06-18-2004, 07:52 PM
Another in Pioneer...
Oppose the occupiers
CP Bhambhri
<b>Foreign Minister Natwar Singh has mishandled India's continuing dialogue with Pakistan and the UN Security Council resolution of June 9 on Iraq. He assumed office as Foreign Minister on May 22 and created total confusion with his statements on the UPA Government's "expected positive role in Iraq after the UNSC's resolution".</b>
He has made many statements and modifications in his policy statements on India's approach to Pakistan; however, he has not denied that he offered India-China model of bilateralism to Pakistan without realising that India-China and India-Pakistan disputes are qualitatively and fundamentally based on very different historical legacies. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was quick to reject such ill thought out and ill-conceived policy statement of the Indian Foreign Minister. A wise statement from Mr Singh would have been that the UPA Government would continue with the policy of "dialogue with Pakistan" and make every effort to strengthen friendly relations with it.
In the process, Mr Singh has created bitterness between India and Pakistan whereas the need of the hour was "quiet diplomacy". Does he expect Pakistan to not reiterate the "centrality" of the Kashmir dispute with India? Indians have lived down several extreme statements and actions, including wars on Kashmir by the Pakistani establishment. In spite of all the difficulties involved in resolving the "complex" issue, the two countries have always negotiated at the bilateral level.
General Musharraf has made a reasonable statement, "I am hopeful that composite, structured and sustained dialogue agreed to between India and Pakistan on January 6, 2004, would stay on course and meet the various deadlines." The response from Mr Singh should have been an affirmation of the General's statement that the dialogue will continue. The Indian public opinion is in favour of peace parleys between the two neighbours and it is recognised by every Indian that normalcy will develop if the two countries boldly confront and find solution to the Kashmir dispute.
<b>It deserves to be stated that after the 1998 nuclearisation of India and Pakistan, a completely new situation has emerged, and not only Kashmir but also strategies to deal with "denuclearisation" have to be negotiated. Then, the emergence of unipolar American-led International Global Order has serious implications for India and Mr Singh has to keep this in mind before opening his mouth every day on contentious foreign and security issues facing India.</b>
The confusion created by Mr Singh's pronouncements were worse confounded by his reaction on June 10 on UNSC resolution on Iraq. The Indian public opinion is in favour of complete sovereignty of Iraq and for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. <b>The US's continuing military occupation of Iraq and establishment of a puppet Governing Council and an Interim Govern-ment sums up the events in the Gulf country since March 2003.</b>
The salient features of the UN resolution for the post-June 30 governance of Iraq clearly reveals that sovereignty for the Iraqis is a myth and presence of imperialist America is a reality, irrespective of the pious wishes of the Security Council. It has unanimously endorsed the Iraqi Interim Government to which the US-led coalition Provisional Authority will hand over power on June 30. Will Iraq be a sovereign country on June 1, 2004? The answer to this question is an emphatic No. According to the resolution, elections will take place in 2006 and in the meantime American puppet Interim Government of Iraq will "have full control over Iraqi security forces as also over its resources, including oil".
The cat is out of the bag and the resolution states the establishment of "multinational forces" to provide "security to Iraq" and fight against "resistance nationalist forces" described as "insurgents and terrorists" by the US. Further, a phoney suggestion is made in the resolution that the "Iraqi Interim Government can request the departure of the roughly 150,000 US-led troops" which are stationed in Iraq for the noble goal of "defence of Iraqi sovereignty". The only happy person after this resolution was the aggressor imperialist America and Mr George Bush celebrated the Resolution by observing, "The vote today in the Security Council was a great victory for the Iraqi people... The international community showed that it stands side by side with the Iraqi people."
Hopefully, Mr Singh will not again make a statement, endorsing President Bush's victory observations. India and Iraq have traditional friendship and the Indian Parliament is on record that it neither "approves" US aggression against Iraq nor will it participate in the so-called peace operations under the military command and authority of US-led aggressors. Incidentally, March 2003 aggression against Saddam's regime in Iraq by the Anglo-American forces was a "unilateral imperialist action" and the Security Council and Secretary-General Kofi Annan were completely ignored by the aggressors.
