Hacker News Reader

Comment by hd4 | Hacker News Reader

Traditional? Not really. The UK or France could be considered traditional allies. Pakistan was more of a conveniently-located 'strategic partner'. I say this as someone of Pakistani origin.

The people of Pakistan are hugely skeptical and wary of this 'alliance' and have long felt they have been used, there is deep resentment, so it's not even slightly surprising they are looking to align themselves with those whose reputation is less sullied (in their view) than the US's.

View on HN

Pakistan gets paid for its dealing with the U.S. It is not some friend doing the U.S. any favours. Its more of a business deal and clearly one the U.S. should reconsider. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/11/25/...

Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of terrorism in Afghanistan, at the same time Pakistan is important to China because of threat of India.

And before Afghanistan, the Soviet Union. And as you say, the mutual interest in containing the threat posed by India. If anything, Trump courting India as much as he has been doing, at the same time talking tough against China means we have 'interesting times' ahead.

From my perspective, India always seemed like a better ally to the American people, Pakistan to the American military/intelligence branches.

India courted the soviets which didn't help.

It's a little more complicated than that. This was mostly a reaction to Pakistan courting the US. Note also that India was first a founding member of the non-aligned movement, which the US was not pleased about. US-India relations improved during the 1962 Sino-Indian war when the US countered Chinese aggression at any cost. They then deteriorated again when the Nixon administration openly supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

India was never the aggressor, just look at the history. It's Chinese who invaded Indian Himalayan territory and annexed some Indian land. Same with Pakistan - it's them who invaded Indian territory in Kashmir in 1999 in thousands.

It's stupid from Chinese to act like there is already hostility between them, when they could act as partners that have literally 1/3 of global population and dominate the region.

India's modern history perhaps, but Indian influence once stretched all across SE Asia. Angor Wat is the largest Hindu temple in the world[1], for example; Bali is all that remains of Hindu control of Indonesia[2]. Though it seems unlikely that the PRC government is thinking in those terms.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#History 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali#Ancient

Ankor Wat was built by a local king.

No Indian empire invaded or controlled SE Asia. The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in Bali and Cambodia is testament to the influence of Indian philosophy and belief not might.

The Sino Indian war is more complicated than that,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-...

>Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of opium and mineral wealth in Afghanistan...

FTFY

True. But the relationship has spanned many decades into the cold war, with Pakistan leaning towards the US and India leaning towards Russia. There was little trust or love or shared values involved, but it was still one borne of necessity, that had endured a lot of bumps (to say the least) along the way.

this was an idiotic decision by US - India has much more common with western democracies compared to Pakistan. It's also the biggest democracy in the world, since it's humble beginnings.

I presume US couldn't swallow that somebody like to be rather independent though and bow into submission during cold war, ie 'if you're not with us you are against us' mentality

Reply on news.ycombinator.com