia actually supplied weapons, but it was at times used as a trans-shipment point. I believe that the Americans later switched to Cairo, which was used by some aircraft when carrying Egyptian arms.

During my years with the ISI I met a large number of CIA officials, from the director down to his personal security guards. I discerned three types of CIA officer. The largest group were those who joined the Agency fairly young and had made it their career, gaining balanced experience between field and headquarters posts. The second category included those recruited in their thirties or forties from outside the service for their particular expertise. They were the technical experts and analysts. To me these people's opinions and recommendations seemed always to carry great weight with the decision makers. They appeared to be able to reach higher grades more quickly than the field operators. In most cases these officers had a strictly limited military background, yet they often played a key role in military matters. The third group was drawn from the Armed Forces, normally at the major level. Some were on attachment to the CIA, while others belonged permanently. They were usually the weapons experts, or trainers, and I noticed a deep-rooted professional jealousy between them and the others. There was, at Islamabad certainly, a mutual lack of trust and confidence within the CIA. I believe that much of the problem stemmed from the fact that these former military officers could see only too well the error of their seniors' military decisions, but their advice was seldom sought and, if given, ignored. I remember asking one of these officers why the 'civilians' were for ever trying to dictate to us how to run the war in Afghanistan. He replied, 'General, in the United States, CIA is getting all the credit for anything good happening in Afghanistan and you [Pakistan] are getting all the discredit for anything going wrong.'

Two examples of CIA incompetence, or possibly corruption, will serve to illustrate the avoidable waste of millions of dollars and the serious implications of these failings on the battlefield. Both concern the deliberate purchase of old, outdated arms on the basis that these were good enough for the Mujahideen. The sellers were delighted to get rid of these otherwise worthless weapons at a profit. The CIA spent the US taxpayers money to provide third-rate, and in one instance totally unserviceable weapons, for use against a modern superpower.

Until 1984 the bulk of all arms and ammunition was purchased from China, and they proved to be an excellent supplier, completely reliable, discreet and, at a later stage, even providing weapons as aid as well as for sale. But in 1985 the CIA started buying large quantities from Egypt. I shall never forget the first shipment. When the boxes were opened the weapons were revealed as used, rusty and in many cases quite unserviceable. They dated back to the days when the Soviets had equipped the Egyptian Army. Rifles were rusted together, barrels were solid with dirt and corrosion, some boxes were empty, while in others the contents were deficient. Rarely was ammunition properly packed; rounds that were supposed to be boxed or belted came in heaps of loose rounds. I did not have the manpower to check every crate before it was forwarded to the Mujahideen, so the extent of the problem did not become apparent until I got reports from inside Afghanistan. To my horror, no less than 30,000 82mm mortar bombs were found unusable on the battlefield as the cartridges had swollen in the damp and would not fit the bombs. The Egyptians had cobbled together arms that had been lying exposed to the atmosphere for years in order to make a substantial amount of money. Nobody in the CIA had done a spot check before shipment; either that or they had been a party to the deal. I had photographs taken and sent to the US, while I protested vehemently to the CIA. At first they seemed disinterested, but eventually an official came out to see for himself. Thereafter Egyptian purchases were marginally better, but the Mujahideen never trusted their supplies in the future.

The next incident, or rather incidents as one concerns .303 rifles and the other .303 ammunition, involved both India and Pakistan. In the middle of 1984 an enormous shipment of 100,000 .303 rifles arrived at Karachi. When we protested that we had not requested this amount, and that we had no storage space, the CIA advised that they represented the 1985 supply in advance, as well as those for the current year. When pressed as to storage space we were told in confidence that they had been bought at a rock-bottom price from India. When I queried how and why the Indians sold weapons that they knew would be used against their friends the Soviets, the CIA officer replied 'The Indians are mean bastards, not trustworthy at all. For money they would even sell their mothers'.

