CIA cooperated with Chinese intelligence to target Russia

[Free Karma]

CIA worked with China intelligence services against Russia - Washington Times

A recently published book by former Pentagon official Michael Pillsbury has shed light on one of the U.S. government's darkest secrets: cooperation between the CIA and communist Chinese intelligence services.

The book "The Hundred Year Marathon" was cleared for publication by the FBI, CIA and Pentagon, thus giving many of its eye-opening disclosures an official cast. China has not responded to the book's disclosures nor denied past cooperation, although one intelligence-linked Chinese commentator stated that the book's author, now a consultant, does not represent "mainstream" U.S. views on China.

Covert CIA-China cooperation was part of successive administrations' programs to undermine the Soviet Union, which China turned on after realizing Moscow's Marxist-Leninist economic model was doomed. China instead began courting the United States for economic benefit while creating a revised communist economic system.

The disclosures of clandestine U.S.-China intelligence cooperation dating to the 1970s are likely to embarrass Beijing. China frequently attacks the CIA for allegedly fomenting democratic revolution in China and for supporting the exiled Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama, whom China designated as a major enemy. Beijing also accused the CIA of organizing the recent large-scale pro-democracy demonstrations in Hong Kong. The U.S. government has denied any role in the public outcry over creeping Chinese control over the former British colony.

The book mentions many previously disclosed covert and clandestine cooperations between the CIA and Chinese intelligence, along with many surprising new details. Mr. Pillsbury was in charge of the covert operations and was aware of the intelligence cooperation when he was assistant undersecretary of defense for policy planning during the Reagan administration.

The joint operations included the major electronic spying program in China, code-named Chestnut, that targeted the Soviet Union and now Russia, as well as covert shipments of Chinese arms to Afghan rebels battling Soviet forces and anti-Cuban rebels in Angola.

The disclosures that are said to have upset Beijing the most, however, were related to a CIA-led operation to arm 50,000 anti-Vietnam rebels in Cambodia beginning in 1982. Initially, $2 million a year was spent, and then the amount was increased to $12 million and jointly conducted with Chinese assistance with Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore.

"The Chinese not only sold the weapons to us to give to the rebels, but also advised us on how to conduct these covert operations," Mr. Pillsbury wrote, adding that the cooperation revealed China's strategy for weakening a strong "hegemon," a strategy that is likely being used today against the United States.

The strategy calls for attacking the hegemon's vulnerabilities, convincing others to do the fighting and attacking the allies of the declining hegemon. China, according to the book, supported Afghan rebel attacks inside the Soviet Union until CIA lawyers ended the strikes as overly provocative. Asked about the declassified secrets in the book, Mr. Pillsbury told Inside the Ring, "I was delighted that many matters were approved for release that had been considered classified 10 years ago." A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy did not return an email seeking comment.

An interesting historical note is that part of the estimated $2 billion China earned from U.S. weapons purchases indirectly involved current President Xi Jinping, who visited the Pentagon in 1980 — wearing a People's Liberation Army uniform — and was a note-taker during meetings with the secretary of defense.

The Reagan administration also assisted China's development of technology with large infusions of know-how under a secret directive that was designed to make China strong. Military aid was cut off after the June 1989 Tiananmen Square attacks, but other aid continued. The book did not say whether the clandestine cooperation is continuing.

No Chinese official or leader has said anything publicly about the programs, perhaps over concerns that the disclosures would undermine their legitimacy as good communists opposing the U.S. hegemon.

 

[Zeratul]

The Dead CCCP is Good CCCP.

 

[Ray]

China has always been against the USSR and Russia.

Therefore, she would have even colluded with the Devil to bring USSR and now, Russia down.
@Zeratul echos that feeling when he/she writes

The Dead CCCP is Good CCCP.

СССР (Союз Советских Социалистических Республик) is a Russian (Cyrillic) abbreviation for the Soviet Union or USSR.

 

[no smoking]

China has always been against the USSR and Russia.

Therefore, she would have even colluded with the Devil to bring USSR and now, Russia down.

Can you please provide your source that China is NOW working with US to bring Russia down?

 

[Khagesh]

Can you please provide your source that China is NOW working with US to bring Russia down?

Are you expecting minutes of meeting and signed memos or some kiss and tell story.

You have been the prime beneficiaries of the situation Russia is in today. And somehow SCO never seems to be going anywhere. Yanukovych was expecting to be given a nuclear umbrella by you guys. What happened? What was your response. Do you remember it?

 

[Ray]

Can you please provide your source that China is NOW working with US to bring Russia down?

I hope these will be helpful for you to understand the issue in its holity.

