Whole Tyrant – Red China – Trojan Horse

Red China – Trojan Horse if not Jackass

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

Red China’s global ambitions cannot be trusted because of her One-Party Governance with no Public Accountability and Transparency. I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada

Special Frontier Force – Establishment 22 – Vikas Regiment

CHINA’S GLOBAL AMBITIONS: ARE THERE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM TIBET?

Clipped from: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/chinas-global-ambitions-are-their-lessons-to-be-learnt-from-tibet-20170820-gy0dk0.html

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

The man who replaced the Dalai Lama as the head of Tibet’s government-in-exile has brought a troubling message to Australia. The Chinese military forcibly annexed Tibet in the 1950s, sending the Dalai Lama into hasty exile in India. The Dalai Lama retains his role as spiritual leader. But the Tibetan diaspora elected Lobsang Sangay as their political leader six years ago. He spoke at the National Press Club in Canberra earlier this month. The Harvard-educated lawyer’s message to Australia: “It happened to Tibet – you could be next.”

This is a disturbing idea, but surely a fanciful one? As president of the Tibetan government-in-exile, Sangay’s main agenda is to stir international empathy for Tibet. Encouraging us to identify with Tibet, putting us in Tibet’s shoes, is surely a clever technique for achieving his aim.

Does have anything to support his assertion? His case: “If you understand the Tibetan story, the Chinese government [before the military takeover] started building a road – our first ever highway in Tibet.

“Now, we were promised peace and prosperity with the highway, and our parents and grandparents joined in building the road. In fact, they were paid silver coins to help them build the road…

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

“So my parents told me the Chinese soldiers with guns were so polite, so nice, the kids used to taunt them and taunt them, they always smiled. They never said anything. Then they built the road. Once the road reached Lhasa – the capital city of Tibet – first trucks came, then guns came, then tanks came. Soon, Tibet was occupied. So it started with the road.

“Then another strategy that they deployed was divide and rule, co-opting our ruling elite… They were paid, I think, in Australian context, huge consultation fees.” This brought knowing guffaws from the Australian audience.

“So,” Sangay concluded, “what you see in Australia and around the world – co-optation of ruling elites, getting high consultation fees, business leaders supporting the Chinese line of argument, and even the religious figures – we have seen all that in Tibet. So it started with the road.”

And he compared China’s current international infrastructure project with that road: “So that was the consequence of One Belt, One Road in Tibet.”

One Belt, One Road is President Xi Jinping’s signature foreign policy project. So far, 68 countries have signed up to the mighty vision of an interconnected system of road, rail, ports and bridges embracing most of the world’s population and connecting Europe to Asia and the Pacific through China on land and at sea.

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

However, this is just a beginning; One Belt, One Road was only launched formally in May. Beijing’s plan ultimately encompasses more than 100 countries and at an estimated total cost of between $US1 trillion ($1.26 trillion) and $US4 trillion or more. China has offered to link it with Australia’s Northern Australia Infrastructure Fund, although the Turnbull government has so far declined.

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

In the weekend edict from Beijing clamping down on Chinese foreign investment for fear of excess capital flight, Xi’s government nonetheless encouraged Chinese firms to redirect their money into projects in the One Belt, One Road plan.

Could Chinese infrastructure be a Trojan horse for Chinese takeover of foreign countries? In May, Pakistan’s English-language newspaper Dawn exposed a detailed, 231-page Chinese plan for its 15-year infrastructure rollout in Pakistan. The newspaper’s Khurram Husain described it as “a deep and broad-based penetration of most sectors of Pakistan’s economy as well as its society by Chinese enterprises and culture”.

In Australia, some of China’s proposed infrastructure investments have been prohibited on national security grounds. Last year the Turnbull government blocked a $10 billion Chinese plan to buy into NSW power distribution company Ausgrid. China’s Huawei communications firm has been barred from any investment in Australia’s National Broadband Network. And, as Fairfax’s David Wroe reported on the weekend, the federal intelligence agencies are troubled by Huawei’s buy-in to the proposed 4500 kilometer fiber optic cable connecting the Solomon Islands to Sydney. They fear it is a Chinese state-sponsored effort to find a backdoor into Australia’s critical infrastructure.

A Chinese firm’s purchase of the Port of Darwin raised deep concerns in Washington. Ructions over the decision moved the federal government to change the way the Foreign Investment Review Board reviews proposals – the board is now chaired by a former head of ASIO.

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

Chinese soldiers with fixed bayonets attend the flag-raising ritual at dawn in Tiananmen Square.

Is Sangay right? Geremie Barme, former head of ANU’s Centre for China in the World, is both deeply knowledgeable about China and highly skeptical of its party-state apparatus. He says that Sangay is wrong on two counts. First, says Barme, it’s a “false comparison” to put Tibet with Australia and other countries in the Chinese worldview. “China went into Tibet to extract resources and for military reasons, it was not a big market for China,” says Barme, now an independent scholar and publisher of chinaheritage.net. “China as an economic and political entity is deeply implicated with global economics and politics and it needs not only resources, it needs markets.” Tibet was about resources, in other words, while it sees most of the rest of the world as markets.

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

Second, the Chinese ruling class has not yet decided the scope of their global ambitions, according to Barme. “There is a debate in China at the moment – what responsibilities will they take in the world, and what can they afford?

“They have been studying the US imperium closely for 70 years, and studying why the Soviet Union collapsed. They do know that imperial expansion comes at a very heavy price, and are they prepared to pay that price? They don’t know yet. They do debate it.”

Depending on China’s choice, Lobsang Sangay will turn out to be either a far-seeing prophet or Chicken Little.

Peter Hartcher is the international editor.

I describe Red China’s Communist Face using terms such as Evil, Aggressor, Public Enemy No. 1,Tyrant, Occupier, Subjugator, Wicked, Cunning, Jackal, Expansionist, Neocolonialist, Obstructionist, Jackass, and Trojan Horse.

Whole Legacy – The Legacy of John F. Kennedy, the 35th US President

Special Frontier Force Remembers the Legacy of 35th US President

Special Frontier Force, a military organization in India was established during the Cold War Era while the US fought wars in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam. In my view, Special Frontier Force is the relic of Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

Special Frontier Force, a military organization in India was established during the Cold War Era while the US fought wars in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam. In my view, Special Frontier Force is the relic of Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

Remembering John F. Kennedy’s Legacy on his 100th birthday

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE REMEMBERS JOHN F KENNEDY’S LEGACY ON 35th PRESIDENT’S 100th BIRTHDAY.

Published May 29, 2017

Fox News

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

In this Feb. 27, 1959 file photo, Sen. John F. Kennedy, D-Mass., is shown in his office in Washington. Monday, May 29, 2017 marks the 100-year anniversary of the birth of Kennedy, who went on to become the 35th President of the United States. (AP Photo, File) (AP 1959)

As Americans celebrate this Memorial Day, they also will remember the life and legacy of President John F. Kennedy who was born 100 years ago this Monday.

While the 35th president left a mixed legacy following his assassination in Dallas in 1963, Kennedy remains nearly as popular today as he did during his time in office, and he arguably created the idea of a president’s “brand” that has become commonplace in American politics.

“President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy worked hard to construct a positive image of themselves, what I call the Kennedy brand,” Michael Hogan, author of ‘The Afterlife of John Fitzgerald Kennedy: A Biography.’ “And because history is as much about forgetting as remembering, they made every effort to filter out information at odds with that image.”

In commemoration of JFK’s 100th birthday, Fox News has compiled a rundown on the life of the 35th president:

Born on May 29, 1917 in Brookline, Massachusetts to Joseph “Joe” Kennedy and Rose Elizabeth Fitzgerald Kennedy

In 1940, Kennedy graduated cum laude from Harvard College with a Bachelor of Arts in government

From 1941 to 1945, Kennedy commanded three patrol torpedo boats in South Pacific during World War II, including the PT-109 which was sunk by a Japanese destroyer

In 1946, Kennedy was elected to Congress for Massachusetts’s 11th congressional district and served three terms

Elected to the U.S. Senate to represent Massachusetts in 1952

Kennedy marries Jacqueline Bouvier, a writer with the Washington Times-Herald, in 1953

Receives the Pulitzer Prize in 1957 for his book “Profiles in Courage”

Elected President of the United States in 1960, becoming the youngest person elected to the country’s highest office, and the first Roman Catholic president.

He is credited with overseeing the creation and launch of the Peace Corps

Sent 3,000 U.S. troops to support the desegregation of the University of Mississippi after riots there left two dead and many others injured

Approved the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 intending to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro

In 1962, Kennedy oversaw the Cuban Missile Crisis — seen as one of the most crucial periods of the U.S.’s Cold War with the Soviet Union

Signed a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in July 1963

Asked Congress to approve more than $22 billion for Project Apollo with the goal of landing an American on the moon by the end of the 1960s

Escalated involvement in the conflict in Vietnam and approved the overthrow of Vietnam’s President Ngô Đình Diệm. By the time of the war’s end in 1975, more than 58,000 U.S. troops were killed in the conflict

Assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

Inserted from <http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/29/john-f-kennedys-life-and-legacy-remembered-on-35th-presidents-100th-birthday.html>

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

Bruce Riedel Reveals the Failed CIA Operations in Tibet and Cuba

Whole Review – JFK’s Forgotten Crisis, Book by Bruce Riedel. I reject Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interpretation of Prime Minister Nehru’s Policy since 1947. In fact, Bruce Riedel reveals the failed CIA operations in Tibet and Cuba.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy faced two great crises in 1962 – the Cuban missile crisis and the Sino-Indian War. While his part in the missile crisis that threatened to snowball into a nuclear war has been thoroughly studied, his critical role in the Sino-Indian War has been largely ignored. Bruce Riedel fills that gap with JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War. Riedel’s telling of the president’s firm response to China’s invasion of India and his deft diplomacy in keeping Pakistan neutral provides a unique study of Kennedy’s leadership. Embedded within that story is an array of historical details of special interest to India, remarkable among which are Jacqueline Kennedy’s role in bolstering diplomatic relations with Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistan President Ayub Khan, and the backstory to the China-India rivalry – what is today the longest disputed border in the world.

