SEATO

Background:

 Emergence of two world powers with contrasting ideologies after ww2.

INTRO

The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international

Signatories, including France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Pakistan,
Thailand, and the United States, pledged themselves to “act to meet the common danger” in the
event of aggression against any signatory state.

STRUCTURE

SEATO was intended to be a Southeast Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO),[6] in which the military forces of each member would be coordinated to
provide for the collective defense of the members' country. Organizationally, SEATO was
headed by the Secretary General, whose office was created in 1957 at a meeting
in Canberra,[7][8] with a council of representatives from member nations and an international
staff. Also present were committees for economics, security, and information.[8] SEATO's first
Secretary General was Pote Sarasin, a Thai diplomat and politician who had served as Thailand's
ambassador to the U.S. between 1952 and 1957,[9][10] and as Prime Minister of Thailand from
September 1957 to 1 January 1958

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of SEATO was to create a mutual defense pact aimed at containing the spread of
Communism by the People's Republic of China and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North
Vietnam). SEATO allowed for the military forces of each member to be coordinated to provide
for the collective defense against communist aggression.

CHALLENGES/ FAILURES

 No independent mechanism:
SEATO had no independent mechanism for obtaining intelligence or deploying military forces,
so the potential for collective action was necessarily limited.

 Linguistic and cultural difference between member states:

Linguistic and cultural difficulties between the member states also compounded its problems,
making it difficult for SEATO to accomplish many of its goals.

 Only three Asian members’ states:

Although the name of the organization comprises southeast, but Thailand and the Philippines
were the only countries in the organization that located inside Southeast Asia. Both Thailand and
the Philippines already shared close ties with the United States. Beside these two Pakistan was
the only third Asian country signatory of this pact.

 No absolute mutual defense commitments:

The language of the treaty did not go as far as the absolute mutual defense commitments and
force structure of the NATO alliance, instead providing only for consultations in case of
aggression against a signatory or protocol state before any combined actions were initiated. This
lack of an agreement that would have compelled a combined military response to aggression
significantly weakened SEATO as a military alliance.

 Promoting western colonialism:

Moreover, because it incorporated only three Asian members, SEATO faced charges of being a
new form of Western colonialism. Great Britain and France had long maintained colonies in the
region and were interested in developments in the greater Indochina region.

 Withdrawal of member states and end of the pact:

Pakistan withdrew from SEATO on 7th November 1973. France also left on 30th June 1974. At
a meeting in New York in September 1975 it was agreed to bring an end to the organization.

 Considered as a failure:

Though Secretary of State Dulles considered SEATO an essential element in American foreign
policy in Asia, historians have considered the Manila Pact a failure and the pact is rarely
mentioned in history books. In The Geneva Conference of 1954 on Indochina, Sir James Cable, a
diplomat and naval strategist, described SEATO as “a fig leaf for the nakedness of American
policy”, citing the Manila Pact as a “zoo of paper tigers”.

ACHIVEMENTS
  Joint Military exercises

It maintained no military forces of its own, but the organization hosted joint military exercises
for member states each year.

 Strengthen economic condition of south Asian countries;

As the communist threat appeared to change from one of outright attack to one of internal
subversion, SEATO worked hard to build up the economies of countries in the region. The belief
was that if people in Southeast Asia enjoyed a higher standard of living, then they would be less
likely to succumb to communism.

 Funding cultural and educational programs in Southeast Asian region:

SEATO-funded cultural and educational programs left long-standing effects in Southeast Asia.

 Serving American rationale:

Beyond its activities, the SEATO charter was also vitally important to the American rationale for
the Vietnam War. The United States used the organization as its justification for refusing to go
forward with the 1956 elections intended to reunify Vietnam, instead maintaining the divide
between communist North Vietnam and South Vietnam at the 17th parallel. As the conflict in
Vietnam unfolded, the inclusion of Vietnam as a territory under SEATO protection gave the
United States the legal framework for its continued involvement there.

PAKISTAN & SEATO:

Pakistan achieved independence in the beginning of the cold war and, because of its geopolitical
significance quickly attracted the United States attention. A partner in the U.S. containment
policy, Pakistan became an ally in the struggle with soviet communism. The Eisenhower
administration had endeavored to enlist India in the containment policy, but Delhi was reluctant
to join American sponsored alliance and in fact had become a harsh critic of Washington’s
foreign policy. Pakistan therefore became member of the southeast treaty organization 1954, and
signed the Baghdad pact in 1955 (later CENTO).

By signing these Defense pacts, Pakistan became one of the first few allies of the American
Power System in its war against Communism in an environment when most of the Third World
countries were campaigning for nationalism, social reformism and anti-imperialism and refused
to be part of the American Power System in the Cold War era.

For Pakistan, the appeal of the pact was the potential for receiving support in its struggles
against India, in spite of the fact that neither country was located in the area under the
organization’s jurisdiction.
The two visible gains which Pakistan got from the pact were that SEATO training centers were
set up in Asian members countries, and Pakistan managed to train hundreds of its workers under
this scheme secondly, the prestige and importance of being represented where India was not,
rubbing shoulders with some powerful fellow-members.

