text:
Pentagon Papers
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the U.S. Government documents. For the 2003 film, see The Pentagon Papers (film).
A CIA map of dissident activities in Indochina, published as part of the Pentagon Papers
The Pentagon Papers, officially titled United States – Vietnam Relations, 1945–1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense, is a United States Department of Defense history of the United States' political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. The papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg, who had worked on the study; they were first brought to the attention of the public on the front page of The New York Times in 1971.[1][2] A 1996 article in The New York Times said that the Pentagon Papers had demonstrated, among other things, that the Johnson Administration "systematically lied, not only to the public but also to Congress".[3]
More specifically, the papers revealed that the U.S. had secretly enlarged the scope of its actions in the Vietnam War with the bombings of nearby Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which were reported in the mainstream media.[4]
For his disclosure of the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg was initially charged with conspiracy, espionage, and theft of government property, but the charges were later dismissed after prosecutors investigating the Watergate scandal discovered that the staff members in the Nixon White House had ordered the so-called White House Plumbers to engage in unlawful efforts to discredit Ellsberg.[5]
In June 2011, the entirety of the Pentagon Papers was declassified and publicly released.[6]
Contents
[hide]
1 Contents
1.1 Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China
1.2 Internal affairs of Vietnam
1.2.1 Role of the United States in the rise of President Diem
1.2.2 Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime
1.3 Proposed operations
2 Leak
2.1 The Nixon administration's restraint of the media
2.2 The Supreme Court allows further publication
2.3 Legal charges against Ellsberg
3 Impact
4 Full release in 2011
5 In films and television
5.1 Films
5.2 Television
6 See also
7 References
7.1 Works cited
8 Further reading
9 External links
Contents[edit]
Shortly after their release in June 1971, the Pentagon Papers were featured on the cover of TIME magazine for revealing "The Secret War" of the United States in Vietnam.
Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara created the Vietnam Study Task Force on June 17, 1967, for the purpose of writing an "encyclopedic history of the Vietnam War".[7] McNamara claimed that he wanted to leave a written record for historians, to prevent policy errors in future administrations.[8] McNamara neglected to inform either President Lyndon Johnson or Secretary of State Dean Rusk about the study.[7] One report claimed that McNamara planned to give the work to his friend Robert F. Kennedy, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968.[9][10] McNamara later denied this, although he admitted that he should have informed Johnson and Rusk.[10]
Instead of using existing Defense Department historians, McNamara assigned his close aide and Assistant Secretary of Defense John T. McNaughton to collect the papers.[7] McNaughton died in a plane crash one month after work began in June 1967, but the project continued under the direction of Defense Department official Leslie H. Gelb.[7] Thirty-six analysts—half of them active-duty military officers, the rest academics and civilian federal employees—worked on the study.[7] The analysts largely used existing files in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In order to keep the study secret from others, including National Security Advisor Walt W. Rostow, conducted no interviews or consultations with the armed forces, with the White House, or with other federal agencies.[9]
McNamara left the Defense Department in February 1968, and his successor Clark M. Clifford received the finished study on January 15, 1969, five days before Richard Nixon's inauguration, although Clifford claimed he never read it. The study consisted of 3,000 pages of historical analysis and 4,000 pages of original government documents in 47 volumes, and was classified as "Top Secret – Sensitive". ("Sensitive" is not an official security designation; it meant that access to the study should be controlled.) The task force published 15 copies; the think tank RAND Corporation received two of the copies from Gelb, Morton Halperin and Paul Warnke, with access granted if at least two of the three approved.[9]
Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China[edit]
Main article: China containment policy
As laid out by U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the Chinese containment policy of the United States was a long-run strategic effort to surround Beijing with the USSR, its satellite states, as well as:
a) The Japan–Korea front,
b) The India–Pakistan front, and
c) The Southeast Asia front
Although President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the aim of the Vietnam War was to secure an "independent, non-Communist South Vietnam", a January 1965 memorandum by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated that an underlying justification was "not to help a friend, but to contain China".[11]
On November 3, 1965, McNamara sent a memorandum to President Johnson, in which he explained the "major policy decisions with respect to our course of action in Vietnam". The memorandum begins by disclosing the rationale behind the bombing of North Vietnam in February 1965:
The February decision to bomb North Vietnam and the July approval of Phase I deployments make sense only if they are in support of a long-run United States policy to contain China.[12]
McNamara accused China of harboring imperial aspirations like those of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. According to McNamara, the Chinese were conspiring to "organize all of Asia" against the United States:
China—like Germany in 1917, like Germany in the West and Japan in the East in the late 30's, and like the USSR in 1947—looms as a major power threatening to undercut our importance and effectiveness in the world and, more remotely but more menacingly, to organize all of Asia against us.[12]
To encircle the Chinese, the United States aimed to establish "three fronts" as part of a "long-run effort to contain China":
There are three fronts to a long-run effort to contain China (realizing that the USSR “contains” China on the north and northwest):
(a) the Japan–Korea front;
(b) the India–Pakistan front; and
(c) the Southeast Asia front.[12]
However, McNamara admitted that the containment of China would ultimately sacrifice a significant amount of America's time, money and lives.[12]
Internal affairs of Vietnam[edit]
Timeline
1950 (1950): The United States provided large-scale military equipment to the French in its fight against the communist Viet Minh[13]
1954 (1954): The United States began to engage in "acts of sabotage and terror warfare" in the defense of South Vietnam against communist North Vietnam[13]
1955 (1955): The United States encouraged and directly assisted South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm's rise to power[14]
1963 (1963): The United States encouraged and directly assisted the overthrow of the South Vietnamese President Ngô Đình Diệm[13]
August 2, 1964 (1964-08-02): Following the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the United States manipulated public opinion in its preparation for open warfare against a communist takeover of South Vietnam [13]
Years before the 2 August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, the U.S. government was indirectly or directly involved in Vietnam's affairs:
Under President Harry S. Truman, the U.S. government aided France in its war against the communist-led Viet Minh during the First Indochina War.[13]
Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the U.S. government played a "direct role in the ultimate breakdown of the Geneva settlement" in 1954 by supporting the fledgling South Vietnam and covertly undermining the communist country of North Vietnam.[13]
Under President John F. Kennedy, the U.S. government transformed its policy towards Vietnam from a limited "gamble" to a broad "commitment".[13]
Under President Lyndon B. Johnson, the U.S. government began waging covert military operations against communist North Vietnam in defense of South Vietnam.[13]
Role of the United States in the rise of President Diem[edit]
U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower greets South Vietnam's President Ngo Dinh Diem, whose rise to power was backed by the United States, according to the Pentagon Papers
In a section of the Pentagon Papers titled "Kennedy Commitments and Programs," America's commitment to South Vietnam was attributed to the creation of the country by the United States. As acknowledged by the papers:
"We must note that South Vietnam (unlike any of the other countries in Southeast Asia) was essentially the creation of the United States.[14]
In a sub-section titled "Special American Commitment to Vietnam", the papers emphasized once again the role played by the United States:
"Without U.S. support [Ngo Dinh] Diem almost certainly could not have consolidated his hold on the South during 1955 and 1956."
"Without the threat of U.S. intervention, South Vietnam could not have refused to even discuss the elections called for in 1956 under the Geneva settlement without being immediately overrun by the Viet Minh armies."
"Without U.S. aid in the years following, the Diem regime certainly, and an independent South Vietnam almost as certainly, could not have survived".[14]
More specifically, the United States sent US$28.4 million worth of equipment and supplies to help the Diem regime strengthen its army. In addition, 32,000 men from South Vietnam's Civil Guard were trained by the United States at a cost of US$12.7 million. It was hoped that Diem's regime, after receiving a significant amount of U.S. assistance, would be able to withstand the Viet Cong.[14]
The papers identified General Edward Lansdale, who served in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as a "key figure" in the establishment of Ngo Dinh Diem as the President of South Vietnam, and the backing of Diem's regime thereafter. As written by Lansdale in a 1961 memorandum: "We (the U.S.) must support Ngo Dinh Diem until another strong executive can replace him legally."[14]
Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime[edit]
The body of President Diệm after he was assassinated in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup, which was backed by the United States government
According to the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. government played a key role in the 1963 South Vietnamese coup, in which President Ngo Dinh Diem was assassinated. While maintaining "clandestine contact" with Vietnamese generals planning a coup, the U.S. cut off its aid to President Diem and openly supported a successor government in what the authors called an "essentially leaderless Vietnam":
"For the military coup d'etat against Ngo Dinh Diem, the U.S. must accept its full share of responsibility. Beginning in August 1963 we variously authorized, sanctioned and encouraged the coup efforts of the Vietnamese generals and offered full support for a successor government.
In October we cut off aid to Diem in a direct rebuff, giving a green light to the generals. We maintained clandestine contact with them throughout the planning and execution of the coup and sought to review their operational plans and proposed new government.
Thus, as the nine-year rule of Diem came to a bloody end, our complicity in his overthrow heightened our responsibilities and our commitment in an essentially leaderless Vietnam."[15]
As early as 23 August 1963, an unnamed U.S. representative had met with Vietnamese generals planning a coup against President Diem.[15] According to The New York Times, this U.S. representative was later identified to be CIA agent Lucien Conein.[16]
Proposed operations[edit]
The Director of Central Intelligence, John A. McCone, proposed the following categories of military action:
Category 1 – Air raids on major Viet Cong supply centers, conducted simultaneously by South Vietnam's air force and the United States Air Force (codenamed Farmgate)[17]
Category 2 – Cross-border raids on major Viet Cong supply centers, conducted by South Vietnamese units and US military advisors.[17]
Category 3 – Limited air strikes on North Vietnamese targets by unmarked planes flown exclusively by non-US aircrews.[17]
However, McCone did not believe these military actions alone could lead to an escalation of the situation because the "fear of escalation would probably restrain the Communists".[17] In a memorandum addressed to President Johnson on July 28, 1964, McCone explained:
In response to the first or second categories of action, local Communist military forces in the areas of actual attack would react vigorously, but we believe that none of the Communist powers involved would respond with major military moves designed to change the nature of the conflict...
Air strikes on North Vietnam itself (Category 3) would evoke sharper Communist reactions than air strikes confined to targets in Laos, but even in this case fear of escalation would probably restrain the Communists from a major military response..."[17]