Bruce Riedel is senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project. He joined Brookings following a thirty-year career at the CIA. His previous books include The Search for al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future; Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad; and Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back.

In my analysis, Indian Prime Minister Nehru and the US President John F. Kennedy are not accountable for the Failed CIA Operations in Tibet and Cuba. THE 1962 INDIA – CHINA WAR AND THE US FACTOR. PRESIDENT KENNEDY PLANNED TO NUKE CHINA IN 1962.

The great conspiracy hatched by the UK and the US to dismember India in 1947 is not mentioned in JFK’s Forgotten Crisis Book Review. The First Kashmir War of 1947-48 is not because of Nehru’s incompetence. Following this unfair and unjust attack on India in 1947, Nehru acted in the interests of India and obtained the Soviet support for Kashmir without any concern for his own policy of Non-Alignment. He was indeed a great diplomat who performed a balancing act. The Communist takeover of mainland China and Chairman Mao Zedongs’s Expansionist Doctrine compelled Nehru to visit Washington D.C. in 1949 to initiate the Tibetan Resistance Movement and Nehru kept it as a covert operation to avoid provoking the Soviets. Nehru offered the UN Security Council seat to Red China to please the Soviets for they are the only people who fully supported India on the Kashmir issue.

It is the US policy which helped Red China to occupy Aksai Chin area of Ladakh. The US claims Kashmir as the territory of Pakistan. The US policy does not recognize India’s right to Kashmir.

It is the US policy which helped Red China to occupy Aksai Chin area of Ladakh. The US claims Kashmir as the territory of Pakistan. Even today, the official maps of the US show Kashmir as Pakistan’s territory and the US continues to support Pakistan with an aim to dismember India. These covert operations have extended to Punjab and to the Northeast.
Nehru kept his cool and obtained the US support to defend the Northeast Frontier. Kennedy did not hesitate to use the Nuke threat and it forced Red China to declare unilateral ceasefire. India regained the full control of the Northeast Frontier while the Chinese still occupy Ladakh which clearly reveals the nature of the US policy which does not recognize India’s right to Kashmir.
Too much attention is given by Indian readers to Mrs. Kennedy’s sleeping arrangements during her visit to New Delhi in March 1962. She came with two other ladies. I know the man who cleans the trash cans of that suite. She was experiencing her monthly period during her stay in New Delhi. Nehru may wear a Red Rose but he was not fond of mating women during their monthly periods. Feel free to ask the CIA or Bruce Riedel to refute my account. The evidence is in the trash can, the dust bin called History.
All said and done, the CIA failed in 1959 for they underestimated the capabilities of the Enemy in Tibet. The Tibet Uprising of 1959 was brutally crushed and CIA helped the Dalai Lama to find shelter in India. The CIA again failed in Cuba for they underestimated the capabilities of the Enemy in Cuba. Basically, the CIA lacks intelligence capabilities and gave false assurances to Nehru about China’s intentions and preparedness to wage a war across the Himalayan Frontier. Ask Chairman Mao Zedong as to why he attacked India in 1962. What did he say about his own attack?
Indians keep repeating the false narrative shared by Neville Maxwell, a communist spy. What about Indian Army Chief? What was his name? Was he related to Nehru clan? Who appointed him to that position? Was there any favoritism? India honored all the military leaders who defended Kashmir.

Tell me about the Battlefield casualties. How many killed and wounded during the 1962 War? Ask Red China to give me its numbers. What is the secret about it? Ask Red China to declassify its War Record to get a perspective on the Himalayan Blunders of Nehru.

Whole Review – JFK’s Forgotten Crisis, Book by Bruce Riedel. On behalf of Special Frontier Force – Vikas Regiment, I reject Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interpretation of Prime Minister Nehru’s Policy since 1947.

Rudra Rebbapragada

Special Frontier Force/Establishment 22/Vikas Regiment

The Himalayan Blunders of Nehru

As Stated In ‘JFK’s Forgotten Crisis’

Jaideep A Prabhu

Feb 06, 2025,

https://swarajyamag.com/books/the-failure-of-nehru-the-initiative-of-jfk

Whole Review – JFK’s Forgotten Crisis, Book by Bruce Riedel. I reject Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s interpretation of Prime Minister Nehru’s Policy since 1947.

PM Modi urged the MPs to read ‘JFK’s Forgotten Crisis’ in his Parliament speech.

JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War, Bruce O. Riedel, Brookings Institution, 2015

Bruce Riedel’s book is written in an accessible style and adds considerably to our understanding of the limitations of Nehru, the India-friendliness of JFK, and the Sino-Indian War of ’62.

Occurring in the shadows of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Sino-Indian War of 1962 is a forgotten slice of history that is remembered vividly only in India.

With it is buried an important episode of US president John Fitzgerald Kennedy’s diplomacy, an intriguing ‘what-if’ of Indo-US relations, and perhaps the most active chapter in the neglected history of Tibet’s resistance to China’s brutal occupation.

The war, however, brought about significant geopolitical changes to South Asia that shape it to this day. Bruce Riedel’s JFK’s Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and the Sino-Indian War is a gripping account of the United States’ involvement in South Asia and Kennedy’s personal interest in India.

In it, he dispels the commonly held belief that India was not a priority of US foreign policy in the early 1960s and that Kennedy was too preoccupied with events in his own backyard to pay any attention to a “minor border skirmish” on the other side of the world.

Except perhaps among historians of the Cold War, it is not widely known that the United States cosied up to Pakistan during the Eisenhower administration not to buttress South and West Asia against communism but to secure permission to fly reconnaissance missions into the Soviet Union, China, and Tibet.

Initiated in 1957, the US-Pakistan agreement allowed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to operate U-2 reconnaissance planes from Lahore, Peshawar, and other airbases in West Pakistan over Communist territory. Airfields in East Pakistan, such as at Kurmitola, were also made available to the United States. Some of the missions were flown by the Royal Air Force as well.

These overflights provided a wealth of information about the Soviet and Chinese militaries, economies, terrain, and other aspects important to Western military planners. Particularly useful was the information on China, which was otherwise sealed off to Western eyes and ears.

Ayub Khan, the Pakistani president, claimed his pound of flesh for the agreement – Washington and Karachi signed a bilateral security agreement supplementing the CENTO and SEATO security pacts that Pakistan was already a member of and American military aid expanded to include the most advanced US jet fighter of the time, the F-104.

In addition to intelligence gathering, the United States was also involved – with full Pakistani complicity – in supporting Tibetan rebels fight the Chinese army.

The CIA flew out recruits identified by Tibetan resistance leaders, first to Saipan and then on to Camp Hale in Colorado or to the Farm – the CIA’s Virginia facility – to be trained in marksmanship, radio operations, and other crafts of insurgency. The newly-trained recruits were then flown back to Kurmitola, from where they would be parachuted back into Tibet to harass the Chinese military.

No one in Washington had any illusion that these rebels stood any chance against any professionally trained and equipped force, especially one as large as the People’s Liberation Army, but US policymakers were content to harass Beijing in the hope of keeping it off balance.

Jawaharlal Nehru knew of US activities in Tibet, for his Intelligence Bureau chief, BN Mullick, had his own sources in Tibet. It is unlikely, however, that he knew of Pakistan’s role in the United States’ Tibet operations.

In any case, Nehru did not believe that it was worth antagonising the Chinese when there was no hope of victory; India had to live in the same neighbourhood and hence be more cautious than the rambunctious Americans.

Furthermore, it was the heyday of non-alignment and panchsheel, and the Indian prime minister did not wish to upset that applecart if he could help it. In fact, Nehru urged US President Dwight Eisenhower during their 1956 retreat to the latter’s Gettysburg farmhouse to give the UN Security Council seat held by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist China to Mao Zedong’s Communist China.

As Nehru saw it, a nation of 600 million people could not be kept outside the world system for long, but Ike, as the US president was known, still had bitter memories of the Chinese from Korea fresh in his mind. Yet three years later, when Ike visited India and Chinese perfidy in Aksai Chin had been discovered, the Indian prime minister’s tone was a contrast.

To most, Cuba defines the Kennedy administration: JFK had got off to a disastrous start in his presidency with the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, an inheritance from his predecessor’s era.

His iconic moment, indisputably, came two years later in the showdown with Nikita Khrushchev over Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. Less well known is the president’s interest in South Asia and India in particular.

Riedel explains how, even before assuming the presidency, Kennedy had made a name for himself in the US Senate with his powerful speeches on foreign policy.

In essence, he criticised the Eisenhower government for its failure to recognise that the era of European power was over; Kennedy wanted to fight a smarter Cold War, embracing the newly liberated peoples of Asia and Africa and denying the Communists an opportunity to fan any residual anti-imperialism which usually manifested itself as anti-Westernism.

Riedel points to a speech in May 1959 as a key indicator of the future president’s focus:

In May 1959, JFK declared, “…no struggle in the world today deserves more of our time and attention than that which now grips the attention of all Asia. That is the struggle between India and China for leadership of the East…” China was growing three times as fast as India, Kennedy went on, because of Soviet assistance; to help India, the future president proposed, NATO and Japan should put together an aid package of $1 billion per year that would revitalise the Indian economy and set the country on a path to prosperity.

The speech had been partially drafted by someone who would also play a major role in the United States’ India policy during Kennedy’s presidency: John Kenneth Galbraith.

Riedel shows how, despite his Cuban distraction, Kennedy put India on the top of his agenda. A 1960 National Intelligence Estimate prepared by the CIA for the new president predicted a souring of India-China relations; it further predicted that Delhi would probably turn to Moscow for help with Beijing.

However, the border dispute with the Chinese had shaken Nehru’s dominance in foreign policy and made Indian leaders more sympathetic of the United States. The NIE also projected the military gap between India and China to increase to the disadvantage of the former.

The PLA had also been doing exceedingly well against Tibetan rebels, picking them off within weeks of their infiltration. By late 1960, a Tibetan enclave had developed in Nepal; Mustang, the enclave was called, became the preferred site for the CIA to drop supplies to the rebels.

Galbraith, the newly appointed ambassador to India, disapproved of the CIA’s Tibetan mission, which had delivered over 250 tonnes of arms, ammunition, medical supplies, communications gear, and other equipment by then.

