Mainstream Weekly

Boycott Will Only Isolate The West

Reshmi Kazi — 2009-05-18T11:07:58Z

The walkout of European diplomats following the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the United Nations conference in Geneva disparaging Israel was a puerile act. The United States, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Israel and Australia had announced months earlier to boycott the gathering anticipating Iranian malevolence towards Israel. The high-level delegates' decision to boycott the conference while the Iranian leader was delivering his speech is in contradiction with the very essence of the role expected to be played by high-level diplomats. Modern diplomacy is premised on the cardinal principles of application of tact and intelligence to create a cordial climate in which specific policy issues can prosper. The intolerance displayed by the diplomats from 23 European nations negates the fundamental values of modern diplomacy.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his speech at the UN conference on combating racism accused Israel to be a “paragon of racism” built on “the pretext of Jewish sufferings” following the Second World War. He expressed doubt on the question of Holocaust calling it “ambiguous and dubious”. He accused the Permanent-5 countries of “violat[ing] all laws and humanitarian values” by resorting to “military aggression” and then “sent migrants from Europe, the US and other parts of the world, to set up a totally racist government in occupied Palestine”.

President Ahmadinejad's peroration is harsh. However, there is an element of grievance involved in it. The policies followed by the Western nations have been offensive. The racist policies followed by the British over India for two centuries left the country politically and geographically debilitated. The policy of slavery followed by the colonial powers puts the western powers to shame. In recent times, the Western model of economic liberalism has plunged the world community into a global recession that has left many unemployed. The French President is known for his anti-Muslim sentiments and has questioned the entry of Turkey—a Muslim state, into the European Union. The Polish President, Lech Kazynski, is known for his gay-hating tirade. Hence, Ahmadinejad is not just the only leader to have indulged in harsh rhetoric. If the Iranian President deserves ridicule and boycott, then the records of the Western powers render them ineligible to be part of any civilised gathering and world.

Ahmadinejad's remarks are undoubtedly not appreciable and some of his assertions are certainly debatable. But a boycott of the conference by the Western diplomats is not an acceptable solution in a civilised world. No productive discussion can take place without continuous communication, dialogue and negotiation. The British ambassador to the UN conference, Peter Gooderham, stated: “As soon as President Ahmadinejad started talking about Israel that was the cue for us to walk out.” A walkout from contentious issues does not generate an intellectual climate for ironing out differences. There are legitimate grievances of Iran against Israel over the issue of Palestine that deserve a suitable hearing from conference members before arriving at any pre-judged conclusions. The behaviour of the Western diplomats has further sowed resentment among Iran and like-minded supporters. It signals intolerance of the Western powers towards hearing out the grievances of sovereign states. It also reflects on the discriminatory policies of the Western powers who will grant the right to freedom of speech only to those who agree with the views of the West.

Parroting the Western powers should not be the acceptable standard in the civilised world community. There has to be room for difference. Nor is it pragmatic for the Western powers and their diplomats to walk out whenever those who disagree with them start speaking. The isolationist policies followed by the US resulted in the failure of the League of Nations and the consequent outcome was the World War II. The Obama Administration's decision to refrain from sending its delegate to the UN gathering is regrettable. At a time, when Iran's nuclear weapons programme is assuming a realistic proportion, President Obama's move was not a reassuring gesture of diplomacy to the Iranians. Obama's decision also sends a confrontationist message that does not go well with the Muslim world.

Disagreements are a common aspect of the modern-day world order. It is healthy to disagree because disagreements provide space for negotiations and make it possible for the conduct of official relations between different governments. It is in this way that policy initiatives flourish. However, a mere denial of hearing and boycott of democratic gatherings is not the way out for resolution of disagreements. It is impossible to develop mutual understanding with countries like Iran and Palestine by refusing to listen to them. The Western world can establish relationships of peace, understanding and cooperation with other nations only if it begins to treat them with dignity. It is the crucial task of the diplomats to guide the world towards a rapprochement. Boycott will only isolate the West and alienate them from the rest of the world.

Dr Reshmi Kazi is working on disarmament and non-proliferation issues as an Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Voice of a Responsible Citizen

Reshmi Kazi — 2008-12-12T14:45:26Z

Yet another terrorist attack on November 26 has rocked the entire nation. The country's economic hub—Mumbai—was held hostage for over 62 hours leaving 195 dead and counting and injuring over 300 innocent people. Preliminary investigations reveal involvement of about 10-odd well-trained and well-equipped terrorists from across the western border in the blasts. The post-blast investigations will reveal several conspiracy theories. Some will be politically motivated while some might be hypothetical queries left to further investigations. However, as a responsible citizen, it is imperative that I raise certain questions that have been plaguing me.

Reports indicate that the terrorists crossed 13 miles across the sea after being dropped by a mother ship, Kuber. The terrorists were carrying heavy weaponry like Kalashnikov assault rifles, AK-47, AK-56 principally, hand grenades and other ammunition. In addition, the terrorists were carrying other sophisticated equipments that helped them to set up a control room within the Taj and Trident hotels complete with communication facilities to coordinate the attacks. What intrigues one is this: how was it possible for these terrorists (who were very young people) to carry all these ammunitions, explosives and communication equipments safely in a small inflatable boat? These terrorists actually sneaked from the Arabian Sea and sailed past the naval headquarters and bombed the economic epicentre of India. This highly risky and perilous task was successfully accomplished by the terrorists without being detected by the coast guards and naval commandos. A terrible intelligence failure!

However, there could not have been greater intelligence failure than the fact that Mumbai's shores remain inadequately protected. The retired Vice Admiral, Arun Kumar Singh, writing in The Asian Age about six months ago, had warned that the next major terror attack within India “might come from the sea”. The commercial epicentre of India has been subjected to several blasts in the past. Mumbai's economic importance only makes it more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. In addition, there have been serial blasts ravaging the entire country of late. When such is the state of affairs, it is unpardonable to have lax security measures in place leading to the irreparable loss of innocent lives.

Reports indicate that the terrorists carrying ruck-sacks (full of ammunitions and explosives) on reaching the Mumbai shores late at night on November 25 were asked by the assistant supervisor at the Taj (going for his night-shift) who they were. The terrorists were at first belligerent, shouting back: “Tussle mut le.” Later one of them said: “Student hai.” To an unsuspecting person, the whole incident would appear to be a passing affair. After all, a group of eight young men carrying ruck-sacks would least appear to be dreaded terrorists with the potential to kill over 195 people and maiming several hundreds more. But these are dangerous times. It is important for everyone to contribute substantially to prevent any ill befalling upon the nation.

For the citizens to be more cautious and alert, the government of the day must adopt a pragmatic approach. Before enacting a certain play, the actors rehearse themselves again and again to deliver their roles perfectly on the final day. Similarly, it is also important that the government must generate awareness programmes among the common public so that they can be more sensitive and alert to anything that is worth suspecting. In the long run, it is the responsibility of both the government and the people to be more responsive and cautious in the prevailing troubled times.

Voicing out my concerns as a responsible citizen would remain unsatisfactory if a reference is not made to the politicians of the day. In the immediate aftermath of the traumatic loss to the Mumbaikers and other foreign nationals who had come to visit India, the least that the politicians could have done is to make a united appearance (both the PM and Leader of the Opposition) in Mumbai. It was a sorry sight to see only the Leader of the Opposition visiting Mumbai at this hour of grief. What was more appalling was that immediately after the arrival of some of the members of the Opposition party in Mumbai on November 27, they started playing the blame game against the UPA Government. The Manmohan Singh Government on its part entrusted the crucial responsibility of internal security to a Home Minister who has proved his incompetence in dealing with internal security several times in the recent past. It is high time that politicians rise above their petty political interests and their penchant for sacrificing innocent human lives at the altar of terror.

The media played a commendable role in presenting graphic details of the nation-seizing act of November 26. However, the media should be prudent while telecasting deatils. The comments made by actress Simi Garewal on a TV show that the “slums in Mumbai were seen sporting Pakistani flags” while the mayhem was continuing in the city and aired by a popular TV news channel were unfortunate. Airing such irresponsible comments could have only implied that residents of slums (primarily populated by Muslims) are supportive of terror tactics allegedly emanating from Pakistan. At a time when the entire nation is gripped by trauma and fierce anger, such comments could have driven the nation towards communal violence. That this did not happen is a reflection of the maturity of the public at large. Concurrently it was not proper on the part of the media not to acknowlege the journalist who got injured while covering the operation to free the Taj Hotel from terrorists. The media must be more ethical and responsible in its approach.

In the aftermath of the Mumbai blasts there has been a series of resignations—Union Home Minister, Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister of Maharashtra and the National Security Advisor (the last one not being accepted). However, resignations in the aftermath of a disaster (especially when fresh elections are around the corner) are not the accepted solution to fight terrorism. They are an insufficient response to a political crisis of such great magnitude. Alternatively, what need to be addressed are the deficiencies within India's security and enforcement capabilities. In addition, political promises made by politicians must be implemented in letter and spirit to avoid future comprehensive failure as in the case of the November 26 Mumbai blasts.

Much can be said about the intelligence agencies in the country. However, what is most important for the intelligence to note at this critical juncture is that the war on terror is ravaging the Pakistani sanctuaries housing terrorists. It is therefore quite rational a choice for militants to shift base to India which has notoriously porous borders. Further, the ongoing Mumbai terror attacks clearly demonstrate months of planning put in by the terrorists to hold the entire nation hostage psychologically. The intelligence must exercise extreme caution and gather critical inputs timely to prevent another major disaster. To strengthen the security establishment what is required is a homeland security agency with the most efficient combat team to fight a common threat. The existing security agency also needs to be overhauled to effectively neutralise any terror attempts.

In the recent Mumbai terror attacks, the terrorists have successfully accomplished their goal. A group of 10 young men have psychologically shattered the nerves of India by holding on for over 62 hours and soiling the image of a democratic India as an emerging economic power. Whether these terrorists are from Pakistan or terror elements from within the country is a matter that can be decided later. The need of the hour is to shrug off complacency and get united to combat terrorism.

Dr Reshmi Kazi is an Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

NSG Waiver : Hardball Diplomacy Needed

Reshmi Kazi — 2008-09-03T19:00:47Z

The crucial two-day meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) on August 21-22 to grant unconditional waiver to India to engage in global civilian nuclear commerce ended inconclusively. The draft waiver circulated by the United States after intense negotiations with India was not acceptable to the certain members of the NSG. The positive aspect of the whole deliberations is that the reservationists did not outrightly oppose India's bid to join the international community in civilian nuclear trade. This one development is a pointer to the fact that the outcome of the NSG special meeting is only a hitch that can be effectively overcome with some hardball diplomacy.

A central premise of the Indo-US civil nuclear cooperative initiative is the assumption that India holds a unique position to stake its claim for the nuclear deal. India is not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor has it signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and yet it seeks unconditional exemption from stringent export control rules regulating global nuclear commerce. This unprecedented move is bound to be encountered with stiff resistance. The Indo-US nuclear deal has created a storm because it presages a regime change in the non-proliferation world where the efficacy of the NPT has become increasingly questionable. The emerging challenges of nuclear proliferation prognosticate ominous situations for the international community which the ailing NPT, crafted four decades ago, is unable to effectively address. The Indo-US agreement acknowledges the real dangers and offers a historic opportunity to strengthen the ailing NPT.

The present state of proceedings in the NSG is hitched on the contention that granting waiver to India will constitute a blow to the non-proliferation regime and scuttle the global non-proliferation efforts of striving towards nuclear disarmament. They further apprehend that the nuclear deal will open the door for India to access enrichment and reprocessing (ENR) technology crucial for making the nuclear bomb. While it may be argued that India is self-sufficient in ENR technology, it is nonetheless primitive. It is not adequate to operate a 1000MW dedicated reprocessing plant that India proposes to build. At the same time, the NSG must understand that India cannot do without reprocessing rights. Reprocessing of spent fuel is critical in handling nuclear waste. Storing nuclear waste is not only costly but also environmentally hazardous and a potential target source for terrorist groups. Reprocessing technology, on the other hand, is cost-beneficial since it provides cheaper nuclear energy.

♦

INDIA must use some hard-nosed diplomacy to allay the concerns of the NSG that the Indo-US nuclear deal is not an attempt to expand its strategic nuclear domain. India's nuclear doctrine is premised on the cardinal principles of no-first-use and credible minimum deterrence that serves India's interests in the strategic domain at least in the near future substantially. As a pragmatic approach, India has refrained from any over-investment in the strategic arena since it could be counter-productive to meet its socio-economic objectives. India's faces enormous challenges in the economic sphere both at home and abroad. With China maintaining a steady double-digit growth rate for the last two decades, India faces substantial challenge in the Asia-Pacific region. India has already displayed a defensive posture with China over the disputed border issues. For India, to sustain the growth rates it has achieved so far, to meet the target of double digit economy rate, and to get leverage in the power game over Beijing, New Delhi cannot afford to over-indulge in the strategic domain. The Indian diplomats must convince the NSG members that the civil nuclear cooperation initiative is meant to serve larger foreign policy and security goals rather than subjecting it to an end itself.