With the ammunition, a Pakistani arms merchant pulled a once-in-a-lifetime deal with the buyer. He persuaded the ( IA to purchase 30 million rounds of .303 through his overseas office, without revealing the true source of the ammunition. At about 50 cents a round the dealer was a happy man. Unknown to the CIA, the ammunition came from old stocks of the Pakistan Army which no longer used this weapon. A ship was duly loaded, sailed out from Karachi for a few days' turned around, and we were notified by the CIA that our ammunition had arrived. When some crates were opened at Rawalpindi every round was found to have POF (Pakistan Ordnance Factory) stamped on it. There was no way this could be fired in Afghanistan without giving irrefutable proof that Pakistan was arming the guerrillas. Every round had to go back to the POF so it could be defaced, a task that took three years and cost a lot more money. Again the losers were the US taxpayer and the Mujahideen.

It was the same story with Turkey. In 1984 the Turkish authorities made an offer to supply weapons, so General Akhtar instructed me to visit Turkey to finalize the arrangements. Once in Ankara, the Turks seemed hesitant when I asked to see the arms they were sending. Anyhow, I insisted, and to my dismay found them all to be weapons withdrawn from the Turkish Army 30 years before. Their date of manufacture was 1940-1942. I was at a loss for words, as I did not want to offend my hosts who were pressing for agreement to shipping dates. I went to our Ambassador to explain that these weapons were not worth the shipment and distribution costs, which we would have to pay. He was most upset. As far as he was concerned there was no question of causing a diplomatic row by refusing this 'generous' offer. On my return I urged General Akhtar against acceptance, and he spoke either to the President or Foreign Minister, but to no avail. In the end 60,000 rifles, 8,000 light machine guns, 10,000 pistols and over 100 million rounds of ammunition duly arrived. Most were badly corroded or faulty and could not be given to the Mujahideen.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of my dealings with the CIA was the way in which the Mujahideen were so often fobbed off with unsuitable weapons. There were, I believe, three reasons for this. Firstly, the attitude among some Americans that the Mujahideen did not deserve, and would not be able to use, modern arms. This was later proved totally wrong with the Stinger, but for a long time this feeling that they were second-rate soldiers so they could make do with second-rate weapons existed. Secondly, there was financial greed. A number of countries, and many people, saw the guerrilla resistance as a splendid opportunity to sell off arms that nobody else wanted, weapons that were obsolete or obsolescent, even ones that were dangerous to fire. I have strong suspicions that at least one weapon system was forced on us because a US congressman had a lot to gain if the sale went ahead. Finally, so many CIA officials connected with the arms procurement programme in the US were not soldiers, never had been soldiers and had no idea what it was like fighting inside Afghanistan. They did not begin to comprehend the Mujahideen's needs.

Again and again we in the ISI fought hard against accepting weapons we knew were unsuited to our guerrilla war. In only one case were we successful. The so-called military experts of the CIA seemed to feel we should be grateful for every gun. If we queried its value on the battlefield we were labelled obstructionists. No doubt politicians were having their say, and undoubtedly people were getting rich along the line, but at the end of the day I was responsible for getting the best arms and equipment I could to the Mujahideen. They paid for mistakes with their lives.

In mid-1984 the CIA came up with an offer of the Swiss-designed 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns. General Akhtar and I requested further details of their characteristics, which the CIA had somehow forgotten to include. After much discussion within ISI we said it was not suitable for Afghanistan. We explained that the weapon weighed 1,200 pounds and was therefore far too heavy. It would require some twenty mules to transport a section of three guns; it would impede the Mujahideen's mobility and was more suited to positional defense of strong points. There was no way mules could use the steep mountain trails, making its deployment so restricted as to make the weapon more of a liability than an asset. We also pointed out that the long, heavy, cumbersome barrel could not be loaded lengthwise along a horse's or mule's back. It had to be positioned across the animal, making it impossible to go through narrow defiles, where it snagged on every bush. Then we pointed out that this weapon had a high rate of fire, needed to be deployed in threes, and the Mujahideen's lack of fire control would mean excessive ammunition expenditure. With bullets costing $50 each, and a rate of fire of 1000 rounds a minute, I thought this would be a telling point for cost-conscious Americans. Finally, it was explained that the Oerlikon crews would need lengthy special training.

Our objections were overruled. I was told that ten guns had already been purchased. General Akhtar told the CIA that that was their problem; the weapons should remain in the US. Reluctantly, he was then informed that it was now a political issue, that a congressman who was a vocal supporter of the Mujahideen had insisted on the Oerlikon purchase, so to cancel it now would cause too much embarrassment all round. We eventually received between forty and fifty guns which had to be deployed in threes in a triangular pattern near border bases in a static role. It was popular with some Commanders as a prestige weapon, but was not particularly effective in action.

Next it was the Egyptian mortar; this weapon had marginally longer range that our plentiful supply of 82mm mortars, but it fell far short of that of our rocket launchers (RLs). It was of no value to us. We had a good mortar, we had RLs, and the last thing we needed was the added complication of a different calibre weapon with different ammunition, different training and more logistic problems. As usual our protests fell on deaf ears, although I succeeded in preventing its induction until after I left ISI.

Perhaps the best example of politics and money overruling military judgement was with the British Blowpipe surface-to-air missile (SAM). The CIA was well aware that our overriding requirement was for an effective, manportable, anti-aircraft weapon. In mid-1985 they offered us Blowpipe. Once again we objected on practical grounds. Although the Blowpipe is able to destroy attacking aircraft head on as it does not need to seek a hot exhaust pipe as a heat source, the firer stands up to engage the target. This might be acceptable on the battlefield for a few brief moments, if the system is what the military call a 'fire-and-forget' weapon. This means you aim, fire and take cover while the missile homes in on its target. With the Blowpipe the firer must remain standing to aim, fire, and then guide the missile optically on to the target using a thumb control. We knew it had been a disappointment to the British in the Falklands war, and that it was obsolescent, as it was being replaced by the Javelin, with a much improved guidance system. A British artillery officer explained that a major problem was that it had not been designed to take on targets moving across the firer's front, only those approaching head-on, or disappearing tail-on. Nor is it manpackable over any distance, due to its awkward shape and excessive weight. Another significant disadvantage was the lengthy training time needed. We did not want to put so much effort into training on a weapon that was being phased out by an army that had found it ineffective on the battlefield. On top of this, Blowpipe operators required refresher training every six months on the simulator - utterly impossible for the Mujahideen.

End of aprt 1.....



To: HighTech who wrote (42098)1/14/2002 7:41:37 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Respond to of 50167
 
<Why hasn't Pakistan taken care of this before? > Easy for you to say so, let me give you 101 of our side of story. When it mattered the most post 11th Sept, we made the Paki bashing is an international sports, it has more to do with mere prejudice than facts.. on ground the issues are quite intricate.

History needs to be read before nations are condemned as evil.... This is what we unfortunate -astards and scum’s of the earth have been doing, selling ourselves short for nothing and getting abused all over for forgotten services. Forget about what happened recently, we broke Afghanistan but let me take you to tour de force of history what we guys have been up to..

The most vilified nation is not the most vilified, it has played its role, every single moment of history, for a poor, impoverished nation ght choice unlike arse holes like Saddam or Asads of the world that what matters. Fools don’t make choices like we did; they perish in ignominy like Omar, Osama, Saddam and many others in Islamic history.

This is what we have been doing since 1947.. with miserable track record, known as a failed state, believed by every one, a dictator ship where I critices everything htat makes this state and remain free, a great set of achievements is something no one ever want to talk about. Like our forgotten and least talked about role in Dalbandin, Jacobabad, Mianwali and Pasni, uninterrupted use of our airspace and waters for months in row. Living nations are born to serve, I am proud that I belong to this one.. This bashing needs to stop sometime and I try my very little best..

In 1948 Liaquat Ali Khan made the first decision to choose US chance over Russia in the early fifties. The infamous U-2 Buddaber airbase was the second chance that made Khrushchev draw a red circle around Peshawar. The third chance when we bridged the gap between US and China by flying Kissinger to Beijing incognito.

And then we finally made US emerge as the only superman in the world by fighting US proxy war in Afghanistan for 9 long years. No doubt US supplied the weapons but we supplied the brain and bran by being the front-line nation against the big bear.

< Liaquat Ali Khan gave up the first chance over Russia in the early fifties. >
1. It was the beginning of the Cold War. Those were aggravating times characterised by the loss of the most basic of diplomatic niceties. John Foster Dulles refused to shake Zhou En Lai’s extended hand in the United Nations and Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the rostrum of the UN General Assembly. Beleaguered by intrigue and beset by animosity an adolescent Pakistan unthinkingly fell into the waiting embrace of the US, as was envisaged in the Anglo-American pre-Partition plan all along. After the Baghdad Pact we joined CENTO and SEATO to help America thwart the spread of Soviet communism. In so doing we deluded ourselves into believing that we had found protection. The Americans took a base at Badaber and Kruschev drew a red circle around Peshawar on his map after a U2 from there was shot down by the Soviets and pilot Gary Powers captured.

When India made Non-aligned movement (left leaning anti American alliance)and socialised its economy, we were flirting with Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), alliance organized (1954) under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty by representatives of Australia, France, Great Britain, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and the United States. Established under Western auspices after the French withdrawal from Indochina, SEATO was created to oppose further Communist gains in Southeast Asia. The treaty was supplemented by a Pacific Charter, affirming the rights of Asian and Pacific peoples to equality and self-determination and setting forth goals of economic, social, and cultural cooperation between the member countries. The civil and military organizations established under the treaty had their headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand. SEATO relied on the military forces of member nations and joint maneuvers were held annually.

2.< The infamous U-2 Buddaber airbase was the second chance that made Khrushchev draw a red circle around Peshawar.>

Powers, Gary Francis
· Pilot of CIA U2 spy plane shot down over the Soviet Union on 5/1/60.
MAY - JULY 1960: THE U - 2 AIRPLANE INCIDENT

Source: U.S. Department of State Vol. X, Part 1, FRUS, 1958-60: E. Europe Region; Soviet Union, Office of the Historian

147. Editorial Note
On May 1, a U.S. U - 2 unarmed reconnaissance plane, piloted by Francis Gary Powers who was employed by the Central Intelligence Agency, was shot down by Soviet military authorities 1,200 miles inside the Soviet Union near Sverdlovsk. In the following days, Nikita Khru-shchev exploited the incident to sabotage the summit meeting between the Heads of Government of the United States, Soviet Union, France, and the United Kingdom, which began in Paris on May 16. Documentation on the relationship between the U - 2 incident and the collapse of the summit is in volume IX.
The President's recollections of his role in authorizing the U - 2 reconnaissance flights and the responses of his administration to the crash of the U - 2 plane and subsequent Soviet recriminations are in Waging Peace, pages 543 - 559. Regarding background on the President's decisions on overflight operations, see Documents 70, 72, and 82.

3.<The third chance when we bridged the gap between US and China by flying Kissinger to Beijing incognito.>

Winston Lord remembers the day in 1971 when he and his boss, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, were making a groundbreaking trip to China.
As the plane approached Chinese airspace from Pakistan, the youthful Lord scurried to the front of the aircraft; he wanted to be able to boast that he was the first American official to enter Chinese territory - in this case airspace - since the Communist revolution of 1949.
Until that moment, the 22-year separation between the two countries had been almost total. No diplomatic relations, no trade, no tourism, virtually no contact.
Kissinger's secret trip caught almost everyone by surprise. The Senate majority leader, Mike Mansfield, D-Mont., admitted he was "flabbergasted" when he heard the news.
Now, as China prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of its revolution, the degree to which the two countries have come together, particularly in trade and tourism, is remarkable in light of the earlier alienation.
Entering Chinese airspace is not a big deal for Americans anymore. According to a Chinese tourism agency, 677,311 Americans visited China last year, an average of more than 1,800 a day.

it set up a triangular relationship between Russia, the United States and China, in which we attempted to be closer to each of them than they were to each other, so we could calibrate our policy in relation to specific crises that arose in relation to our national interests. It also gave us much greater flexibility in relationship with other Asian nations that were under the shadow of China.

