Opinion - Letters to the Editor

The Iraq resolution

Sir, — One wonders whether today we have a chief executive running the country or is it a regime of `populist consensus' which rules the roost from Raisina Hill. On Iraq, for instance, South Block should have taken a stand based on our international stature as a major, potentially influential player in world affairs. Instead of the country's unequivocal official position being stated on the floor of the House, we witnessed a knee-jerk, ``democratically'' speaking enterprising reaction in Parliament and a bizarre spectacle of sundry MPs and their semantics dictating foreign policy.

Finally, when the war was all but over, they managed to put together a unanimous resolution. It was hammered out in the Speaker's chamber at an all-party meeting. Was it necessary for our elected representatives to worry about a parliamentary resolution at such a late stage? It is time someone took control `to wield the stick' and advised them to focus on issues of governance, leaving matters of state to the government in office.

Mukund B. Kunte,
New Delhi

* * *

Sir, — The Singapore Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, in his interview ( April 6 , 6 ) has frankly maintained that Singapore's support to the U.S. action against Iraq is borne out of the surmise that "North Korea would proceed with its nuclear armaments" and "destabilise South East Asia for terrorism" if the U.S. were to have "blinked" at this stage. This aspect calls for further scrutiny in the light of practicalities.

The fact remains that the U.S. did undermine the authority of the U.N. However, any country in possession of nuclear arsenal, including command, control and delivery systems with back-up knowhow, would command a standing of its own and the pressure tactics of the type the U.S. is attuned to may not mean anything.

Syed Gowher Ali,
Chennai

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu