- News>
- Newspapers
It`s a cruel March: Indian Express
New Delhi, Feb 17: As Parliament reconvenes for its Budget session, momentous developments are taking place that could well lead to substantive changes in the emerging world order. The credibility and relevance of two relics of the Cold War - NATO and the Non-Aligned Movement - are being called into question.
New Delhi, Feb 17: As Parliament reconvenes for its Budget session, momentous developments are taking place that could well lead to substantive changes in the emerging world order. The credibility and relevance of two relics of the Cold War — NATO and the Non-Aligned Movement — are being called into question.
Moved by growing domestic concerns about the implications of joining an US-led war against Iraq, President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany publicly challenged US war plans in Iraq and immobilised NATO, by opposing military assistance to Turkey. Not surprisingly, Russian President Putin joined Chirac in urging patience before military action is contemplated against Iraq. The Chinese quietly joined this emerging grouping. But unlike the Germans and the French, the Russians and Chinese have been cautious in not doing anything so far that could evoke US wrath. The divisions within NATO can no longer be papered over. They will have profound consequences for the new world order.
The US response to these developments has been one of undisguised fury. In ridiculing “Old Europe”, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld noted that 16 of the 19 NATO members had supported theUS proposal for military assistance to Turkey. The Americans also seem to be preparing to go ahead with their plans on Iraq. The policies of the Islamic world and the approach of Iraq’s neighbours are of much greater strategic importance to the Americans, than the compulsions of European NATO allies. After some hard-nosed diplomacy, the Americans have obtained pledges of military facilities and cooperation for their campaign against Iraq, not merely from a traditional ally like Turkey, but also from neighbouring Arab States like Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and the UAE. It is only a question of time before Saudi Arabia and Egypt follow suit. Significantly, Iraq’s Gulf Arab neighbours have implicitly endorsed US action, by agreeing to defend Kuwait, when operations against Iraq commence.
The Americans have not been able to produce a convincing case for waging war against Iraq. Allegations about Iraq’s links with the Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are patently absurd. Osama has for long held the “socialist” regime of Saddam Hussein guilty of “infidelity”. The head of the UN weapons teams has asserted that they have found no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Further, even though Iraq may technically be in violation of UN resolutions by testing a missile of more than the specified range of 150 km, this missile cannot target Israel with even its extended range, estimated at 190 km. Colin Powell, who was virtually the lone voice in the Bush administration urging recourse to the UN before striking at Iraq, now looks a pathetic figure as the credibility of his assertions is questioned.
Even as anti-war demonstrations spiral across the western and Islamic worlds, President Bush seems determined to press ahead with his war plans. He has ridiculed the UN by asserting that it would “fade into history as an irrelevant debating society” if it fails to act immediately to disarm Iraq. A number of factors are driving the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq and indeed to the entire Arab world, especially in the oil rich Persian Gulf. These include the deep personal aversion of President Bush towards President Saddam, given what is believed to be the involvement of the latter in a failed attempt to assassinate George Bush (Sr.) a decade ago. More importantly, the Americans now seem determined to demonstrate that they will spare no effort to see that potential adversaries are denied access to WMD.
The Americans appear to be realising the folly of supporting rulers in Arab countries who took recourse to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam for political legitimacy domestically and influence abroad. The coming events could well see the reshaping of the Arab world and the redrawing of structures that emerged from the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1. While the Americans appear determined to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to do this, given Kurdish and Turkish concerns, ambitions and imperatives. Influential Americans now regard the war against terrorism as their “Fourth World War” and claim they will take the fight into “the enemy’s territory”, adding that countries that harbour terrorists place “their sovereignty at risk”. Given American anger at funding of extremist Islamist groups by Saudi Arabia, there is talk about redrawing Saudi Arabia’s borders. Closer home, General Musharraf worries that Pakistan could be the next target of American wrath.
Prime Minister Vajpayee will soon be in Kuala Lumpur for the NAM summit. There will be strong rhetoric here against US policies on Iraq. The lack of credibility of NAM will be exposed by the fact that even as such brave speeches are being made, virtually all of Iraq’s Arab neighbours who are members will be providing military facilities for any US assault on Iraq. Egypt, a founding member, is moving towards tacitly endorsing US actions. Even Iran is reported to have assured the Americans that it would not play spoil sport in their war.. There is a wide chasm between rhetoric and reality in NAM. The measured position that we have taken thus far on emerging developments needs to be maintained.
India cannot support any action that the US undertakes without international endorsement. At the same time, we cannot remain silent spectators to developments in our neighbourhood. We have around 3.5 million nationals living in the Gulf Arab countries from whom we receive over $6 billion annually as remittances. Our vital oil supplies are sourced from here. We have shown strategic foresight in dealing with developments in Afghanistan. We need to act similarly in the Persian Gulf. New Delhi should consider the possibility of positioning at least a composite naval squadron led by the flagship INS Delhi in a forward location in the Arabian Sea to deal with unforeseen contingencies. More importantly, we should be prepared to offer large-scale humanitarian assistance for the Iraqis given the trauma they will undergo in any future conflict.