Since the formation of these pacts, the Soviet Union had been using its veto power against any
effective action on Kashmir in the UN Security Council (Rao, 1985:92). Soviet ambassador in
Pakistan stated that his country could not remain indifferent towards the reports of Pakistan’s
participation in American plan to set up military bloc in the region.

Although Pakistan took grave risks on America’s behalf, it received comparatively little in
return. Its cooperation with the US took Pakistan from qualified neutrality to unqualified
alliance. Due to U-2 event, Pakistan faced the danger of retaliation in terms of a rocket attack. In
spite of that, the US failed to support Pakistan on the Kashmir dispute. New Delhi viewed Pak-
US military relations as a move against India not as a move against communism. The
repercussions of Pakistan’s alliance with America adversely affected Pakistan’s relations with
other countries in the world making it harder to build bridges of friendship in Asia and Africa.
Pakistan nonetheless continued to exert its influence in the Middle East and in the Muslim
countries of Northern Africa advocating less nationalistic and more moderate policies. American
foreign policy was designed with anticommunist objectives in mind. India, because of its non-
aligned status, refused to be a part of any American sponsored alliance. And yet it received more
loans and grants from the US than Pakistan. Overall Pakistan joining of SEATO can be referred
as complete failure of Pakistan Foreign policy makers.

Why Pakistan leave SEATO?

SEATO did not support Pakistan in its effort against India in 1965, because of which its
commitment to SEATO faded. During Bhutto period relations between Pakistan and USA were
not quite good and USA also became suspicious when Bhutto tried to create close relations with
China. This formal alliance with USA also kept Pakistan out of Nonaligned Movement. When
USA also did not help Pakistan in 1971 in its conflict with Indian government, Pakistan
withdrew from the SEATO after the separation of East Pakistan in 1971.so we conclude that the
p[act was short lived and failed to provide with favorable results.

Pakistan formally left SEATO in 1973, because the organization had failed to provide it with
assistance in its ongoing conflict against India. When the Vietnam War ended in 1975, the most
prominent reason for SEATO’s existence disappeared. As a result, SEATO formally disbanded
in 1977.

By joining the defense pacts Pakistan could not maintain a neutral foreign policy as did India.
Interestingly, a threat from India or communist block was a perception based on theoretical terms
which, however, never was assisted by the facts. Had Pakistan not joined this pact the present
situation in Pakistan might have been very different. By maintaining neutral policy it could have
prevented further aggravating the Soviet Union.[21] Similarly, in Indian case, Pakistan could
have set a different approach by setting up the standards according to the true spirit of
democracy, Pakistan could have enjoyed amicable situation with the neighbor country, because
democracies never fight with each other. Pakistan still follow the same primitive policy not even
thinking what fruits she got from the similar policies in past. Pakistan had become so used to
accepting mediocrity and making compromises, that now we even don’t know where to draw the
line. In fact, we have forgotten if there is a line.

To us rules are made to be broken, standards set to be compromised and results made to be
manipulated. We need to get this mindset out of our lives and set foreign policy keeping in front
the larger interest of the state further more respecting the sovereignty of the other states. If we
had a troubled foreign policy, there is no shame in having a new go for the foreign policy and
setting new principles and standards that would serve Pakistan and its masses. Consequently,
Pakistan would re-emerge as one of the respected nation of the world and would come across the
bliss, its people have always desired.

CENTO or the Baghdad Pact

INTRO

Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), formerly Middle East Treaty Organization, or Baghdad
Pact Organization, mutual security organization dating from 1955 to 1979 and composed
of Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. Until March 1959 the organization was
known as the Middle EastTreaty Organization, included Iraq, and had its headquarters
in Baghdad.

STRUCTURE

Central Treaty Organisation was the other name of Bagdad Pact name was Middle East Treaty
Organization (METO. In 1955 Iraq and Turkey signed Baghdad Pact whose aim was to prevent
Middle East from the influence of Russian Communism. Later on, England and Pakistan joined
it. The USA gave financial help to this Pact. But in 1959 Iraq resigned from Baghdad Pact. Then
this organisation was named as ‘Central Treaty Organisation’ or CENTO, CENTO moved its
headquarter to Turkey (Ankara) in 1958.
OBJECTIVES

(a) It was determined to keep Soviet Russia away from the Middle East.

(b) This was also a warning to Soviet Russia and other Arab Countries.

(c) The member countries aspired for help from the United States of America.

(d) It was expected that peace would be established in the Middle East, it would help the growth
of trade and commerce among the member countries.

(e) This organisation became successful in projecting the defence system of America and
England.

CHALLENGES/ FAILURES

Unlike NATO, CENTO did not have a unified military command structure, nor were many
U.S. or UK military bases established in member countries

• CENTO never actually provided its members with a means for guaranteeing collective
defense. CENTO was unwilling to get deeply involved in either dispute. In 1965 and
1971, Pakistan tried unsuccessfully to get assistance in its wars with India through
CENTO, but this was rejected under the idea that CENTO was aimed at containing the
USSR, not India.