Like Nehru, he thought it reckless and provocative without any hope of achieving a favourable result. There were, however, occasional intelligence windfalls coming from Tibet and Kennedy overruled Galbraith for the moment.
JFK’s Forgotten Crisis shows how Galbraith was far more attuned to India than he is usually given credit for. He is most famously remembered – perhaps only among Cold War historians – for nixing a Department of Defence proposal in 1961 that proposed giving India nuclear weapons.

Then, he predicted – most likely accurately – that Nehru would denounce such an offer and accuse the United States of trying to make India its atomic ally. Now, the Harvard professor pushed for Nehru and Kennedy to meet.

This would give the Indian prime minister, Galbraith hoped, an opportunity to remove any lingering suspicions he may have had about US foreign policy in South Asia. The large aid package Washington had planned for India would only sweeten the meeting.

This was not to be: Nehru remained most taciturn and almost monosyllabic during his visit to Jacqueline Kennedy’s home in Newport. However, he was quite enamoured by the First Lady, and Jackie Kennedy later said that she found the Indian leader to be quite charming; she, however, had much sharper things to say about the leader’s daughter!

Washington’s outreach to Delhi annoyed Karachi. Though ostensibly the US-Pakistan alliance was to fight communism, the reality was that Pakistan had always been preoccupied with India.

Ayub Khan felt betrayed that the United States would give India, a non-aligned state, economic assistance that would only assist it in developing a stronger military to be deployed against Pakistan. Riedel’s account highlights the irresistible Kennedy charm – when Pakistan suspended the Dragon Lady’s flights from its soil, JFK was able to woo Khan back into the fold.

However, the Pakistani dictator had a condition – that Washington would discuss all arms sales to India with him. This agreement would be utterly disregarded during the Sino-Indian War and Pakistan would start looking for more reliable allies against their larger Hindu neighbour.

Riedel reveals how Pakistan had started drifting into the Chinese orbit as early as 1961, even before China’s invasion of India, an event commonly believed to have occurred after India’s Himalayan humiliation.

When India retook Goa from the Portuguese, a NATO country, it caused all sorts of difficulties for the United States.

On the one hand, Kennedy agreed with the notion that colonial possessions should be granted independence or returned to their original owners but on the other, Nehru and his minister of defence, Krishna Menon, had not endeared themselves to anyone with their constant moralising; their critics would not, now, let this opportunity to call out India’s hypocrisy on the use of force in international affairs pass.

The brief turbulence in relations was set right, oddly, by the First Lady again. On her visit to India, she again charmed the prime minister and he insisted that he stay with him instead of the US embassy and had the room Edwina Mountbatten had often used on her visits readied. The play of personalities, an often ignored facet of diplomacy, has been brought out well by Riedel.

Ironically, China believed that the Tibetan resistance movement was being fuelled by India with US help. India’s granting of asylum to the Dalai Lama did not help matters either, even though it was Nehru who had convinced the young Dalai Lama to return to Tibet in 1956 and have faith in Beijing’s promises of Tibetan autonomy.

Although Indian actions did factor into the Chinese decision to invade India in October 1962, records from Eastern European archives indicate that the Sino-Soviet split was also partly to blame. Humiliating India served two purposes for Mao: first, it would secure Chinese access to Tibet via Aksai Chin, and second, it would expose India’s Western ties and humiliate a Soviet ally, thereby proclaiming China to be the true leader of the communist world.

Riedel’s treatment of the war and the several accounts makes for interesting reading, though his belief that there is rich literature on the Indian side about the war is a little puzzling.

Most of what is known about the Sino-Indian War comes from foreign archives – primarily the United States, Britain, and Russia but also European archives as their diplomats recorded and relayed to their capitals opinions they had formed from listening to chatter on the embassy grapevine.

There is, indeed, literature on the Indian side but much of it seeks to apportion blame rather than clarify the sequence of events. Records from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of External Affairs, or the Ministry of Defence are yet to be declassified, though the Henderson-Brooks-Bhagat Report was partially released to the public by Australian journalist Neville Maxwell.

Chinese records, though not easily accessible, have trickled out via the most commendable Cold War International History Project. The Parallel History Project has also revealed somewhat the view from Eastern Europe.

Riedel dispels the notion of Nehru’s Forward Policy as the cassus belli. According to Brigadier John Dalvi, a prisoner of war from almost the outset, China had been amassing arms, ammunition, winter supplies, and other materiel at its forward bases since at least May 1962.

This matches with an IB report Mullick had provided around the same time. Furthermore, the Indian forces were outnumbered at least three-to-one all along the border and five-to-one in some places. The troops were veterans of the Korean War and armed with modern automatic rifles as compared to Indian soldiers’ 1895 issue Lee Enfield.

Though Riedel exonerates Nehru on his diplomacy, he does not allow the prime minister’s incompetence to pass: the political appointment of BM Kaul, the absolute ignorance of conditions on the ground, and the poor logistics and preparation of the troops on the border left them incapable of even holding a Chinese assault, let alone breaking it.

JFK’s Forgotten Crisis brings out a few lesser known aspects of the Sino-Indian War. For example, India’s resistance to the PLA included the recruitment of Tibetan exiles to harass the PLA from behind the lines. Nehru was approached by the two men most responsible for the debacle on the border – Menon and Kaul – with the proposal which Nehru promptly agreed.

A team, commanded by Brigadier Sujan Singh Uban and under the IB, was formed. A long-continuing debate Riedel takes up in his work is the Indian failure to use air power during the conflict in the Himalayas.

It has been suggested that had Nehru not been so timid and fearful of retaliation against Indian cities but deployed the Indian air force, India may have been able to repel or at least withstand the Chinese invasion. One wonders how effective the Indian Air Force really might have been given the unprepared state of the Army.

In any case, Riedel points out that the Chinese air force was actually larger than the IAF – the PLAAF had over 2,000 jet fighters to India’s 315, and 460 bombers to India’s 320. Additionally, China had already proven its ability to conquer difficult terrain in Korea.

Throughout the South Asian conflict, the United States was also managing its relationship with Pakistan. Despite the Chinese invasion, the bulk of India’s armies were tied on the Western border with Pakistan and Ayub Khan was making noises about a decisive solution to the Kashmir imbroglio; it was all the United States could do to hold him back.

However, Ayub Khan came to see the United States as a fair-weather friend and realised he had to look elsewhere for support in his ambitions against India: China was the logical choice. Thus, the 1962 war resulted in the beginning of the Sino-Pakistani relationship that would blossom to the extent of Beijing providing Islamabad with nuclear weapon and missile designs in the 1980s.

The Chinese had halted after their explosive burst into India on October 20. For a full three weeks, Chinese forces sat still while the Indians regrouped and resupplied their positions. On November 17, they struck again and swept further south. The Siliguri corridor, or the chicken neck, was threatened , and India stood to lose the entire Northeast.

In panic, Kaul asked Nehru to invite foreign armies to defend Indian soil. A broken Nehru wrote two letters to Washington on the same day, asking for a minimum of 12 squadrons of jet fighters, two B-47 bomber squadrons, and radar installations to defend against Chinese strikes on Indian cities.

These would all be manned by American personnel until sufficient Indians could be trained. In essence, India wanted the United States to deploy over 10,000 men in an air war with China on its behalf.

There is some doubt as to what extent the United States would have gone to defend India. However, that November, the White House dispatched the USS Kitty Hawk to the Bay of Bengal (she was later turned around as the war ended).

After the staggering blows of November 17, the US embassy, in anticipation of Indian requests for aid, had also started preparing a report to expedite the process through the Washington bureaucracy.

On November 20, China declared a unilateral ceasefire and withdrew its troops to the Line of Actual Control. A cessation of hostilities had come on Beijing’s terms, who had shown restraint by not dismembering India.

Riedel makes a convincing case that Kennedy would have defended India against a continued Chinese attack had one come in the spring of the following year, and that overt US support may have influenced Mao’s decision.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, the United States sent Averell Harriman of Lend-Lease fame to India to assess the country’s needs. Washington had three items on its agenda with India:

1. Increase US economic and military aid to India;

2. Push India to negotiate with Pakistan on Kashmir as Kennedy had promised Ayub Khan; and

3. Secure Indian support for the CIA’s covert Tibetan operations.

The first met with little objection, and though Nehru strongly objected to talks with Pakistan, he obliged. Predictably, they got to nowhere. On the third point, Riedel writes that India agreed to allow the CIA to operate U-2 missions from Char Batia.

This has usually been denied on the Indian side though one senior bureaucrat recently claimed that Nehru had indeed agreed to such an arrangement but only two flights took off before permission was revoked.

Nonetheless, the IB set up a Special Frontier Force of Tibetans in exile and the CIA supported them with equipment and air transport from bases in India. All this, however, withered away as relations again turned sour after the Indo-Pakistan War of 1965 and the election of Richard Nixon.

Most of the sources JFK’s Forgotten Crisis uses are memoirs and prominent secondary sources on South Asia and China. Riedel also uses some recently declassified material from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library that sheds new light on the president’s views on South Asia.

Despite the academic tenor of the book, it is readily accessible to lay readers as well; personally, I would have preferred a significantly heavier mining of archival documents and other primary sources but that is exactly what would have killed sales and the publisher would not have liked!

Overall, Riedel gives readers a new way to understand the Kennedy years; he also achieves a fine balance in portraying Nehru’s limitations and incompetence. The glaring lack of Indian primary sources also reminds us of the failure of the Indian government to declassify its records that would inform us even more about the crisis.

As Riedel notes, the Chinese invasion of India created what they feared most and had not existed earlier: the United States and India working together in Tibet. This was largely possible also because of the most India-friendly president in the White House until then.

Yet Pakistan held great sway over American minds thanks to the small favours it did for the superpower. It was also the birth of the Sino-Pakistani camaraderie that is still going strong. The geopolitical alignment created by the Sino-Indian War affects South Asian politics to this day. Yet it was a missed opportunity for Indo-US relations, something that had to await the presidency of George W. Bush.

There are two things Indian officials would do well to consider.

