New Delhi, Oct 11: Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, following in the footsteps of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv trio, has been visiting different countries. This he does ostensibly to convey the meaning and direction of India's foreign policy in face-to face interactions with his counterparts and foreign policymakers in other countries. The difference between his conduct of foreign policy and that of his illustrious predecessors is this: His style is more reflective of form than substance. This is because the BJP-led NDA Government does not have any coherent framework for foreign and security policies. A few facts substantiate the argument that the Vajpayee Government's foreign policy has failed to deal with the complexities of the US-dominated unipolar world. First, in his UN General Assembly address and during his meeting with US President George W Bush and his 'advisors' recently, Mr Vajpayee came back satisfied, convinced that the Americans had been persuaded to believe that Pakistan exports terrorism to India. On September 11, 2001, the country, under the leadership of Mr Vajpayee, had unambiguously supported America and its people in their hour of crisis when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre. Mr Bush had declared that "anti-terrorism" was the pillar of his foreign policy, and that the US would fight the scourge everywhere in the world. The Vajpayee Government concluded that the anti-terrorism combat had brought the two countries together and, on the basis of this understanding, India has repeatedly told the Americans to ask Pakistan to stop cross-border terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. Every effort by India to get steadfast US support against Pakistan has failed. On the contrary, Pakistan continues to enjoy the status of a 'frontline state' for the promotion and protection of American interests in this region. Mr Vajpayee had hardly concluded his US visit when US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage observed on October 6, "We are very interested in having a full relationship with Pakistan, not simply one based on the global war on terror, one that covers the entire gambit-economic, social, political as well as, of course, security". Mr Armitage, accompanied on his Pakistan tour by Ms Christina Rocca, also said, "We are extraordinarily sensitive to, and we take into full concern, the sensitivities of the feelings here in Pakistan." Are Indian policymakers blind to this projection of US-Pakistan as comrades-in-arm in the global war against terrorism? Mr Amritage did not stop there. About President Pervez Musharraf, he said: "In no way do I have any sign that the military ... (is) anything but 200 per cent behind the nation and behind the President."
Every success story claimed by the Vajpayee foreign policy establishment at the end of September has been exposed as hollow by US representatives in their dealings with Pakistan. The Vajpayee Government's anti-terrorist plank lies shattered because the Americans do not accept India's 'version' about the role President Musharraf has played in exporting terror to J&K.
Second, foreign policymakers have discovered Israel as a friend that will not only support India in its fight against terror, but also act as a bridge between it and America, Tel Aviv's patron. It is said the much-touted India-US-Israel axis would be a formidable force to contain Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon came to India last month amid great fanfare. But, instead of bringing any advantage, his visit became a liability for the Vajpayee Government.
Recently, Israel publicly announced that it was mulling the exile or physical liquidation of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat. This was condemned by progressives in India, who rightly consider Mr Arafat to be the symbol of the Palestinian struggle for statehood. Incidentally, India's post-Independence foreign policy was based on a stand that was 'anti-oppressor states and regimes', 'anti-racism' in South Africa and anti-Zionist usurpation of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. India's national movement itself was conducted against oppressive colonial rule, and this legacy of our liberation struggle conditioned our foreign policy for 40 years.
Israel can be labelled as an oppressive and aggressive state in the Arab world. The story of Israeli belligerence against neighbours like Lebanon or Syria continues till today. On October 5 and 6, Syria requested the UN Security Council to condemn Israeli aggression in Syrian territory, but the US brushed it aside because Israel is its policeman in the Arab world. America's global interests are served by client states like Israel and Pakistan, and the master will always condone acts of serious omission and commission by these 'special friends'.
Indian policymakers need to get the clear messages sent out by an imperialist America: It will continue to lean on these states in the global security network. The US will never help the Arabs against Israel or India against Pakistan. Its oil interests in the Mideast and its "security interests" in South and Central Asia require that Israel and especially Pakistan be kept in good humour.
It is not without reason that Pakistan has agreed to send 10,000 soldiers to aid the US occupation forces in Iraq. A friend in need is a friend indeed, and in return America will help Pakistan when it is in difficulty. The client state has always provided America the men, materials and military bases it needs to control this region. Yet its decision to send its armed forces to work under US command to serve the interest of an occupation army in a Muslim country does not make it an anti-Islamic nation.
The crux of the issue is that India and Pakistan will have to resolve their disputes bilaterally. It is not too late to listen to J&K Chief Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed who recently requested Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani to appoint a top level political 'interlocutor' to aid talks between the Centre and political groups in J&K. Indeed, there is need to create mutual trust. 'Mediator' NN Vohra has not been able to cut much ice with the Kashmiri groups because the Central Government's mandate ought to be given to a political heavyweight who has Mr Vajpayee's full confidence. This is one step to be undertaken by the Centre when dealing with the real or imaginary grievances of the dissatisfied groups in J&K.
The real nut to crack is to initiate interaction between Mr Vajpayee and General Musharraf. If Indo-Pakistani bilateral relationship were not as complex and contentious as it is, the need for sustained negotiations would not have arisen at all. India and Pakistan can either live in a permanent state of low intensity war or pursue understanding on the basis of neighbourly give-and-take in the interests of stability in South Asia.
Similarly, both can continue with their expensive arms race or enjoy the dividends of peace. The nuclearisation of India and Pakistan seems to have eliminated the possibility of a conventional war between the two. Are the nations prepared for a nuclear holocaust? The track record of US Presidents from Truman to Bush is that they are guided by national security and strategic interests only. For this reason, America has always sought to complicate the India-Pakistan relationship, keeping Pakistan as a strategic ally. The Vajpayee foreign policy establishment took four years to understand the continuity of US policy and wasted a lot of energy to involve- inspite of the lessons of the last 50 years- the US in its anti-terror combat against Pakistan. Having wasted precious time chasing the Americans, the Indians should now spend some time and energy to bring Pakistan's obstinate military dictator to the dialogue table.
It is a difficult journey, but this is the only way to rescue Indian foreign policy from Pakistan-centred complaints and counter-complaints at every international forum. The America-straddled unipolar world has caused vision-impairment in the naive policymakers of the Vajpayee Government. They should get this straight: It is not in the sole superpower's interest to resolve the India-Pakistan conflict.