Monday, Mar 24, 2003
Monday, Mar 24, 2003 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Amit Baruah
Official sources said the NAM's failure to move the United Nations was made plain to Ali Akbar Velayati, special envoy of the Iranian President, Mohamed Khatami, who was in the capital on Friday. With New Delhi in no mood to embark on any initiative, India and Iran agreed during Mr. Velayati's visit that they would remain in "bilateral contact" on Iraq and other issues. Clearly, India is aware that Iran is the third dimension of the "axis of evil" as seen by the U.S. President, George W. Bush. India is today repeatedly pointing to the abject failure (and rightly so) of countries like France, Russia and China to convene an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council to discuss or bring a resolution to condemn the unilateral American invasion of Iraq. Even the U.N. Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has failed to make such a move. It is pointing to the divisions in the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) and Arab nations to justify the pragmatic stance adopted on Iraq. There is, in New Delhi's understanding, no need to antagonise the U.S. by using words like "condemn" to describe the American military action. In response to the Congress criticism of the Government's failure, the sources even point to the fact that India did not "condemn" the Soviet Union's "invasions" of Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. There appears to be a degree of equation here between the old Soviet Union and the current United States as far as India's relationships are concerned. The sources said it was not as if India had "approved" of the American military action, but pointed out that the language of diplomacy had to be different from the language of the Opposition politician. But, the concept of the Indian "leadership role" in opposition to the U.S. as far as Iraq went was not going to "fly", the sources maintained. India, it was made plain, by responding to "principle" had landed itself in a mess by taking the Kashmir issue to the U.N. back in 1948. A strident position on Iraq was not going to lead to anything, the source said, pointing to the failures of three of the five permanent members of the Security Council to do anything tangible on Iraq. In the Indian understanding, Iraq, too, was not blameless. If it had provided the fullest cooperation, then U.N. weapons' inspectors could have given it a clean chit on the charge of possessing chemical and biological weapons. The sources pointed to the discovery of the Al-Samoud missiles and some drones by the U.N. inspectors. The sources were also concerned that alienating the U.S. and the U.K. could create problems for India on the Kashmir front and in the Security Council itself. They pointed to the fact that Pakistan had developed a close relationship with the U.S. by "cooperating" in nabbing the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban elements. India had to ensure there was no "Nixonian-type" of tilt towards Pakistan by the U.S. According to the sources, even the "middle path" adopted by India on Iraq was a "big deal" for the U.S. They maintained that there had been regular consultation between India and the U.S. on the Iraq issue. (It is hardly a secret that the U.S. is happy that Parliament did not adopt any kind of resolution on Iraq). On the Iraqi war front, the sources felt that the greatest threat was to the territorial integrity of the country, having taken note of the entry of Turkish troops into northern Iraq. For Iraq to remain intact as a nation, a strong international presence was necessary. As of now, it could not be said what kind of regime would take over in Iraq. On the military campaign itself, the sources said the pitch could be queered if the war turned out to be a prolonged one. This, the sources said, could have a bearing on India's growth prospects as well.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