Russia's position is only likely to weaken: one of the main tenets of Xi's foreign policy is the building of the 'New Silk Roads'. The main route is overland, making a dogleg to Moscow almost as an afterthought after working its way through the Khorgos International Center for Boundary Cooperation, through Kirgizstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and on to Iran and Europe. It looks as though Chinese dominance of the Central Asian region will give little economic benefit to Russia.
Russia and China's tenuous strategic relationship | Business Spectator

Weaken Russia.

China's Looming Shadow

The RFE (The Russian Far East) has historically had an ambivalent relationship with its giant neighbor, China. It is seen as an indispensable economic partner. Yet China is simultaneously a source of threat. After all, the southern part of what is now the Russian Far East used to be under the Qing's nominal sovereignty until the second half of the 19th century. Despite the fact that, at the official level, the border issue between Moscow and Beijing is fully settled by legal treaties, there are lingering concerns in Russia that China might in the future reclaim the land. This is not helped by the well-known sentiments of many in China who still see the 19th-century border treaties with the Russian Empire as "unfair" and count them as part of "the century of humiliation."

Until recently, the Chinese economic presence in the RFE was quite limited. The number of Chinese migrants in the RFE has also been modest -- no more than 300,000 -- most of them as sojourners rather than permanent residents. There are, however, indications that China's footprint in the RFE is about to grow. China's interest in the RFE has coincided with Moscow's hour of need. Although just a few years ago the Kremlin was reluctant to allow the Chinese direct access to the most valuable industries of the Far East, it had to change its mind when faced with Western isolation over Ukraine and now having few alternatives but China. Moving, or rather being pushed, closer to China amidst confrontation with the West, Moscow has lifted formal and informal restrictions on Chinese investments that existed hitherto and begun to actively court Chinese capitals.
Why the Russian Far East Is So Important to China�|�Artyom Lukin

Exploiting Russian weaknesses and implanting dependence on the RFE inhabitants and pushing in more Han.

************************************

Are you expecting minutes of meeting and signed memos or some kiss and tell story.

You have been the prime beneficiaries of the situation Russia is in today. And somehow SCO never seems to be going anywhere. Yanukovych was expecting to be given a nuclear umbrella by you guys. What happened? What was your response. Do you remember it?

That has been the usual ploy of the Chinese posters whenever anything not too pleasant on China is written.

They want you to produce memos, documents etc, when they cannot even speak against their own regime either publicly or privately. The case of the Chinese TV chap whose private conversation with friends, make one squeal to the CPC against the TV anchor and he lost his job and, for all we know, he is in the Laogai.

 

[Srinivas_K]

China never sees itself as a direct competitor of USA like Russia, nor they oppose USA.

Chinese look for opportunities to strengthen themselves like a businessman. If we look at the recent history, Chinese supported USA on many occasions in the UN.

 

[sorcerer]

The timing of this leak is what interests me when looking from the side of skirmish in Ukraine.

This will make Russians very skeptical about getting closer to China.
Kinda like throwing spanner into the Chinese pivot ?...

 

[Zeratul]

I hope these will be helpful for you to understand the issue in its holity.
They want you to produce memos, documents etc, when they cannot even speak against their own regime either publicly or privately. The case of the Chinese TV chap whose private conversation with friends, make one squeal to the CPC against the TV anchor and he lost his job and, for all we know, he is in the Laogai.

Labor has long been abolished, you really can rumour.

 

[Ray]

Labor has long been abolished, you really can rumour.

Give us another Grimms Fairy Tale

Made In China — But Was It Made In A Prison?

MARCH 29, 2014

An Oregon woman was looking at her Halloween decoration last year when she found a letter written by an inmate from one of China's re-education-through-labor camps. The letter spoke of brutal forced labor in the camp.

It was the latest in a series of incidents dating back to at least to the 1990s in which Chinese prisoners in such camps smuggled out letters in products assembled for export to the U.S.

Early last year, China said it was abolishing these camps, as NPR's Frank Langfitt reported.

And though the U.S. maintains a list of goods made by forced labor in China, including electronics, shoes and clothes, these products still find their way into the U.S. — and American homes.

The U.S. government is trying to address the problem, says Ken Kennedy, the director of the forced labor program under the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Progress, however, has been limited. Still, there have been successes: In 1992, a U.S. company paid a $75,000 fine for knowingly importing machine presses that were made in a Chinese labor camp. In 2001, a Chinese manufacturer pleaded guilty to producing metal clips with forced prison labor and paid a $50,000 fine.

Resistance From China

The U.S. has tried to ensure that China abides by its own laws that ban the export of products made by prison labor. But proving the origins of such products is difficult and requires the cooperation of the Chinese government.