The nature of some of the ongoing tensions in the region, like Arab-Israeli conflict and Egyptian-
led anti-colonialism, made it difficult to forge an alliance that would include both Israel and
Western colonial powers.

CENTO did little to prevent the expansion of Soviet influence to non-member states in the area.
Whatever containment value the pact might have had was lost when the Soviets 'leap-frogged'
the member states, establishing close military and political relationships with governments in
Egypt, Syria, Iraq, the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Indeed, by
1970, the U.S.S.R. had deployed over 20,000 troops to Egypt, and had established naval bases in
Syria, Somalia, and P.D.R. Yemen.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 spelled the end of the organization. However, in reality, it had
been as good as finished after 1974, when Turkey invaded Cyprus, leading the United Kingdom
to withdraw forces that had been earmarked to the alliance. With the fall of the Iranian
monarchy, whatever remaining rationale for the organization was lost.
Analysis of CENTO:
In true sense of the term, the CENTO was not successful in achieving its goal. At first, there was
no need of such type of organisation in the Middle East.

Secondly, it doubled the anger of Soviet Russia. When Pakistan joined in CENTO, Soviet Russia
came closer to India.

Thirdly, the interference of Turkey and England became unbearable by the member states. So,
they became annoyed.

Fourthly, America wanted to play an active role in CENTO which neither was nor accepted by
the member states.

At last due to the lack of adequate finance, the importance of CENTO in the international affairs
was reduced.

PAKISTAN & CENTO:

Turkey and Iraq laid the foundation of the Baghdad pact for mutual defense that was signed on
26 February 1955. They invited Pakistan to join but Pakistan was reluctant to do so without the
inclusion of the United States and its military might. But mounting pressure from Britain and the
US was sufficient impetus for Pakistan to sign the agreement on 23 September 1955 along with
Britain and Iran. The Baghdad Pact provided a framework upon which a programme could be
built around military and economic assistance. American ambassador James Richard visited the
Middle East and Pakistan in 1957. He made it clear that American policy in the Middle East was
not intended to establish any sphere of influence. However, situation in the region demanded that
the power vacuum be filled.

After the Iraqi revolution, Secretary Dulles promised that the US would enter into new
arrangements to strengthen the members of CENTO. In April 1959, the US signed a bilateral
defense agreement with Pakistan. The US promised to take appropriate action including the use
of force as indicated in the Joint Resolution to Promote Peace and Stability in Middle East. In
Article 2, the US pledged to assist the government of Pakistan in the preservation of its national
independence, integrity and effective promotion of economic development. The US commitment
to assist Pakistan in the event of aggression was more specific than any previous pacts including
SEATO and CENTO. But when Pakistan attempted to invoke the provisions of the agreement in
1965 and 1971, the US did not honor its obligation.
Pakistan miscalculated at diplomatic level. It never obtained US support against India on issues
such as Jammu and Kashmir, Indus water and economic assets of Pakistan, which were taken by
India at the time of partition. No issue was resolved through military alliances. Pakistan
attempted to settle its disputes with India in at the annual SEATO conference in 1958. But India
protested that the Kashmir dispute was beyond the scope of SEATO. And the Soviet Union
supported India’s position while the US remained on the sidelines.

The US aid was principal instrument of American strategy in South Asia. The substantial amount
of modern planes and equipment made Pakistan Air Force comparable to Indian Air Force in its
effectiveness and strength. A large number of planes were supplied after President Ayub’s visit
to Washington in 1961. Several scores of Pakistani airmen who were trained in the US helped to
establish training centers and programmes in Pakistan. America also assisted in construction of
airfield and other installations. Pakistan received $ 1.5 billion worth of defense aid from the US
till 1959

The only advantage which we derived from membership of the pact was the 1.5 billion dollar
worth of military equipment our defence establishment received gratis in 1955-65. But even this
aid was suspended in 1965 when the India-Pakistan war broke out. Ever since, whatever arms
Pakistan has acquired from Washington have been paid for and have not been given for the
asking. In fact, on occasions requests for specific arms have not been met, the most recent
instance being that of SA-7 planes.

1965: Pakistan tries to get help from their allies in their war against India, but without success.
· 1971: In a new war with India, Pakistan again tries unsuccessfully to get allied assistance.

Pakistan earned the hostility of the Arab world on account of its policy of alignment with the
West. This was later counteracted by skilful diplomacy which was possible in the changed
circumstances of the ‘sixties. But Pakistan’s exclusion from the nonaligned movement, which
has emerged as an important international forum in the Third World, on technical grounds, has
yet to be rectified.

Moreover membership of CENTO distorts Pakistan’s image in the world community, giving it a
definitely pro-West posture. This not only detracts from a truly independent foreign policy but
also unnecessarily invites the criticism of those Powers which are opposed to the pact.

Pakistan’s adherence to pact was disliked by non-committed Afro-Asian countries and the Arabs
who were against the alignment with the West. These alliances were an attempt to extent the
Cold War to other areas. Since the formation of these pacts, the Soviet Union had been using its
veto power against any effective action on Kashmir in the UN Security Council.

• Pakistan withdrew in 1979 after determining the organization no longer had a role to
play in ensuring its security esp. against India