| |
COMMENT
India, Pakistan diverge over
Iraq
By Praful Bidwai
NEW
DELHI - South Asian nuclear rivals India and Pakistan
are pulling further apart over the positions they take
on the United States' insistence on an armed invasion of
Iraq.
In the event of a war, especially one not
explicitly sanctioned by the United Nations Security
Council, they might find themselves in heightened
confrontation as their differences over Iraq could
become translated into greater mutual hostility, which
has reached unprecedented proportions since September
11, 2001, through a "subcontinental side-show" to the US
global war against terrorism.
Only a few weeks
ago, both India and Pakistan supported the position that
a US-led "coalition of the willing" should not
unilaterally initiate war to disarm Iraq of its weapons
of mass destruction, and that the mandate should only
come from the Security Council. However, the two have
since moved in somewhat divergent directions - under
pressure from the United States, and domestic political
considerations.
Matters are further complicated
because Pakistan last month became a non-permanent
member of the Security Council for two years. Its vote
will count in the 15-member body, which needs at least
nine votes to authorize the use of armed force.
Since the February 14 report by UN Monitoring,
Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) chief
Hans Blix to the Security Council, India has indicated a
certain hardening of its stand. This stand has
fluctuated between two positions: first, there should be
no war at all, and Iraq's disarmament of weapons of mass
destruction should be achieved by peaceful means; and
second, any military action must be authorized by the
Security Council.
Indian diplomats tend to
stress the second, more cautious, position but on
Tuesday, Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee gave
primacy to the first position. "If the US goes for
unilateral action against Iraq, it will be unfortunate
for the international community and the United Nations.
And if, subsequently, the UN endorses the American
action, it would amount to an erosion of the UN's
authority." He added that unilateral military action
would certainly render the UN ineffective, as "it would
lose its influence and prestige". On Wednesday, Vajpayee
again said that war is not the answer to the Iraq crisis
(and to India-Pakistan tensions).
Vajpayee's
pronouncements, though, differ from India's stated
official (second) position. His formulation that
subsequent endorsement of unilateral action would
"erode" the UN's authority adds a new qualification.
However, the Prime Minister's Office and Vajpayee's
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have both tried to soften
his position.
The Prime Minister's Office said
that Vajpayee merely "repeated" the official stand,
namely "any action outside the framework of the UN
against Iraq would be unfortunate for the international
community and would erode the moral authority of the
UN". The new spin on this is that there was a
communication gap owing to mistranslation from Hindi,
the language in which Vajpayee spoke. This does not
carry much credibility.
The BJP, widely
considered pro-US, seems to have developed cold feet on
the Iraq issue. After agreeing to a joint parliamentary
resolution "deploring" a US-led war on Iraq, it turned
down the demand, saying the issue needs flexibility and
leverage at the coming Non-Aligned Movement summit in
Kuala Lumpur.
Vajpayee's change of emphasis to
an extent reflects a shift in public opinion. In India,
there have been spirited demonstrations - although much
smaller than in Western capitals - against an invasion
of Iraq. The biggest of them took place on February 10,
ahead of the global marches of February 15.
The
bulk of Indian media comment, especially after Blix's
report, also opposes military force. Few Indians are
convinced that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and
that a war, leave alone regime change, is necessary to
destroy them.
India has a 130-million-strong
Muslim population, which is particularly sensitive to
Middle Eastern issues. A war on Iraq, with huge
casualties, would intensify Indian Muslims' insecurity,
widespread after the state-sponsored Gujarat massacre.
This apart, skepticism about US claims and intentions is
pervasive. This led to the Indian government telling the
United States that it will not join the war effort.
India has friendly relations with Iraq.
Pakistan
faces different dilemmas. It is under considerable
pressure from Washington to support a coalition of the
willing against Iraq. But domestic opinion strongly
resents this. The strongest opposition comes from
anti-Western radical Islamists.
After September
11, Pakistan executed a U-turn on its pro-Taliban policy
and joined the US-led war against al-Qaeda. This brought
it many dividends: a "normalized" image for the nation
(which after the 1998 nuclear tests was considered a
virtual pariah and a failing state), billions of dollars
for its poorly performing economy, and military
assistance.
However, it also brought in US
troops and intelligence agencies for al-Qaeda mopping-up
operations. There have been (limited) armed clashes
between US and Pakistani forces in areas adjoining
Afghanistan, and heightened mutual suspicious about
intelligence sharing.
The US Federal Bureau of
Investigation has recently stepped up its activities in
Pakistan. Its "overbearing" attitude and "aggressive"
operations have produced much heartburn among Pakistani
officials. Such mutual mistrust is likely to combine
with popular opposition to a war on Iraq.
Yet,
Pakistan has very limited leverage over the United
States, and will probably find it hard to resist US
pressure and pursue an independent and consistent
policy. Pakistan's high functionaries have reacted in
slightly divergent ways to Blix's report and subsequent
developments. The first reaction of its UN ambassador,
Munir Akram, was to put Iraq on warning to comply
speedily with Resolution 1441.
Since then, US
President George W Bush has called Pakistan President
Pervez Musharraf to discuss Iraq. Musharraf agreed that
"Saddam Hussein has to fully comply with the UN
resolutions", but said that war is "not a good option".
Last weekend, US Ambassador Nancy Powell met
with Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri to solicit
Pakistan's support for a possible resolution authorizing
military force against Iraq. The meeting, and a
telephone call by US Secretary of State Colin Powell,
are part of the US effort to persuade Pakistan to
support Washington.
Pakistan's leaders will find
themselves in an extremely difficult position if asked
to back Washington unconditionally on Iraq. They would
be loath to see Pakistan ending up as the only Muslim
country to do so.
How these dilemmas shape up
will depend on US-British maneuvers in and outside the
Security Council. But one thing is clear: Pakistan will
be hard put to resist US pressure, and if push comes to
shove, it will back Washington. This is likely to
intensify domestic unrest and strengthen Islamic
fundamentalist forces, which significantly gained in
last November's general elections.
Within the
South Asian context, Islamabad will probably use its
greater proximity to the US on Iraq to try to isolate
New Delhi, especially on Kashmir, and get it to dilute
its often-repeated precondition for talks with Pakistan
- namely, end of support to cross-border terrorism.
This, in turn, is likely to create resentment and
frustration in India, possibly further damaging mutual
relations - unless there is a near-miraculous
breakthrough.
(Inter Press Service)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
