Page 1 of 2 India tiptoes to the new Middle East
By M K Bhadrakumar
DELHI - The Middle East took a great leap forward this week to the post-George
W Bush era. Israel's dramatic shift of glance to the forces of political Islam
sums it up. "Today we have concurrent peace negotiations with both the Syrians
and the Palestinians and there is no logical reason why there should also not
be talks with the Lebanese," Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's spokesman
Mark Regev said in Jerusalem on Wednesday.
Israel's announcement hinting at peace with Hezbollah followed hours after
agreeing a landmark truce with Hamas in Gaza. Separately, Israeli and Lebanese
politicians confirmed a deal in the making between Israel and Hezbollah
regarding the exchange
of prisoners. The deal, brokered by Germany, may be announced next week.
Shifts in regional setting
The cynics may argue that Olmert is diverting attention from the corruption
scandals that threaten to hound him out of power. True, clever politicians
resort to such tactics. The hardcore realists may say Israeli public opinion
militates against parting with the Golan Heights and that the Gaza truce is too
fragile to be enduring. True, there is no indication Israel feels strong enough
for peace with Syria or that Hamas has "changed its skin", to borrow Olmert's
words.
All the same, Israel's proposal for peace talks with Lebanon signifies a
turnabout from its clamor to isolate rather than engage Syria, Hamas and
Hezbollah. At a minimum, Israel recognizes that the strategy of isolating Hamas
has not worked. The deal with Israel elevates Hamas' status in the region.
Most certainly, the declining influence of the Bush administration in the
Middle East is a contributory factor in the Israeli thinking. Regev mentioned a
"changed constellation" in the Middle East. The Washington Post newspaper has
reported on the likelihood of Olmert meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
at a conference in France in July, "a move that would be likely to further
weaken US efforts to isolate Syria".
The "changed constellation" also pertains to the ground reality that Bush faces
a stalemate over the Iran nuclear issue. Bush is left with the option of
coercive diplomacy in the nature of drumming up international pressure against
Iran and to leave matters to the new president in the White House in January.
Even an ardent supporter of Israel like John Bolton, former US envoy to the
United Nations, is forced to admit that an American military strike against
Iran is conceivable only during the post-election period between November and
January, but that too is a long shot.
As for Israel, it cannot and will not attack Iran without full American
backing, which, given the domestic environment in the US and Bush's low
credibility in the region, is unlikely. The result is, as Time magazine sums
up, "Israel can only huff and puff, hoping new sanctions on Iran will do the
trick."
Meanwhile, the foreign policy panel that Democratic presidential candidate
Barack Obama constituted includes former secretaries of state Warren
Christopher and Madeline Albright, who have been vocal about engaging Iran.
Addressing the panel on Wednesday, Obama outlined a "pragmatic" foreign policy
in contrast with what he described as the "rigid ideology" of the Bush
administration.
To sum up, a new Middle East is struggling to be born, which is, paradoxically,
a legacy of the Bush era, except that it happens to be far different from what
the US president had in mind. Israel, of course, isn't alone in coming to terms
with the "changed constellation" in the Middle East. Countries like India also
are called on to quickly readjust.
India revives ties with Syria
India has reached out to its long-lost friend in the Arab world, Syria. Assad
is on a five-day visit to India. Indian briefings said Assad's visit "further
consolidated the excellent relations" between the two countries but steered a
cautious line that does not offend the US or Israel.
Regarding the Arab-Israeli problem, the Indian briefing said, "The need for
progress in the various tracks of the peace process, early implementation of
various UN resolutions and the need for greater involvement of all significant
regional and international participants were discussed. In this regard, noting
recent developments, the two sides agreed to stay in close consultation on the
next steps in the peace process."
The diplomatic objective of Assad's visit, from Delhi's perspective, is to
revive India's links with all sides in the Middle East and keep options open at
a time of change. A need arises to balance India's strong ties with Israel.
Syria's articulate Expatriates Minister, Bouthaina Shaaban, who is a member of
Assad's entourage, stated in Delhi that Syria hoped India's growing ties with
Israel would not be at the cost of its historic links with the Arab world.
Bouthaina pointedly said, "The Arab world always looked up to India as a
country that seeks peace and dignity ... We trust that India will stand in
support of justice. It cannot stand with occupation, it cannot stand with
genocide. That's what has happened to the Arab world ... We believe India will
stand by the Arab people."
Indeed, Delhi has some delicate balancing to do. India's ties with Israel have
been extremely productive, especially the bilateral security cooperation and
military-to-military ties. The relationship with Syria looks anaemic in
comparison. During Assad's visit, two agreements were signed relating to
investment protection and double-taxation avoidance and a memorandum of
understanding on cooperation in agriculture.
But at the same time, India realizes that the US policy of isolating Syria has
not worked and a new president in Washington may seek a change in policy. With
Iraq lying in shambles, Syria's weight in the Arab world is increasing. Delhi
decided that it is prudent to pick up the threads of its ties with Damascus,
which went through an indifferent patch in the recent years when India's
regional policy in the Middle East focused on rapidly building security
cooperation with Israel and harmonizing with Washington's regional strategy.
India's overture to Iran
A similar rethink towards Iran is also apparent. Delhi has disengaged from
Bush's vitriolic takes on Iran and underlined that the most effective way for
solving the Iran problem is by way of addressing it through the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) "without the accompanying cacophony of
recrimination and threats of violence", to quote Indian Foreign Minister Pranab
Mukherjee. Clearly, India visualizes that the US engagement of Iran is a matter
of time and is revamping its own policy, which took a battering in recent years
when under US pressure Delhi voted twice against Iran in the IAEA over its
nuclear program.
But Iran is a far tougher customer than Syria. Mukherjee, therefore, reserved
some fine words for Iran in a major policy
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
