Author: G Parthasarathy
Publication: The Tribune
Date: January 11, 2007
URL: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070111/edit.htm#4
Introduction: Communal politics casting a
shadow
The year 2006 ended with India facing a strange
dilemma in conducting its foreign policy, when Iraq's Shia leaders, with American
acquiescence, executed former President Saddam Hussein. This untimely and
unwise move, with Iraq under foreign occupation is bound to increase sectarian
tensions, with the country hovering on the brink of a civil war.
External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's
reaction to the hanging was measured and appropriate, pointing out the adverse
consequences of this action for national reconciliation. But, even as the
Shias and Kurds who constitute 80 per cent of Iraq's population were celebrating
the event, duly backed by neighbouring Iran and with neighbouring Sunni majority
Arab States like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait feeling quietly relieved, Indian
political parties sought to make domestic political capital, portraying the
entire episode as against Muslim sentiments.
A major challenge in 2007, particularly on
dealing with issues in our western neighbourhood, is that foreign policy is
being made hostage to communal politics. We are being told by influential
political circles that while it is alright for former Chief Minister Jyoti
Basu to visit Israel and to invite Israeli companies to West Bengal, New Delhi
should compromise its security interests and end military acquisitions from
Israel, even as China strengthens its military sinews with Israeli collaboration.
More astonishing is the criticism being voiced
against the presence of American-led NATO troops battling the Taliban in Afghanistan,
as though American withdrawal and the return of the Taliban will promote India's
national security. Have we forgotten that the Taliban, with ISI backing, provided
bases to groups like the "Harkat ul Mujahideen" to wage "Jihad"
in Jammu and Kashmir, assisted the hijackers of IC 814 in Kandahar, attacked
our consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad, killed our road construction engineers
in Afghanistan and demands that all Indians leave their country?
The year 2007 is also set to see erosion in
American global influence, as events in Iraq and Afghanistan have established
the limitations of American military power. The AK 47 rifle, the suicide bomber
and the improvised explosive device can inflict horrendous casualties on even
the most powerful armies. The US will now be more prudent in exposing its
forces to foreign adventures.
An energy-rich Russia led by the dynamic Vladimir
Putin is emerging as a significant player in the world stage. The Russians
have demonstrated that they have the will and the capability to roll back
the adverse impact of American-inspired political changes in the former Soviet
Republics, like Ukraine , Georgia, or Kyrgyzstan.
The main leverage that Russia wields is not
military power, but energy resources. Ukrainians and Georgians have learnt
that defiance of Moscow can lead to cold winters.
New Delhi would do well to bear this in mind
as it prepares to welcome President Putin on Republic Day. It has to fashion
new dimensions to its energy and military relationship with Moscow. Russia
recognises that unlike its relationship with China, it has no long-term differences
in interests with India. It has remained a reliable partner on areas ranging
from space to nuclear fuel.
Nearer home, the challenges India faces in
2007 remain formidable. New Delhi has thus far dexterously dealt with the
transition from monarchy and feudalism to democratic governance in Nepal.
Bringing the Maoists into the democratic mainstream will remain a challenge.
But what is of immediate concern is the political future of Bangladesh, where
the forthcoming elections have been marred by violence and allegations of
fraud in voters' lists.
The situation in Bangladesh is so fragile
that even the nominally secular Awami League entered into an electoral alliance
with the fundamentalist "Khilafat Majlis", a party whose members
include "Jihadis" from the terrorist "Harkat ul Jihad ul Islami".
But with the flip flops of the Awami League on its participation in the elections,
Bangladesh appears headed for political violence and instability.
India's expectations of a secular, stable
government in Bangladesh may not be fulfilled. It may be unrealistic to expect
meaningful cooperation with Bangladesh on issues of concern in such a situation.
Unlike in Bangladesh , our problems in Sri
Lanka arise not because any one of its major parties harbours anti-Indian
sentiments. Our influence there has been limited because the "compulsions
of coalition politics" in Tamil Nadu have inhibited New Delhi from effectively
backing Sri Lanka's government to deal with the challenges it faces from the
implacably separatist LTTE.
New Delhi is, however, going to require Sri
Lankan understanding to deal with Pakistan's refusal to fulfill its commitments
under the South Asian Free Trade Agreement. Pakistani obduracy on this score
can be effectively countered by ensuring in the forthcoming New Delhi Summit
of the BIMSTEC organisation that the Bay of Bengal littoral and hinterland
States - Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Nepal and
Bhutan - formulate a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement, embracing
exchanges of goods, services and investment and infrastructure development.
To our west, we are set to see continuing
terrorism sponsored by Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir and elsewhere. The limiting
factor in this may be concerns that Pakistan has about its northern borders
with Afghanistan, where its support for a resurgent Taliban is inviting the
wrath of both Kabul and Washington.
The Pakistani calculation appears to be that
given its reverses in Iraq, the US will be prepared to accommodate a "moderate"
Taliban in the Kabul Government. New Delhi will have to cooperate closely
with Afghanistan and review its position on the continuing validity of the
Durand Line as the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
At the same time, common ground can be sought on proposals put forward by
both India and Pakistan on the issue of J&K through a dialogue, which
should, however, not be Kashmir centric.
2007 could well emerge as the year when nuclear
sanctions against India by the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group ends. Imaginative
diplomacy is going to be required if this is to be achieved. But New Delhi
should realise that this would not have been possible if President Bush was
cast in the same mould as some of his predecessors, like Presidents Bill Clinton
and Jimmy Carter. The US is going to remain the pre-eminent world power in
coming years. New Delhi would be well advised to build a durable partnership
with the US in the remaining two years of the Bush Presidency - a partnership
that recognises that while we may differ on some issues, there are many issues
on which we can agree. But for this to happen, considerations of national
interests will have to prevail over "compulsions of communal and coalition
politics".
