The Hindu : Troops to Iraq: India `watching' U.S. moves

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Aug 22, 2003

National

National

Troops to Iraq: India `watching' U.S. moves

By Amit Baruah

NEW DELHI AUG. 21. India said today that it was "watching with interest'' the latest moves by the United States for a new United Nations Security Council resolution asking more nations to send troops and aid to Iraq.

The External Affairs Ministry spokesman was responding to reports in the American press that a new resolution would encourage countries such as India, Pakistan and Turkey to contribute troops under the overall U.S. command.

In a related development, the Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, said at a seminar here this morning that India was alive and sensitive to the changing nature of peace-keeping, and the growing complexity and scale of the operations.

Addressing a seminar on the topic "Complex Peace Operations: Traditional Premises and New Realities'', Mr. Sibal stated that in the last 10 years the principles and practices of peacekeeping had undergone "something of a revolution''. He said India could not be "pushed into'' taking any decision that is not of "our own'' making. "Our decisions will always be arrived at after careful consideration of all relevant aspects of issues under examination, and will be guided, in the final analysis, solely by our national interests,'' he said.

Arguing that the national interest alone governed India's decision not to send troops to Iraq in response to a U.S. request, Mr. Sibal claimed that there was no U.S. "pressure'' to despatch forces.

``I would like to emphasise, however, that to see India as bending to pressure is not to do justice to ourselves. The strength and stature of our country has been demonstrated time and again in the independent stance we have adopted on important global issues and the independent decisions we have taken in matters that concern us,'' he said.

According to the Foreign Secretary, India's basic approach to peace-keeping and peace operations was one that aimed to uphold the principle of sovereignty and one of supporting assistance from outside, including the U.N., only at the explicit request and consent of the State.

``Having said this, nevertheless we cannot shut our eyes to the reality around us and of the needs, vulnerabilities and even the demands of weaker or smaller states which may seek international involvement in the resolution of their conflicts or in the protection of civilian populations,'' he stressed.

``In some cases, the Government is simply not functional; in others the institutions have collapsed or are non-existent: in other words, the sovereignty cannot be exercised at all. I would not name examples, but these should be clear to you.

``It is in such cases and only in such cases that we can countenance the question of the role of the international community including the U.N., in peace operations in its larger sense as a component of nation-building,'' Mr. Sibal maintained.

In recent months, he revealed, India had pondered on some of these issues as the country looked at the situation in Afghanistan, in Congo, in Liberia and in Iraq.

``All these are different situations, and let me say that India's interests are different,'' the Foreign Secretary said. The involvement of the U.N. in peacekeeping operations implies a certain legitimacy, international recognition and acceptability.

``In saying this, I am not implying that all decisions of the Security Council are necessarily objective or wise or fair. In the real world we are well aware that the decisions of the Security Council could also be a product of power politics.''

Mr. Sibal argued that the perception about India's involvement in a country or in a region where its troops might go, the public sentiments about the role India would play and the national sentiment in India about such involvement were undoubtedly factors that would influence a decision on sending or not sending troops.

``Operational questions such as the issues of command and control, the resources for meeting the costs, the nature of the risk and functions that the peace-keepers are expected to carry out are all relevant factors,'' the Foreign Secretary stated. ``Therefore, an assessment of India's overall national interests in a given situation has to be undoubtedly the major determinant in deciding on our response,'' he added.

Sikkim issue

UNI reports:

India today asserted that Sikkim is an integral part of it and that this fact cannot be altered by anyone. The statement came in the wake of a report carried by the Chinese official news agency Xinhua yesterday, describing Sikkim as a ``country.''

The External Affairs Ministry spokesman said: ``It is an absolutely flawed report... it does not even include India as China's neighbour.''

Reporting on the Tibet Autonomous Region's foreign trade performance, Xinhua had said: ``Sharing long borders with a number of neighbouring countries like Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Mynamar, Tibet boasts geographical advantages in expanding border trade.''

The spokesman reiterated that India and China had reached an understanding during Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's visit to Beijing in June 2003 to start a process by which Sikkim would cease to be an issue in relations between the two countries.

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

National