Bureau Report
Moved by growing domestic concerns about the implications of joining an US-led war against Iraq, President Chirac of France and Chancellor Schroeder of Germany publicly challenged US war plans in Iraq and immobilised NATO, by opposing military assistance to Turkey. Not surprisingly, Russian President Putin joined Chirac in urging patience before military action is contemplated against Iraq. The Chinese quietly joined this emerging grouping. But unlike the Germans and the French, the Russians and Chinese have been cautious in not doing anything so far that could evoke US wrath. The divisions within NATO can no longer be papered over. They will have profound consequences for the new world order.
The US response to these developments has been one of undisguised fury. In ridiculing “Old Europe”, US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld noted that 16 of the 19 NATO members had supported theUS proposal for military assistance to Turkey. The Americans also seem to be preparing to go ahead with their plans on Iraq. The policies of the Islamic world and the approach of Iraq’s neighbours are of much greater strategic importance to the Americans, than the compulsions of European NATO allies. After some hard-nosed diplomacy, the Americans have obtained pledges of military facilities and cooperation for their campaign against Iraq, not merely from a traditional ally like Turkey, but also from neighbouring Arab States like Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and the UAE. It is only a question of time before Saudi Arabia and Egypt follow suit. Significantly, Iraq’s Gulf Arab neighbours have implicitly endorsed US action, by agreeing to defend Kuwait, when operations against Iraq commence.
The Americans have not been able to produce a convincing case for waging war against Iraq. Allegations about Iraq’s links with the Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden are patently absurd. Osama has for long held the “socialist” regime of Saddam Hussein guilty of “infidelity”. The head of the UN weapons teams has asserted that they have found no evidence of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Further, even though Iraq may technically be in violation of UN resolutions by testing a missile of more than the specified range of 150 km, this missile cannot target Israel with even its extended range, estimated at 190 km. Colin Powell, who was virtually the lone voice in the Bush administration urging recourse to the UN before striking at Iraq, now looks a pathetic figure as the credibility of his assertions is questioned.
Even as anti-war demonstrations spiral across the western and Islamic worlds, President Bush seems determined to press ahead with his war plans. He has ridiculed the UN by asserting that it would “fade into history as an irrelevant debating society” if it fails to act immediately to disarm Iraq. A number of factors are driving the Bush administration’s approach to Iraq and indeed to the entire Arab world, especially in the oil rich Persian Gulf. These include the deep personal aversion of President Bush towards President Saddam, given what is believed to be the involvement of the latter in a failed attempt to assassinate George Bush (Sr.) a decade ago. More importantly, the Americans now seem determined to demonstrate that they will spare no effort to see that potential adversaries are denied access to WMD.
The Americans appear to be realising the folly of supporting rulers in Arab countries who took recourse to fundamentalist interpretations of Islam for political legitimacy domestically and influence abroad. The coming events could well see the reshaping of the Arab world and the redrawing of structures that emerged from the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War 1. While the Americans appear determined to preserve the territorial integrity of Iraq, it remains to be seen whether they will be able to do this, given Kurdish and Turkish concerns, ambitions and imperatives. Influential Americans now regard the war against terrorism as their “Fourth World War” and claim they will take the fight into “the enemy’s territory”, adding that countries that harbour terrorists place “their sovereignty at risk”. Given American anger at funding of extremist Islamist groups by Saudi Arabia, there is talk about redrawing Saudi Arabia’s borders. Closer home, General Musharraf worries that Pakistan could be the next target of American wrath.
Prime Minister Vajpayee will soon be in Kuala Lumpur for the NAM summit. There will be strong rhetoric here against US policies on Iraq. The lack of credibility of NAM will be exposed by the fact that even as such brave speeches are being made, virtually all of Iraq’s Arab neighbours who are members will be providing military facilities for any US assault on Iraq. Egypt, a founding member, is moving towards tacitly endorsing US actions. Even Iran is reported to have assured the Americans that it would not play spoil sport in their war.. There is a wide chasm between rhetoric and reality in NAM. The measured position that we have taken thus far on emerging developments needs to be maintained.
India cannot support any action that the US undertakes without international endorsement. At the same time, we cannot remain silent spectators to developments in our neighbourhood. We have around 3.5 million nationals living in the Gulf Arab countries from whom we receive over $6 billion annually as remittances. Our vital oil supplies are sourced from here. We have shown strategic foresight in dealing with developments in Afghanistan. We need to act similarly in the Persian Gulf. New Delhi should consider the possibility of positioning at least a composite naval squadron led by the flagship INS Delhi in a forward location in the Arabian Sea to deal with unforeseen contingencies. More importantly, we should be prepared to offer large-scale humanitarian assistance for the Iraqis given the trauma they will undergo in any future conflict.
Bureau Report