Labor camps usually have a sister factory with a different name located in the same place — and it's unclear how many camps or factories there are. In some cases, products produced inside the prison are labeled with the name of the factory, making it difficult for U.S. officials to start investigations.

If a product is suspected of being made by prison labor, ICE sends information to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing, which in turn sends a request to the Chinese government to visit the camps. ICE's Kennedy says Chinese officials are supposed to reply to their requests within 60 days, but it takes at least five years, usually 10, for any feedback or permission for a visit.

According to the data last updated by Laogai Research Foundation, a human rights nonprofit, U.S. officials have made around 20 visits since 1992. Kennedy notes that when U.S. officials do visit, the camps sometimes no longer exist.

China's decision to end its re-education-through-labor camps doesn't make investigations easier. Camps can be renamed and continue producing goods.

"The main limitation is the Chinese government," Kennedy says. "Without being able to visit the location and getting the approval one way or the other, we are basically hamstrung in our investigation."

Besides, these camps are just one part of China's incarceration system, and they're not the only sites suspected of continuing to make products for export.

U.S. Loophole

U.S. laws also leave room for this type of trade.

The U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 prohibits the inflow of goods made with any types of forced labor, but it has a "consumptive demand" exception, which allows goods, even made by prisoners, to be imported if they are short in supply in the U.S. Efforts to plug this loophole have failed.

Last March, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., now the U.S. ambassador to China, introduced a bill to close the exemption. It died in the Senate Finance Committee.

A separate 2005 law to protect trafficking victims is the only legislation that directly combats forced labor products. It requires the Department of Labor to publish an annual list of products produced by forced labor. The current list has 35 products made by forced labor from 26 countries.

But ICE's Kennedy said the 2005 law is focused on prosecuting those who force people into labor.

"They are not interested in the commodities that the person was forced to produce," he said.

Push Back From Businesses

In the early 2000s, Claude d'Estree worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office and proposed rules that required businesses to regulate forced labor in their production processes. D'Estree, now director of Center on Rights Development at the University of Denver, says businesses thought the rules were too costly and hard to accomplish.

"It's a very hard sell," he said. "This is an uphill battle."

Indeed. The 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation imposed disclosure requirements on U.S. companies for, among other things, if products contained conflict minerals. A similar legislative effort in 2011 that would have required businesses to file annual disclosures about conditions of forced labor or human trafficking in their supply chains died in the House Committee on Financial Services.

D'Estree says it's not as hard for companies to comply as it seems.

"The reality is that the corporate complains a lot, but they [can] just impose the standard down the supply chain," he said. "It sounds like a huge imposition. I'm not convinced in reality it is."

And, he adds, there seems to be less interest from the U.S. government to fight the issue.

"What I have seen is a widening gap between rhetoric and resources," d'Estree said. "There is less and less real resources to either understanding it by research or actually effectuate any kind of positive change."

Jeffrey Fiedler, a commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, echoed that concern.

"If the U.S. uses intelligence resources to discover companies in prisons that are using forced labor, and then ban those products from coming to the U.S.," he said, "that's the only real way it's going to change."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/03/28/295715854/made-in-china-but-was-it-made-in-a-prison

Chinese have a God given restricted view and cannot see the whole scenario.

Open your eyes.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

The whole idiotic idea by Rockefeller was to open china to bring down the soviet
Union. Are Russians naive after four decades?

 

[SADAKHUSH]

The timing is perfect, I hope Putin gets a copy of it as well. One copy should be sent to regime of Pureistan as well so that they know who they are dealing with. I would be surprised if China is not sharing with CIA the information about location of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. USA is trying her level best to bring Pakistan under her umbrella whether they succeed or not time will tell. IMO USA might make public CIA information sharing with China about Pakistan's nuclear stockpile location as well in order to stop development of silk route.

 

[sgarg]

Past enemies can become today's friends, and today's friends will become future enemies.

China needs Russia today as much as Russia needs China. Russia sits on massive natural resources which are CRITICAL in the time of war.

Anybody remember Reagan's star-wars. There have been some developments in the last few years which must have made the Chinese very uncomfortable. The Chinese also need protection from USA. The rationalists will always argue that USA will try to cut China to size soon, before China becomes strong enough to challenge USA directly.

 

[sgarg]

If there is a third world war, I see China and Russia on the same side.

I see European Union split in the middle with northern Europe firmly siding with USA but Southern Europe not so.

 

[amoy]

That's called an independent foreign policy, judging every issue on its own merits rather than attaching to any power.

Even during the Soviet-China honey moon China insisted Stalin hand back control of Dalian (Port Arthur) and the Manchurian railway. China also rejected Khruschev's offer to build a joint fleet and a long-wave radio station for fear of discounting Chinese sovereignty.