Barely a month after the Gulf of Tonkin incident on August 2, 1964, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy warned that further provocations should not be undertaken until October, when the government of South Vietnam (GVN) would become fully prepared for a full-scale war against North Vietnam. In a memorandum addressed to President Johnson on September 8, 1964, Bundy wrote:
The main further question is the extent to which we should add elements to the above actions that would tend deliberately to provoke a DRV reaction, and consequent retaliation by us.
Examples of actions to be considered were running US naval patrols increasingly close to the North Vietnamese coast and/or [sic] associating them with 34A operations.
We believe such deliberately provocative elements should not be added in the immediate future while the GVN is still struggling to its feet. By early October, however, we may recommend such actions depending on GVN progress and Communist reaction in the meantime, especially to US naval patrols."[18]
While maritime operations played a key role in the provocation of North Vietnam, U.S. military officials had initially proposed to fly a Lockheed U-2 reconnaissance aircraft over the country, but this was to be replaced by other plans.[11]
Leak[edit]
Daniel Ellsberg knew the leaders of the task force well. He had worked as an aide to McNaughton from 1964 to 1965, had worked on the study for several months in 1967, and Gelb and Halperin approved his access to the work at RAND in 1969.[9] Now opposing the war, Ellsberg and his friend Anthony Russo[19] photocopied the study in October 1969 intending to disclose it. Ellsberg approached Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, Senators William Fulbright and George McGovern, and others, but none were interested.[9]
In February 1971, Ellsberg discussed the study with The New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and gave 43 of the volumes to him in March. Before publication, The New York Times sought legal advice. The paper's regular outside counsel, Lord Day & Lord, advised against publication,[9] but in-house counsel James Goodale prevailed with his argument that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people's understanding of their government's policy.
The New York Times began publishing excerpts on June 13, 1971; the first article in the series was titled "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces Three Decades of Growing US Involvement". The study was dubbed The Pentagon Papers during the resulting media publicity.[9][20] Street protests, political controversy, and lawsuits followed.
To ensure the possibility of public debate about the papers' content, on June 29, US Senator Mike Gravel, an Alaska Democrat, entered 4,100 pages of the papers into the record of his Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds. These portions of the papers, which were edited for Gravel by Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky, were subsequently published by Beacon Press, the publishing arm of the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations.[21] A federal grand jury was subsequently empaneled to investigate possible violations of federal law in the release of the report. Leonard Rodberg, a Gravel aide, was subpoenaed to testify about his role in obtaining and arranging for publication of the Pentagon Papers. Gravel asked the court (in Gravel v. United States) to quash the subpoena on the basis of the Speech or Debate Clause in Article I, Section 6 of the United States Constitution.
That clause provides that "for any Speech or Debate in either House, [a Senator or Representative] shall not be questioned in any other Place", meaning that Gravel could not be prosecuted for anything said on the Senate floor, and, by extension, for anything entered to the Congressional Record, allowing the papers to be publicly read without threat of a treason trial and conviction. When Gravel's request was reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court denied the request to extend this protection to Gravel or his legislative aide, Leonard Rodberg, because the grand jury subpoena served on them related to a third party rather than any act they themselves committed for the preparation of materials later entered into the Congressional Record. Nevertheless, the grand jury investigation was halted, and the publication of the papers was never prosecuted.
Later, Ellsberg said the documents "demonstrated unconstitutional behavior by a succession of presidents, the violation of their oath and the violation of the oath of every one of their subordinates."[22] He added that he leaked the Papers to end what he perceived to be "a wrongful war."[22]
The Nixon administration's restraint of the media[edit]
President Nixon at first planned to do nothing about publication of the study since it embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his. But Henry Kissinger convinced the president that not opposing the publication set a negative precedent for future secrets.[9] The administration argued Ellsberg and Russo were guilty of a felony under the Espionage Act of 1917, because they had no authority to publish classified documents.[23] After failing to persuade the Times to voluntarily cease publication on June 14,[9] Attorney General John N. Mitchell and Nixon obtained a federal court injunction forcing the Times to cease publication after three articles.[9] Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger said:
Newspapers, as our editorial said this morning, were really [(sic), possibly "revealing"] a part of history that should have been made available, considerably longer ago. I just didn't feel there was any breach of national security, in the sense that we were giving secrets to the enemy.[24]
The newspaper appealed the injunction, and the case New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713) quickly rose through the U.S. legal system to the Supreme Court.[25]
On June 18, 1971, The Washington Post began publishing its own series of articles based upon the Pentagon Papers;[9] Ellsberg had given portions to the Post reporter Ben Bagdikian. Bagdikian brought the information to editor Ben Bradlee. That day, Assistant U.S. Attorney General William Rehnquist asked the Post to cease publication. After the paper refused, Rehnquist sought an injunction in U.S. district court. Judge Murray Gurfein declined to issue such an injunction, writing that "[t]he security of the Nation is not at the ramparts alone. Security also lies in the value of our free institutions. A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, a ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know."[26] The government appealed that decision, and on June 26 the Supreme Court agreed to hear it jointly with the New York Times case.[25] Fifteen other newspapers received copies of the study and began publishing it.[9]
The Supreme Court allows further publication[edit]
Main article: New York Times Co. v. United States
On June 30, 1971, the Supreme Court decided, 6–3, that the government failed to meet the heavy burden of proof required for prior restraint injunction. The nine justices wrote nine opinions disagreeing on significant, substantive matters.
Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.
—  Justice Black[27]
Thomas Tedford and Dale Herbeck summarized the reaction of editors and journalists at the time:
As the press rooms of the Times and the Post began to hum to the lifting of the censorship order, the journalists of America pondered with grave concern the fact that for fifteen days the 'free press' of the nation had been prevented from publishing an important document and for their troubles had been given an inconclusive and uninspiring 'burden-of-proof' decision by a sharply divided Supreme Court. There was relief, but no great rejoicing, in the editorial offices of America's publishers and broadcasters.
—  Tedford and Herbeck, pp. 225–226.[28]
Legal charges against Ellsberg[edit]
Ellsberg surrendered to authorities in Boston, and admitted that he had given the papers to the press: "I felt that as an American citizen, as a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American public. I did this clearly at my own jeopardy and I am prepared to answer to all the consequences of this decision".[29] He was indicted by a grand jury in Los Angeles on charges of stealing and holding secret documents.[29] Federal District Judge William Matthew Byrne, Jr. declared a mistrial and dismissed all charges against Ellsberg and Russo on May 11, 1973, after it was revealed that: agents acting on the orders of the Nixon administration illegally broke into the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist and attempted to steal files; representatives of the Nixon administration approached the Ellsberg trial judge with an offer of the job of FBI directorship; several irregularities appeared in the government's case including its claim that it had lost records of illegal wiretapping against Ellsberg conducted by the White House Plumbers in the contemporaneous Watergate scandal. Byrne ruled: "The totality of the circumstances of this case which I have only briefly sketched offend a sense of justice. The bizarre events have incurably infected the prosecution of this case." Ellsberg and Russo were freed due to the mistrial; they were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act.[9]
In March 1972, political scientist Samuel L. Popkin, then assistant professor of Government at Harvard University, was jailed for a week for his refusal to answer questions before a grand jury investigating the Pentagon Papers case, during a hearing before the Boston Federal District Court. The Faculty Council later passed a resolution condemning the government's interrogation of scholars on the grounds that "an unlimited right of grand juries to ask any question and to expose a witness to citations for contempt could easily threaten scholarly research".[30]
Gelb estimated that the Times only published about 5% of the study's 7,000 pages. The Beacon Press edition was also incomplete. Halperin, who had originally classified the study as secret, obtained most of the unpublished portions under the Freedom of Information Act and the University of Texas published them in 1983. The National Security Archive published the remaining portions in 2002. The study itself remained formally classified until 2011.[9]
Impact[edit]
The Papers revealed that the United States had expanded its war with the bombing of Cambodia and Laos, coastal raids on North Vietnam, and Marine Corps attacks, none of which had been reported by the American media.[4] The most damaging revelations in the papers revealed that four administrations (Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson), had misled the public regarding their intentions. For example, the Eisenhower administration actively worked against the Geneva Accords. The John F. Kennedy administration knew of plans to overthrow South Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem before his death in a November 1963 coup. President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[9] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.[29]
In another example, a memo from the Defense Department under the Johnson Administration listed the reasons for American persistence:
"70% – To avoid a humiliating U.S. defeat.
20% – To keep [South Vietnam] (and the adjacent) territory from Chinese hands.
10% – To permit the people [of South Vietnam] to enjoy a better, freer way of life.
ALSO – To emerge from the crisis without unacceptable taint from methods used.
NOT – To help a friend"[9][31]
Another controversy was that President Johnson sent combat troops to Vietnam by July 17, 1965, before pretending to consult his advisors on July 21–27, per the cable stating that "Deputy Secretary of Defense Cyrus Vance informs McNamara that President had approved 34 Battalion Plan and will try to push through reserve call-up."[32] In 1988, when that cable was declassified, it revealed "there was a continuing uncertainty as to [Johnson's] final decision, which would have to await Secretary McNamara's recommendation and the views of Congressional leaders, particularly the views of Senator [Richard] Russell."[33]
Nixon's Solicitor General Erwin N. Griswold later called the Papers an example of "massive overclassification" with "no trace of a threat to the national security." The Papers' publication had little or no effect on the ongoing war because they dealt with documents written years before publication.[9]
After the release of the Pentagon Papers, Goldwater said:
During the campaign, President Johnson kept reiterating that he would never send American boys to fight in Vietnam. As I say, he knew at the time that American boys were going to be sent. In fact, I knew about ten days before the Republican Convention. You see I was being called trigger-happy, warmonger, bomb happy, and all the time Johnson was saying, he would never send American boys, I knew damn well he would.[34]
Senator Birch Bayh, who thought the publishing of the Pentagon Papers was justified, said:
The existence of these documents, and the fact that they said one thing and the people were led to believe something else, is a reason we have a credibility gap today, the reason people don't believe the government. This is the same thing that's been going on over the last two-and-a-half years of this administration. There is a difference between what the President says and what the government actually does, and I have confidence that they are going to make the right decision, if they have all the facts.[34]
Full release in 2011[edit]
On May 4, 2011 the National Archives and Records Administration announced that the papers would be declassified and released to the Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, California on June 13, 2011.[35][36] The release date included the Nixon, Kennedy, and Johnson Libraries and the Archives office in College Park, Maryland.[37]
The full release was coordinated by the Archives's National Declassification Center (NDC) as a special project to mark the anniversary of the report.[38] The NDC worked with the agencies having classification control over the material to prevent the redaction of the last 11 words of the Pentagon Papers that would not have been made available.[38] It is unknown which 11 words were at issue.[39]
The Archives released each volume of the Papers as a separate PDF file,[38] available on their website.[40]
In films and television[edit]
Films[edit]
The Pentagon Papers (2003), directed by Rod Holcomb and Executive Produced by Joshua D. Maurer, is a historical film made for FX, in association with Paramount Television and City Entertainment, about the Pentagon Papers and Daniel Ellsberg's involvement in their publication. The film represents Ellsberg's life, beginning with his work for RAND Corp. and ending with the day on which his espionage trial was declared a mistrial by a federal court judge. The film starred James Spader, Paul Giamatti, Alan Arkin, and Claire Forlani.
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2009) is an Oscar nominated documentary film, directed by Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith, that follows Ellsberg and explores the events leading up to the publication of the Pentagon Papers.
"Daniel Ellsberg Secrets – Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers". Voices. UCSB Arts & Lectures. January 2003. "In 1971 Defense Department analyst, former U.S. Marine company commander and anti-Communist Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to the media. In this talk, Ellsberg presents an explosive inside account of how and why he helped bring an end to the Vietnam War and Richard Nixon's presidency. He also talks about the current potential for war with Iraq and why he feels that would be a major mistake for the United States." Series: Voices [1/2003] [Public Affairs] [Humanities] [Show ID: 7033]"
The Post is a historical drama film directed and co-produced by Steven Spielberg from a script written by Liz Hannah and Josh Singer about a pair of Washington Post employees who battle the federal government over their right to publish the Pentagon Papers. The film stars Tom Hanks as Ben Bradlee and Meryl Streep as Katharine Graham. Daniel Ellsberg is played by Matthew Rhys.
Television[edit]
"The Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg and The Times". POV. PBS. October 5, 2010. "On September 13, 2010, the New York Times Community Affairs Department and POV presented a panel discussion on the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg, and the Times. The conversation, featuring Daniel Ellsberg, Max Frankel, former New York Times executive editor, and Adam Liptak, New York Times Supreme Court reporter, was moderated by Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times" and former Washington bureau chief, marking the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling. Live podcast
See also[edit]
1970s portal
United States portal
Freedom of speech portal
Global surveillance disclosures
James L. Greenfield
Edward Snowden
United States diplomatic cables leak
WikiLeaks
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "The Pentagon Papers". 1971 Year in Review. UPI. 1971. Retrieved 2010-07-02.
Jump up ^ Sheehan, Neil (1971-06-13). "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 2015-08-03.
Jump up ^ Apple, R.W. (1996-06-23). "Pentagon Papers". The New York Times. New York. Retrieved 2013-10-23.
^ Jump up to: a b Frum, David (2000). How We Got Here: The '70s. New York, New York: Basic Books. p. 43. ISBN 0-465-04195-7.
Jump up ^ "The Watergate Story". The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 October 2013. Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports.
Jump up ^ "Pentagon Papers". History (U.S. TV channel). Retrieved 26 October 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e McNamara 1996, p. 280
Jump up ^ McNamara 1996, p. 256
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Correll, John T. "The Pentagon Papers" Air Force Magazine, February 2007.
^ Jump up to: a b McNamara 1996, p. 282
^ Jump up to: a b "COVER STORY: Pentagon Papers: The Secret War". CNN. Retrieved 26 October 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Robert McNamara (November 3, 1965). "Draft Memorandum From Secretary of Defense McNamara to President Johnson". Office of the Historian.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h NEIL SHEEHAN (June 13, 1971). "Vietnam Archive: Pentagon Study Traces 3 Decades of Growing U.S. Involvement". The New York Times.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Evolution of the War. Counterinsurgency: The Kennedy Commitments and Programs, 1961" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 28 October 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "The Pentagon Papers, Vol. 2, Chapter 4, "The Overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, May-November, 1963"" (PDF). National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved 2013-10-28.
Jump up ^ Tim Weiner (June 7, 1998). "Lucien Conein, 79, Legendary Cold War Spy". The New York Times. He ran agents behind the Iron Curtain in the early 1950's. He was the C.I.A.'s contact with friendly generals in Vietnam as the long war took shape there. He was the man through whom the United States gave the generals tacit approval as they planned the assassination of South Vietnam's President, Ngo Dinh Diem, in November 1963.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e John A. McCone (July 28, 1964). "Probable Communist Reactions to Certain US or US-Sponsored Courses of Action in Vietnam and Laos". Office of the Historian. Retrieved 26 October 2013.
Jump up ^ McGeorge Bundy (September 8, 1964). "Courses of action for South Vietnam". Office of the Historian. Retrieved 26 October 2013.
Jump up ^ Ellsberg, Daniel (2008-08-07). "Remembering Anthony Russo". Antiwar.com. Randolph Bourne Institute. Retrieved April 17, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Introduction to the Court Opinion on The New York Times Co. v. United States Case". Archived from the original on 2005-12-04. Retrieved 2005-12-05.
Jump up ^ "The Pentagon Papers, Senator Mike Gravel edition, Beacon Press".
^ Jump up to: a b "How the Pentagon Papers Came to be Published by the Beacon Press: A Remarkable Story Told by Whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, Dem Presidential Candidate Mike Gravel and Unitarian Leader Robert West". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on 2007-07-03. Retrieved 2013-10-28.
Jump up ^ "The Pentagon Papers Case". Retrieved 2005-12-05.
Jump up ^ "The Pentagon Papers: 1971 Year in Review, UPI.com
^ Jump up to: a b "New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)". Retrieved 2005-12-05.
Jump up ^ United States v. N.Y. Times Co., 328 F. Supp. 324, 331 (S.D.N.Y. 1971).
Jump up ^ "NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)".
Jump up ^ "Tedford & Herbeck, Freedom of Speech in the United States, 5 ed". Retrieved 2005-12-05.
^ Jump up to: a b c http://www.upi.com/Audio/Year_in_Review/Events-of-1971/12295509436546-1/#title "The Pentagon Papers: 1971 Year in Review, UPI.com"
Jump up ^ Richard J. Meislin, Popkin Faces Jail Sentence In Contempt of Court Case, The Harvard Crimson, March 22, 1972.
Jump up ^ Perlstein, Rick (2008). Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-4302-5.
Jump up ^ Mtholyoke.
Jump up ^ John Burke and Fred Greenstein, How Presidents Test Reality: Decisions on Vietnam, 1954 and 1965. (1989) p. 215 n. 30.
^ Jump up to: a b "The Pentagon Papers: 1971 Year in Review, UPI.com"
Jump up ^ Steven Aftergood (May 2011). "Pentagon Papers to be Officially Released". Federation of American Scientists, Secrecy News. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
Jump up ^ Nixon Presidential Historical Materials: Opening of Materials (PDF), 76 FR 27092 (2011-05-10)
Jump up ^ Jason, Ukman; Jaffe, Greg (June 10, 2011). "Pentagon Papers to be declassified at last". Washington Post. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c O'Keefe, Ed (June 13, 2011). "Pentagon Papers released: How they did it". Washington Post. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
Jump up ^ Sam Roberts (July 2011). "Finding the Secret 11 Words". The New York Times. Retrieved 2012-04-18.
Jump up ^ National Archives and Records Administration (June 13, 2011). "Pentagon Papers". Archived from the original on June 13, 2011. Retrieved June 13, 2011.
Works cited[edit]
McNamara, Robert (1996). In Retrospect. Random House. ISBN 0-679-76749-5.
Further reading[edit]
The Pentagon Papers: The Defense Department History of United States Decisionmaking on Vietnam. Boston: Beacon Press. 5 vols. "Senator Gravel Edition"; includes documents not included in government version. ISBN 0-8070-0526-6 & ISBN 0-8070-0522-3.
Neil Sheehan. The Pentagon Papers. New York: Bantam Books (1971). ISBN 0-552-64917-1.
Daniel Ellsberg. Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. New York: Viking (2002). ISBN 0-670-03030-9.
"Marcus Raskin: For him, ideas were the seedlings for effective action" (obituary of Marcus Raskin), The Nation, 29 Jan. / 5 Feb. 2018, pp. 4, 8. Marcus Raskin in 1971, on receiving "from a source (later identified as... Daniel Ellsberg) 'a mountain of paper'... that became known as the Pentagon Papers... [p]lay[ed] his customary catalytic role [and] put Ellsberg in touch with New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan... A longtime passionate proponent of nuclear disarmament, [Raskin] would also serve in the 1980s as chair of the SANE / Freeze campaign." (p. 4.)
George C. Herring (ed.) The Pentagon Papers: Abridged Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill (1993). ISBN 0-07-028380-X.
George C. Herring (ed.) Secret Diplomacy of the Vietnam War: The Negotiating Volumes of the Pentagon Papers (1983).
External links[edit]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Pentagon Papers
The Pentagon Papers. U.S. National Archives. The complete, unredacted report.
Pentagon Papers (Complete Gravel ed.). mtholyoke.edu. Complete text with supporting documents, maps, and photos.
"Battle for the Pentagon Papers". Top Secret. a resource site that supports a currently playing docu-drama about the Pentagon Papers. The site provides historical context, time lines, bibliographical resources, information on discussions with current journalists, and helpful links.
Gravel, Mike & Ellsberg, Daniel (July 7, 2002). "Special: [How the Pentagon Papers Came to Be Published by the Beacon Press". Democracy Now!. Archived from the original on July 3, 2007. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link) (audio/video and transcript).
"Nixon Tapes & Supreme Court Oral Arguments". gwu.edu.
Holt, Steve (1971). "The Pentagon Papers: A report". WCBS Newsradio 880 (WCBS-AM New York). Archived from the original on 2008-01-11. Part of WCBS 880's celebration of 40 years of newsradio.
Trzop, Allison. Beacon Press & The Pentagon Papers. Beacon Press.
"The Most Dangerous Man in America: New Documentary C hronicles How Leak of the Pentagon Papers Helped End Vietnam War". Democracy Now!. September 16, 2009.
Blanton, Thomas S. (Editor) & Prados, John; Meadows, Eddie; Burr, William & Evans, Michael (Compilers) (June 5, 2001). The Pentagpm Papers: Secrets, Lies and Audiotapes (The Nixon Tapes and the Supreme Court Tapes, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 48. The National Security Archive at The George Washington University (Updated 29 June 2001 – The Secret Briefs and the Secret Evidence ed.). CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link)
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 178675299
LCCN: n88103393
GND: 4451009-3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pentagon_Papers&oldid=827849569"
Categories:
1971 in American politics
Classified documents
News leaks
Nixon administration controversies
Pentagon Papers
Presidential scandals in the United States
Reports of the United States government
United States historical documents
Vietnam War
Whistleblowing
Works involved in a lawsuit
Works originally published in The New York Times
Hidden categories:
Pages with timeline metadata
CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
العربية
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
Français
한국어
Italiano
עברית
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Polski
Português
Русский
සිංහල
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Svenska
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 27 February 2018, at 02:42.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attrs: href class title