First, Pakistan’s consistent ability to extract favours from Washington is worth study: if small yet important favours can evince so much understanding from the White House, it would be in Indian interests to do the same.

Second, Jaswant Singh’s comment to Strobe Talbott deserves reflection: “Our problem is China, we are not seeking parity with China. we don’t have the resources, and we don’t have the will.” It is time to develop that will.

Special Frontier Force Pays Tribute to President John F. Kennedy

The History of Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22: People’s Republic of China could not alter the course of India’s foreign policy. The 1962 War launched by China ended very abruptly when China declared unilateral ceasefire and withdrew from the captured territory on November 21, 1962. President Kennedy played a decisive role by threatening to “NUKE” China.

While sharing an interesting story titled Cold War Camelot published by The Daily Beast which includes excerpts from the book JFK’s Forgotten CIA Crisis by Bruce Riedel, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to President John F. Kennedy for supporting the Tibetan Resistance Movement initiated by President Dwight David Eisenhower. Both Tibet, and India do not consider Pakistan as a partner in spite of the fact of Pakistan permitting the use of its airfields in East Pakistan. Red China has formally admitted that she had attacked India during October 1962 to teach India a lesson and to specifically discourage India from extending support to Tibetan Resistance Movement. Red China paid a huge price. She is not able to truthfully disclose the human costs of her military aggression in 1962. She failed to achieve the objectives of her 1962 War on India. President Kennedy threatened to “Nuke” China and forced her to declare unilateral cease-fire on November 21, 1962. China withdrew from territories she gained using overwhelming force. People’s Liberation Army (PLA) sustained massive casualties and their brief victory over India did not give them any consolation. Red China’s 1962 misadventure forged a stronger bonding between Tibet, India, and the United States.

Special Frontier Force, a military organization in India was established during the Cold War Era while the US fought wars in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam. In my view, Special Frontier Force is the relic of Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I feel honored to share John F Kennedy’s Legacy. Due to Cold War Era secret diplomacy, Kennedy’s role in Asian affairs is not fully appreciated both in the US and India. In 1962, during the presidency of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, the second President of Republic of India, Kennedy joined hands with India and Tibet to transform the Tibetan Resistance Movement into a regular fighting force.

Special Frontier Force, a military organization in India was established during the Cold War Era while the US fought wars in the Korean Peninsula and Vietnam. In my view, Special Frontier Force is the relic of Unfinished Vietnam War, America’s War against the spread of Communism in South Asia.

Cold War Camelot

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN K. KENNEDY. SUPPORTING TIBET WAS PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S MAIN REASON FOR HOSTING A STATE DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.

Bruce Riedel

11.08.1512:01 AM ET

JFK’s Forgotten CIA Crisis

During a spectacular dinner at Mount Vernon, Kennedy pressed Pakistan’s leader for help with a sensitive spy operation against China.

At Mount Vernon

The magic of the Kennedy White House, Camelot, had settled in at Mount Vernon. It was a dazzling evening, a warm July night, but a cool breeze came off the Potomac River and kept the temperature comfortable. It was Tuesday, July 11, 1961, and the occasion was a state dinner for Pakistan’s visiting president, General Ayub Khan, the only time in our nation’s history that George Washington’s home has served as the venue for a state dinner.

President John F. Kennedy had been in office for less than six months, but his administration had already been tarnished by the failed CIA invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs and a disastrous summit with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna, Austria. Ayub Khan wrote later that the president was “under great stress.” The Kennedy administration was off to a rocky start: It needed to show some competence.

The idea of hosting Ayub Khan at Mount Vernon came from Kennedy’s wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy, who was inspired by a dinner during the Vienna summit held a month earlier at the Schönbrunn Palace, the rococo-style former imperial palace of the Hapsburg monarchy built in the seventeenth century. Mrs. Kennedy was impressed by the opulence and history displayed at Schönbrunn and at a similar dinner held on the same presidential trip at the French royal palace of Versailles. America had no royal palaces, of course, but it did have the first president’s mansion just a few miles away from the White House on a bluff overlooking the Potomac River. The history of the mansion and the fabulous view of the river in the evening would provide a very special atmosphere for the event.

On June 26, 1961, the First Lady visited Mount Vernon privately and broached the idea with the director of the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association, which manages the estate. It was a challenging proposal. The old mansion was too small to host an indoor dinner so the event would have to take place on the lawn. The mansion had very little electricity in 1961 and was a colonial antique, without a modern kitchen or refrigeration, so that the food would have to be prepared at the White House and brought to the estate and served by White House staff. But the arrangements were made, with the Secret Service and Marine Corps providing security, and the U.S. Army’s Third Infantry Regiment from Fort Myers providing the colonial fife and drum corps for official presentation of the colors. The National Symphony Orchestra offered the after-dinner entertainment. Tiffany and Company, the high-end jewelry company, provided the flowers and decorated the candlelit pavilion in which the guests dined.

The guests arrived by boat in a small fleet of yachts led by the presidential yacht, Honey Fitz, and the secretary of the navy’s yacht, Sequoia. They departed from the Navy Yard in Washington and sailed the fifteen miles down river to Mount Vernon past National Airport and Alexandria, Virginia; the trip took an hour and fifteen minutes. On arrival the most vigorous guests, such as the president’s younger brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, climbed the hill to the mansion on foot, but most took advantage of the limousines the White House provided.

Brookings Institution

The guest list was led by President Ayub Khan and his daughter, Begum Nasir Akhtar Aurangzeb, and included the Pakistani foreign minister and finance minister, as well as Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, Aziz Ahmed, and various attaches from the embassy in Washington. Initially the ambassador was upset that the dinner would not be in the White House, fearing it would be seen as a snub. The State Department convinced Ahmed that having it at Mount Vernon was actually a benefit and would generate more publicity and distinction.
The Americans invited to the dinner were the elite of the new administration. In addition to the president, attorney general, and vice president and their wives, Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Secretary of the Navy John Connally, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer, and their wives joined the party. Six senators, including J. W. Fulbright, Stuart Symington, Everett Dirksen, and Mike Mansfield were joined by the Speaker of the House and ten congressmen, including a future president, Gerald Ford, and their wives. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan, William Roundtree; the chief of the United States Air Force, General Curtis Lemay; Assistant Secretary of State Phillip Talbott; Peace Corps Director Sargent Shriver; and the president’s military assistant, Maxwell Taylor, were also in attendance. Walter Hoving, chairman of Tiffany, and Mrs. Hoving, and a half-dozen prominent Pakistani and American journalists, such as NBC correspondent Sander Vanocur, attended from outside the government. In total more than 130 guests were seated at sixteen tables.

Perhaps the guest most invested in the evening, however, was the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Allen W. Dulles. The Kennedys had long been friends of Allen Dulles. A few years before the dinner Mrs. Kennedy had given him a copy of Ian Fleming’s James Bond novel, From Russia, with Love, and Dulles, like JFK, became a big fan of 007. Dulles was also a holdover from the previous Republican administration. He had been in charge of the planning and execution of the Bay of Pigs fiasco that had tarnished the opening days of the Kennedy administration, but Dulles still had the president’s ear on sensitive covert intelligence operations, including several critical clandestine operations run out of Pakistan with the approval of Field Marshal Ayub Khan.

Before sitting down for dinner just after eight o’clock, the guests toured the first president’s home and enjoyed bourbon mint juleps or orange juice. Both dressed in formal attire for the occasion, Kennedy took Ayub Khan for a walk in the garden alone. At that time, the CIA was running two very important clandestine operations in Pakistan. One had already made the news a year earlier when a U-2 spy plane had been shot down over the Soviet Union by Russian surface-to-air missiles; this plane had started its top-secret mission, called Operation Grand Slam, from a Pakistani Air Force air base in Peshawar, Pakistan. The U-2 shoot down had wrecked a summit meeting between Khrushchev and President Eisenhower in Paris in 1960 when Ike refused to apologize for the mission. The CIA had stopped flying over the Soviet Union, but still used the base near Peshawar for less dangerous U-2 operations over China.

The history of Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22: 1957 was a turning point. India had recognized that its foreign policy of political neutralism was of no use and had started depending upon the United States to address the military threat posed by China’s occupation of Tibet. But, the effort was too modest and both India and the United States had grossly underestimated the strength of the People’s Liberation Army.

The second clandestine operation also dated from the Eisenhower administration, but was still very much top-secret. The CIA was supporting a rebellion in Communist China’s Tibet province from another Pakistani Air Force air base near Dacca in East Pakistan (what is today Bangladesh). Tibetan rebels trained by the CIA in Colorado were parachuted into Tibet from CIA transport planes that flew from that Pakistani air base, as were supplies and weapons. U-2 aircraft also landed in East Pakistan after flying over China to conduct photo reconnaissance missions of the communist state.

Ayub Khan had suspended the Tibet operation earlier that summer. The Pakistani president was upset by Kennedy’s decision to provide more than a billion dollars in economic aid to India.
Pakistan believed it should be America’s preferred ally in South Asia, not India, and shutting down the CIA base for air drops to Tibet was a quiet way to signal displeasure at Washington without causing a public breakdown in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Ayub Khan wanted to make clear to Kennedy that an American tilt toward India at Pakistan’s expense would have its costs. In his memoirs, Khan later wrote that he sought to press Kennedy not to “appease India.”

Before the Mount Vernon dinner, Allen Dulles had asked Kennedy to meet alone with Ayub Khan, thinking that perhaps a little Kennedy charm and the magic of the evening would change his mind. The combination worked; the Pakistani dictator told Kennedy he would allow the CIA missions over Tibet to resume from the Pakistani Air Force base at Kurmitula outside of Dacca.

Ayub Khan did get a quid pro quo for this decision later in his visit: Kennedy promised that, even if China attacked India, he would not sell arms to India without first consulting with Pakistan. However, when China did invade India the following year, Kennedy ignored this promise and provided critical aid to India, including arms, without consulting Ayub Khan, who was deeply disappointed.

