International   

The focus is on Iraq at U.N. session

By Amit Baruah

NEW YORK Sept. 11. It is not `P' (Pakistan) that is dominating the Indian concerns in New York. For a change, it is `I' (Iraq.) With the United States gearing to deal with Saddam Hussein, the focus of the United Nations General Assembly session has shifted inexorably to Baghdad.

While the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, can be expected to respond in his General Assembly speech on September 13 to any points made by the Pakistan President, Pervez Musharraf, a day earlier, Iraq appears larger than life on the U.N. stage. It figured prominently in the External Affairs Minister, Yashwant Sinha's discussions with the U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and will certainly come up when Mr. Vajpayee meets the U.S. President, George Bush, tomorrow.

Indian officials were "non-committal" when asked what New Delhi would do if asked to "support" any American military action against Iraq. Unlike in the "war against terrorism", India is less than enthusiastic at this juncture about doing anything to support the U.S. militarily in Iraq.

The officials said there was a clear difference between supporting the war against terrorism and any military operation against the Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein. They were not keen on commenting any further. But a cross-section of the officials does believe that the Americans will "do something" in Iraq. And they remain concerned about what the implications of this military action will be.

At the Brookings Institution on Tuesday, Mr. Sinha, answering questions, said that India's stated position was that Iraq "should fully comply with the U.N. resolutions. And if the U.N. were to take up this issue again and issue new guidelines for the weapons inspectors to go in, we would be supportive of that process. The only caution that I would suggest at this point in time is that the final resolution should not be made deliberately so that no country can accept those conditionalities. So, there is a need for reason in dealing with this situation. There is also a need for credible evidence about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. And I think as and when this issue is discussed in the U.N.... we'll be able to carry conviction within the U.N. and with the peoples in the rest of the world."

In the past, India has said directly that it remained opposed to military intervention in Iraq and that a change in leadership was something for its people to decide. At the Brooking's speech, Mr. Sinha was more nuanced but did call for "reason" in dealing with the situation.

New Delhi would have seen that the French President, Jacques Chirac, the Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, and even the Japanese leadership have called for a return of U.N. weapons inspectors to Iraq before considering the military action. Other than the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, whose independence of decision-making is under increasing doubt, not a single world leader has supported what the U.S. wants to do in Iraq.

In the days and weeks ahead, the U.S. probably believes that most governments will fall in line after making noises. In that sense, the "after" positions will be important. For instance, will India and the rest of the world just sit back and watch military strikes and operations against Iraq? Or will New Delhi, along with others in the international community, have the moral courage to stand up to a unilateralist power and say that what had happened was wrong. For the practitioners of realpolitik, it appears more important what India will do rather than what it might say. The U.S. will have no problems if India differs with what it does in Iraq, but the ball game could be different if New Delhi joins any international initiative to disfavour what Washington appears certain do in the days and weeks ahead.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

International

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Terrorist attacks likely, says U.S.
• The war will continue: Bush
• A day that changed America
• Britain remembers victims
• Primakov favours talks with Chechnya rebels
• A Musharraf surprise
• Pak. condemns attack
• Arafat schedules polls for Jan. 20
• U.S. closes embassy in Jakarta
• 'Do not link terror attacks, Iraq'
• U.S. drops move to invite Pak.
• The focus is on Iraq at U.N. session
• U.K. slams assassination

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu