New Delhi, 02
August 2003
The
troops for Iraq issue has become a bone of contention between the US
and India. though it is being kept shrouded in diplomatic niceties.
In India a national debate is on and indications are that a majority
are against sending Indian troops there for law and order duties
till such time as an effective native Iraqi government is in place
or the UN assumes responsibility for post war reconstruction work.
However, Indian troops could go at this stage for humanitarian tasks
like restoration of medical and other civil services and
infrastructure.
In
fact, the Indian position is very much similar to that of Japan
whose ‘diet’ after protracted consideration had approved as late
as 26 July, a law to send SDF for noncombatant duties in Iraq ––
what
will be the first dispatch of Japanese military personnel to a
combat zone since World War II. The
first contingent of troops is expected to depart in August, followed
by a 1,000-strong force in October. The Japanese mission would be to
help resettle refugees, rebuild facilities and provide fresh water
and supplies. They are banned under the new legislation from
providing weapons and ammunition for combat. But opposition parties
would continue to question the legitimacy of this move, particularly
as Prime Minister Koizumi seeks re-election as head of his Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP). The decision has already taken its toll in
the form of a change of the Defense Agency's top
bureaucrat on 01 August when Takemasa Moriya was promoted in a
personnel shakeup to prepare for the planned dispatch of
Self-Defense Forces (SDF) troops to Iraq.
Of
the 30 countries that have so far pledged to take part in
peacekeeping operations in Iraq with US/UK occupation forces,
two-thirds are European though mostly former Soviet states who owe
so much to US for their new identity. The coalition now has 13,400
non-U.S. troops in Iraq, the bulk of them British. Poland is the
largest continental European contributor to the multinational
division. It had agreed to post 2,300 troops and take control of one
of postwar Iraq's coalition-defined occupation sectors. The
Polish-led division will include 1,640 Ukrainian and 1,300 Spanish
soldiers. Bulgaria is sending about 500 troops; Hungary has
pledged several hundred; Romania and Latvia each are deploying about
150, while Slovakia and Lithuania are dispatching 85 apiece.
The
reasons why European countries have offered military support to
coalition forces in Iraq vary. Some, such as Britain, Poland and
Spain, have been uninhibited supporters of the justness of the US
led war on Saddam's regime. Others have done so as a way of showing
their loyalty to Washington. The United States is footing most of
the bill for the Polish-led division. Thus it needs to be noted that
so far none of the ‘friends’ of US have even all together sent
or are ready to send troops to the scale of 17,000, which is what is
being sought from India. With the exception of the British,
Washington's failure to secure a large contingent of foreign troops
has created the impression that US forces, numbering some 150,000,
are essentially alone in Iraq.
However,
India's improving diplomatic and military relations with the US are
expected to suffer a setback over the dispatch of an army division
to Iraq as a peacekeeping force without a UN mandate. A furious Bush
administration has expressed dismay at India depriving it of around
17,000 desperately needed troops. Although it publicly declared that
growing bilateral ties would not be affected, senior US officials
have made their displeasure known. Such behaviour, they warned,
could have a detrimental effect on Indo–US relations in 'critical
areas' like co-operation on hitherto taboo nuclear matters and the
supply of hi-tech equipment for civilian and military applications.
Discussions with Pentagon officials so far have entailed deploying
the Indian peacekeepers for at least three years in northern Iraq's
Kurdish autonomous region bordering Turkey, which along with Iran
and Syria has warned Delhi against becoming involved.
India
has informed Washington that it wanted independent control, making
it clear that it would not report to either US or British
commanders. By deploying in Iraq, India is also fearful of
alienating Arab states on which it is dependent for oil and other
energy requirements. The Vajpayee government is also worried about
casualties in Iraq that would have negative effects on BJP’s
coalition in polls in four important states this year and national
elections in 2004. Gen Myers, Joint Chief of Defence during his
visit this week to Delhi made the latest US reiteration of its
desire for Indian troops. It was however reported that on the Indian
suggestion, he denied having made such a request during his press
conference.
What
needs a look is the mind-set of American officials and professionals
who have no qualms about using different yardsticks for other
nations. Before the end of cold war, it was –– if you are not
with us you are in the Soviet camp –– now if one does not toe
their line he’s not a friend.
