| |
India ready to sacrifice Iraq for the
US
By Sudha Ramachandran
BANGALORE - As the United States readies
for military strikes on Iraq - it is increasingly a question
of when not whether it will attack - it does seem that
India, notwithstanding its ties with Iraq, will choose
to tone down its criticism of Washington’s aggression.
India has always supported pursuit of a
diplomatic approach to ensure Baghdad’s full compliance
with United Nations resolutions with respect to
inspection of its suspected chemical and biological
weapons facilities. It has demanded the lifting of
sanctions against Iraq, arguing that this has hurt the
Iraqi people immensely. New Delhi has also opposed the
creation of no-fly zones, as the UN does not sanction
this.
But despite its consistent opposition to
the US-Britain approach to Iraq, India is now unlikely
to be as strident in its condemnation of their proposed
military action as it was in 1991. In 1990, when Iraq
invaded Kuwait, India did not strongly condemn Baghdad.
In fact, the then Indian foreign minister, Inder Kumar
Gujral, visited Kuwait, which was still under Iraqi
occupation, and then Baghdad, where he not only met
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein but also embraced him.
Initially, India did not support the allied
attack on Iraq. However, subsequently, under severe
pressure from the US, it did an about turn and it even
permitted American warplanes to refuel in Mumbai.
India’s position in 1990-91 was determined
significantly by concerns for the safety of the sizeable
Indian population working in Kuwait and Iraq. Of course,
its seeming support of Baghdad made India appear like it
had taken an unprincipled position. It ended up
jeopardizing its interests in and relations with Kuwait
and a number of other Arab countries. Yet, as a retired
Indian diplomat explained to Asia Times Online, the need
to protect the lives of Indians living in Iraq and
Kuwait was Delhi’s driving concern.
Today, that
concern is not as serious. The number of Indians working
in Iraq is said to be a few hundred. But more important,
really, is the dramatic change that has occurred in
India-US and India-Israel relations over the past
decade.
The liberalizing of the Indian economy
in the 1990s has deepened economic cooperation between
India and the US. While the Indian nuclear tests at
Pokhran in the summer of 1998 and the imposition of
sanctions that followed resulted in a perceptible
chilling in India-US ties, relations between the two
have improved remarkably since 2000.
In addition
to increased economic interaction, the two countries are
sharing intelligence, cooperating on defense and
strategic issues and in fighting terrorism. The US sale
of military hardware and monitoring equipment to India
has been stepped up. Military to military cooperation
between the two countries is growing – the two sides are
involved in joint military exercises. Besides, the US
has been endorsing the Indian position with regard to
the sanctity of the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir.
Similarly, a new equation has emerged between
India and Israel. During the Gulf War, Israel did not
have full diplomatic status in India – that came only in
1992. Today, India and Israel are working together in
counter-terrorism strategy, sharing of intelligence,
supply of defense equipment and defense-related
research.
True, India-Iraq relations, too, have
picked up again since 1999. The two countries were major
trading partners – Iraq was India’s main supplier of oil
and petroleum products and India exported foodstuff,
commercial goods and chemicals - until the UN imposed
sanctions in the early 1990s. In recent years, India has
been slowly reopening trade with Iraq and in strict
accordance with the UN provisions.
In November
2000, Iraqi Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan came to
India, the highest Iraqi dignitary to visit this country
in 25 years. Several high-level ministerial and goodwill
delegations from India have visited Baghdad in recent
years. Economic interaction has been growing even
post-September 11.
"The US sees India’s ongoing
interaction with Iraq as pure business," says the
retired diplomat. An important American concern with
regard to defense cooperation with a country is that the
technology must not be transferred to a country
threatening US interests. "India has been very careful
in meeting this American demand," he points out.
An editorial in the Indian daily, Indian
Express, observes "the US was aware that while nuclear
missile technology moved from 17 countries to Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq, India was not among them. Not because
attempts had not been made by Iraq to use its close and
friendly relations with India to get them" but because
"India’s record of non-proliferation … has been
exemplary".
What has bothered the US more,
especially the American right wing, has been India’s
voting record in the UN on issues of interest to the US
despite the aid it received from Washington. A 1999
study by the conservative Heritage Foundation pointed
out that India received more than $935 million in US
assistance between 1993 and 1998, yet voted against the
US in the UN an average of 81 percent of the time over
that period - "a record" which the study pointed out "is
worse than that of notable US adversaries China, Libya
and Iran". US expectations from India in the UN will now
be higher.
The Indian dilemma over Iraq is as
complex as the one it faces on the Israel-Palestine
question. Historically, India has been among the most
vocal supporters of the Palestinian cause. But its
problem with tackling terrorism in Kashmir and its
defense needs have increased its dependence on Israel
and the US, forcing it to adopt a posture of "studied
neutrality" on the ongoing crisis in the Middle East.
The Arabs have been willing to overlook India's
defense cooperation with Israel as they know that
Delhi's defense preparedness will not affect the
equation in the Middle East. However, they are
expressing serious misgivings about India's new
reluctance to clearly condemn Israel.
India is
opposed to US unilateral military action and its
repeated bypassing of the UN Security Council, and this
prompts Delhi to vote against the US in the UN. This has
been the case on the Iraq issue as well.
However, Delhi needs the US and is unwilling to
give up the gains of the new equation it enjoys with
Washington. Iraq, in this calculation, is simply not
worth the sacrifice of the new relationship with the US,
however uncertain it might be.
It is likely that
India will adopt a cautious approach. It will not rush
in to condemn the US (as it would have in the past)
should Washington launch military strikes against Iraq.
Delhi can be expected to express "grave concern". It
will draw attention to the implications of the strikes
on peace and stability in the region and it will call
for a return to diplomatic means to resolve the issue.
Criticism of the US strikes, therefore, would be
symbolic, not substantial.
(©2002 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com
for information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