The main course for dinner was poulet chasseur served with rice and accompanied by Moët and Chandon Imperial Brut champagne (at least for the Americans), followed by raspberries in cream for dessert. President Kennedy hosted a table at which sat Begum Aurangzeb, who wore a white silk sari. Khan enjoyed the beauty of a Virginia summer evening with America’s thirty-one-year-old First Lady; he sat next to Jackie, who wore a Oleg Cassini sleeveless white organza and lace evening gown sashed at the waist in Chartreuse silk. In his toast the Pakistani leader warned that “any country that faltered in Asia, even for only a year or two, would find itself subjugated to communism.” In turn Kennedy hailed Ayub Khan as the George Washington of Pakistan. After midnight the guests were driven back to Washington down the George Washington Parkway.

The CIA operation in Tibet had its detractors in the Kennedy White House, including Kennedy’s handpicked ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, who called it “a particularly insane enterprise” involving “dissident and deeply unhygienic tribesmen” that risked an unpredictable Chinese response. However, the operation did produce substantial critical intelligence on the Chinese communist regime from captured documents seized by the Tibetans at a time when Washington had virtually no idea what was going on inside Red China. The U-2 flights from Dacca were even more important to the CIA’s understanding of China’s nuclear weapon development at its Lop Nor nuclear test facility.

But Galbraith was in the end correct to be skeptical. The operation did have an unpredicted outcome: The CIA operation helped persuade Chinese leader Mao Zedong to invade India in October 1962, an invasion that led the United States and China to the brink of war and began a Sino-India rivalry that continues today. It also created a Pakistani-Chinese alliance that still continues. The contours of modern Asian grand politics thus were drawn in 1962.
The dinner at Mount Vernon was a spectacular social success for the Kennedys, although they received some predictable criticism from conservative newspapers over its cost. It was also a political success for both Kennedy and the CIA, keeping the Tibet operation alive. As an outstanding example of presidential leadership in managing and executing covert operations at the highest level of government, it is an auspicious place to begin an examination of JFK’s forgotten crisis.

From JFK’s FORGOTTEN CRISIS: TIBET, THE CIA, AND THE SINO-INDIAN WAR, by Bruce Riedel, Brookings Institution Press, November 6, 2015.

© 2014 The Daily Beast Company LLC

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR HIS SUPPORT TO TIBET. DINNER HOSTED AT PRESIDENT GEORGE WASHINGTON’S MOUNT VERNON ESTATE ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.mountvernon.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WHO HOSTED STATE DINNER AT GEORGE WASHINGTON’S MOUNT VERNON ESTATE ON JULY 11, 1961 TO GET SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS FROM PRESIDENT AYUB KHAN OF PAKISTAN.
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY. A STATE DINNER HOSTED ON JULY 11, 1961 WAS USED TO GET SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS FROM PRESIDENT AYUB KHAN OF PAKISTAN.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING THIS DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961. On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING THIS DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR ENLISTING SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR GETTING PAKISTAN’S SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.jfklibrary.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR GETTING PAKISTAN’S SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961.On www.mountvernon.org
SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE PAYS TRIBUTE TO PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY FOR GETTING PAKISTAN’S SUPPORT FOR TIBET OPERATIONS DURING DINNER AT MOUNT VERNON ON JULY 11, 1961. On www.jfklibrary.org

Whole Dude – Whole Misfortune

Richard Nixon’s flight to Peking on February 21, 1972 changed the World for Worse. The Most Unfortunate Week in the US History

The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972.

While the US troops fight the biggest battle on February 25, 1972, near Saigon in Vietnam, the US President Richard Nixon spent time in Peking befriending the adversary, giving care and comfort to the Enemy while Americans bled on the battlefield.

Monday, February 21, 1972


At 7 a.m., Guam time, the President and Mrs. Nixon left Guam International Airport for Shanghai, their first stop in the People’s Republic of China. They arrived, after a 4-hour flight, at Hung Chiao (Rainbow Bridge) Airport, Shanghai, at 9 a.m., China time, where they were greeted by officials of the People’s Republic, headed by Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Ch’iao Kuan-hua. After refreshments and a tour of the terminal, the Presidential party again boarded the Spirit of ’76, accompanied by Vice Minister Ch’iao, Chang Wen Chen and Wang Hai-jun of the Foreign Ministry, a Chinese navigator, radio operator, and three interpreters, for the final leg of the flight to Peking.

At about 11:30 a.m., China time, the party arrived at Capital Airport near Peking. Premier Chou En-lai greeted the President and members of his party, stood with the President for the playing of the national anthems of the two countries, and accompanied the President in a review of the troops.

The Premier then accompanied the President in a motorcade to Peking, to Tiao Yu Tai (Angling Terrace), the guest house where the President and Mrs. Nixon would stay during their visit.

In the afternoon, the President met for an hour with Chairman Mao Tse-tung at the Chairman’s residence and for an hour with Premier Chou and other officials in plenary session at the Great Hall of the People.

The President and Mrs. Nixon were guests of Premier Chou at a banquet in the Great Hall of the People in the evening.

Tuesday, February 22, 1972

After a morning of staff meetings and attention to other White House business, the President met for 4 hours with Premier Chou in the Great Hall.

The First Lady visited the kitchen of the Peking Hotel, where she toured food preparation and cooking areas, and talked with cooks and helpers. She was accompanied by Mme. Lin Chia-mei, wife of Vice Premier Li Hsien Nien, Mme. Chi Peng-fei, wife of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Sun Hsin-mang, head of the revolutionary committee of the hotel. During the tour, Mrs. Nixon told reporters of plans for the People’s Republic to present to the people of America two giant pandas, in appreciation for the two musk oxen which were to be given to the Peking Zoo on behalf of the people of the United States.

In the afternoon, Mrs. Nixon visited the Sununer Palace, an imperial residence and garden during the Ching Dynasty. She toured rooms used by the Empress Tzu Hsi and walked in the gardens, viewing the lake Kunming and Longevity Hill. She then went to the Peking Zoo and saw the zoo’s pandas.

In the evening, the President and First Lady attended a cultural program with Premier and Madame Chou and Chiang Ch’ing, the wife of Chairman Mao Tse-tung. They saw a performance of the ballet, “The Red Detachment of Women.”

Wednesday, February 23, 1972


The President and Premier Chou met in the afternoon for four hours of discussions at the guest house where the President was staying.

The First Lady visited the Evergreen People’s Commune on the west edge of Peking. In her hour-long tour, she visited the commune’s clinic, where she observed acupuncture treatments, second- and third-grade classrooms, a commune home, agricultural areas and greenhouses, and a dri goods store.

In the afternoon, Mrs. Nixon visited the Peking Glassware Factory and talked with workers making glass flowers and animals.

In the evening, with Premier Chou En-lai, the President and Mrs. Nixon attended a public exhibition of gymnastics, badminton, and table tennis at the Capital Gymnasium.

Thursday, February 24, 1972

The President and Mrs. Nixon, accompanied by Vice Premier Li Hsien-nien, drove 35 miles north of Peking to visit the Ba Da Ling portion of the Great Wall of China, and then the tombs of the emperors of the Ming Dynasty.

In the afternoon, the President and Premier Chou met again for three hours of discussion. The President and Mrs. Nixon later attended an informal private dinner hosted by Premier Chou in the Great Hall.

Friday, February 25, 1972

In the morning, the President and Mrs. Nixon went to the Forbidden City, the site in Peking of the residence of the emperors for some 8oo years prior to the early 20th century. They were accompanied by Marshal Yeh Chien-ying, Vice Chairman of the Military Affairs Commission.

In the afternoon, the President met again with Premier Chou for an hour.

The First Lady toured the Peking Children’s Hospital.

Marking the final evening of their Peking, stay, the President and the First Lady hosted a banquet honoring Premier Chou and other Chinese officials in the Great Hall.

Saturday, February 26, 1972


At the Peking Airport, the President and Premier Chou and other officials of the United States and the People’s Republic met in plenary session for approximately one hour.

The President and the First Lady, with Premier Chou, then boarded the Premier’s plane for the flight to Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China. From Hangzhou Airport, they drove to a guest house on West Lake, a park and recreational site. where they were to spend the night.

In the afternoon, they joined in a walking tour of Flower Fort Park and a boat tour of West Lake, stopping briefly at the Island of Three Towers Reflecting the Moon. Mrs. Nixon also visited the Temple of the Great Buddha.

They were entertained in the evening at a banquet given by the Chekiang Province Revolutionary Committee.

Sunday, February 27, 1972


With Premier Chou, the President and the First Lady flew in the Premier’s plane from Hangzhou Airport to Shanghai. From Shanghai Airport, they motorcaded to the Shanghai Industrial Exhibition, where, with Premier Chou, they toured exhibits of heavy machinery and electronic equipment, handicrafts, surgical techniques, textiles, light industry, musical instruments, toys, and arts and crafts.

Mrs. Nixon also visited the Shanghai Municipal Children’s Palace, where she watched demonstrations of dancing, gymnastics, a puppet show, theatrics, swordplay, and art by students at the center. Her guide was Chang Hong, a fifth-grade student.

In the late afternoon, the joint communique agreed upon by the President and Premier Chou was released.

In the evening, the President and First Lady were guests at a banquet in the Shanghai Exhibition Hall hosted by the Shanghai Municipal Revolutionary Committee. Premier Chou and Committee Chairman Chang Ch’un-ch’iao then accompanied the President and Mrs. Nixon to a cultural program of acrobatics in the Exhibition Hall.

Monday, February 28, 1972

Premier Chou visited with the President for an hour at the Ching Kiang guest house and then accompanied the Presidential party to the airport for official farewells before the takeoff for the return flight at 10 a.m.

Crossing the International Date Line, the Spirit of ’76 arrived at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage, Alaska, at midnight on Sunday, February 27, Alaska time. The President and the First Lady spent the night at the residence of the Commanding General and left for the final leg of the flight to Washington at 9:40 a.m. on Monday, February 28, Alaska time.

The official party arrived at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington at 9:15 p.m, E.S.T.

U.S. troops fight the biggest battle in nearly a year

The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. Black Day to Freedom. Vietnamese soldiers survey the ruins of An Loc during a lull in the two-month battle for the province town in Vietnam on June 28, 1972. The North Vietnamese used armor in the siege of the major rubber town, but failed to take An Loc.