It may not be relevant to the Americans or the Indian Foreign Minister, but the Indian public opinion is definitely hostile to Interim Government of Iraq because it is a creation of US imperialists and does not have any legitimacy in its own country. Dr IIyad Allawi, who has been picked up by the Americans as the Prime Minister, has been a favourite of the CIA which had recruited him in 1992 and The New York Times (June 9) informs us that "Ilyad Allawai, now the designated Prime Minister of Iraq, ran an exile organisation intent on deposing Saddam Hussein that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990s to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the CIA."
The plea of aggression against Iraq in March 2003 because of its possession of WMDs was a fraud by the American imperialists who were involved in the entire decade of the 1990s to "destabilise" Saddam and Iraq. America has no intention of leaving Iraq because of its own "strategic interests" in West Asia and the Security Council resolution has "authorised US-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use 'all necessary measures' in 'partnership' with Iraqi forces to bring peace." A Minister of the Government which claims to be committed to the Common Minimum Programme should have kept himself miles away from US design, and American-sponsored Security Council's legitimisation of continuing occupation of Iraq.
<b>The UPA Government is committed to an "independent foreign policy" as mentioned in the CMP and in less than three weeks in office, it has messed up its foreign policy by unnecessarily "provoking" Pakistan and by not firmly and forthrightly rejecting any demand for India's association with US occupied Iraq. An "independent foreign policy" of India demands that pressure be built to secure for Iraqis their right to govern themselves and manage their own affairs and resolve ticklish ethnic problems of the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite population.</b>
How can India entertain any proposal from a CIA-affiliated prime minister of a puppet Iraqi interim government for aid? Every principle of human rights has been violated by the Americans in Iraq and Abu Ghraib Detention Centre is a reminder to humanity that Iraqis are in serious trouble. In such situation, is India on their side? India should reject any request not only for sending any Army personnel on the specious plea of "the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq" because of the CIA affiliation of its puppet Government, but also serve notice to the US that it is the aggressor. India's foreign policy towards Iraq must be based on principles of "respect for the sovereignty of nation-states" and its logic demands that American aggressors be asked to leave Iraq.
---------------
CP Bhambri is a well known journalist in Delhi. I think he was known for his pro Congress views. I may be mistaken.
Oppose the occupiers
CP Bhambhri
<b>Foreign Minister Natwar Singh has mishandled India's continuing dialogue with Pakistan and the UN Security Council resolution of June 9 on Iraq. He assumed office as Foreign Minister on May 22 and created total confusion with his statements on the UPA Government's "expected positive role in Iraq after the UNSC's resolution".</b>
He has made many statements and modifications in his policy statements on India's approach to Pakistan; however, he has not denied that he offered India-China model of bilateralism to Pakistan without realising that India-China and India-Pakistan disputes are qualitatively and fundamentally based on very different historical legacies. Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf was quick to reject such ill thought out and ill-conceived policy statement of the Indian Foreign Minister. A wise statement from Mr Singh would have been that the UPA Government would continue with the policy of "dialogue with Pakistan" and make every effort to strengthen friendly relations with it.
In the process, Mr Singh has created bitterness between India and Pakistan whereas the need of the hour was "quiet diplomacy". Does he expect Pakistan to not reiterate the "centrality" of the Kashmir dispute with India? Indians have lived down several extreme statements and actions, including wars on Kashmir by the Pakistani establishment. In spite of all the difficulties involved in resolving the "complex" issue, the two countries have always negotiated at the bilateral level.
General Musharraf has made a reasonable statement, "I am hopeful that composite, structured and sustained dialogue agreed to between India and Pakistan on January 6, 2004, would stay on course and meet the various deadlines." The response from Mr Singh should have been an affirmation of the General's statement that the dialogue will continue. The Indian public opinion is in favour of peace parleys between the two neighbours and it is recognised by every Indian that normalcy will develop if the two countries boldly confront and find solution to the Kashmir dispute.