attrs: class style

value: b

values:
/wiki/Nixon_White_House
mw-redirect
Nixon White House

values:
/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson
mw-redirect
Lyndon Johnson

values: Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 1968

values:
/wiki/Assistant_Secretary_of_Defense
mw-redirect
Assistant Secretary of Defense

values:
/wiki/John_T._McNaughton
mw-redirect
John T. McNaughton

values: National Security Advisor (United States)

values:
/wiki/Walt_W._Rostow
mw-redirect
Walt W. Rostow

values:
/wiki/Clark_M._Clifford
mw-redirect
Clark M. Clifford

values: Classified information in the United States

values: Edit section: Actual objective of the Vietnam War: Containment of China

attrs: alt src width height class data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Imperial_Japan
mw-redirect
Imperial Japan

values: Edit section: Internal affairs of Vietnam

values: font-size:120%; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;

values:
infobox bordered
font-size:95%; width:25em;

values:
/wiki/Geneva_Conference_(1954)
mw-redirect
Geneva Conference (1954)

values: Edit section: Role of the United States in the rise of President Diem

values: Edit section: Role of the United States in the overthrow of Diem's regime

values:
/wiki/Coup_d%27etat
mw-redirect
Coup d'etat

values:
/wiki/Republic_of_Vietnam_Air_Force
mw-redirect
Republic of Vietnam Air Force

values:
/wiki/Anthony_Russo_(whistleblower)
mw-redirect
Anthony Russo (whistleblower)

values:
/wiki/William_Fulbright
mw-redirect
William Fulbright

values: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

values: Article One of the United States Constitution

values: Edit section: The Nixon administration's restraint of the media

values:
/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger
mw-redirect
Arthur Ochs Sulzberger

values:
/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court
mw-redirect
United States Supreme Court

values: Edit section: The Supreme Court allows further publication

values:
/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
mw-redirect
Legal burden of proof

values: Edit section: Legal charges against Ellsberg

values:
/wiki/William_Matthew_Byrne,_Jr.
mw-redirect
William Matthew Byrne, Jr.

values:
/wiki/Mistrial_(law)
mw-redirect
Mistrial (law)

values:
/wiki/Federal_District_Court
mw-redirect
Federal District Court

values: Freedom of Information Act (United States)

values:
/wiki/University_of_Texas
mw-redirect
University of Texas

values: United States presidential election, 1964

values: United States Deputy Secretary of Defense

values: Reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States

values:
/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.
mw-redirect
Richard Russell, Jr.

values:
/wiki/Erwin_N._Griswold
mw-redirect
Erwin N. Griswold

values: Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum

values:
/wiki/National_Declassification_Center
mw-redirect
National Declassification Center

values:
/wiki/Historical_drama_film
mw-redirect
Historical drama film

values:
/wiki/FX_(TV_Channel)
mw-redirect
FX (TV Channel)

values:
/wiki/Defense_Department
mw-redirect
Defense Department

values:
nofollow
http://video.pbs.org/video/1602912290/
external text

values:
/wiki/New_York_Times
mw-redirect
New York Times

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values: Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)

values:
/wiki/R._W._Apple,_Jr.
mw-redirect
R. W. Apple, Jr.

values:
/wiki/History_(U.S._TV_channel)
mw-redirect
History (U.S. TV channel)

values: National Archives and Records Administration

values:
/wiki/United_States_v._N.Y._Times_Co.
mw-redirect
United States v. N.Y. Times Co.

values: Richard J. Meislin (page does not exist)

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.topsecretplay.org

values: Category:CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter

values:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/178675299

values:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/4451009-3

values: Category:Presidential scandals in the United States

values: Category:Reports of the United States government

values: Category:United States historical documents

values: Category:Works originally published in The New York Times

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: أوراق البنتاغون – Arabic

values: 펜타곤 문서 – Korean

values: פרשת מסמכי הפנטגון – Hebrew

values: ペンタゴン・ペーパーズ – Japanese

values: Документы Пентагона – Russian

values: පෙන්ටගන් ලියකියවිලි – Sinhala

values: Документи Пентагону – Ukrainian

values: 五角大楼文件 – Chinese

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Pentagon_Papers rootpage-Pentagon_Papers skin-vector action-view