U.S. troops clash with North Vietnamese forces in a major battle 42 miles east of Saigon, the biggest single U.S. engagement with an enemy force in nearly a year. The five-hour action around a communist bunker line resulted in four dead and 47 wounded, almost half the U.S. weekly casualties.

The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. Black Day to Freedom
The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. BLACK DAY TO FREEDOM
The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. TIBET CONSCIOUSNESS – HOPE FOR FREEDOM. US PRESIDENT NIXON’S VISIT TO COMMUNIST CHINA IS BLACK DAY TO FREEDOM.
The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. BLACK DAY TO FREEDOM – JULY 15, 1971. US PRESIDENT RICHARD M NIXON ANNOUNCES HIS TRIP TO COMMUNIST CHINA. NIXON-KISSINGER DECISION TO BACKSTAB TIBET TO PLAY A DIRTY SINFUL GAME IN THE NAME OF “REALPOLITIK.”
The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972.

RICHARD NIXON’S FLIGHT TO PEKING. THE WEEK THAT CHANGED THE WORLD FOR WORSE. 

Richard Nixon Visits Peking. The Week That Doomed My World. The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972

My arrival at the US built airfield in Doom Dooma, Tinsukia District, Assam, India during the Week of February 1972 marks an event that Doomed my World.  

Richard Nixon Visits Peking. The Week That Doomed My World. The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972
Black Day to Freedom – Whole Villain – Nixon – Mao cartoon. The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972

I live in the United States, the Leader of the Free World, a Free Nation which gives me no sense of hope for my future Life. I constantly experience the Misery, the Despair, the Frustration, the Disappointment, the Pain, and the Feelings of Hopelessness that describe the lives of Tibetans living in Occupied Tibet. 

Richard Nixon visits Peking 

The Year 1972   

President Richard Nixon visits the People’s Republic of China. After arriving in Peking, the president announced that his breakthrough visit to China is “The week that changed the world.” In meeting with Nixon, Prime Minister Zhou Enlai urged early peace in Vietnam but did not endorse North Vietnam’s political demands. North Vietnamese officials and peace negotiators took a dim view of Nixon’s trip, fearing that China and the United States would make a deal behind their backs. Nixon’s promise to reduce the U.S. military presence on Taiwan seemed to confirm North Vietnam’s fears of a Chinese-American sellout-trading U.S. military reduction in Taiwan for peace in Vietnam.

Despite Hanoi’s fears, China continued to supply North Vietnam levels of aid that had increased significantly in late 1971. This aid permitted the North Vietnamese to launch a major new offensive in March 1972. 

1972 

Richard Nixon makes the first U.S. presidential visit to Peking 

President Richard M. Nixon arrives in Peking, the capital of the People’s Republic of China, on the first presidential visit to the world’s most populous nation. The U.S. federal government had formally opposed China’s communist government since it took power in 1949, 

1848 

Karl Marx publishes the Communist Manifesto 

On February 21, 1848, The Communist Manifesto, written by Karl Marx with the assistance of Friedrich Engels, is published in London by a group of German-born revolutionary socialists known as the Communist League. 

Vietnam War 

1970 

Kissinger begins secret negotiations with North Vietnamese 

National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger begins secret peace talks with North Vietnamese representative Le Duc Tho, the fifth-ranking member of the Hanoi Politburo, at a villa outside Paris. 

1972 

Nixon arrives in Peking for talks 

In an amazing turn of events, President Richard Nixon takes a dramatic first step toward normalizing relations with the communist People’s Republic of China (PRC) by traveling to Peking for a week of talks.  

Richard Nixon Visits Peking. The Week My World Doomed. The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972
The most unfortunate week in the US history-February 21-27, 1972. The Vietnam War Memorial reminds me of the Unfinished Korea-Vietnam War.



 

Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February

Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.
Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.

The Special Frontier Force which represents The Tibetan Resistance Movement to contain, to resist, to engage, to counteract, to “Roll-Back” the Spread of Communism, asks Americans to define their Mission on February 06, 2021 to restore Tibetan Equilibrium using the guidance provided by ‘The Reagan Doctrine of 1985’. Using President Reagan’s words, I ask Americans to do what is “Morally Right.”

Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada
Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment

Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.T

FEBRUARY 06, 1985. THE REAGAN DOCTRINE

Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.

The “Reagan Doctrine” was used to characterize  the Reagan administration’s (1981-1988) policy of supporting anti-Communist insurgents wherever they might be. In his 1985 State of the Union address, President Ronald Reagan called upon Congress and the American people to stand up to the Soviet Union, what he had previously called the “Evil Empire”:

Reagan began his foreign policy comments with the dramatic pronouncement that, “Freedom is not the sole prerogative of a chosen few; it is the universal right of all God’s children.” America’s “mission” was to “nourish and defend freedom and democracy.” More specifically, Reagan declared that, “We must stand by our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.” He concluded, “Support for freedom fighters is self-defense.”

“We must stand by all our democratic allies. And we must not break faith with those who are risking their lives—on every continent, from Afghanistan to Nicaragua—to defy Soviet-supported aggression and secure rights which have been ours from birth.”

Breaking with the doctrine of “Containment,” established during the Truman administration—President Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy was based on John Foster Dulles’ “Roll-Back” strategy from the 1950s in which the United States would actively push back the influence of the Soviet Union. Reagan’s policy differed, however, in the sense that he relied primarily on the overt support of those fighting Soviet dominance. This strategy was perhaps best encapsulated in NSC National Security Decision Directive 75. This 1983 directive stated that a central priority of the U.S. in its policy toward the Soviet Union would be “to contain and over time reverse Soviet expansionism,” particularly in the developing world. As the directive noted:

“The U.S. must rebuild the credibility of its commitment to resist Soviet encroachment on U.S. interests and those of its Allies and friends, and to support effectively those Third World states that are willing to resist Soviet pressures or oppose Soviet initiatives hostile to the United States, or are special targets of Soviet policy.”

To that end, the Reagan administration focused much of its energy on supporting proxy armies to curtail Soviet influence. Among the more prominent examples of the Reagan Doctrine’s application, in Nicaragua, the United States sponsored the contra movement in an effort to force the leftist Sandinista government from power. And in Afghanistan, the United States provided material support to Afghan rebels—known as the mujahadeen—helping them end Soviet occupation of their country.

Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.
Tibet Equilibrium 2021. Defining America’s Mission on the Sixth Day of February.


 

India vs China Dispute. Tibet is not a part of China

India vs China Dispute. Tibet is not a part of China.TIBET EQUILIBRIUM.

In my analysis, the dispute between India and China relates to the status of Tibet. China is in Tibet. But, Tibet is not a part of China. The dispute can be resolved by the eviction of the military occupier of Tibet.

Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada

Special Frontier Force-Establishment No. 22-Vikas Regiment

A border dispute with China may push India closer to some of Beijing’s top rivals

CNN June 18, 2020, 12:59 AM EDT

Relations between China and India have always been complicated.

During British colonialism, India was the source of opium foreign traders forced onto Chinese markets, sparking war between the UK and the Qing Empire that ended in humiliation for China. Since independence, India’s relations with its largest neighbor have been tested by issues such as Tibet, Pakistan and the countries’ shared Himalayan border.

This week, that border blew up into renewed conflict, in the bloodiest engagement in 40 years, which left more than 20 soldiers dead after a brutal fight with fists and clubs high in the mountains amid freezing temperatures and scant oxygen.

While both governments are now scrambling to deescalate, the conflict could provide the final push for a pivot already begun by New Delhi, away from Beijing and towards China’s traditional rivals, the United States and Japan, as well as a growing regional one, Australia. As India seeks to push back against what many in the country view as Chinese aggression, it will rely on these allies more than ever.

“The sacrifice made by our soldiers will not go in vain,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said Wednesday. “India’s integrity and sovereignty is supreme for us, and no one can stop us from defending it. Nobody should have an iota of doubt about this. India wants peace. But when provoked, India will give a befitting reply.”

Rahul Gandhi, leader of the main opposition Congress Party, put it more bluntly: “How dare China kill our soldiers? How dare they take our land?”

India vs China Dispute. Tibet is not a part of China. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) and Chinese President Xi Jinping wave to journalists before they hold a meeting in Xian, Shaanxi province, China, May 14, 2015. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

Encircling China

In an editorial Wednesday, the influential Hindustan Times said that “China wants to limit New Delhi’s power and ambition; it wants India to accept Beijing’s primacy in Asia and beyond.”

In response, the newspaper urged, New Delhi should “double down on its partnership with the US, make Quad … a more permanent arrangement, and be a part of any club that seeks to contain Chinese power.”

The Quad, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is an informal strategic forum for the US, Japan, Australia and India, featuring semi-regular summits, information exchanges and military drills. While not a formal military alliance like NATO, it is seen by some as a potential counterweight to growing Chinese influence and alleged aggression in Asia-Pacific.

While members have emphasized the more benign aspects of the relationship, such as recent cooperation on the coronavirus pandemic, the potential for military encirclement by countries has not gone unnoticed by Beijing.

As early as 2007, when the first Quad meetings were proposed, China issued formal diplomatic protests to all parties involved, and later that year Australia pulled out over fears of offending Beijing, and the alliance was put on hold until 2017, when meetings resumed, in large part due to growing concerns over Chinese advances in the South China Sea.

Potentially, an anti-China bloc led by the US could be far larger than the Quad. During a telephone call earlier this month between Modi and US President Donald Trump, the American leader invited India to join the next G7 summit. They also, according to White House spokeswoman Kayleigh McEnany, discussed “the situation on the India-China border.”

Trump has previously spoken of wanting to expand the traditional grouping of mostly European and North American states to include Washington’s allies Australia and South Korea, as well use this year’s planned meeting to “discuss China’s future.”

India has traditionally been wary of getting too close to the US, seeking to balance that relationship with strong economic — if not always diplomatic — ties to Beijing. Amid growing pressure on its border, however, and what appears to be a strong personal bond between Trump and Modi, this could be the perfect time for such a pivot.

Greater Indian participation in both the Quad and other military alliances with the US would have benefits for Washington, according to foreign affairs analyst Amrita Jash, who wrote this week that “India’s strong foothold in the Indo-Pacific provides a counterbalance to China’s growing footprint in the Indian Ocean.”

Not without cost

Both Delhi and Beijing have spoken of the desire to deescalate and preserve a peaceful relationship following this week’s clash in the Himalayas, but many experts are skeptical about how feasible, or sustainable this is.

Aidan Milliff, an expert on political violence and South Asia at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, predicted this month that the latest conflict could “portend the development of a Sino-Indian situation that reflects an ‘ugly stability’ between India and Pakistan: persistent low-level conflicts and political-military crises that simmer below the threshold of conventional war.”

Already shaky ties between Beijing and Delhi had already been harmed by the coronavirus pandemic, with many in India blaming China for its initial mishandling of the crisis and Chinese officials frustrated by their Indian counterparts’ perceived failure to express support for Beijing at the World Health Organization and other international forums.

Any major shift towards the Quad or Washington alone would likely only take place if Delhi believes relations with Beijing are beyond repair, however, as they could come with high costs for both India and China.

Under Modi, India’s economic engagement with China has been increasing. Together, the two countries account for 17.6% of the global economy. But although China is India’s largest trading partner, their estimated $84 billion bilateral trade in 2017/18 was a mere fraction of the US-China trade volume, which stood at almost $600 billion.

Before the coronavirus pandemic, China was gradually emerging as a major foreign investor in the growing Indian market, but that trend has been halted by new investment rules passed by Delhi widely seen as aimed at Chinese firms.

Economic pain is not the only thing that will be jointly shared. While Beijing may be loathe to see India cosying up to the US and Japan, it can respond by increasing support for Delhi’s major rival: Pakistan.

China has close economic, diplomatic and military ties with Pakistan, making it one of the nation’s closest allies in the region. Between 2008 and 2017, Islamabad purchased more than $6 billion of Chinese arms, according to think tank CSIS. China has also invested billions in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, an integral part of Xi’s Belt and Road trade and infrastructure mega-project.

Protecting that corridor was seen by some analysts as a driving factor behind the recent spat in the Himalayas, another factor in which was recent Indian moves over Kashmir, in which China supported Pakistan in a failed attempt to censure Delhi at the United Nations.

Similarly, China has made diplomatic and economic inroads in countries traditionally considered as within Delhi’s sphere of influence, including Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

India’s South Asian neighbors have also increasingly looked to China for assistance during the coronavirus pandemic, accelerating a trend that seen Beijing invest heavily in the region.

The willingness of Nepal, in particular, to work with Beijing has led to concerns in Delhi of potential geopolitical realignment. Nepal, which is sandwiched between India and China, and has recently butted heads with its southern neighbor over a decision to approve a revised map that includes areas claimed by Delhi.

Part of the problem in the region are the messy, widely disputed borders that many of the countries share. If relations continue to worsen between Beijing and Delhi, however, they may seem like nothing compared to the nightmare of geopolitical complications that could arise across all of Asia-Pacific.

India vs China Dispute. Tibet is not a part of China.

THE DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF NIXON AND FORD

THE DOOMED PRESIDENCY OF NIXON AND FORD. DOOMED FOR NOT PLAYING THE ‘TIBET CARD’.

The doomed presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.
The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.
The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.
The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford stands in Ann Arbor. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.
The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.
The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Backstabbers of Tibetan Nation.
September 08, 1974. President Ford grants pardon to President Nixon. The doomed presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.

On September 08, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford grants unconditional pardon to Richard M Nixon, 37th President of the United States of America. I served in Special Frontier Force during the presidency of Nixon and Ford. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan where I have the opportunity to visit Gerald R. Ford’s Presidential Library on the University of Michigan Campus. 

The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Nixon and Kissinger treacherous actions in the Vietnam War cannot be pardoned.
In my opinion, President Ford’s pardon may not include Nixon’s Vietnam Treason. I cannot grant pardon to Nixon for he had never admitted his crime of Betrayal, Treachery in the conduct of the Vietnam War. I still recognize Nixon and Ford as Backstabbers of Tibetan Nation. Their Presidency doomed for they failed to play the ‘Tibetan Card’.
 
Rudra Narasimham Rebbapragada
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-4162 USA
 

 

Nixon and Ford attending the funeral function of President Lyndon B. Johnson. The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford.

This Day in History: Ford pardons Nixon

SEPTEMBER 08
 
 
  •  
The Watergate scandal erupted after it was revealed that Nixon and his aides had engaged in illegal activities during his reelection campaign–and then attempted to cover up evidence of wrongdoing. With impeachment proceedings underway against him in Congress, Nixon bowed to public pressure and became the first American president to resign. At noon on August 9, Nixon officially ended his term, departing with his family in a helicopter from the White House lawn. Minutes later, Vice President Gerald R. Ford was sworn in as the 38th president of the United States in the East Room of the White House. After taking the oath of office, President Ford spoke to the nation in a television address, declaring, “My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.”
 
Ford, the first president who came to the office through appointment rather than election, had replaced Spiro Agnew as vice president only eight months before. In a political scandal independent of the Nixon administration’s wrongdoings in the Watergate affair, Agnew had been forced to resign in disgrace after he was charged with income tax evasion and political corruption. Exactly one month after Nixon announced his resignation, Ford issued the former president a “full, free and absolute” pardon for any crimes he committed while in office. The pardon was widely condemned at the time.
 
Decades later, the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation presented its 2001 Profile in Courage Award to Gerald Ford for his 1974 pardon of Nixon. In pardoning Nixon, said the foundation, Ford placed his love of country ahead of his own political future and brought needed closure to the divisive Watergate affair. Ford left politics after losing the 1976 presidential election to Democrat Jimmy Carter. Ford died on December 26, 2006, at the age of 93.

 

The doomed presidency of Nixon and Ford. September 08, 1974. Doomed for not playing the 'Tibet Card'.
September 08, 1974. President Ford grants pardon to President Nixon. The doomed Presidency of Nixon and Ford. Doomed for not playing the ‘Tibet Card’.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

MARCH 29, 1973: THE UNFINISHED WAR TO CONTAIN COMMUNISM

MARCH 29, 1973: THE UNFINISHED WAR TO CONTAIN COMMUNISM

 
 

 
 

On March 29, 1973, the U.S. withdraws combat troops from Vietnam after the signing of the Vietnam Peace Agreement in Paris on January 29, 1973. However, the War to contain the threat posed by the spread of Communism to Asia is not over.

 
 

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

 
 

Clipped from:

U.S. Withdraws from Vietnam-History

 
 

1973

U.S. withdraws from Vietnam

 
 

 
 

March 29. U.S. withdraws from Vietnam

 
 

Two months after the signing of the Vietnam peace agreement, the last U.S. combat troops leave South Vietnam as Hanoi frees the remaining American prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. America’s direct eight-year intervention in the Vietnam War was at an end. In Saigon, some 7,000 U.S. Department of Defense civilian employees remained behind to aid South Vietnam in conducting what looked to be a fierce and ongoing war with communist North Vietnam.

In 1961, after two decades of indirect military aid, U.S. President John F. Kennedy sent the first large force of U.S. military personnel to Vietnam to bolster the ineffectual autocratic regime of South Vietnam against the communist North. Three years later, with the South Vietnamese government crumbling, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered limited bombing raids on North Vietnam, and Congress authorized the use of U.S. troops. By 1965, North Vietnamese offensives left President Johnson with two choices: escalate U.S. involvement or withdraw. Johnson ordered the former, and troop levels soon jumped to more than 300,000 as U.S. air forces commenced the largest bombing campaign in history.

 
 

During the next few years, the extended length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes, such as the massacre at My Lai, helped turn many in the United States against the Vietnam War. The communists’ Tet Offensive of 1968 crushed U.S. hopes of an imminent end to the conflict and galvanized U.S. opposition to the war. In response, Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection, citing what he perceived to be his responsibility in creating a perilous national division over Vietnam. He also authorized the beginning of peace talks.

 
 

Thanks for watching!

In the spring of 1969, as protests against the war escalated in the United States, U.S. troop strength in the war-torn country reached its peak at nearly 550,000 men. Richard Nixon, the new U.S. president, began U.S. troop withdrawal and “Vietnamization” of the war effort that year, but he intensified bombing. Large U.S. troop withdrawals continued in the early 1970s as President Nixon expanded air and ground operations into Cambodia and Laos in attempts to block enemy supply routes along Vietnam’s borders. This expansion of the war, which accomplished few positive results, led to new waves of protests in the United States and elsewhere.

 
 

Finally, in January 1973, representatives of the United States, North and South Vietnam, and the Vietcong signed a peace agreement in Paris, ending the direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. Its key provisions included a cease-fire throughout Vietnam, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the release of prisoners of war, and the reunification of North and South Vietnam through peaceful means. The South Vietnamese government was to remain in place until new elections were held, and North Vietnamese forces in the South were not to advance further nor be reinforced.

 
 

However, the agreement was little more than a face-saving gesture by the U.S. government. Even before the last American troops departed on March 29, the communists violated the cease-fire, and by early 1974 full-scale war had resumed. At the end of 1974, South Vietnamese authorities reported that 80,000 of their soldiers and civilians had been killed in fighting during the year, making it the costliest of the Vietnam War.

 
 

On April 30, 1975, the last few Americans still in South Vietnam were airlifted out of the country as Saigon fell to communist forces. North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, accepting the surrender of South Vietnam later in the day, remarked, “You have nothing to fear; between Vietnamese there are no victors and no vanquished. Only the Americans have been defeated.” The Vietnam War was the longest and most unpopular foreign war in U.S. history and cost 58,000 American lives. As many as two million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed.

 
 

 
 

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEFINING MOMENT – ARE YOU FRIEND OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY?

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S DEFINING MOMENT – ARE YOU FRIEND OF FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY?

 
 

On Tuesday September 19, 2017, President Trump will address the UN General Assembly. It will be President Trump’s defining moment. He must prove his credentials to the world.

 
 

On behalf of Special Frontier Force, I ask Mr. President, “Are You Friend of Freedom and Democracy?”

 
 

Trump must verify his love, hate relationship with American Values. While defending Freedom and Democracy, the US lost its battle in Vietnam. Now, I must know as to how President Trump plans to “WIN” ‘The Cold War in Asia’.

 
 

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA 48104 – 4162

SPECIAL FRONTIER FORCE

 
 

TRUMP’S LOVE, HATE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE UNITED NATIONS – ABC NEWS

 
 

Clipped from: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trumps-love-hate-relationship-united-nations/story?id=49925472

Evan Vucci/AP

President Trump will make his first speech before the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. Will he bring the world together or sow division? Will he embrace an institution that he has previously called weak and incompetent?

His relationship with the New York-based global organization is long and complicated.

Trump, the candidate, says UN “not a friend of freedom”

During his March 23, 2016 speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s conference, then-candidate Trump issued some of his toughest commentary, speaking of the “utter weakness and incompetence of the United Nations.”

“The United Nations is not a friend of democracy. It’s not a friend to freedom,” Trump said. “It’s not a friend even to the United States of America, where, as you know, it has its home. And it surely is not a friend to Israel.”

Though a 2016 Global Attitudes Survey by Pew Research Center showed that 64 percent of Americans had a favorable view of the United Nations, Trump’s campaign promises for a protectionist economic policy and an aggressive approach to China come into conflict with the goals of multilateralism and the UN charter. His promotion of interrogation techniques “worse than waterboarding,” his push for a temporary ban on Muslims from entering the U.S. and his decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accords have also put Trump at odds with UN allies.

Last December, Trump continued his assault on the institution, tweeting: “The United Nations has such great potential but right now it is just a club for people to get together, talk and have a good time. So sad!”

Trump, the real estate magnate: “I’m a big fan” of the UN

In 2005, Trump testified before a subcommittee looking at UN spending, calling himself a “big fan of the United Nations and all it stands for.” He told lawmakers the institution was one of the reasons he chose to build Trump World Tower, one of his luxury residential properties, where he did in 1998.

“If the United Nations weren’t there, perhaps I wouldn’t have built it in that location,” said Trump. “So it means quite a bit to me.” When Trump was planning the building, many UN officials, including Secretary General Kofi Annan, expressed disapproval of the massive construction project.

Trump’s renovation hopes

At a 2005 hearing, a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee was looking at renovations at the UN New York headquarters and estimated development costs for similar projects in New York. Trump had met with UN officials to pitch his services, but they were refused. He told members he thought the project could cost $700 million, and he predicted the UN would end up spending upwards of $3 billion.

“You have to deal in New York City construction to see what tough people are all about,” Trump said at the time. “I listen to these people and they’re very naive, I respect them, but they’re very naive in this world. I might be naive in their world. But in this world, they’re naive.”

He also noted at a 2005 hearing that it was a dream of his to move the United Nations headquarters to the World Trade Center.

Seven years later, he shared another UN preoccupation, tweeting on Oct. 3, 2012: “The cheap 12 inch sq. marble tiles behind speaker at UN always bothered me. I will replace with beautiful large marble slabs if they ask me.”

On Tuesday, Trump will address the United Nations General Assembly and the world without his “beautiful large marble slabs” as a backdrop.

SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – TELL THE COMMUNISTS, “WE STILL MEAN BUSINESS”

SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – TELL THE COMMUNISTS, “WE STILL MEAN BUSINESS”

A Brief History of False Flag Attacks: Or Why Government ...

SEPTEMBER 10, 2017 – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA – TELL THE COMMUNISTS, “WE STILL MEAN BUSINESS”

The Great Society 50 Years Later: How We're Failing ...

On September 10, 2017, United States must tell the Communists, “We mean Business.” The time has come to squarely address the problem of Communism that spread to mainland China in 1949.

Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

Ch22 sec1&2 new2012

PRESIDENT JOHNSON SENDS SIGNAL TO BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH VIETNAMESE – SEPTEMBER 10, 1964

Clipped from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-johnson-sends-signal-to-both-north-and-south-vietnamese?

Following the Tonkin Gulf incidents, in which North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked U.S. destroyers, and the subsequent passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution empowering him to react to armed attacks, President Lyndon Johnson authorizes a series of measures “to assist morale in South Vietnam and show the Communists [in North Vietnam] we still mean business.” These measures included covert action such as the resumption of the DeSoto intelligence patrols and South Vietnamese coastal raids to harass the North Vietnamese. Premier Souvanna Phouma of Laos was also asked to allow the South Vietnamese to make air and ground raids into southeastern Laos, along with air strikes by Laotian planes and U.S. armed aerial reconnaissance to cut off the North Vietnamese infiltration along the route that became known as the Ho Chi Minh Trail. Eventually, U.S. warplanes would drop over 2 million tons of bombs on Laos as part of Operations Steel Tiger and Tiger Hound between 1965 and 1973.

Also on this day

Vietnam War

Vietnam war architect Robert McNamara dies | US news | The ...

1963

President Kennedy gets mixed signals

Maj. Gen. Victor Krulak, USMC, Special Assistant for Counterinsurgency and Special Activities to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph Mendenhall of the State Department report to President John F. Kennedy on their fact-finding mission to Vietnam. The president had sent them to make a firsthand assessment of the situation in Vietnam…

THE COLD WAR IN ASIA CHINA and KOREA. - ppt download

SEPTEMBER 09, 2017 – CHAIRMAN MAO’S LEGACY LIVES – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA

SEPTEMBER 09, 2017 – CHAIRMAN MAO’S LEGACY LIVES – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA

China'Watch'Canada: Xi Embraces Mao’s Radical Legacy

SEPTEMBER 09, 2017 – CHAIRMAN MAO’S LEGACY LIVES – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA

Cold War in Asia |authorSTREAM
On www.authorstream.com

PPT - Early Years of the Cold War PowerPoint Presentation ...
On www.slideserve.com

On September 09, 2017 Chairman Mao Zedong’s Legacy lives. Unfinished Korea-Vietnam War is mere symptom of ‘The Cold War in Asia’ which started with Communist takeover of mainland China. In Korean Peninsula, the US faces security challenge posed by the spread of Communism in Asia. It is not surprising to note that Vietnam recognizes the same threat and is willing to cooperate with the United States to contain Expansionist Doctrine formulated by Communist Party Chairman Mao Zedong.
Rudranarasimham Rebbapragada
DOOM DOOMA DOOMSAYER

DOOMED AMERICAN CHINA FANTASY – THE COLD WAR IN ASIA 1949 ...
On wholedude.com

CHAIRMAN MAO DIES – SEPTEMBER 09, 1976

Clipped from: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/chairman-mao-dies

1976
On this day in 1976, Chinese revolutionary and statesman Mao Zedong, who had been suffering from Parkinson’s disease and other health problems, dies in Beijing at the age of 82. The Communist leader and founder of the People’s Republic of China is considered one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.
Mao was born into a peasant family in the village of Shaoshan in China’s Hunan province on December 26, 1893. During the 1911 Revolution, he was a soldier in the revolutionary army, which eventually defeated the Qing Dynasty. After serving in the army, he resumed his education and eventually moved to Beijing, where he studied Marxist social and political thought. In 1921, he attended the first session of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which was held in Shanghai. He went on to found the Hunan branch of the CCP and organize workers’ strikes. Marxism held that cultural revolution would be brought about by urban workers; however, Mao came to believe that China’s millions of peasants were the key to change.
In 1934, during his long civil war with Chiang Kai-Shek and his nationalist government, Mao broke through enemy lines and led his followers on the Long March, a trek of some 6,000 miles to northern China. There, he built up his Red Army and fought against the Japanese invaders. In 1945, civil war resumed, and in 1949 the Nationalists were defeated. On October 1, 1949, Mao proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
Under Mao’s leadership, the Communist Party took control of China’s media and executed its political enemies, including business owners, landlords, former government officials and intellectuals. In 1958, Mao launched the Great Leap Forward, an economic initiative aimed at boosting the country’s agricultural and industrial production. The program involved the establishment of large farming communes, which would free up more workers for industrial jobs. Instead, the plan failed as grain production declined and millions of Chinese died due to famine. In 1966, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution, in an attempt to wipe out China’s old customs and ideas, promote Mao’s teachings and purge the Communist party of his political enemies. Mao urged students and other young people to join the Red Guards, who in turn shut down schools, churches, temples and museums and tortured or killed academics and other authority figures who were viewed as capitalists and anti-revolutionaries. The Cultural Revolution resulted in widespread chaos and civil unrest.
Despite these failures, Mao maintained fanatical followers all across China and, as the founder of modern China, remains one of the most influential figures of the 20th century. After his death, Deng Xiaoping emerged as China’s leader. Today, Mao’s embalmed remains are housed in a mausoleum in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square.

Also on this day

Cold War
1976
Mao Zedong Dies
Mao Zedong, who led the Chinese people through a long revolution and then ruled the nation’s communist government from its establishment in 1949, dies. Along with V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin, Mao was one of the most significant communist figures of the Cold War.
Vietnam War
1967
Hackney receives Medal of Honor

37th Aerospace Rescue and Recovery Squadron Archives ...
On www.thisdayinaviation.com

Sergeant Duane D. Hackney is presented with the Air Force Cross for bravery in rescuing an Air Force pilot in Vietnam. He was the first living Air Force enlisted man to receive the award, the nation’s second highest award for bravery in action.

1969

Vietnam | Didier Ruef | Photography

Ho Chi Minh buried in Hanoi

Funeral services, attended by 250,000 mourners, are held for Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi’s Ba Dinh Square. Among those in attendance were Soviet Premier Aleksei Kosygin, Chinese Vice-Premier Li Hsien-nien and Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia. Ho had established the Indochinese Communist Party in 1929.
1972

Charles B. DeBellevue
On quazoo.com

DeBellevue becomes leading American Ace

U.S. Air Force Capt. Charles B. DeBellevue (Weapons Systems Officer) flying with his pilot, Capt. John A. Madden, in a McDonnell Douglas F-4D, shoots down two MiG-19s near Hanoi. These were Captain DeBellevue’s fifth and sixth victories, which made him the leading American ace (an unofficial designation awarded for…

111 best images about The Aces on Pinterest | Manfred von ...

Objectives Explain how the situation in Korea became the ...

Cold War Asia - Viewing Gallery
On galleryhip.com