What is disconcerting is that the Indian government has begun echoing the Obama administration's rhetoric on Libya.
Even as India voted in New York for the tough United Nations Security Council resolution on Libya, closer home in Kabul, the Afghan government released the findings of an investigation that 65 civilians, including 40 children, were killed in the latest brutal assault by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) forces in the eastern Kunar province 10 days ago. The children, aged 13 and under, couldn't even comprehend the idea of death. It was a war crime. The report is a stark reminder that the “international community” masquerading as a champion of non-violence in Libya has blood on its hands as much as Colonel Muammar Qadhafi has. Lest we forget, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been slaughtered since the U.S. invasion in 2003. And no one cared to refer the “case file” to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Yet, the ludicrous spin given in New Delhi is that India voted for the resolution on Libya since it was pointedly targeted against Mr. Qadhafi and his associates. Even as the resolution was adopted, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the proposition that Washington is “reaching out” to the Libyan opposition and is “ready and prepared to offer any type of assistance.” A full 72 hours before the Security Council actually passed the resolution, President Barack Obama had gone on record that he was considering the “full range of options” on Libya, which implied that he wouldn't rule out military action. The day after he spoke, on Tuesday, he already began consulting the U.S.'s western allies for coordinated action. The NATO's Defence Ministers accordingly held a meeting on the outskirts of Budapest on Thursday. Simultaneously, the European Commission began ascertaining from member-countries the military resources they could spare. Meanwhile, three German warships moved to the Libyan coast — although all German nationals were already evacuated from the country. According to Debka File, the news website linked to Israeli security agencies, U.S., British and French military advisers and intelligence officers landed in the eastern breakaway province of Cyrenaica in Libya on Thursday to prepare the logistics of a possible military operation. The New York Times reported on Monday that the U.S. had begun moving warships to Libya.
Republican Senator John McCain and Independent Democrat Joseph Lieberman made a call on Friday from Tel Aviv for Washington to supply Libyan rebels with arms, among other steps, including establishing a “no-fly zone” over the country. Anne-Marie Slaughter, until last month the influential director of the State Department's Policy Planning office, cited the U.S.-NATO Kosovo campaign as a possible precedent. To be sure, a mountainload of such revealing details is available in the open media. Common sense suggests that Washington pushed the harshly worded Security Council resolution as a pre-requisite for a possible NATO intervention in the coming weeks. Coincidence or not, a fortnight ago, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rasmussen visited Israel, where he suggested that the alliance could take over responsibility as a peacekeeper in Palestine.
Grand U.S. strategy
In short, there is a grand U.S. strategy toward Libya that needs to be clinically delinked from Mr. Qadhafi's horrific crimes. Aside from western companies' extensive interests, Libya happens to be a major supplier of oil to Europe, especially Italy, which is already facing economic difficulty. Any disruption in Libyan supplies can imperil Europe's economic recovery. Besides, NATO deployment reassures Israel, which increasingly faces regional isolation. Indeed, NATO has been raring to go to West Asia.
It stands to reason that our government has taken a deliberate, considered decision at the highest level to vote for the U.S.- sponsored Security Council resolution. A precedent of grave proportions for international security is taking shape, which is what the western move on Libya is all about, and New Delhi seems unwilling to explain its role in it. This opaqueness or dissimulation is shocking, to say the least. Why not openly and categorically affirm that having voted for the U.S.-led resolution, India doesn't intend to be associated in any way further with any “humanitarian intervention” or what not? It is a rather straightforward thing to say. If the western intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq holds any moral it is that these modern-day crusades in Muslim countries by western armies can only bring grief and lead to unspeakable tragedies. And India should stay worlds away from these blood-soaked enterprises. On Mr. Qadhafi's crackdown, India has not minced words and, in fact, has used harsh language, which is the right thing to do.
The well-known Russian academician and former Prime Minister Evgeniy Primakov has warned that foreign military intervention in Libya will be counter-productive. “Nobody should be getting involved in these events. It is important to understand the mentality of the Arab people and the history of the Arab countries … foreign military intervention [in the region] is often counter-productive.” The great Arabist added the sanctions imposed on Libya by the Security Council would constitute a “sufficient” response to the crisis. In effect, the Qadhafi regime has been “de-legitimised” and it will be increasingly difficult for the dictator to hold on to power with a fast-dwindling popular base.
On the other hand, there are inherent dangers if the western countries intervene in the Libyan uprising, given that country's complex tribal structure. Indeed, not everyone in the West seems convinced of a western intervention, either. “Should NATO get involved in a civil war to the south of the Mediterranean? It is a question that merits at least some reflection before being launched,” French Prime Minister Francois Fillion reportedly observed. Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said his country would not endorse foreign intervention in Libya. The Iranian Foreign Ministry warned the West against any military intervention, saying the U.S. shouldn't take advantage of the popular movement in Libya to turn the country into a military base. Russia and China also seem to disfavour foreign intervention.
Emerging pattern
However, what is most disconcerting is that the Indian government has begun echoing the Obama administration's rhetoric. A pattern is emerging: New Delhi's mood changes, its pauses of silence and its cadence of articulation on the Arab revolt bear an uncanny resemblance to the twists and turns, ambivalences and ambiguities and the agony and ecstasy of Mr. Obama's rhetoric. It took our thoughtful External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna no time to repudiate Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's position that we are not in the business of teaching others the ABC of democracy. Who overruled Dr. Singh? Who encouraged Mr. Krishna?
Therefore, the decision to dispatch two warships to the Mediterranean merits watch. (Now it transpires that the Navy's fleet replenishment tanker also has been sent.) Pray, if evacuation of Indian nationals is an urgent priority, why not charter more aircraft or commercial ships that constantly ply the Mediterranean? That was what China did. As of Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said it evacuated to safety 29,000 nationals from Libya. That is 11,000 more than the entire Indian community in Libya. What is happening? We're “twittering” and twiddling our thumbs waiting for our two warships and the fleet replenishment tanker in tow to reach Libya's coast, hopefully by mid-March. Let us hope Mr. Qadhafi will somehow cling on to power until then so that our warships can do some “rescue” act.
It seems Mr. Qadhafi's bestiality provided on a platter a great opportunity to test the “interoperability” of our warships with NATO. Such an enterprise fits into the U.S.-Indian strategic narrative on the security of the “global commons.” Coincidence or not, the western alliance has mentioned partnership with India as one of its three key global priorities in 2011. The U.S. has all along been encouraging India to develop a partnership programme with NATO. Indeed, NATO has kept up subsoil contacts with the Indian defence and foreign policy establishments in the recent years, but these were low-key, given India's traditional aversion to any entanglements with military alliances. The Libyan situation offers the pretext for displaying and stimulating the NATO-Indian partnership. An operation with NATO is precisely the sort of “leap of faith” the U.S. has been demanding from India. Without doubt, this complex shadow play becomes part of India's baptism in order to push its bid for permanent membership of the Security Council. The Indian leadership owes some decent explanation to the public before jettisoning lock, stock and barrel the cornerstones of this country's post-independent foreign policy.
The irony is that non-violence in Libya becomes the rubric for militarisation of foreign policy. After referring Mr. Qadhafi to the ICC, shouldn't India sign the Rome Statute and become an ICC member-country? Ideally, we should also persuade Mr. Obama, who admires Gandhiji, to revoke his predecessor's decision to pull the U.S. out of the ICC. The 65 dead souls in Kunar deserve to get justice, too.
(The writer is a former diplomat.)
Keywords: Libya, Qadhafi, U.S. President, Barack Obama, Gandhian legacy, political crisis, political turmoil, U.S.-Libya ties, international relations, International Criminal Court
In aligning with the Non-align movement India had a principled and moral foreign policy. Looks like Indian foreign policy has shifted to self-interest as the new mantra for its decisions. Imperialism can be substituted with self-interest today. Gandhi and other freedom fighters will turn in their grave.
The issue of the Soviet Union's sins is an irrelevance from the perspective of the current Libyan turmoil. (And in any case, two wrongs do not cancel each other out.) If anyone, it is the US/UK combine that is most likely to jump into the fray (imposing a no-fly zone, for instance) with or without UN approval. It is therefore their past actions vis-a-vis oil-rich lands that are pertinent. They speak loud and clear.
For once let us stand up and be counted. Let us have the courage to do what is right. Qadhafi is no saint. And if does serve our interest, even better... then surely lets go ahead. Its people like this author who have kept India from moving forward.
The thing that India needs to realize is that stable oil supplies are vital to the functioning of the world. If India does not want to be a part of the intervention, then it should be also not be striking if oil prices go up and the government is unable to subsidize their fuel due to the enormous cost.
US is trying their luck in fishing in the troubles waters, though I cannot completely agree with the author. I don't think a foreign invasion in Libya is a good idea. Being the world's biggest democratic nation, India cannot be silent. Of course we need to take a stand. But I don't think that stand is to support the foreign invasion in Libya. I would rather think what German foreign minister said is more of an acceptable kind.
I am not convinced that the presence of Indian warships in the Mediterranean is especially indicative of a covert NATO-India alliance. However, if this were indeed the case it is a terrible cause for concern since one simply cannot trust the Western powers. There's duplicity and then there's Western duplicity. Any interactions with them, military relationships in particular, must be done with much care and foresight. We ought to follow a judicious path towards fulfilling our self-interests as appropriate in all our foreign policy decisions, but we cannot abrogate our general non-alliance position with an independent decision-making process.
From non-biased policy to USA allied policy! Dangerous shift in policy.
The author's machinations seems to be unconvincing and premature to say the least. How could Gandhian legacy be connected to Non-alignment which was Nehru's concept. Even Nehru, while proposing no-alighment, was a Soviet sympathiser, a state which repressed its own people and has not offered any freedoms that The west had given its own people. The author seems to be linking the states (Iraq and Afghanistan) where state structures have completely collapsed to the state like Libya where it is a people's movement. Even if US intervened, the people revolution will not let US dominate the State. People will eventually bring about a democracy and lead their own state, rather than like Afghanistan where no culture of democracy or people's movement exist. There is only tribal loyalties not national struggle. US or the west in general can only impose their own solutions in states which are even more barbaric like Afghanistan or Iraq under Saddam or Gaddafi of Libya. Perhaps the Soviet sympathy of author devoids him from seeing reason in this case.
Its quite disturbing to see so many comments urging that 'National Interests' and not any notions of justice or fairness that should drive all our policies and actions. Please do not ignore that the position US finds itself in today and most of the problems created by it are as result of this "I-dont-care-about-the-world-till-my-house-has-wood-and-fire" policy...
In point of fact, Obama is not the villain as the author makes him out to be but Gadaffi and all the other tin-pot dictators and autocrats ruling West Asia and elsewhere. He opposed the Iraqi invasion by Bush when he was Senator. He has resisted right wing ideologists in the US in ordering withdrawal in Iraq and a time-bound transition in Afghanistan. He has resisted interfering in Egypt and Libya and also refrained from supporting the opposition movement in Iran after the sham elections held there two years ago. I would refer the author to the speech that he gave in Egypt two years ago, where he advocated greater openness, opportunities for youth, education and freedom of assembly in West Asian states. I tend to feel that the author is still caught in the old and defunct Cold War politics and he seems to have nostalgic feelings towards the erstwhile Soviet system. India has finally moved on towards a pragmatic policy advancing its self-interest while at the same time holding dear to democratic ideals.