Not biased by the "shared ideology" China condemned Soviet invasion of Czech Slovakia to suppress the Prague Spring.

Even when China was in the Soviet bloc USSR supported Indian aggressions against China.

It's no eye opener when we learn the so called non-aligned India and CIA were bed fellows in anti-China operations. But kudos to India for milking both superpowers to the largest extent possible.

~Tapa talks: Orange is the new black.~

 

[Ray]

That's called an independent foreign policy, judging every issue on its own merits rather than attaching to any power.

Even during the Soviet-China honey moon China insisted Stalin hand back control of Dalian (Port Arthur) and the Manchurian railway. China also rejected Khruschev's offer to build a joint fleet and a long-wave radio station for fear of discounting Chinese sovereignty.

Not biased by the "shared ideology" China condemned Soviet invasion of Czech Slovakia to suppress the Prague Spring.

Even when China was in the Soviet bloc USSR supported Indian aggressions against China.

It's no eye opener when we learn the so called non-aligned India and CIA were bed fellows in anti-China operations. But kudos to India for milking both superpowers to the largest extent possible.

~Tapa talks: Orange is the new black.~

Again you are at the usual Disinformation mode.

Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately.[1] It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

Let us see what Prague Spring was in a nutshell.

Prague Spring began on 5 January 1968, when reformist Alexander Dubček was elected First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (KSČ) and he started various reforms that attempted ideals of democracy like increasing freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of movement, with economic emphasis on consumer goods and the possibility of a multiparty government. USSR was displeased.

The Prague Spring continued till 21 August 1968. On the night of 20–21 August 1968, Eastern Bloc armies from five Warsaw Pact countries – the Soviet Union, the GDR, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary—invaded the ÄŒSSR. Gustáv Husák, replaced Dubček.

Albania and Romania, both Communist states, did not participate in the invasion.

Economic fallout from this move was mitigated somewhat by a strengthening of Albanian relations with the People's Republic of China, which was itself on increasingly strained terms with the Soviet Union.

Now let us see China's relations with the USSR at that time.

In 1959 and 1960, USSR withdrew all economic advisers from China. Khrushchev's renunciation of the agreement to provide a sample nuclear weapon to China was a body blow to China. Mutual accusations of ideological deviation increased amongst them and the political rift between the two countries widened
Further, in 1968 and 1969, serious Sino-Soviet border clashes occurred along the Amur and Ussuri rivers.

Heard of the famous Sino-Soviet split (1960–1989) which was the worsening of political and ideological relations between the neighbouring states of People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) during the Cold War?

Therefore, what are you trying to ride the high horse with 'Not biased by the "shared ideology" China condemned Soviet invasion of Czech Slovakia to suppress the Prague Spring'?

When the relations between China had soured with the USSR, it is so obvious that it will criticise USSR every time it gets a chance. Is it so obvious?

After KMT was overthrown, Mao visited Moscow from December 1949 to February 1950 and the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance (1950) was signed. This included a $300 million low-interest loan and a 30-year military alliance to refurbish Mao's impoverished military. Over the years, China's relations with USSR were not smooth and Mao was peeved with Stalin's obduracy.

In so far as Port Arthur is concerned, after Joseph Stalin's death in March 1953, there was a temporary revival of Sino-Soviet friendship. In 1954, the Soviets calmed Mao with an official visit by Premier Nikita Khrushchev that featured the formal hand-over of the Lüshun (Port Arthur) naval base to China. The Soviets also provided technical aid in 156 industries in China's first five-year plan, and 520 million rubles in loans.

Furthermore, the USSR alarmed by the Great Leap Forward renounced aiding Chinese nuclear weapons development, and refused to side with them in the Sino-Indian War (1962), by maintaining a moderate relation with India—actions deemed offensive by Mao as the Chinese leader.

So, it is China which aided India to become USSR's friend. Thank you, China.

As far as CIA in India, may I add that some CIA trainees ended up commanding an army of 2,000 resistance fighters dubbed the Chushi Gangdruk, or "Four Rivers, Six Gorges". These fighters were specialized in ambushing Chinese targets from elevated bases in the mountains of Nepal

It is claimed that CIA placed a permanent ELINT device, a transceiver powered by a plutonium battery, that could detect and report data on future nuclear tests carried out by China.

 

[amoy]

It's nothing new for the world India has been an CIA pawn. Non Aligned Movement, what black humour !!

The CIA’s reconnaissance operations in India » Indian Defence Review
https://syednazakat.wordpress.com/2011/03/26/cia-worked-directly-with-nehru/

The CIA's reconnaissance operations in India By Claude ArpiIssue Net Edition | Date : 11 Aug , 2014

The CIA recently declassified a new series of documents on the history of the U-2 surveillance planes.

