Round The World

New Delhi, 9 March 2010

Rao’s Lanka Visit

TIMELY, LENDS A HAND 

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

It has been stated more than often that it is much more difficult to win peace than a war, more so to sustain peace. This statement is truer every time it is made. As the neighboring island nation of Sri Lanka walks, stumbles and walks towards a political solution and reconciliation, India can use its good offices and diplomatic sources to help the Colombo government. It can help the Rajapaksa administration in walking that extra mile to resolve the grievances of the ethnic Tamil minority and usher in a new Sri Lanka that would not sow the seeds of a new Prabhakaran and a new LTTE help again.

Though President Mahinda Rajapkasa came back to power in a very controversial presidential election early this year, the Manmohan Singh administration has taken the right diplomatic step in recognizing his administration as the legitimate decision-maker on whose shoulder the future of the fragile nation lies. Validating the presidency of Rajapaksa puts him in the centre of the reconciliation process and the onus is now on him to deliver on the promises he had made. In this context, the recent visit of the Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao came at an opportune time, when India’s diplomatic stance and material assistance were made known to the nation, grappling with the regeneration of the Tamil-populated regions.  

The international community raised serious questions on how the Rajapaksa administration handled the offensive against the LTTE. Now, it sets its eyes on how the President goes about the resettlement of the displaced Tamils and delivers on his electoral mandate of bringing about a unified Sri Lanka. The poll statistics during the presidential election did not really reflect any favorable change of Tamil attitude towards the Rajapaksa administration. The ethnic divide looked more emphasized and the opinions fractured and cynical.

The symptoms of the disease that the new administration has to grapple with are right there for all to see in the form of the mandate provided to the new government. The challenger General Fonseka won in the north and the east, largely dominated by the Tamils and Tamil-speaking Muslims. As such, the challenges in front of the president, whose popularity among the Sinhalese is undoubted, is immense.

At this juncture, the international community will also take note of the diplomatic signals sent out by the Indian government, concerning the Sri Lankan peace process. Nirupama Rao’s visit was meant to hold discussions with her counterpart on a wide range of issues of mutual interest and to assess as to how New Delhi can assist in their efforts to bring stability and re-instill confidence in the ethnic minority. Her visit also assumes significance keeping in view that she has been closely acquainted with the island nation, having served as the High Commissioner for India in Sri Lanka from 2004-2006.

The Sri Lankans are indeed at a critical juncture of their history. After being ravaged by civil wars for years, cutting short any chances of reintegration and regeneration of the society as a whole, they have a second chance and should be a step ahead of the situation. After the end of the storm, they have a unique opportunity to rebuild the society and assuage the grievances and misunderstanding that gave birth to the storm in the first place.

Congratulating Rajapkasa on his electoral victory, Rao welcomed the relaxation of movement restrictions on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), and also expressed the hope that the resettlement process could be expedited, especially in Killinochchi and Mullaithivu, so that the IDPs could resume normal lives in their original places of habitation. President Rajapaksa had mentioned that around 70,000 IDPs remained in the camps, many of their own volition.

Rao also commented favourably on the prospect of the forthcoming general election in Sri Lanka. India’s assistance towards rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Northern and Eastern Sri Lanka and for the resettlement of the IDPs was highly appreciated, particularly the extension of US$ 425 million as Lines of Credit for railway projects in Northern Sri Lanka.

According to the Ministry of External Affairs, the importance of the October 2008 Joint Statement of Fishing Arrangements was reiterated and it was agreed to convene a meeting of the Joint Working Group on Fishing to discuss issues related to fishermen on both sides. Rao also announced New Delhi’s support for housing projects to be taken up in the Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu districts for the benefit of the IDPs and its decision to supply 55 buses for various educational, social and cultural organizations and locally elected bodies in northern, eastern and central Sri Lanka, to facilitate transportation and connectivity.

Various joint projects in the important areas of cultural engagement and shared cultural heritage were announced including the setting up of the International Buddhist Museum in the Dalada Maligawa Complex and the restoration of the famous Thiruketheshwaram Temple in Mannar. A onetime grant of Indian Rs. 15 million was announced to the corpus of the India-Sri Lanka Foundation engaged in crucial areas of art, culture, education, human resource development, training, etc.

The Foreign Secretary also inaugurated the Sri Lanka-India Centre for English Language Training in Peradeniya, Kandy. The Centre has been set up with the assistance of the Government of India in collaboration with the well-known English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad and is meant to support the Sri Lankan Presidential Initiative for English as a life skill.

New Delhi also intends to open a Consulate General in Jaffna and the Government of Sri Lanka has agreed to the proposal. While Sri Lanka has three consulate offices - Chennai, Mumbai and Kolkata, India has only one consulate office located in Kandy. According to officials the modalities on setting up of the Jaffna Consulate are to be worked out and the basic objective behind the move is to cater to the needs of the people of the peninsula. “It would help India strengthen the cultural links between the Northern Province in Sri Lanka and Tamil Nadu besides making it easier for the people to obtain visa to travel to India”, a senior official said.

Rao was successful in communicating India’s concern for the critical yet hopeful situation in neighbouring Sri Lanka. She made it known to Colombo that New Delhi’s assistance towards the reconstruction and rehabilitation process would always be forthcoming. India’s symbolic gestures, diplomatic assistance and material support assume equal importance in its policy towards the island nation.

Indian policy towards the Sri Lankan situation should serve as a reminder of New Delhi’s non-aggressive nature of policy-making towards smaller countries in the South Asian region and beyond. As a result of India’s overwhelming cultural, geographical and economic presence in the region, the ‘big brother syndrome’ to a large extent affects how smaller nations look at its policies. As such, India should do the extra bit to allay fears and suspicions on the part of these countries.--- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 3 March 2010

PM’s Saudi Visit

EXPANDING HORIZONS, OILING TIES

By Monish Tourangbam,

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

The recent three-day visit by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the oil-rich kingdom of Saudi Arabia can be assessed as a pragmatic step towards cementing international partnerships. The visit assumes importance in view of the developing situation in Afghanistan and the emerging dynamics in the trajectory of India-Pakistan relations. Singh’s visit is geared towards putting an end to speculation that the relations with the West Asian kingdom have been kept in the cold-storage. Singh resumed the State visit by becoming the third Prime Minister to visit Saudi Arabia since Jawaharlal Nehru in 1955 and India Gandhi in 1982. A rapidly growing economy like India accords much importance to this relationship in terms of the dividends that it will help bring to meet the country’s energy consumption.

The red-carpet that rolled out in honour of the Singh is symptomatic of the kind of relationship that the oil-rich kingdom wants to work on with India. The ties are mutual for if India needs Saudi Arabia to meets its energy consumption, the former too assumes importance in view of the its enviable market and the expertise that it can provide on various developmental fronts. One of the highpoints of the visit was the signing of the Riyadh Declaration between Singh and Saudi King Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz. The declaration aims to cement ties and to raise bilateral cooperation to a strategic partnership covering security, economic, defence and political areas.

The occasion served the purpose of reviewing the status of implementation of the historic Delhi Declaration signed in 2006 during the significant visit of the Saudi king as the chief guest on the Republic Day celebrations. The one-day visit of Saudi foreign minister Prince Saud Al Faisal in December 2008 to convey his country’s  condemnation of the terror attack in Mumbai was a welcome gesture that should not be ignored.

In the post Cold-War scenario, power dynamics has been changing significantly in the international system and different regions around the world. As such, many countries including India and Saudi Arabia got engaged with coming to terms with the changed environment. But, the post-Cold War period also ushered in the liberalization of the Indian economy, leading to a changed perspective as far as investment opportunities in the country were concerned. Its rapid growth as one of the most important economies and markets in the world has inevitably brought in new needs and emerging opportunities.

A pragmatic and well-oiled relationship with Saudi Arabia assumes importance from the strategic, economic as well as the cultural point of view. Despite being a Hindu-majority state, India is home to a sizeable Muslim minority. The Saudi king being the custodian of the two Holy Mosques (Al-Masjid al-Ḥarām of Mecca and Al-Masjid al-Nabawi of Medina) attains a revered position in the Islamic world. Moreover, India in the present international system while diversifying its energy sources needs to cement its linkages with its traditional suppliers. In this context, ties with Saudi Arabia, the biggest oil exporter of the world cannot be jeopardized.

Thus, the recent visit by the Prime Minister has successfully managed to emphasize the importance to keep the channels of communication active with frequent visits of dignitaries. The camaraderie shared between the leaders from both the sides provides a perfect springboard for taking the relations to the next strategic level. The kingdom of Saudi Arabia is the biggest crude oil supplier to India and efforts are targeted to taking the ties beyond the buyer-seller relationship to what is being termed as comprehensive energy partnership.

According to sources, Saudi Arabia agreed to raise the crude supply to India from 25.5 million tonnes a year to 40 million tones. Addressing the Council of Saudi Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Singh had commented that Indian companies were well-equipped to participate in the upstream and downstream oil and gas sector projects in Saudi Arabia and focused on the need for new partnerships in the area of new and renewable energy, sharing clean technologies and joint collaboration.

India-Saudi Arabia bilateral trade reached almost $25 billion in 2008-09 and Indian investments there now stand at more than $2 billion covering over 500 joint ventures. RITES, a Government of India Enterprise, has also won a contract to participate in the North-South Railway project, an ambitious plan to connect some of the most inhospitable terrain in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia’s national oil company) is reportedly setting up a procurement office in India worth an estimated $400 million. India reportedly is seeking to increase supply for three refinery projects at Paradip, Bhatinda and Bina.

The three new plants -- Indian Oil Corp.’s Paradip refinery in the eastern State of Orissa, Hindustan Petroleum Corp.’s unit at Bhatinda in northern Punjab and Bharat Petroleum Corp.’s Bina plant in central Madhya Pradesh -- will increase India’s refining capacity of 178 million tonnes a year by almost 20 per cent by the end of 2012. Saudi Arabia, also home to around 1.8 million Indian workforce provides huge foreign remittances.

New Delhi has also spoken of its willingness to share its expertise in the area of knowledge-based industries and human resource development. Indicative of the emphasis put on diversifying bilateral ties beyond the oil-sector, various agreements were signed in the areas of extradition, transfer of sentenced prisoners, scientific and technological cooperation, peaceful use of outer space, information sharing and Press exchanges, information technology, cultural exchange and advanced computing services.

Apart from the economics of the visit, the importance accorded to each other by the two countries should assume significance in view of the strategic and security challenges faced by India in the region. The close connection between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is unquestionable and the kingdom also has stake in the developing scenario in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Evolving situations in the region demands efforts from New Delhi to extend its linkages and cement existing ties with friendly countries such as  Saudi Arabia. The recent attacks in Afghanistan have raised serious questions over the safety of Indians engaged in reconstruction and relief efforts in the war-country. A pattern is developing where India is increasingly being targeted for the contribution to the Afghan reconstruction, while talks of reconciling the illusionary “Good Taliban” are being flouted.

Further, India-Pakistan talks are at a crucial stage after a lull post the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. The talks might have not have achieved much in concrete terms but the fact that the two sides could sit and negotiate over the table after more than a year is an initiation to be built upon. In the context of these engagements and developments in the region, India-Saudi Arabia relations need to be given importance and the recent visit, even if late, has come at an opportune time. India, in its present position, needs to expand its horizon of engagements and work on the shared interest with different countries to develop long-term mutuality of purpose and avoid ad-hoc policies.—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

.

Round The World

New Delhi, 23 February 2010

Dalai Lama’s Visit

US-CHINA TIES UNAFFECTED

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

Recently, there have been more than adequate media spotlight on the strained relationship between the United States and China. The two countries have been sparring on various issues, ranging from internet censorship, human rights, US arms sale to Taiwan and over the contentious issue of currency rates. President’s Barack Obama’s visit to Beijing last year created much bonhomie, giving some sleepless nights to Indian strategic circles. But the difference of perspectives and policy that surround Sino-American relations are here to stay.

Apart from the aforementioned issues, the US and China have serious differences over the diffusion of the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issue. Now, add to this the US President’s recent meeting with the Tibetan exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama and we have a picture-perfect recipe highlighting the cracks widening in US-China relations.

Though America does not refute that Tibet is a part of China, it nevertheless supports the integrity and ethos of the non-violent and pro-democracy struggle being led by the Dalai Lama. But, the Chinese government on the other hand, sees the Dalai Lama, as a trouble-maker and a separatist leader ought to negate China’s sovereignty and split its unity. As such, Beijing has been very categorical and adamant in objecting to any US President meeting the Tibetan leader. It regards it as an official support to the Tibetan separatist movement and has time and again threatened that such a gesture would be seen as directed against the sovereignty of China and would invite serious repercussions.

Now, the big question is: Would the meeting between President Obama and the Dalai Lama necessarily destabilize US-China relations? The answer: “Not really”. Chinese outrages against any American overture towards the Tibetan leader and corresponding American denial of Chinese threats and pressures has become too characteristic of the bilateral relationship. President Obama knew that a meeting with the Dalai Lama is an important menu in the itinerary of America’s commitment to human right issues.

He has already procrastinated on the quite imminent meeting. Ahead of his last year visit to China; the US President had reportedly persuaded Tibetan representatives then to postpone the meeting with the Dalai Lama. This time around, Obama exactly knew what he was up to. The reaction was swift with the Chinese Foreign Ministry saying, “The US act grossly violated the norms governing international relations.” According to the Chinese government, the meeting contradicted US commitments to recognize China’s sovereignty over Tibet and refrain from supporting separatist forces. But these allegations are not new. The Dalai Lama has met with every US president since George H.W. Bush in 1991 and these meetings attracted ire from the Chinese government.

So, there is no reason to expect that the recent niceties provided to the Dalai Lama by the Obama Administration are going to seriously rock the boat of Sino-American bilateral relations. It is true that the controversy has come at a wrong time when the relationship is already strained over a number of issues, but then US-China relations have never been easy, and not very friendly either. The relationship can rather be characterized as a marriage of convenience and has withstood a number of more volatile differences.

The symbolic welcome and respect given to the preservation of Tibet’s cultural identity and the protection of their human rights cannot, in practical estimates, derail the highly entrenched US-China relations. Talking of estimates and statistics, the economic linkages is tightly knit by $366 billion worth of mutual trade and $755 billion in Chinese-held US Treasury bills. As such, the rhetoric and aggressive statements have become routine fodder given to the media and stand no chances of drastically impacting the course of the relationship. In fact, the absence of such aggression from the Chinese government and the failure of the US government to bypass them would make them look out of character.

The Obama administration has had a tough time dealing with the Chinese side, especially after the US plan to sell arms worth $ 6.4 billion to Taiwan and China’s rebuff of President Obama’s call to strengthen the Chinese currency. The US establishment was quite aware and cautious of what was in store after the Dalai Lama-Obama meeting and as such, the whole programme was designed to tone down the official significance of the proceedings, and lend a more casual feel. The US President met with the Tibetan spiritual leader in the Map Room, which is part of the residence at the White House, and not in the Oval Office. The economics of the US-China relationship has always overshadowed all other issues and the near future will be no different.

American responses to human rights violations in the Chinese mainland have been lukewarm at best, and have never really threatened to jeopardize the larger political and economic linkages. The Tibetan spiritual leader seemed content after the meeting and commented that he wasn’t frustrated about the pace of progress for autonomy in Tibet. Asked how Obama can help Tibet, the Dalai Lama said, “time will tell.”Many analysts are of the opinion that the bilateral ties will sustain the current differences.

It is worthwhile remembering that amid all the ticklish issues that now surround the relationship, the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and four other U.S. warships recently anchored in Hong Kong, where more than 5,000 sailors will get shore leave. In 2007, China had prevented the USS Kitty Hawk from visiting the city, showing Chinese displeasure at President George W. Bush meeting the Dalai Lama and presenting him with the Congressional Gold Medal. Although Beijing belatedly approved the port-call, the fleet had already turned back. The point is that both the countries cannot afford to lose the track and jeopardize the economic symbiosis that exists.

According to Douglas Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “U.S. exports are zooming to China. It's the largest export market for the U.S. -- largest growing export market for the U.S. It grew 65 per cent this past year alone." In spite of disagreements about the Dalai Lama and U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, neither China nor the US, Paal says, can afford a major falling out. As per a recently-conducted national CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, nearly three-quarters of all Americans think Tibet should be an independent country. But at the same time, the poll indicates that most Americans think it is more important to maintain good relations with China than to take a stand on Tibet.

Visits of the Dalai Lama are always under the Chinese government’s scanner and they have a perpetual displeasure towards other countries receiving the exiled leader. Though, any reception given to the Dalai Lama often ignites heated diplomatic rhetoric, it has seldom led to the Chinese government jeopardizing its economic interest. In the final analysis, it is business as usual in US-China relations and one should not read too much into the implications of President Obama’s meeting with the Dalai Lama. The diplomatic rhetoric and the heated exchange of statements are rather routine affair to keep dissenting voices in control.—INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 16 February 2010

India-Pakistan Talks

BATTLE IT OUT ON TABLE, NOT BORDER

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

The India-Pakistan talks should continue as planned. The Pune blast will cast a shadow on the upcoming talks but the Government is confident that the situation will allow to derail the dialogue process. Clearly, the terror networks cannot be made to dictate the trajectory of foreign policy decisions of a sovereign country, but at the same time, developing situation should give new dimensions to the nature of the talks. More so, as the talks cannot be a lame show of half-hearted smiles and hand-shakes without practical progress.

The blast coming just ahead of the proposed talks cannot be a mere coincidence. Definitely, sinister efforts are being made to derail the dialogue process and the blast was probably meant to signal ire against any prospect of a rapprochement between India and Pakistan. The UPA  Government has time and again emphasized that another terrorist attack on Indian soil after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks would not be taken lightly. Such assertions make the upcoming talks a crucial test for New Delhi’s resolve to fight terrorism. Focus should be on extracting commitments from Islamabad to fight anti-India activities emanating from its soil.

The Foreign Secretaries of both the countries are scheduled to meet in New Delhi on February 25, the first since diplomatic ties were broken by India after 26/11. In recent times, the Pakistani government has undertaken some major offensives against insurgents in the Swat valley and South Waziristan. But it has been rather reluctant to take any sincere action against the sinister groups that have been engaging in anti-India activities in collusion with the Pakistani military intelligence.

The Pakistani military still eyes India as its number one enemy, which is bent upon bringing down the Pakistani State. Keeping in view the dilly-dallying tactics of Islamabad in dealing with the perpetrators of the heinous crime, New Delhi had snapped diplomatic ties. It suspended any prospects of dialogue as long as the Pakistani side did not help India bring to book the terrorists behind the carnage that shook the Indian security with its boldness and the violence.

But, cutting off ties has not paid dividends for New Delhi and the absence of official channels has further negated chances of putting pressures on the Pakistani civilian government.  There is cynicism and apprehensions regarding the outcome of the talks. The debate is whether the time is ripe to open the dialogue process unless Islamabad takes some concrete actions to curb these terrorist activities. Some analysts have commented that the resumption of the dialogue process would not only show the lack of resolve in India but embolden terror networks to carry out more such strikes. However, New Delhi cannot afford to be static. It should be dynamic in adapting to the changes. 

More than a year of closing bridges with the troublesome neighbour has not really changed the situation and has created more roadblocks for India. While it should emphasize and never waver from its resolve to fight terror in all forms, the channels of talks and engagements must be kept open so as to keep itself abreast of the positions of Islamabad. This apart, it should keep looking for creating fresh openings to take conflict resolution to the next level. The nature of the conflicts between India and Pakistan is rooted in our common past and the developments have inextricably bound us in this mess.  The issues are complicated and often inter-linked, one failure often snowballing to hurt composite relations. But, incremental steps toward resolution of conflicts should not be sacrificed at the altar of the sinister campaign of some diabolical groups, who seek to divert the course of normalization.

The Opposition in India has adamantly stood against talking to Pakistan in the absence of any substantial promise to curb terror attacks against it. In the aftermath of the Pune blast, the critical opinions against India’s decision to talk would increase. While at the outset, the Pune incident might seem to provide more reasons for calling off the dialogue process, pragmatism would call for a different approach. Sentimentality and nationalist outburst should not dictate our foreign policy decision-making.

In fact, the new situation demands a fresh look at how we should deal with a difficult neighbour like Pakistan, because the absence of talks is not going to stop another 26/11 from recurring. To stop such a catastrophe from striking again, all options should be kept on the table and a judicious mix of hard and soft diplomacy should be deployed. By no means is India a trigger-happy nation and this is largely evident from its restraint response to devastating terror attacks. A more belligerent India would have easily drawn the region into a major conflict.

But India’s responsible attitude to such situations is not meant to be taken for granted and this  should be made amply clear to the opposite side on the dialogue table.  India’s stance towards terrorism and regional cooperation should be made to register with the international community. Pakistan is no doubt, an important State as far as the situation in Afghanistan is concerned but at the same time the international community should be aware of New Delhi’s security concerns and not use a different lens when it comes to assessing the impact of terrorism on India.

The upcoming talks is an opportunity and a challenge to wheel the stalled process and at the same time, remind Islamabad that confidence building and engineering peace need two hands ready to make compromises and concessions. The Opposition in Delhi at this juncture should not get down to the level of earning brownie points out of such a situation. In the wake of the Pune attacks, we have all the more responsibility to present a united view and use the upcoming talks as a platform to show that India is magnanimous and mature enough to come to the dialogue table with a country still not committed to fight the anti-India “terror womb” within its borders.

Terrorism and its menace is something that every government in India, irrespective of the political party, has grappled with and it is high time we have a bipartisan attitude when it comes to tackling this issue. As a democratic country, differences of opinion and analyses should lead to a healthy internal debate but this should not be coloured by motives to earn cheap political dividends.

The trajectory of India-Pakistan relations can be compared to a messy divorce wherein the couple has a lot of issues to be settled. It will be stating the obvious to say that any effort to reconcile the differences between the two countries will always be excruciating and frustrating often, but it is imperative to keep channels of communication open and not be deterred by the all too expected hiccups and roadblocks. There are enough battles to be fought over a host of issues but it will augur well for both if these battles were fought over the negotiating table and not on the border.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)