text:
Cult of Chucky
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cult of Chucky
Home video cover
Directed by
Don Mancini
Produced by
David Kirschner
Ogden Gavanski
Written by
Don Mancini
Based on
Characters
by Don Mancini
Starring
Fiona Dourif
Michael Therriault
Adam Hurtig
Alex Vincent
Jennifer Tilly
Brad Dourif
Music by
Joseph LoDuca
Cinematography
Michael Marshall
Edited by
Randy Bricker
Production
companies
Universal 1440 Entertainment
Distributed by
Universal Pictures (Theatrical and Unrated versions)
Destination Films (BronyCon version)
Release date
August 24, 2017 (2017-08-24) (FF2017)
October 3, 2017 (2017-10-03) (DVD/Blu-ray)
[1]
Running time
91 minutes[2]
Country
United States
Language
English
Cult of Chucky is a 2017 American supernatural psychological slasher film written and directed by Don Mancini. The seventh installment of the franchise, following the 2013 film Curse of Chucky, it stars Brad Dourif as Chucky, with a supporting cast of Fiona Dourif, Alex Vincent, Jennifer Tilly and Summer H. Howell – all of whom are returning cast members from the previous six installments.
The film began production in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada in January 2017. The film was released with an additional unrated version set to be distributed by Universal Pictures Home Entertainment via Blu-ray, DVD and VOD[3] on October 3, 2017. It premiered at the London FrightFest Film Festival on August 24.
Contents
[hide]
1 Plot
2 Cast
3 Production
3.1 Development
3.2 Casting
3.3 Filming
4 Release
5 Reception
6 Sequel
7 References
8 External links
Plot[edit]
Four years after the events of Curse of Chucky, an adult Andy Barclay is revealed to have the original Chucky's head, which is still conscious and deformed after being repeatedly tortured by Andy in retribution for his crimes. Nica Pierce has spent the past four years in a mental institution after being framed by Chucky for the murders of her family. After intense therapy, she now believes she was responsible for the murders and that Chucky was just a manifestation of her psychosis. As a result of her "breakthrough", her doctor, Dr. Foley, has her transferred to the medium security facility Harrogate Psychiatric Hospital.
Nica becomes part of a regular group therapy session, which is composed of Malcolm, a man with multiple identity disorder; Angela, an old woman who believes she is dead; Claire, a woman who burned her house down; and Madeleine, a patient who smothered her infant son to death. Dr. Foley introduces a new therapy technique which involves a Good Guy doll to the group. Most of the patients are unsettled by the doll except for Madeleine, who treats it as her baby.
Nica is visited by Tiffany Valentine, the legal guardian of her niece, Alice. Tiffany reveals that Alice has died and leaves her a Good Guy doll, which she claims was a gift from Alice. That night, Chucky awakens and discovers that Nica has attempted suicide. The next morning, Nica finds that her wrists have been stitched up, with a message stating "not so fast." She discovers that Angela has died, with the message "Chucky did it" in her blood. After realizing that Valentine was the last name of Charles Lee Ray's girlfriend, Nica begins to believe that Chucky is real. Believing Madeleine is in danger, Nica has Malcolm try to warn her. However, Madeline throws both the doll and Malcolm into an empty grave. The orderlies rescue Malcolm, but it is implied that Chucky has transferred his soul into his body. Chucky kills Claire next. Andy learns about the murders online and realizes that Chucky has somehow managed to transfer his soul into multiple bodies at once.
In a private session with Foley, Nica agrees to be hypnotized in order to regain any repressed memories about her involvement in the murders. While hypnotized, it is revealed that Foley has been sexually abusing Nica. Foley is then hit from behind by Chucky. Foley believes Nica is the one who assaulted him but is willing to keep quiet in order to blackmail her for sexual favors. Madeleine smothers her Good Guy doll with a pillow, forcing her to confront the repercussions of her real child's death. The orderlies bury the doll as a form of catharsis for Madeleine.
Andy hatches a plan to end the carnage by committing himself to the institution. He gets committed by assaulting one of the security guards. Foley receives a package brought in by Carlos. It is another Good Guy doll. Madeleine is visited by her doll, who has risen from the grave, and allows him to kill her so she can finally be with her baby. Foley attempts to assault Nica but is knocked out by one of the Chucky dolls. The Chucky doll awakens the doll Andy had sent. The three Chuckys reveal that the original Chucky found a voodoo spell on the Internet, which allowed him to separate his soul into multiple host bodies. Alice was one of his hosts, but was killed. Carlos is then killed by all the dolls in front of Nica.
Tiffany returns, killing a security guard. One of the Chucky's transfers his soul into Nica, causing her to have the ability to walk again. She kills Foley and stumbles upon Malcolm, who is killed by Madeline's Chucky. The short-haired Chucky attacks Andy but Andy reaches into Chucky's chest and pulls out a gun he planted there. He shoots the doll before stomping its head, killing him. He attempts to shoot Nica, but has wasted all of his ammunition. The institution is sent into lockdown, resulting in Andy being locked inside his cell, Madeline's Chucky going into hiding, and Nica escaping. Nica reunites with Tiffany before driving off together with the Tiffany doll, which is revealed to be alive as well.
In a post-credits scene, Andy's former foster sister Kyle from the second film enters Andy's house, having been sent by Andy to continue torturing the original Chucky's severed head.
Cast[edit]
Fiona Dourif as Nica Pierce[4]
Michael Therriault as Dr. Foley
Adam Hurtig as Multiple Malcolm
Alex Vincent as Andy Barclay[4]
Elisabeth Rosen as Madeleine
Grace Lynn Kung as Claire[5]
Marina Stephenson Kerr as Angela
Zak Santiago as Nurse Carlos
Ali Tataryn as Nurse Ashley
Jennifer Tilly as Tiffany Valentine[4]
Brad Dourif as the voice of Chucky[4]
Summer H. Howell as Alice Pierce
Christine Elise as Kyle
Production[edit]
Development[edit]
In December 2013, following the release of Curse of Chucky, Don Mancini confirmed that he was planning on developing a seventh installment in the Chucky franchise.[6] By February 2015, Mancini was in the process of writing the script for the film.[7] A year later, Mancini, Jennifer Tilly and Fiona Dourif confirmed that shooting would soon begin for the film.[8] In December 2016, the production office for the film was opened in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.[9] On January 5, 2017, the premise, cast, production schedule and distribution details for Cult of Chucky were revealed, with shooting set to commence four days later.[3]
Casting[edit]
On January 5, 2017, the principal cast for Cult of Chucky was announced, featuring the talent of Brad Dourif as Chucky, Fiona Dourif as Nica Pierce, Alex Vincent as Andy Barclay, Jennifer Tilly as Tiffany and Summer H. Howell as Alice.[4][10] Each of the first announced members were featured in previous films, with Brad Dourif and Vincent from Child's Play (1988), Tilly from Bride of Chucky (1998), and Fiona Dourif and Howell from Curse of Chucky (2013). Cult of Chucky marks Vincent's first principal role in the franchise since he was a child actor in Child's Play 2, twenty-seven years prior.[4] Although Andy was in Child's Play 3, he was played by a different actor, Justin Whalin due to the events taking place 8 years after the second film, which came out less than a year earlier. Andy also appeared in Curse of Chucky, during a post-credits scene.
Filming[edit]
Principal photography for Cult of Chucky began in Winnipeg on January 9, 2017, with the cinematographer from Curse of Chucky, Michael Marshall, returning in the same capacity.[3] Tony Gardner returned to create and perform the Chucky character as he had done previously for Seed of Chucky and Curse of Chucky.[11] Filming ended on February 18, 2017.[12]
Release[edit]
Cult of Chucky was released on Blu-ray, DVD, and Netflix on October 3, 2017.[13] Unlike the Blu-ray and DVD versions of the film, the Netflix version was not unrated.[14] The rated version is about a minute shorter than the unrated cut[14] and does not have a post-credits scene.[14]
Reception[edit]
On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 81% based on 16 reviews, and an average rating of 6.7/10.[15]
An early review posted on Bloody Disgusting, was very favorable of the film. Benedict Seal stated: "Seventh films have no right to be this good or break this much new ground. Cult of Chucky takes this wild story in a whole host of new directions that franchise fans are sure to get a kick out of. There are so many batshit delights, especially as things escalate towards the finale, but to spoil them would be to ruin Mancini and co.’s grand carnival. Without a doubt, Child's Play is a horror franchise worth treasuring."[16] Stephen Dalton of The Hollywood Reporter also had mostly positive things to say about it, stating that "the bratty quips and cheerfully nasty murders come thick and fast, with drillings and decapitations, high heels and compressed air canisters all part of their repertoire. Mancini’s low-key shooting style also shifts up a gear with slow-motion split-screen action and deranged psycho-lesbian clinches, like Brian de Palma on an indie-movie budget. A lean 91 minutes long, Cult of Chucky is part self-spoofing slasher, part lowbrow bloodbath and all guilty pleasure."[17] Scott Mendelson of Forbes said "Cult of Chucky is either the Final Chapter or a New Beginning. Either way, this most tenacious of horror franchises can walk on with its head held high."[18] William Bibbiani writing for IGN gave the film 7.4 out of 10 stated "Too many horror sequels feel like cheap and soulless cash ins. Cult of Chucky has big ideas, strong performances and some moments that rank among the best in the series. The other classic slasher franchises may be failing, but lately, Chucky is making entertaining horror sequels look like child’s play."[19]
Sequel[edit]
In July 2017, Don Mancini spoke of concept for a Child's Play film set in space.[20] In October 2017, Don Mancini expressed an interest in having Glen/Glenda from Seed of Chucky return in a future film, and that most references to that character had been cut from Cult of Chucky.[21]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Miska, Brad (2017-07-29). "Chucky Kills Them All in 'Cult of Chucky' Trailer!". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Barkan, Jonathan (June 30, 2017). "FrightFest 2017: Cult of Chucky's World Premiere Leads a Stellar List of Horror". Dread Central. Retrieved July 26, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c Collis, Clark (January 5, 2017). "Cult of Chucky: Horror sequel plot details, teaser video revealed". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Orange, B. Alan (January 5, 2017). "Cult of Chucky Trailer: The Killer Doll Is Back". MovieWeb. Retrieved January 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Cult of Chucky recruits Grace Lynn Kung". Joblo.com. Retrieved October 28, 2017.
Jump up ^ Miska, Brad (December 3, 2013). "BREAKING: Chucky Will Return In Seventh 'Child's Play'!". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Barton, Steve (February 18, 2015). "New 'Child's Play' Still In the Works!". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Gallagher, Brian (February 23, 2016). "'Chucky 7' Is Shooting Soon, Jennifer Tilly Will Return". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Miska, Brad (February 23, 2016). "The 'Chucky 7' Production Office is Now Open!". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved January 5, 2017.
Jump up ^ Miska, Brad (January 5, 2017). "'Cult of Chucky': The Next 'Child's Play' Begins Filming on Monday! (Trailer)". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved January 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ Smith, Jerry (2017-10-04). "Interview: Tony Gardner Talks Cult of Chucky FX". ComingSoon.net. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ "Filming ends on Cult Of Chucky". Twitter. 2017-02-18. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Schwartz, Terri (2017-09-19). "Cult of Chucky Will Be Available to Stream on Netflix in October". IGN. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
^ Jump up to: a b c Squires, John (2017-10-03). "The Version of 'Cult of Chucky' on Netflix is NOT Unrated". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Cult of Chucky at Rotten Tomatoes
Jump up ^ Seal, Benedict (2017-08-25). "[FrightFest Review] 'Cult of Chucky' Cements the Franchise as One of the Best!". Bloody Disgusting. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Dalton, Stephen (2017-09-08). "'Cult of Chucky': Film Review - FrightFest 2017". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Mendelson, Scott (2017-09-28). "'Cult Of Chucky' Review: It's The 'Fast Five' Of The 'Child's Play' Films". Forbes. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ Bibbiani, William (2017-09-28). "Cult of Chucky Review". IGN. Retrieved 2017-10-04.
Jump up ^ "Chucky Goes to Space in Child's Play 8?". July 26, 2017. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Interview: Don Mancini Talks CULT OF CHUCKY and the Enduring Controversy of SEED OF CHUCKY - Daily Dead". Dailydead.com. October 5, 2017. Retrieved October 28, 2017.
External links[edit]
Cult of Chucky on IMDb
Cult of Chucky at AllMovie
Cult of Chucky at Rotten Tomatoes
[hide]
v
t
e
Child’s Play | Chucky
Films
Child's Play
Child's Play 2
Child's Play 3
Bride of Chucky
Seed of Chucky
Curse of Chucky
Cult of Chucky
Short Films
Chucky's Vacation Slides
Chucky Invades
Characters
Charles Lee "Chucky" Ray
Andy Barclay
Tiffany Valentine
Nica Pierce
Kyle
Video games
Chucky: Slash & Dash
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cult_of_Chucky&oldid=809673662"
Categories:
2017 films
English-language films
2017 horror films
2010s horror thriller films
2010s sequel films
2010s serial killer films
American films
American horror thriller films
American sequel films
American slasher films
Child's Play (film series)
Direct-to-video horror films
Direct-to-video sequel films
Films about paraplegics or quadriplegics
Films directed by Don Mancini
Films shot in Winnipeg
Universal Pictures direct-to-video films
Films set in psychiatric hospitals
Films about dolls
Hidden categories:
Use mdy dates from August 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikiquote
Languages
العربية
Español
فارسی
Français
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Nederlands
Português
Suomi
Edit links
This page was last edited on 10 November 2017, at 17:42.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

