Title:
'Axis of evil': India's foreign policy runs into a thicket
Author:
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
Publication: Tahelka
Date: Mar
16, 2002
URL: http://www.tehelka.com/channels/currentaffairs/2002/mar/16/ca031602india.htm
Even though India is a part of the US-led war against terrorism, it can hardly side with President George W Bush against his "axis of evil" countries, Iran and Iraq, with whom India has longstanding relations, says Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
New Delhi, March 16
For the first time since
9/11, India's foreign policy has run into a thicket. US President George W Bush
had spoken of the "axis of evil" to extend the war against terrorism:
in the axis are included Iran and Iraq, the two countries with whom India is
closely related, for geopolitical and geoeconomic reasons.
The Rightwing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the dominant partner in the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA) government, with its unabashedly pro-US and
pro-Israeli tilt, finds it difficult to overlook the geopolitical imperatives.
Both Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Minister for External Affairs
Jaswant Singh recognise these compulsions, and they have been forced to keep to
the traditional foreign policy line.
This is quite evident from the fact that India has strengthened its economic and
political relations with Iran during Vajpayee's visit to Iran in the summer of
2001. It is Iran that provides India the strategic access to Central Asia,
especially through the trilateral India-Iran-Turkmenistan agreement.
Similarly, India-Iraq relations remain as close as ever. A high-level Indian
Parliamentary delegation to Iraq, led by Rajya Sabha deputy chairperson Najma
Heptullah, has expressed its sympathy for the plight of the Iraqi people reeling
under the United Nations' sanctions.
This puts India in an embarrassing position. Ministry of external affairs (MEA)
officials concede that India is not in a position to air differences with the
Americans, now that it is part of the US-led global alliance against terrorism,
but that it continues to make its point in behind-the-doors meetings at various
levels.
India has so far maintained a conspicuous silence over Bush's "axis of
evil" speech, as well as Washington's brazen declaration of its
"topple Saddam" plan. MEA spokesperson Nirupama Rao recently
emphasised that the change of regime in Iraq is an issue that the people of Iraq
should decide, and that the focus of the world should be on the sufferings of
the Iraqi people.
There is a similar fissure between India and the United Kingdom over Zimbabwe's
infamous President Robert Mugabe. British Prime Minister Tony Blair took a firm
stand that Zimbabwe should be suspended from the Commonwealth for Mugabe's
dictatorial policies towards his political opponents as well white farmers.
Blair received unstinting support from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. But
all the African countries, led by South Africa, stood with the Zimbabwean
dictator.
The BJP, with its antisocialist leanings, should have cosied up to Blair against
Mugabe. But Vajpayee and Singh found that it could not be done, and that India
cannot take an anti-Third World stance. Although India did not fully support
Mugabe, as did the other African states, it would not travel with Britain
either.
MEA's Rao said that the issue of the white farmers was a complex one and could
not be brushed aside, which in effect is a clear disapproval of Britain's
support to the farmers.
Vajpayee and Singh find that they cannot speak out against Mugabe's dictatorial
ways, and that there is no getting away from the old kind of Third World
solidarity.
India, then, is as badly placed as ever, caught between two worlds. Although the
BJP leaders want India to be a member of the "Big Powers club", they
find that there is as yet no door in, and that India has to continue to play its
traditional role of a leader of Third World nations.