<b>It deserves to be stated that after the 1998 nuclearisation of India and Pakistan, a completely new situation has emerged, and not only Kashmir but also strategies to deal with "denuclearisation" have to be negotiated. Then, the emergence of unipolar American-led International Global Order has serious implications for India and Mr Singh has to keep this in mind before opening his mouth every day on contentious foreign and security issues facing India.</b>
The confusion created by Mr Singh's pronouncements were worse confounded by his reaction on June 10 on UNSC resolution on Iraq. The Indian public opinion is in favour of complete sovereignty of Iraq and for the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. <b>The US's continuing military occupation of Iraq and establishment of a puppet Governing Council and an Interim Govern-ment sums up the events in the Gulf country since March 2003.</b>
The salient features of the UN resolution for the post-June 30 governance of Iraq clearly reveals that sovereignty for the Iraqis is a myth and presence of imperialist America is a reality, irrespective of the pious wishes of the Security Council. It has unanimously endorsed the Iraqi Interim Government to which the US-led coalition Provisional Authority will hand over power on June 30. Will Iraq be a sovereign country on June 1, 2004? The answer to this question is an emphatic No. According to the resolution, elections will take place in 2006 and in the meantime American puppet Interim Government of Iraq will "have full control over Iraqi security forces as also over its resources, including oil".
The cat is out of the bag and the resolution states the establishment of "multinational forces" to provide "security to Iraq" and fight against "resistance nationalist forces" described as "insurgents and terrorists" by the US. Further, a phoney suggestion is made in the resolution that the "Iraqi Interim Government can request the departure of the roughly 150,000 US-led troops" which are stationed in Iraq for the noble goal of "defence of Iraqi sovereignty". The only happy person after this resolution was the aggressor imperialist America and Mr George Bush celebrated the Resolution by observing, "The vote today in the Security Council was a great victory for the Iraqi people... The international community showed that it stands side by side with the Iraqi people."
Hopefully, Mr Singh will not again make a statement, endorsing President Bush's victory observations. India and Iraq have traditional friendship and the Indian Parliament is on record that it neither "approves" US aggression against Iraq nor will it participate in the so-called peace operations under the military command and authority of US-led aggressors. Incidentally, March 2003 aggression against Saddam's regime in Iraq by the Anglo-American forces was a "unilateral imperialist action" and the Security Council and Secretary-General Kofi Annan were completely ignored by the aggressors.
It may not be relevant to the Americans or the Indian Foreign Minister, but the Indian public opinion is definitely hostile to Interim Government of Iraq because it is a creation of US imperialists and does not have any legitimacy in its own country. Dr IIyad Allawi, who has been picked up by the Americans as the Prime Minister, has been a favourite of the CIA which had recruited him in 1992 and The New York Times (June 9) informs us that "Ilyad Allawai, now the designated Prime Minister of Iraq, ran an exile organisation intent on deposing Saddam Hussein that sent agents into Baghdad in the early 1990s to plant bombs and sabotage government facilities under the direction of the CIA."
The plea of aggression against Iraq in March 2003 because of its possession of WMDs was a fraud by the American imperialists who were involved in the entire decade of the 1990s to "destabilise" Saddam and Iraq. America has no intention of leaving Iraq because of its own "strategic interests" in West Asia and the Security Council resolution has "authorised US-led multinational force, now at 160,000 troops, to use 'all necessary measures' in 'partnership' with Iraqi forces to bring peace." A Minister of the Government which claims to be committed to the Common Minimum Programme should have kept himself miles away from US design, and American-sponsored Security Council's legitimisation of continuing occupation of Iraq.
<b>The UPA Government is committed to an "independent foreign policy" as mentioned in the CMP and in less than three weeks in office, it has messed up its foreign policy by unnecessarily "provoking" Pakistan and by not firmly and forthrightly rejecting any demand for India's association with US occupied Iraq. An "independent foreign policy" of India demands that pressure be built to secure for Iraqis their right to govern themselves and manage their own affairs and resolve ticklish ethnic problems of the Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite population.</b>
How can India entertain any proposal from a CIA-affiliated prime minister of a puppet Iraqi interim government for aid? Every principle of human rights has been violated by the Americans in Iraq and Abu Ghraib Detention Centre is a reminder to humanity that Iraqis are in serious trouble. In such situation, is India on their side? India should reject any request not only for sending any Army personnel on the specious plea of "the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq" because of the CIA affiliation of its puppet Government, but also serve notice to the US that it is the aggressor. India's foreign policy towards Iraq must be based on principles of "respect for the sovereignty of nation-states" and its logic demands that American aggressors be asked to leave Iraq.
---------------
CP Bhambri is a well known journalist in Delhi. I think he was known for his pro Congress views. I may be mistaken.