In their "The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974", Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach mentioned the U-2s operations in India.

On 11 November 1962, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru consented to the proposed operation and gave the United States permission to refuel the reconnaissance aircraft (U-2s) in Indian airspace.
[I quote from pages 231 to 233]

In October 1962, the People's Republic of China launched a series of massive surprise attacks against India's frontier forces in the western provinces of Jammu and Kashmir and in the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA). The Chinese overran all Indian fortifications north of the Brahmaputra Valley before halting their operations.

The Indian Government appealed to the United States for military aid. In the negotiations that followed, it became apparent that Indian claims concerning the extent of the Chinese incursions could not be reliably evaluated. US Ambassador John Kenneth Galbraith, therefore, suggested to the Indian Government that US aerial reconnaissance of the disputed areas would provide both governments with a more accurate picture of the Communist Chinese incursions.

On 11 November 1962, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru consented to the proposed operation and gave the United States permission to refuel the reconnaissance aircraft (U-2s) in Indian airspace.

In late November, Detachment G [1] to Ta Khli, [2] to carry out the overflights of the Sino-Indian border area. Since the U-2s were not authorized to overfly Burma, they had to reach the target area via the Bay of Bengal and eastern India and, therefore, required midair refueling.

Because of severe winter weather conditions, the first flight did not take place until 5 December. Poor weather and air turbulence hampered the mission, and only 40 percent of the target area could be photographed. A second mission on 10 December was more successful, but the U-2 experienced rough engine performance because of icing of the fuel lines.

Photography from these missions was used in January and again in March 1963 to brief Prime Minister Nehru, who then informed the Indian Parliament about Communist Chinese troop movements along the border
Detachment G U-2s made four more overflights of the Sino-Indian border areas in January 1963, which led to a PRC protest to India. Photography from these missions was used in January and again in March 1963 to brief Prime Minister Nehru, who then informed the Indian Parliament about Communist Chinese troop movements along the border. Although Nehru did not reveal the source of his intelligence, a UPI wire story surmised that the information had been obtained by U-2s.

The United States had provided photographic coverage of the border area to India for two reasons. First of all, US policymakers wanted a clear picture of the area under dispute. In addition, the intelligence community wanted to establish a precedent for overflights from India, which could lead to obtaining a permanent staging base in India for electronic reconnaissance missions against the Soviet ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] site at Saryshagan and photographic missions against those portions of western China that were out of range of Detachment H.

In April 1963, Ambassador Galbraith and the Chief of Station at New Delhi made the first official request to India for a base. The following month, President Kennedy agreed to DCI [Director Central Intelligence] McCone's suggestion to raise the question of a U-2 base in India when he met with India's President Savepalli Radhakrishnan on 3 June. This meeting resulted in an Indian offer of an abandoned World War II base at Charbatia, south of Calcutta [near Cuttack in Odisha].

The Charbatia base was in poor condition and needed considerable renovation before it could be used for U-2 operations. Work on the base by the Indians took much longer than expected, so Detachment G continued to use Ta Khli when it staged four sorties over Tibet from 29 September to 10 November 1963. In addition to the coverage of the Sino-Indian border during this series of flights, the U-2s also photographed all of Thailand to produce a photomap of the border regions as a quid pro quo for the Thai Government. During one of these photomapping missions, a U-2 pilot conducted the longest mission ever recorded in this aircraft- 11 hours and 45 minutes.

At the end of this flight on 10 November 1963, the pilot was in such poor physical condition that project managers prohibited the scheduling of future missions longer than 10 hours.

The first mission out of Charbatia did not take place until 24 May 1964. Three days later Prime Minister Nehru died, and further operations were postponed.
Charbatia was still not ready in early 1964, so on 31 March 1964 Detachment G staged another mission from Ta Khli. The first mission out of Charbatia did not take place until 24 May 1964. Three days later Prime Minister Nehru died, and further operations were postponed.

The pilots and aircraft left Charbatia, but other equipment remained in place to save staging costs. In December 1964, when Sino-Indian tensions increased along the border, Detachment G returned to Charbatia and conducted three highly successful missions, satisfying all of COMOR's requirements for the Sino-Indian border region. By this time, however, Ta Khli had become the main base for Detachment G's Asian operations, and Charbatia served merely as a forward staging base. Charbatia was closed out in July 1967.

[1] Elsewhere, the U-2 report says that Detachment C could not have stayed in Nevada much longer. In June 1957, the entire facility had to be evacuated because the Atomic Energy Commission was about to conduct a series of nuclear tests whose fallout was expected to contaminate the Groom Lake facility. All remaining CIA personnel, materiel, and aircraft were transferred to Edwards Air Force Base in California, and became known as Detachment G.

[2] Takhli Royal Thai Air Force Base is today a Royal Thai Air Force facility, located in Central Thailand, approximately 144 miles northwest of Bangkok

What is surprising in this story is that the beginning of the collaboration between the CIA and the Indian Government for reconnaissance of the Himalayan borders, is given as November 11, 1962.

It is the day Nehru is supposed to have allowed the U-2s to 'refuel' during their reconnaissance flights.

To understand the context, it is necessary to look at The Foreign Relations of the United States (1961–1963 Volume XIX, South Asia), which publishes several telegrams from the Department of State to the US Embassy in India.

One of these cables is sent from Washington on November 20, 1962 (at 12:50 a.m. U.S. time) by the US Secretary of State Dean Rusk to the US Ambassador in India, John Kenneth Galbraith.

""¦.As we read this message it amounts to a request for an active and practically speaking unlimited military partnership between the United States and India to take on Chinese invasion India"¦"

Marked 'Eyes Only for Ambassador from Secretary', the cable says of Nehru's request for assistance: "We have just forwarded to you second letter from Nehru today anticipated in your [cable] 1889. As we read this message it amounts to a request for an active and practically speaking unlimited military partnership between the United States and India to take on Chinese invasion India. This involves for us the most far-reaching political and strategic issues and we are not at all [emphasis mine] convinced that Indians are prepared to face the situation in the same terms. I recall that more than once in past two years I have expressed to various Indian representatives my concern that their policy would lead to a situation where they would call upon us for assistance when it is too late rather than give their and free world policy any opportunity for preventive effectiveness."

This new development relates to the two panicky letterssent by the Indian Prime Minister on November 19, 1962, which were brought to the Indian public's notice by the veteran journalist Inder Malhotra a few years ago.

Another telegram (also classified 'Eyes Only for the Ambassador') from Dean Rusk was sent the same day at 22:31 p.m. US time; it tells the US Ambassador: "Unless you think it inappropriate, please deliver the following message to Prime Minister Nehru as soon as feasible."

The letter to Jawaharlal Nehru reads thus:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I was on the point of responding to your two urgent letters when we received news of the Chinese statements on a cease-fire. I, of course, wish your assessment of whether it makes any change in your situation. I had planned to write you that we are ready to be as responsive as possible to your needs, in association with the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. We remain prepared to do so.

We had already organized a small group of top U.S. officials [headed by Ambassador Averell Harriman, it included Paul Nitze, Carl Kaysen, Roger Hilsman, and General Paul D. Adams], who would arrive in New Delhi Friday [November 22], to help Ambassador Galbraith in concerting with your government how we can best help. It seems useful to go ahead with this effort as planned and we will do so unless you think it inadvisable.

The problem was that Washington (and Delhi as well) had little information about the Chinese intentions and even less on the dispositions of the PLA in Tibet.

It is signed Dean Rusk, who told his Ambassador: "You might suggest to Nehru that even under changed circumstances the team would be useful as a tangible gesture of US support."

In the earlier quoted telegram, the State Department had informed the US Ambassador: "Latest message from PriMin [Nehru] in effect proposes not only a military alliance between India and the United States but complete commitment by us to a fighting war. We recognized this might be immediate reaction of a Government in a desperate position but it is a proposal which cannot be reconciled with any further pretense of non-alignment. If this is what Nehru has in mind, he should be entirely clear about it before we even consider our own decision."

The problem was that Washington (and Delhi as well) had little information about the Chinese intentions and even less on the dispositions of the PLA in Tibet. It was most urgent for both Washington and Delhi to get proper and reliable information; this probably justified the use of the U-2 surveillance planes.

This lack of information was admitted by Rusk when he cabled Galbraith on November 19 (at 11:06 p.m.): "We acutely feel lack of information regarding GOI [Government of India] plans and capacity to meet this new situation. Accordingly, we are sending a small high-level team to arrive New Delhi approximately Friday [November 22] to assess whole situation along with Indian plans and capability for meeting it and return with action recommendations as soon as possible. They may wish to visit scene of action on frontier. Team will include high ranking military officers both Army and Air with appropriate representation from State and CIA. Arranging best coordination we can with UK directly, but not waiting on them."

This was what Ambassador Averell Harriman was sent to Delhi for: to ascertain Nehru's long term intentions and India's real needs.