This aspect came out very vividly in
an international conference on terrorism in India organized by the
US–India Political Action Committee and the US–India Institute
for Strategic Policy in Washington recently. The panelists included
several Indian and US experts. Among Indians, prominent were B
Raman, ex RAW Chief, Professor Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University
in Bloomington and Anupam Srivastava, executive director of the
India Initiative at the University of Georgia in Athens and the
South Asia Programme of UGA's Center for International Trade and
Security. The most vocal Americans were Frank Gaffney, president and
CEO of the Center for Security Policy and a former Assistant
Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy in the Reagan
Administration, and Tom Donnelly, senior fellow at the conservative
American Enterprise Institute. Other panelists included Thomas
Neumann, executive director, Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs and Michael O'Hanlon, senior fellow Brookings Institution,
but they strayed from the topic at hand and got caught up in Middle
East terrorism and the conflict between the Israelis and the
Palestinians and the Israeli response to Palestinians terrorism
carried out by the likes of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and
other such groups.
Raman,
literally exploded when a bunch of leading American
neo-conservatives, obviously still caught up in the mind-set of a
Cold War hangover, accused India of not pulling its weight in the
US-led war against global terrorism by its rejection of Washington's
request to deploy Indian troops in Iraq to alleviate the situation
in that country. He asserted, "when nobody was willing to help
us against state-sponsored terrorism by Pakistan after the Mumbai
blast, it was Saddam Hussein's Iraq who helped us." He
recalled, the total lack of sympathy from US, "when New Delhi
had prepared a "dossier on Pakistani terrorism and gave it to
the State Department. It was only Iraq, which India went to among
several other countries to seek support to fight Pakistani-sponsored
terrorism, which had readily agreed to help. The US in particular,
and other Western governments had simply scoffed at India's
allegations and evidence that was presented, saying it was based on
police interrogation and that everyone knows that Indian police use
torture. But after the Western hostages trekking in Kashmir were
killed by Pakistan-sponsored terrorists, "the dossier that was
earlier rejected," by the State Department, "was accepted
by its counter-terrorism bureau”.
This
was in the early years of the Clinton Administration. Raman alleged
that now since Pakistan was viewed as a strategic ally in the war
against al Qaeda, every time there is any intelligence that reaches
the State Department about Islamabad's complicity in cross-border
terrorism and other terrorist acts directed against India, it is
"exorcised from these reports. Any intelligence which shows
Pakistan's involvement in acts of terrorism is not shared with
India.”
The
above was Raman’s retort when Frank Gaffney and Tom Donnelly,
argued that India's refusal to contribute troops to help the US in
its peacekeeping efforts in Iraq was a manifestation of its tired
old non-aligned syndrome which New Delhi had apparently still been
unable to shake off. Donnelly said, "India missed a huge
opportunity to shed the baggage of its past and make a clear
statement," on Iraq. He said President Bush's declaration that
"you are with us or against us," in the war against global
terrorism, "is perhaps too strong a way to put it, but it is
certainly true that the United Nations has not been and will not be
a useful tool for fighting terror." Donnelly, also implied that
India's rejection of the US request was because of Washington's
close alliance with Pakistan on the war on terror and acknowledged
that “our short-term relations with Pakistan for example, are
throwing off, preventing and screwing up a huge opportunity (for
India) that may not be there forever. Non-alignment in the war
against terrorism is not a very good option. This certainly is not
one that will serve India in these purposes over the long haul.
Non-alignment, passive resistance is unhelpful." Taking yet
another swipe at Delhi's decision to contribute troops to help
stabilize the situation in Iraq only if it is under a United Nations
mandate, Donnelly said,
"Fretting whether Indian soldiers in Iraq should get UN wages
or not is penny-wise and pound foolish," and exhorted Indian
Americans to put pressure on New Delhi to "join the coalition's
troops in Iraq."