On the issue of non-proliferation, India has a strong case to present before the 45-nation nuclear cartel. India has consistently maintained a pragmatic approach towards non-proliferation and disarmament. Apart from adhering to a clean non-proliferation track record, India has maintained its commitment to unilateral test moratorium declared in May 1998 in the nuclear pact. India has reiterated its commitment to cooperate for the successful completion of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). In May 2005, India passed the WMD Bill which is a comprehensive domestic export control law to guard against the transfer of dual-use technology to ineligible entities. India has over and again expressed its deep involvement with the safeguards regime and has agreed to place 14 out of its 22 reactors under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In September 2006, India signed the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and upheld the resolve of the global community to deny terrorists access to nuclear materials. India has emphasised on enhanced international cooperation between states in developing and implementing practical measures for prevention of nuclear terrorism and has expressed a keen desire to be a part of the Global Nuclear Threat Initiative Project. India has also remained a strong champion of nuclear disarmament and renewed its pledge in all international forums.

In a world with rapid spread of nuclear technology and materials, both overtly and covertly, a universal non-proliferation can hardly be achieved by excluding the states with advanced nuclear technology. The Asia Pacific Security Survey Report 2007 has prognosticated that nuclear proliferation will be an issue of concern for short and long-term particularly in South and East Asia. It becomes essential to have on board India with intrusive inspection system physically which can also monitor activities of “concern” in the region. To this extent, India has committed to harmonise its laws on export controls with those of the supplier countries. This will ensure that nuclear materials do not fall into wrong hands.

The Indo-US nuclear pact is pegged at a make- or-break stage. As a partner to the deal, a fair amount of diplomacy must be initiated by the United States as well. In view of its commitment in the July 18, 2005 Agreement, Washington must work with friends and allies to adjust international regimes to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India. The US has enormous responsibility to make the NSG members believe that the nuclear deal is not just a bilateral agreement. It is a multilateral approach that provides a net benefit to the international comity of nations by strengthening the non-proliferation goals. The US and India now have to fine-tune certain aspects of the draft waiver; it must not be secured by extracting further commitments from India or diluting the scope of the agreement which was not part of the bargain. The US has the ability to power a change in the existing discriminatory rules of nuclear commerce. Washington must employ tact and aggressive diplomacy to secure an unconditional waiver from the NSG. To this extent, the US must deploy officers of at least Secretary rank to convince the NSG capitals instead of the low level officers as deputed earlier. The US must lobby more aggressively for a clean and unconditional waiver as sought by India.

As for the NSG, it must recognise that India is already a state with nuclear weapons and a responsible non-proliferation record. Incidentally, all the founding members of the NSG (the US, Russia, France, Britain, Germany, Japan and Canada) acknowledge India's status and believe that it can effectively contribute to strengthening the non-proliferation regime. The naysayers primarily include Austria, Switzerland, Norway, the Netherlands and Ireland. They contend that the NSG rules cannot be relaxed for India since it is not a member to the NPT and CTBT. They argue that any exception for India might set a bad precedent for other countries and weaken the NPT regime. The 45- nation nuclear cartel must understand that India will never accede to the NPT which it believes to be symbolic of nuclear apartheid between nuclear haves and have-nots. Even though India is not a signatory to the NPT, it has adhered to the principles of the treaty. Further, India has maintained a responsible and restrained position on its nuclear and dual-use export policies. Recognising India's credible record, the supporting members must convince the naysayers that it will contribute very little by upholding a 40-year ailing NPT to effectively strengthen the non-proliferation regime. The naysayers must adopt a pragmatic approach and not let go of this historic opportunity.

The need of the hour is some hardball diplomacy by India, the US and the NSG members. The fact that the NSG members have scheduled to meet again on September 4-5 to take a final decision on India's case portends some hope for the nuclear deal. For India, the choice is clear: India cannot accept any arbitrary limits on the draft waiver, nor will it give in to any prescriptive or post-facto conditions. An unacceptable waiver will force India to walk away from the nuclear deal. There will be no Separation Plan, no Additional Protocol and India will continue with her strategic programme as before. To sustain her energy requirements and growth rates, India will pursue its goals by burning coal if that is required; that will be a loss not only to the US and NSG but to the entire global community.

Dr Reshmi Kazi is an Associate Fellow, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.