Washington however warned: "There are strong reasons why the United States should not appear to be the point of the spear in assisting India in this situation. The most impelling of these is that our role might force Moscow to support Peiping [Beijing]. We shall be considering here whether there is anything we can constructively say to Moscow about China's reckless and provocative action because there is some reason to believe that Moscow is also very much worried about the dangerous possibility. I would emphasize, however, India must mobilize its own diplomatic and political resources, seek the broadest base of support throughout the world and, more particularly, enlist the active interest and participation of the Commonwealth."

The end results of these discussions were plans for a major three-phase military aid package encompassing material support, help with domestic defense production, and possible assistance with air defenses.
Already on November 19 (in the cable quoted earlier), Rusk had defined the possible help Washington could immediately provide to Delhi: "We are prepared to dispatch twelve or more C-130"²s at once to assist in any necessary movement of forces and equipment to Assam area or to Ladakh. This would be US operation with planes, crews support. Request your urgent advice whether Indians prepared to use this transport immediately. Also earliest estimates men and tonnage involved. Special airlift team being dispatched at once. This provides another opportunity for you to remind Indians about importance of moving troops from Pakistan border. Urgency of situation underlines anomaly of Indian reluctance in this respect."

Part of the Harriman's mission was also to make peace between India and Pakistan.

Washington was keen to rope in the British in the operation.

As mentioned by The US Secretary of State in the same cable: "This as far as we can see to go on basis of facts now available here. However, supply actions urgently needed and assessed as valid need not be delayed despite lack of clear picture Indian capabilities. View possibility India now ready use tactical air, one airlift requirement may be bombs request of UK. London should raise this and ascertain availability and British air shipment capabilities."

This is for the overt assistance; we have another source of the events, which mentions the covert support (minus the U-2's reconnaissance flights).

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison in their 'The CIA'S Secret in Tibet' (University Press of Kansas, 2002) recounts:

On 21 November, Harriman's entourage departed Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. Although the Chinese declared a unilateral cease-fire while the group was en route, the situation was still tense when it reached New Delhi the following day. Without pause, Ambassador Galbraith ushered Harriman into the first of four meetings with Nehru. The end results of these discussions were plans for a major three-phase military aid package encompassing material support, help with domestic defense production, and possible assistance with air defenses.

Convoy and Morrison, who are more interested by the covert aspect of the US-India collaboration (particularly the US support to the Tibetan guerilla), continue:

Both the CIA and the Intelligence Bureau were quick to seize the opportunity.

As a covert aside to Harriman's talks, the CIA representatives on the delegation held their own sessions with Indian intelligence czar [Intelligence Bureau Director B.N.] Mullik. This was a first, as Galbraith had previously taken great pains to downscale the agency's activities inside India to all but benign reporting functions. As recently as 5 November, he had objected to projected CIA plans due to the risk of exposure. But in a 13 November letter to Kennedy, the ambassador had a qualified change of heart, noting that [Defence Minister V.K. Krishna] Menon's departure was a turning point to begin working with the Indians on 'sensitive matters'.

Both the CIA and the Intelligence Bureau were quick to seize the opportunity. "I went into a huddle with Mullik and Des [FitzGerald, head of CIA's Far East Division]," recalls Critchfield [James Critchfield of the CIA's the Near East Division], "and we started coming up with all these schemes against the Chinese."

Most of their ideas centered around use of the Tibetans. "The Indians were interested in the Tibet program because of its intelligence collection value," said [India's] station chief David Blee, who sat in on some of the meetings. "Mullik was particularly interested in paramilitary operations." There was good reason for this: following Menon's resignation, and [Dalai Lama's elder brother] Gyalo Thondup's stated preference, the Intelligence Bureau had been placed in charge of the 5,000 Tibetan guerrillas forming under Brigadier [Sujan Singh] Uban [first Inspector General of the Tibetan Special Frontier Force].

Convoy and Morrison analyse: "Mullik was cautious as well. Although he was well connected to the Nehru family and had the prime minister's full approval to talk with the CIA, he knew that the Indian populace was fickle, and until recently, anti-Americanism had been a popular mantra. It was perhaps only a matter of time before the barometer would swing back and make open Indo-U.S. cooperation political suicide."
"¦V.K. Krishna Menon, the arrogant Defence Minister and stumbling block for a closer collaboration between India and the US, had resigned on November 8.

According to the American authors: "By the end of the Harriman mission, the CIA and Intelligence Bureau had arrived at a rough division of labor. The Indians, with CIA support from the Near East Division, would work together in developing Uban's 5,000-strong tactical guerrilla force. The CIA's Far East Division, meantime, would unilaterally create a strategic long-range resistance movement inside Tibet. The Mustang contingent would also remain under the CIA's unilateral control."

But this is another story.