Gaffney
said, "I think it will work to India's benefit if it makes the
arguments in much the same way the United States makes its arguments
on the war on terror and shows a greater degree of empathy and
cooperation with the US as it wages its war on terror." When
challenged to show how India has been "unfriendly" in
working with the US in the global war on terror, he said, "I
find it unfriendly the refusal of the Indian government to help in
the rebuilding of Iraq as also India's increasing efforts to
increase its arsenal in cooperation with the former Soviet military
industrial complex." Gaffney admitted there was no denying
"there is a historic pro-Pakistan bias in the rubric of the
Cold War. This is the legacy that carries forward and gives an
impression that the Pakistanis are more important to US in the war
on terror than the Indians. That is the obstacle to be
overcome". Gaffney also acknowledged that, "Pakistan is a
country, that I don't need to tell this audience, has been up to its
eyeballs in terror for several decades at least." But
reiterated that “Pakistan
President Pervez Musharraf has, to his credit, provided valuable
service in several important ways to US and arguably to others in
the war on terror, and yet, we have to be honest with one another,
Pakistan is one bullet away from once again being a failed state
with absolutely unquestioned alliance to and associations with
terrorists in Afghanistan, terrorists in the tribal areas of
Pakistan itself, terrorists in Kashmir and terrorists in India as
well as elsewhere." Thus, he conceded that "Investing in
Pakistan as a reliable partner in the war on terror as a result is a
dubious proposition."
Raman
asserted that "Pakistan is using terrorism as a strategic
weapon against us, and we have to make clear that Pakistan has a
price to pay if they continue fomenting terrorism against India. We
should not depend on the US to help us. If they help, well and good,
but if they don't and there are misunderstandings, it cannot be
helped. I am prepared to take some actions in our national interests
even if it causes some misunderstandings in our relations with the
United States.” He also offered a detailed and comprehensive
analysis of Pakistan-based and Pakistan-Occupied-Kashmir-based
terrorism, their infrastructure, where the funding comes from and
pointed out, “Today, there is no Kashmiri militancy in Kashmir. It
is this Pakistani component of (Osama) bin Laden's International
Islamic Front, who are operating under the guise of Kashmiris."
Professor
Sumit Ganguly said, "It is only because of tactical reasons
that US has the tenuous alliance with Pakistan," and warned,
“Americans are proceeding down the same primrose path that they
proceeded with (former Pakistani military dictator and president)
General Zia-ul Haq." Another Indian panelist, Anupam Srivastava,
made an academic presentation on terrorism, including its various
facets from political to religious terrorism. He pointed out,
"there is no good and bad terrorism. You cannot make a
distinction such as that and therefore negotiating with them within
very, very confined established parameters of federalism are an
absolute must if you have to reach a point of incremental
negotiations with them and some accommondation."
American
interlocutors warned that if Musharraf was killed, "the US
would be in a panic because Pakistan would unmistakably become a
failed state and radicalized into a pro-terrorist state and put its
nuclear weapons into the hands of terrorists. Whoever comes next
would be very hostile to the United States. It will be a very dark
day for the US and a relationship with India would be into
abeyance."
But
Raman scoffed at this contention and so did Ganguly and they pointed
out that the death of Zia-ul Haq in an inexplicable plane crash had
not led to any such chaos. Ganguly said the Pakistani army for their
own vested reasons ‘will hang together’. Musharraf himself is
trying to create this scenario of chaos in the minds of the US and
knows how to play into the fears of the US. There will be neither
any deluge, nor a nuclear holocaust.
When
one participant challenged Ganguly on alleged state-sponsored
terrorism, the latter acknowledged that what took place in Gujarat
could arguably be called that and said, "I think it is one of
the blots on India's 21st century history. I hope Gujarat Chief
Minister Narendra Modi take a trip to Belgium sometime in the near
future, because in Belgium they believe in extraterritoriality
because Mr Modi deserves to be tried, in my view, as a war criminal
and I'll go on the record on that.”
The
discussions at this Conference clearly brought out the official US
position and reaction to India dragging its feet in sending troops
to Iraq. However, the majority Indian point of view were also very
succinctly brought out by Mr Raman.
We
hope this analysis would put many Indian minds athinking and help
them draw conclusions as to what is in the country’s long term
interests.
(Acknowledgement: Aziz Haniffa’s Report in US media.)
Disclaimer Copyright |