In any war, one has to chose a side and fight for it. The tough decision is not to about fighting, but to chose the right side. India has chosen the right ride this time and it has shown some spine too. You can always chose to be the bystander and just watch the fight. But bystanders never become the victors. Does India want to a bystander of History or does it want to become a victor?Long time ago, Nehru chose the wrong side for India when he sided with the USSR. At least the current leaders are selecting the side which represents liberty and justice.
Opposing a strategy just because it was also adopted by US is equally asinine as being in lockstep with a US policy, or any policy for that matter. One could even go so far as to argue that the policy that has been thoroughly vetted, arguably, by one of the leaders of the free world will probably has some merits – this argument notwithstanding, if a policy is in our national interest, we should pursue it and not be apologetic about it, either.I am going to give the benefit of doubt here to the author that the point he is making is that the policy makers of our county need to do a better job at educating the populace about their intentions; although this point is not conspicuous.
The author, no doubt would have made an excellent speech writer to Mr Qaddafi. His treatise that UNSC sanctions are enough to control the situation may actually be favored as a good bargain by even Mr Qaddafi. Perhaps it will better if hundreds of Libyans die each day, rather than having the accursed US step in. International community should perhaps should heed the wise consul of Iran and China, the two countries already feeling the heat of West Asian turmoil.
IT is difficult to decide whether to support US or not now.The policies of US has been ambiguous on their face value.The intention seems to take advantage of the situation. After the initial humanitarian concern The US has always done violent act like bombing on civilian areas.Do these acts not call for ban by UN Human Rights Commission.
The author is mixing up principle and strategy. One should be divorced from the other, when dealing with live issues that affect internationall community.
I partially agree with Mr. Bhadrakumar, in the sense that a foriegn military intervention in Libya would be counterproductive. Having seen the actions and consequences of USA in Iraq and Afghanistan, one would be highly suspicious of American enthusiasm for military intervention in Libya, in the name of justice. But at the same time India cannot oppose such a move, as the author expects it to, as India aspires to a permanant Secutrity Council seat. It will take another 20 years for Indian foreign policy to mature and take some concrete stand of its own.
Those who support the USA to take military action against Libya should open the eyes and watch what is the practical role of UN security council in maitaining the world peace or spreading world aggression under the leadership of USA? ... It was in accordance to the resolutions of UN Security council that Saddam Hussein was forced to be disarmed to the position of a begger. Once UNO disarms a country whose responsibility do you think it becomes to protect that country from outside aggression? Iraq invasion was a clear betrayel of UNO. Moreover what is UNO? US puppet! ... Those who talk about democracy first of all must note that UNO is not a democratic body. First abolish the dictatorial power VETO of permanant members and make it democratic and then talk about the democracy in the world. ... Role of India in the world politics is shameful. Who talks about the policy? Please, please stop it. Are there any policies in indian politics at all? Our great PM the clean most person in indian politics is just a pet dog in the hands of his masters. Bad luck of poor indian masses, this dog is faithfull to a handful of masters only including the international ones and knows only to wave his tail to please them. Indians should not forget that if countries like india would support Libyan invasion, who will be next for the US to capture? Iran and then Pakistan. What will be the position of India then? On one side great foe of India, China and on the other side US. Future of India will be shining off course high in the sky!
While the author if off-base on most counts regarding India's actions surrounding the Libya situation, he does have an overarching validity in his request for public discourse of a sharp policy change towards alignment with NATO and thereby the Western Imperial military establishment. It is likely in India's best interests to continue this integration with the Western ideologies, but not at the expense of keeping India's intellectuals and policy thinkers in the dark. As Indian citizens, we have a right to demand a thorough debate in the esteemed houses of parliament to evolve a consensus to carry Indian foreign policy forward for the coming decades.