value: i

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: th

attrs: colspan class style

value: tr

value: img

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: colspan style

attrs: scope style

attrs: href title

value: li

values:
/wiki/Tiffany_Ray
mw-redirect
Tiffany Ray

values:
/wiki/Andy_Barclay_(Child%27s_Play)
mw-redirect
Andy Barclay (Child's Play)

values:
/wiki/Tiffany_(Child%27s_Play)
mw-redirect
Tiffany (Child's Play)

values:
/wiki/Brian_de_Palma
mw-redirect
Brian de Palma

values:
nofollow
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3280262/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.allmovie.com/movie/v689155

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Films about paraplegics or quadriplegics

values: Category:Universal Pictures direct-to-video films

values: Category:Films set in psychiatric hospitals

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values:
/wiki/Cult_of_Chucky
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: طائفة تشاكي – Arabic

values: فرقه چاکی – Persian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Cult_of_Chucky rootpage-Cult_of_Chucky vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Indus Waters Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Indus Waters Treaty (English) or सिंधु जल - संधि (Hindi) or "سندھ طاس معاہدہ" (Urdu) is a water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan, brokered by the World Bank (then the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development).[1][2] The treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960 by Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and President of Pakistan Ayub Khan.
According to this agreement, control over the three "eastern" rivers — the Beas, the Ravi and the Sutlej — was given to India, while control over the three "western" rivers — the Indus, the Chenab and the Jhelum — to Pakistan. More controversial, however, were the provisions on how the waters were to be shared. Since Pakistan's rivers flow through India first, the treaty allowed India to use them for irrigation, transport and power generation, while laying down precise regulations for Indian building projects along the way. The treaty was a result of Pakistani fear that, since the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India, it could potentially create droughts and famines in Pakistan, especially at times of war.
Since the ratification of the treaty in 1960, India and Pakistan have not engaged in any water wars. Most disagreements and disputes have been settled via legal procedures, provided for within the framework of the treaty. The treaty is considered to be one of the most successful water sharing endeavours in the world today, even though analysts acknowledge the need to update certain technical specifications and expand the scope of the document to include climate change.[3] As per the provisions in the treaty, India can use only 20% of the total water carried by the Indus river.[4][5][6]
Contents
[hide]
1 Treaty provisions
2 History and background
3 World Bank involvement
3.1 Grants and Loans to Pakistan
4 Treaty implications
5 Treaty under scrutiny
6 See also
7 Sources
8 References
9 External links
10 Further reading
Treaty provisions[edit]
The Indus system of rivers comprises three western rivers — the Indus, the Jhelum and Chenab — and three eastern rivers — the Sutlej, the Beas and the Ravi. The treaty, under Article 5.1, envisages the sharing of waters of the rivers Ravi, Beas, Sutlej, Jhelum and Chenab which join the Indus River on its left bank (eastern side) in Pakistan. According to this treaty, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej, which constitute the eastern rivers, are allocated for exclusive use by India before they enter Pakistan. However, a transition period of 10 years was permitted in which India was bound to supply water to Pakistan from these rivers until Pakistan was able to build the canal system for utilization of waters of Jhelum, Chenab and the Indus itself, allocated to it under the treaty. Similarly, Pakistan has exclusive use of the western rivers Jhelum, Chenab and Indus.  As Punjab was dependent on three eastern rivers too, India agreed to make fixed contribution of UK Pound Streling 62,060,000/= (Pound Streling sixty two million and sixty thousand only) towards the cost of construction of new head-works and canal system for irrigation. India had to pay this amount in ten equal installments.[7] allocated to it.[8][9] The treaty resulted in partitioning of the rivers rather than sharing of their waters.[10]
The countries agree to exchange data and co-operate in matters related to the treaty. For this purpose, treaty creates the Permanent Indus Commission, with a commissioner appointed by each country. It would follow the set procedure for adjudicating any future disputes arising over the allocation of waters. The Commission has survived three wars and provides an ongoing mechanism for consultation and conflict resolution through inspection, exchange of data and visits. The Commission is required to meet regularly to discuss potential disputes as well as cooperative arrangements for the development of the basin. Either party must notify the other of plans to construct any engineering works which would affect the other party and to provide data about such works. In cases of disagreement, a neutral expert is called in for mediation and arbitration. While neither side has initiated projects that could cause the kind of conflict that the Commission was created to resolve, the annual inspections and exchange of data continue, unperturbed by tensions on the subcontinent.
History and background[edit]
The waters of the Indus basin begin in Tibet and the Himalayan mountains in the states of Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh. They flow from the hills through the states of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir and Sindh, converging in Pakistan and emptying into the Arabian Sea south of Karachi. Where once there was only a narrow strip of irrigated land along these rivers, developments over the last century have created a large network of canals and storage facilities that provide water for more than 26 million acres (110,000 km2), the largest irrigated area of any one river system in the world.
The partition of British India created a conflict over the plentiful waters of the Indus basin. The newly formed states were at odds over how to share and manage what was essentially a cohesive and unitary network of irrigation. Furthermore, the geography of partition was such that the source rivers of the Indus basin were in India. Pakistan felt its livelihood threatened by the prospect of Indian control over the tributaries that fed water into the Pakistani portion of the basin. Where India certainly had its own ambitions for the profitable development of the basin, Pakistan felt acutely threatened by a conflict over the main source of water for its cultivable land.
During the first years of partition, the waters of the Indus were apportioned by the Inter-Dominion Accord of May 4, 1948. This accord required India to release sufficient waters to the Pakistani regions of the basin in return for annual payments from the government of Pakistan. The accord was meant to meet immediate requirements and was followed by negotiations for a more permanent solution. However, neither side was willing to compromise their respective positions and negotiations reached a stalemate. From the Indian point of view, there was nothing that Pakistan could do to prevent India from any of the schemes to divert the flow of water in the rivers.[11] Pakistan wanted to take the matter to the International Court of Justice, but India refused, arguing that the conflict required a bilateral resolution.
World Bank involvement[edit]
In this same year, David Lilienthal, formerly the chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, visited the region to write a series of articles for Collier's magazine. Lilienthal had a keen interest in the subcontinent and was welcomed by the highest levels of both Indian and Pakistani governments. Although his visit was sponsored by Collier's, Lilienthal was briefed by state department and executive branch officials, who hoped that Lilienthal could help bridge the gap between India and Pakistan and also gauge hostilities on the subcontinent. During the course of his visit, it became clear to Lilienthal that tensions between India and Pakistan were acute, but also unable to be erased with one sweeping gesture. He wrote in his journal:
India and Pakistan were on the verge of war over Kashmir. There seemed to be no possibility of negotiating this issue until tensions abated. One way to reduce hostility . . . would be to concentrate on other important issues where cooperation was possible. Progress in these areas would promote a sense of community between the two nations which might, in time, lead to a Kashmir settlement. Accordingly, I proposed that India and Pakistan work out a program jointly to develop and jointly to operate the Indus Basin river system, upon which both nations were dependent for irrigation water. With new dams and irrigation canals, the Indus and its tributaries could be made to yield the additional water each country needed for increased food production. In the article I had suggested that the World Bank might use its good offices to bring the parties to agreement, and help in the financing of an Indus Development program.[12]:93
Lilienthal's idea was well received by officials at the World Bank, and, subsequently, by the Indian and Pakistani governments. Eugene R. Black, then president of the World Bank, told Lilienthal that his proposal "makes good sense all round". Black wrote that the Bank was interested in the economic progress of the two countries and had been concerned that the Indus dispute could only be a serious handicap to this development. India's previous objections to third party arbitration were remedied by the Bank's insistence that it would not adjudicate the conflict but rather work as a conduit for agreement.[13]
Black also made a distinction between the "functional" and "political" aspects of the Indus dispute. In his correspondence with Indian and Pakistan leaders, Black asserted that the Indus dispute could most realistically be solved if the functional aspects of disagreement were negotiated apart from political considerations. He envisioned a group that tackled the question of how best to utilize the waters of the Indus Basin, leaving aside questions of historic rights or allocations.
Black proposed a Working Party made up of Indian, Pakistani and World Bank engineers. The World Bank delegation would act as a consultative group, charged with offering suggestions and speeding dialogue. In his opening statement to the Working Party, Black spoke of why he was optimistic about the group's success:
One aspect of Mr. Lilienthal's proposal appealed to me from the first. I mean his insistence that the Indus problem is an engineering problem and should be dealt with by engineers. One of the strengths of the engineering profession is that, all over the world, engineers speak the same language and approach problems with common standards of judgment.[12]:110
Black's hopes for a quick resolution to the Indus dispute were premature. While the Bank had expected that the two sides would come to an agreement on the allocation of waters, neither India nor Pakistan seemed willing to compromise their positions. While Pakistan insisted on its historical right to waters of all the Indus tributaries and that half of West Punjab was under threat of desertification, the Indian side argued that the previous distribution of waters should not set future allocation. Instead, the Indian side set up a new basis of distribution, with the waters of the Western tributaries going to Pakistan and the Eastern tributaries to India. The substantive technical discussions that Black had hoped for were stymied by the political considerations he had expected to avoid.
The World Bank soon became frustrated with this lack of progress. What had originally been envisioned as a technical dispute that would quickly untangle itself started to seem intractable. India and Pakistan were unable to agree on the technical aspects of allocation, let alone the implementation of any agreed upon distribution of waters. Finally, in 1954, after nearly two years of negotiation, the World bank offered its own proposal, stepping beyond the limited role it had apportioned for itself and forcing the two sides to consider concrete plans for the future of the basin. The proposal offered India the three eastern tributaries of the basin and Pakistan the three western tributaries. Canals and storage dams were to be constructed to divert waters from the western rivers and replace the eastern river supply lost by Pakistan.
While the Indian side was amenable to the World Bank proposal, Pakistan found it unacceptable. The World Bank allocated the eastern rivers to India and the western rivers to Pakistan. This new distribution did not account for the historical usage of the Indus basin, or the fact that West Punjab's Eastern districts could turn into desert, and repudiated Pakistan's negotiating position. Where India had stood for a new system of allocation, Pakistan felt that its share of waters should be based on pre-partition distribution. The World Bank proposal was more in line with the Indian plan and this angered the Pakistani delegation. They threatened to withdraw from the Working Party, and negotiations verged on collapse.
However, neither side could afford the dissolution of talks. The Pakistani press met rumors of an end to negotiation with talk of increased hostilities; the government was ill-prepared to forego talks for a violent conflict with India and was forced to reconsider its position. India was also eager to settle the Indus issue; large development projects were put on hold by negotiations, and Indian leaders were eager to divert water for irrigation.
In December 1954, the two sides returned to the negotiating table. The World Bank proposal was transformed from a basis of settlement to a basis for negotiation and the talks continued, stop and go, for the next six years.[14]
One of the last stumbling blocks to an agreement concerned financing for the construction of canals and storage facilities that would transfer water from the western rivers to Pakistan. This transfer was necessary to make up for the water Pakistan was giving up by ceding its rights to the eastern rivers. The World Bank initially planned for India to pay for these works, but India refused. The Bank responded with a plan for external financing. An Indus Basin Development Fund Agreement (Karachi, 19 September 1960); a treaty between Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States with the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IRDC) and Pakistan who agreed to provide a combination of funds and loans.[15] This solution cleared the remaining stumbling blocks to agreement, and the Indus Waters Treaty was signed by the leaders of both countries on the same day in 1960.[16] The grants and loans to Pakistan were extended in 1964 through a supplementary agreement.[17]
Grants and Loans to Pakistan[edit]
Country
Currency
Original Grant (1960)
Supplementaty Grant (1964)
Original Loan to Pakistan (1960)
Supplementary Loan to Pakistan (1964)
India GB£ 62,060,000 Ten yearly instalments Article 5 of IWT
Australia A£ 6,965,000 4,669,643
Canada Can$ 22,100,000 16,810,794
Germany DM 126,000,000 80,400,000
New Zealand NZ£ 1,000,000 503,434
United Kingdom GB£ 20,860,000 13,978,571
United States US$ 177,000,000 118,590,000 70,000,000 51,220,000
IRDC Bank US$ 90,000,000 (in various currencies) inc interest[18] 58,540,000 (in various currencies)
Treaty implications[edit]
From the rivers flowing in India, India got nearly 33 million acre feet (MAF) from eastern rivers whereas Pakistan got nearly 125 MAF from western rivers.[19] However India can use the western river waters for irrigation up to 701,000 acres with new water storage capacity not exceeding 1.25 MAF and use the rivers for run of river hydro power generation with storage not exceeding 1.6 MAF and nominal flood storage capacity of 0.75 MAF.[3] These water allocations made to the J&K state of India are meagre to meet its irrigation water requirements whereas the treaty permitted enough water to irrigate 80% of the cultivated lands in the Indus river basin of Pakistan.[20][21] The storage capacity permitted by the treaty for hydro power generation is less than the total annual silt that would accumulate in the reservoirs if the total hydro potential of the state was to be exploited fully. Pakistan is also losing additional benefits by not permitting moderate water storages in upstream J&K state whose water would be ultimately released to the Pakistan for its use and avoid few dams requirement in its territory. Ultimately, J&K state is bound to resort costly de-silting of its reservoirs to keep them operational. Whereas Pakistan is planning to build multi purpose water reservoirs with massive storage for impounding multi year inflows such as 4,500 MW Diamer-Bhasha Dam, 3,600 MW Kalabagh Dam, 600 MW Akhori Dam, Dasu Dam, Bunji Dam, Thakot dam, Patan dam, etc projects with huge population resettlement.[3] In case of any dam break, downstream areas in Pakistan as well as Kutch region in India would face unprecedented water deluge or submergence as these dams are located in high seismically-active zones.[22]
Treaty under scrutiny[edit]
Main article: Great Rann of Kutch
The treaty has not considered Gujarat state in India as part of the Indus river basin. The Indus river is entering the Great Rann of Kutch area and feeding in to Kori Creek during floods. At the time of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the Great Rann of Kutch area was disputed territory between the two nations which was later settled in the year 1968 by sharing total disputed area in 9:1 ratio between India and Pakistan. Without taking consent from India, Pakistan has constructed Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) project passing through the Great Rann of Kutch area with the assistance from the world bank. LBOD's purpose is to bypass the saline and polluted water which is not fit for agriculture use to reach sea via Rann of Kutch area without passing through its Indus delta.[23] Water released by the LBOD is enhancing the flooding in India and contaminating the quality of water bodies which are source of water to salt farms spread over vast area.[24] The LBOD water is planned to join the sea via disputed Sir Creek but LBOD water is entering Indian territory due to many breaches in its left bank caused by floods[25] Gujarat state of India being the lower most riparian part of Indus basin, Pakistan is bound to provide all the details of engineering works taken up by Pakistan to India as per the provisions of the treaty and shall not proceed with the project works till the disagreements are settled by arbitration process.[26]
In aftermath of the 2016 Uri attack, India reviewed the treaty and its provisions and proposed several changes.[27][28]
See also[edit]
Great Rann of Kutch
Baglihar Dam
Effects of global warming
Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant
India–Pakistan relations
Sources[edit]
Barrett, Scott, "Conflict and Cooperation in Managing International Water Resources," Policy Research Working Paper 1303, The World Bank, May 1994.
Michel, Aloys Arthur, The Indus Rivers: A Study of the Effects of Partition, Yale University Press: New Haven, 1967.
Verghese, B.G., Waters of Hope, Oxford and IBH Publishing: New Delhi, 1990.
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Full text of 'Indus Water Treaty', Ministry of water resources, Govt. of India". 1960. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
Jump up ^ War over water The Guardian, Monday 3 June 2002 01.06 BST
^ Jump up to: a b c "The Indus Equation Report" (PDF). Strategic Foresight Group. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
Jump up ^ C.A. Brebbia (4 September 2013). Water and Society II. WIT Press. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-1-84564-742-1.
Jump up ^ Map Workbook. FK Publications. pp. 27–. ISBN 978-81-89611-79-8.
Jump up ^ Roy Chowdhury, Biswaroop. Memory Unlimited. Diamond Pocket Books (P) Ltd. pp. 148–. ISBN 978-81-8419-017-5.
Jump up ^ Shreyan, Sengupta. "Transboundary water disputes" (PDF). ETH Zurich. ETH Zurich. Retrieved 24 September 2013.
Jump up ^ Garg, Santosh Kumar (1999). International and interstate river water disputes. Laxmi Publications. pp. 54–55. ISBN 81-7008-068-1. Retrieved 2010-04-14.
Jump up ^ "Indus Waters Treaty 1960" (pdf). Site Resources; World Bank. pp. 1–24.
Jump up ^ "Water Sharing Conflicts Between Countries, and Approaches to Resolving Them" (PDF). Honolulu: Global Environment and Energy in the 21st century. p. 98. Archived from the original (pdf) on August 21, 2007. Retrieved 2010-04-14.
Jump up ^ What Indus water treaty means By Dr Adam Nayyar, DAWN Archived May 11, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
^ Jump up to: a b Gulhati, Niranjan D., The Indus Waters Treaty: An Exercise in International Mediation, Allied Publishers: Bombay, 1973.
Jump up ^ Mason, Edward Sagendorph; Asher, Robert E. (1973). The World Bank Since Bretton Woods (First ed.). Wawshington: The Brookings Institution. p. 612. ISBN 9780815720300. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
Jump up ^ "Indus Waters Treaty: View From Kashmir". 2006. Retrieved 22 September 2016.
Jump up ^ http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1961/2.html
Jump up ^ "Indus water treaty". http://web.worldbank.org. World Bank. Retrieved 28 October 2014. External link in |website= (help)
Jump up ^ http://www3.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1964/14.html
Jump up ^ http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/614421468332678823/pdf/Credit-0060-Pakistan-Indus-Basin-Project-Credit-Agreement.pdf
Jump up ^ "India generous with its shared water resources". Retrieved 28 October 2014.
Jump up ^ "Geography of Jammu and Kashmir State". Retrieved 28 October 2015.
Jump up ^ "Legislative Assembly rejects PDP resolution". Retrieved 28 October 2015.
Jump up ^ "Pakistan's Indus Cascade - a disaster in the making". Retrieved 6 July 2017.
Jump up ^ "Revisiting the LBOD issue". Retrieved 22 December 2015.
Jump up ^ "Indus re-enters India after two centuries, feeds Little Rann, Nal Sarovar". Retrieved 22 December 2015.
Jump up ^ "Evolution of the Delta, the LBOD outfall system and the Badin dhands - chapters 3 & 4" (PDF). World Bank. 2006. Retrieved 22 December 2015.
Jump up ^ "Wrangles over water: Pakistan wages a water war on India". Retrieved 22 September 2016.
Jump up ^ How India plans to use Indus Water Treaty to turn the heat on Pakistan
Jump up ^ "Narendra Modi lays groundwork for water war in battle with Pakistan". Retrieved 23 October 2016.
External links[edit]
[1] Ali, Saleem H. "Water Politics in South Asia: Technocratic Cooperation in the Indus basin and beyond." Journal of International Affairs, Spring, 2008.
Indus Waters Treaty:The World Bank The actual brokers of the Treaty World Bank and the detailed website.
Indus Water Treaty Importance Analysis and Indo pak relation.
Bibliography Water Resources and International Law See Indus River. Peace Palace Libray
The Indus Waters Treaty: A History. Henry L. Stimson Center.
Further reading[edit]
A. Misra (19 July 2010). India-Pakistan: Coming Terms. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 63–. ISBN 978-0-230-10978-0.
[hide]
v
t
e
India–Pakistan relations
Diplomacy
High Commission of India to Pakistan
High Commissioner of India to Pakistan
High Commission of Pakistan to India
High Commissioner of Pakistan to India
Treaties and summits
Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks (1947)
Karachi Agreement (1949)
Liaquat-Nehru Treaty (1950)
Indus Waters Treaty (1960)
Tashkent Declaration (1965)
Simla Agreement (1972)
Delhi Agreement (1974)
Islamabad Agreement (1988)
Lahore summit (1999)
Agra Summit (2001)
Events and conflicts
Partition of India
Kashmir conflict
Integration of Junagadh
1947-1948 War
Sir Creek
Operation Gibraltar
1965 War
1971 War
Bangladesh Liberation War
Pokhran–I
Kirana–I
Nuclear race
Line of Control
Maritime trespassing
Siachen conflict
Operation Brasstacks
Pokhran-II / Chagai-I / Chagai-II
Violence against Muslims in India
Persecution of Hindus in Pakistan
Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir
Human rights abuses in Azad Kashmir
Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir
Balochistan conflict
Kargil conflict
Atlantique incident
Iran–Pakistan–India gas pipeline
2001 Indian Parliament attack
2001–2002 military standoff
2007 Samjhauta Express bombings
2008 Mumbai attacks
2008 military standoff
2011 border skirmishes
2013 border skirmishes
Sarabjit/Sanaullah murder incidents
2013 Pakistan Embassy attack
2014-2015 border skirmishes
2016 Kulbhushan Jadhav interception
2016–17 unrest in Jammu and Kashmir
2016 Uri attack
2016 military confrontation
Initiatives
Aman ki Asha
Hotline
Transport
Samjhauta Express
Delhi–Lahore Bus
Srinagar–Muzaffarabad Bus
Thar Express
Indo-Pak Confederation
Indo-Pak Joint Judicial Committee
Hindi in Pakistan
Sports
India–Pakistan cricket rivalry
India–Pakistan field hockey rivalry
Related templates
Foreign relations of India
Foreign relations of Pakistan
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indus_Waters_Treaty&oldid=807778694"
Categories:
Indian historical documents
India–Pakistan relations
1960 in India
Treaties concluded in 1960
1960 in Pakistan
Indus basin
Pakistani historical documents
India–Pakistan treaties
Water resource conflicts
Water treaties
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
CS1 errors: external links
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Deutsch
हिन्दी
ಕನ್ನಡ
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Русский
Simple English
سنڌي
தமிழ்
తెలుగు
اردو
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 30 October 2017, at 02:14.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: sup