To come back to the U-2 operation in India, it is doubtful that a full-fledged use of the U-2s was permitted on November 11, though V.K. Krishna Menon, the arrogant Defence Minister and stumbling block for a closer collaboration between India and the US, had resigned on November 8.

It is also true that the CIA History of the U-2s mentions only the 'permission for refueling' given on November 11.

It is however certain, that the main thrust of the covert operations over the Himalayas was decided during Harriman's Mission to India, when the CIA's senior officials accompanying Kennedy's envoy met with their

Indian counterpart, particularly B.N. Mullik.

Though not mentioned in the CIA's history, it would be interesting to probe the role of Biju Patnaik, the Oriya politician, who was instrumental in offering Charbatia as a base the U-2s' operations in the Himalayas and Tibet.

Early 1961, Patnaik became president of the Odisha's State Congress. Under his leadership, the Congress Party won 82 of 140 seats in the Assembly election and on 23 June 1961, he became the State Chief Minister (he remained in the post until 2 October 1963 when he resigned from the post under the Kamaraj Plan to revitalise the Congress party). Patnaik was then 45-year old.

He played an important, though not recognized as yet, in the covert operations against China.

Courtesy: Claude Arpi

 

[amoy]

With hindsight I'd say both Sino-CCCP split and Sino-India face-off in 1960's were blessings in disguise for China.

The significance of this minor event lay in the Soviet reaction. On 9 September, the Soviet government issued an official statement regretting the dispute between two states who were both friends of the Soviet Union. India also received much assistance, both economic and military, from the USSR. In fact, by 1960, India had already received more assistance than China! This was interpreted by the Chinese that China and Indian are on the same footing, even though China was in the socialist camp and ally of USSR while India was a bourgeois democracy and non-aligned. The Chinese were indignant at such treatment and were even more angered when Khrushchev visited USA.

The very fact of the visit went against the China policy and it was then stressed that it was the joint responsibility of USSR and USA to the world as a whole. This seemed that the superpowers were in league with one another to control the rest of the world, Including China.

The Sino-Indian Conflict

China shall always act in Chinese interest, being self-esteemed as one of multi-polars- not pursuing to be an enemy of either Russia (erstwhile CCCP) or America, but standing as an equal.

 

[Ray]

With hindsight I'd say both Sino-CCCP split and Sino-India face-off in 1960's were blessings in disguise for China.

The Sino-Indian Conflict

China shall always act in Chinese interest, being self-esteemed as one of multi-polars- not pursuing to be an enemy of either Russia (erstwhile CCCP) or America, but standing as an equal.

That is what it says most piously every time, but connives in 'self interest' covering the same with mellifluous cooing to disarm and distract.

Remember 'Peaceful Rising'?

Having 'risen peacefully' by disarming sweet talk, it actually armed itself to the teeth and even stealing technology through deceit and agents in the Han diaspora.

It resulted in Aggressive claiming of the SCS and confronting the US also.

In fact, by 1960, India had already received more assistance than China! This was interpreted by the Chinese that China and Indian are on the same footing, even though China was in the socialist camp and ally of USSR while India was a bourgeois democracy and non-aligned.

Conveniently you are forgetting the Sino Soviet dispute where relations were soured immensely.

Hence, to believe the USSR will come out in favour of China is wishful thinking.

Russia aided India to balance China which it was finding distasteful. even though it was a fraternal brother.

And like good Communists like China, they infiltrated the Indian system with its 'well wishers'.

Read Mitrokhin Archive.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

India is no one's pawn.

China was detested and so it outsourced the disgust to the US who had better tools and who digested China to its gills.

Set a thief to catch a thief.

1962 and post 1962 was botched up by that dreamer Nehru, who elevated Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai as his mantra and defanged the military as he was afraid that India would go Pakistan's way.

*****************************

With hindsight I'd say both Sino-CCCP split and Sino-India face-off in 1960's were blessings in disguise for China.

Time will only tell.

The geostrategic equation is changing fast.

China is losing friends and buying enemies.

Carry out more atrocities on the Muslims of Xinjiang and oil will get scarce for China.

 

[no smoking]

I hope these will be helpful for you to understand the issue in its holity.



Weaken Russia.



Exploiting Russian weaknesses and implanting dependence on the RFE inhabitants and pushing in more Han.

************************************



That has been the usual ploy of the Chinese posters whenever anything not too pleasant on China is written.

They want you to produce memos, documents etc, when they cannot even speak against their own regime either publicly or privately. The case of the Chinese TV chap whose private conversation with friends, make one squeal to the CPC against the TV anchor and he lost his job and, for all we know, he is in the Laogai.

Well, based on your criteria, India is also trying to bring Russia since India is exploiting Russia's weakness of lacking cash to force Russia give up her core military technologies.