INT: A personal note. What were your feelings when you stepped down from that Pakistani jet in Beijing?
(Pause)
HK: When you read about great events, people always think that there was an elevated feeling. When I stepped off that Pakistani jet in Beijing, my major concern was whom I was going to meet and how were we going to conduct the conversation. I didn't put my foot down and say, "Now I've just made history, and this will never be forgotten." I thought "Whom am I going to meet, and how am I going to bring it to a conclusion?"
INT: But when you went back with President Nixon, he thought that you were both making history, surely?
HK: On the way back from Beijing, I knew that we had made history... on my way back from Beijing. But Nixon had a different problem from me: Nixon was President, and Nixon rehearsed what he would say when he reached China; and that was quite appropriate: he needed to make an impact.

Nixon sympathized with China's long history of invasions, saw reasons for its aloof isolationism, and he regretted the West's exploitation of China's many divisions. Sentiment was not reason for drastic change in policy, and so he repeatedly stressed that he was not driven to assuage Western guilt. It never occurred to his media critics that there was any guilt to assuage. Much about his enterprise could be misunderstood by both sides.
Nixon's maneuvering for a trip to China over almost three years of nuanced signals, back-channel contacts and messages -- many via Pakistan Ambassador Agha Hilaly and sometimes Kissinger's aide Brigadier General Alexander Haig -- was a politically perilous undertaking. Nixon was experienced in being battered by the press since the days of the Hiss case, and he knew that he risked his conservative base, for some of whom Mao Tse-tung was a certified monster. Kissinger provided the secrecy that Nixon required, even when he thought the need for it was exaggerated. On his first contact in China, Kissiinger found that the Chinese resented the secrecy, as though Nixon didn't want to associate with them in public.
When Chou's invitation to Nixon finally arrived, hand-carried by the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, Nixon did not automatically send Kissinger as his pathfinder. He considered Thomas Dewey (who died on him), David K.E. Bruce, George Bush, Elliott Richardson, or Nelson Rockefeller to be accompanied by Al Haig. He never considered Secretary of State William Rogers, who had dismissed the idea. Nixon finally chose Kissinger because by then he understood the policy and could go under cover. At the end Nixon thought they had made the perfect team for the job, and in retirement he didn't refer to "Kissinger," but to "Henry."



To: HighTech who wrote (42098)1/14/2002 7:49:24 PM
From: IQBAL LATIF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 50167
 
Marco Polo all over again...

<Why hasn't Pakistan taken care of this before? > Bringing together the largest nation on earth Chian and strongest nation US was our finest moment, today China is the
largest trading partner of US and an important member of the World Community..

Both Kennedy and Nixon invited to the White House Andre Malraux, the French novelist, explorer, artist and politician, whose Man's Fate(China in 1927) and Man's Hope (Spain in 1939) made him an international hero. Nixon had a purpose, to ask Malraux how he should speak with Mao, and was he doing the right thing? Malraux told him the meeting was inevitable, and Mao would welcome him as his last act in life.

When Nixon finally arrived in China, after Kissinger's two pathfinding trips of high adventure from Pakistan (code named Polo I and Polo II), he was going for broke.
"I approached this trip as if it were the last chance I would have to do something about the Sino-American relationship." Later: "We must cultivate China; otherwise one day we will be confronted with the most formidible enemy that has ever existed in the history of the world."
Knowing that Chou En-lai deeply resented that John Foster Dulles in Geneva had turned away rather than shake hands with him, Nixon left the airplane gangway with his hand stretched out.
Nixon was not passive and didn't wait to react to actions or statements of others. He had been too polite when he met Khrushchev in Moscow in 1958, and let Khrushchev win their first round, before Nixon came back swinging in the kitchen debate. In China, he initiated the discussions, knowing where he wanted to go, even with personalities as intimidating as Mao Tse-tung. He raised the issue he had been brooding over for years: nations should deal with each other according to their behavior, not their ideology -- in itself a major departure in American foreign policy. He broached subjects like the U.S. defense committments to Taiwan and Japan without having them sprung on him. He was not on the defensive in talks with Mao, or for that matter with Leonid Brezhnev.