values:
/wiki/Ayub_Khan_(Field_Marshal)
mw-redirect
Ayub Khan (Field Marshal)

values:
/wiki/Himalayan_mountains
mw-redirect
Himalayan mountains

values:
/wiki/David_Lilienthal
mw-redirect
David Lilienthal

values:
/wiki/U.S._Atomic_Energy_Commission
mw-redirect
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

values:
/wiki/Eugene_R._Black,_Sr.
mw-redirect
Eugene R. Black, Sr.

values: Edit section: Grants and Loans to Pakistan

values:
/wiki/Indus_river
mw-redirect
Indus river

values:
/wiki/Indus_delta
mw-redirect
Indus delta

values:
/wiki/Dr_Adam_Nayyar
mw-redirect
Dr Adam Nayyar

values:
nofollow
external free
http://web.worldbank.org

values:
nofollow
external text
https://lubpak.com/archives/58775

values:
nofollow
external text
http://go.worldbank.org/WHGZVDDCB0

values: List of Indian High Commissioners to Pakistan

values: Category:High Commissioners of Pakistan to India

values:
/wiki/Jinnah%E2%80%93Mountbatten_Talks
mw-redirect
Jinnah–Mountbatten Talks

values:
/wiki/Indian_integration_of_Junagadh
mw-redirect
Indian integration of Junagadh

values:
/wiki/Balochistan_conflict
mw-redirect
Balochistan conflict

values: 2013 attack on Pakistan Embassy in New Delhi

values: India–Pakistan border skirmishes (2014–2015)

values: 2016 India–Pakistan military confrontation

values:
/wiki/Indo-Pak_Confederation
mw-redirect
Indo-Pak Confederation

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Indus_Waters_Treaty
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: सिंधु जल समझौता – Hindi

values: ಸಿಂಧೂ ನೀರು ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಒಪ್ಪಂದ – Kannada

values: സിന്ധു നദീജല ഉടമ്പടി – Malayalam

values: Договор о водах Инда – Russian

values: سنڌ طاس معاهدو – Sindhi

values: சிந்து நீர் ஒப்பந்தம் – Tamil

values: సింధునదీ జలాల ఒప్పందం – Telugu

values: سندھ طاس معاہدہ – Urdu

values: 印度河水協定 – Chinese

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Indus_Waters_Treaty rootpage-Indus_Waters_Treaty vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view