This is the typical rancour of an outdated mindset, which is still obsessed with anti-Americanism. But India can't afford to live in the confinement of the past. Its diplomacy must be able to address the changing global realities and its own emerging global status. As always been said, diplomacy must be a projection of ones national interests. What is happening now in the Middle East is an Arab renaissance. The new generation Arabs, first time in the history are rejecting the old feudal systems. Despotisms, supported by tribal loyalties and soaked in religious fervours are falling down. The Arab youth are embracing the universal values of social justice, human rights and democracy. India as a prominent democratic nation can't be completely aloof to this momentous situation, nor we can stand on the wrong side of the history. If we can test our blue water naval capabilities in the rescue operation as we have done in the anti-piracy action off Somali coast, that's good. India can't treat US or Europe as an untouchable in its diplomatic conduct anymore. It is an outdated remnant of cold war mindset. India has to make its stand clear that we stand with peoples when despotism crumbles in its own weight. It is a very positive development for the world peace. In one stroke it has almost deleted the violent Islamism and its self-defeating politics from Middle East.
For all those who think we should join USA in alliance. ask any of the fellow allies of US and you can find a lot of bullying. Allying with US is like being a cow tied to a bean pole. You are very free within a region and not allowed after that. Don't believe me - read this http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-india-should-have-permanent-seat-un-security-council_515223.html. 'Weekly standard and heritage' are the bastion of the conservatives/republicans/GOP- bush's party. In the above link UK should be substituted as lackey. example. the nuclear installations of UK were shared with Russia without even asking UK and UK couldn't even protest. source wikileaks.
I fully agree with the writer. It touches everything and leaves the reader with his own decission. He is fair in pointing out western rhetoric against Libya. The same Mr. Obama did not wail when Mubarak was punishing the protesters in Egypt. His long silence on the issue is deplorable. To all who said the article to be anti-US and anti-West need to learn more about the crimes done by US and NATO. Iraq was destroyed and the entire population was plunged into misery, death and destruction. Not hundred but thousands were killed by US and its allies. Same is the case with Afghanistan. All 63 killed in Kunar are the victims of opression and gread. Every regime in West and every partner of NATO is having blood of innocents. The last thing which is the essence that India has started itself aligning with the US is the fact nothing else. Growing interest of US in India and increasing cooperation of India with US are the manifestations of the same. But this seriously undermines our Non Align Movement role. We are steadily but surely moving ourselves towards imperial states which bothers me a lot.
I would suggest author to think about national interest rather than presenting his own philosophy. To support US in current case is in national interest and correct on human right ground. Decisions taken in national interest should not be justified on someones moral philosophy.
I agree with Amaruvi Devanathan.
India's strategy is 'better to hedge it's bets' by avoiding any direct or indirect remark on Libya's internal affairs. And i find this strategy as a win-win strategy since making any remark or justifying any opinion,domestic or international will implicitly conclude, our inclination, that can have catastrophic consequence in this charged atmosphere.
I am agree with the writer. Double standards are the main cause of many problems in the internal and international society. I think double standard means injustice. kiliing innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq is also a war crime.
Isn't it also true that even USA has moved on with "exploring options" against Libya once most of their own people were evacuated from Libya. Why is our government so ignorant then?.
The very title of this article is quite misleading ; wonder what "Gandhian Legacy" has to do with the all too fashionable U.S. baiting. The "corner stones" of India's Foreign Policy that the author is referring to - were formed in a world order that has long ceased to exist. It is wrong to conclude that if India takes a stand that is in alignment with that of the U.S.A. , then it is only because of arm twisting by the U.S.A. India is no longer an internationally insignificant Third World Country that can be bullied by big powers. In fact , India is an emerging world Power. Indo-U.S relation needs to be viewed in the context of the new Global order of the 21st Century and not through and ideologically prejudiced anti-U.S. sentiments.
This decision to send warships to the gulf, only illustrates the UPA Government's utter disregard for the lives of Indians in Libya, the same way the budget has tried to ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
We had never sided with the oppressed. we supported the oppressor when the Tamils of Sri Lanka were oppressed, making them take to arms. Even then we did not leave them. We sided against the Tamils till they were defeated leaving them to live the life of slaves, as they now do. Probably people like Bhadrakumar were in charge of india's policy. He still wants the Libyan people to live under Gadaffi. Other arguments are just salvaged in support of the final aim.
How many wars can USA wage at a time ? Probably only Roman Empire has fought more wars in the pursuit of 'justice'.
So finally India has made one more excuse to mark it's signature in Mediterranean sea. But the kind of decision MEA has made is full of criticism - India is sending it's warships to evacuate it's nationals but irony is that they will be reaching there by mid march which means 15 days more suffering for Indians there.China evacuated it's nationals almost 11000 more than ours very swiftly unlike to that of India with the help of commercial ships rather than destroyers. Mrs. Nirupama Roa's argument that we are not competing with China in evacuation process is a bluff to Indian community; it itself reveals the capabilities of China viz-a-viz India at least in decision making.Rationality should prevail in decision making rather than strategic interests at least when the life of our nationals is in question.
What does US of A want - better future for its allies or the people of Libya. Well it seems to be tilted towards its allies. That's not unreasonable, but how it wants it, is! Italy which is highly dependent on Libya's natural resources and above all ISRAEL, with democratic uprising in Arab, it fears that its misdeeds will come into open and it will be secluded, and its closest ally US of A is their to find some way to hide it. Bomb Libya.. create a camouflage democratic government and then rule over its vast natural resources. It is the way the US of A works but what happened to our very own country, its Panchsheel principles and Non-Alignment vows? I fear that India is going towards creating a bipolar world, without examining its future consequences.
I totally disagree with the views of the author. It has become fashionable nowadays to be counted on the side of the group that keeps opposing the US in one way or the other.When Europe can act in its own interest, why not India too do so in its own interest ? In such matters, what is best for a country is to act in its own interest. In the current world, India stands to gain by aligning with the world's only superpower. By its NAM policies, policy of supporting the PLO and not recognizing Israel, what did India achieve ? Did the OIC countries support India against Pakistan ? Did they supply oil at subsidized rates ? India was listed as a 'pariah' by the west and there was this technological sanctions. Result - all the projects of ISRO and DRDo were delayed, the latest being the LCA that is 30 years behind schedule. So, what did India achieve by its so called 'moral' stand? Therefore, instead of pontificating to the world on the values of democracy and what not, please allow India to be pragmatic and practical so that the larger interests of India are safeguarded. And Qadhafi is no Gandhi that he should not be overthrown!
Typical anti-western, anti USA sentiments camouflaged as human rights concerns and abuse allegations. Nothing objective in this article other than throw hate mongering smoke.
Mr Bhadrakumar's article almost makes Kaddafi the wounded party and an angel of sorts. Rhetorical questions, conjectures, heavy dose of self-righteousness and bias fills the article. He talks of American mis-adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq -- one cannot find fault with his anger and dismay on these. However, what is galling is he cleverly avoids stating that from the very first day of the Kaddafi regime, Libya (like Syria and Yemen) were client states of the erstwhile Soviet Union and then Russia and this was the main reason that Libya never let grow democratic ideals and institutions. Also, he avoids stating that the Soviet Union's invasion and occupation of Afghanistan for a decade left one million Afghans dead -- words like ethnic cleansing, imperialist hegemony, clash of cultures etc are curiously never used to describe the Soviet massacre. The author may care to ponder over the fact that religious extremism and terrorism emanated in full fury during that dreadful decade and now engulf the whole world. Perhaps the "well-known Russian academician and former Prime Minister Evgeniy Primakov" are preaching to the west and the UN on the basis of his country's credentials. It is tempting to think that Mr. Bhadrakumar may wish to ponder on the genesis of today's morass.
The author's hyperventilation notwithstanding, taking an enhanced role in patrolling energy supply routes is well within the role India desires to play in the future. The Indian people have now learned that foreign policy should pursue only enlightened self-interest and that non-alignment is dead although former diplomats who built careers might be loath to admit it. If the author wishes to make a case against any policy decision, he should make it through the prism of our national interest for it to be convincing.
Please Email the Editor