Author: G Parthasarathy
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 3, 2004
The recent general election threw
up some interesting aspects of major political parties' approach to the
situation in West Asia. For over four decades, virtually all political
parties except the BJP (that took a contrary pro-Israeli line), routinely
condemned Israel for its alleged acts of omission and commission. But neither
the NDA nor the Congress party followed this practice during the recent
election campaigns.
The Communist Party of India (CPI)
avoided all mention of the Palestinian issue in its election manifesto
though it continued with its ritualistic opposition to "imperialist military
and economic aggression". Even the CPI(M) made no mention of the Palestinian
issue in its manifesto. But it did proclaim its opposition to the alleged
"strategic alliance" that the Vajpayee Government had concluded with Israel.
Even this "alliance" was opposed on the grounds that it "follows the RSS
view that a US-Israel-India Axis would serve the interests of Hindutva".
In these circumstances, it was peculiar
to see both the CPI and the CPI(M) stress the importance of the Palestinian
issue when the coalition partners of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
were drafting their Common Minimum Programme (CMP). One even heard calls
to end military collaboration with Israel. They took this posture after
the first draft of the CMP presented by the Congress made no reference
to the Palestinian issue. It was in deference to these postures that the
CMP proclaimed: "The UPA Government reiterates India's decades-old commitment
to the cause of the Palestinian people for a homeland of their own."
It is obvious that those who drafted
this formulation were somewhat ignorant of the nuances of contemporary
world developments. India and the international community no longer endorse
the cause of a mere Palestinian "homeland". They demand the establishment
of a "viable Palestinian State".
It is evident that on national security
issues like nuclear deterrence, nuclear disarmament and relations with
China and the United States, the two communist parties adopt stands that
portray a total lack of realism and understanding of the current world
situation. They advocate that India should discard its time tested policies
of seeking nuclear disarmament exclusively on a global and non-discriminatory
basis and recommend that we should yield to American and Chinese pressures
by accepting regional nuclear disarmament in South Asia. They conveniently
ignore the fact that it is China that has provided Pakistan the capability
to manufacture nuclear weapons. It has supplied our western neighbour with
missiles that can devastate Indian towns and cities. They also oppose India
acquiring capabilities for missile-defenses that could protect our cities
against attacks by Chinese missiles supplied to Pakistan, should Pakistan's
nuclear arsenal fall into the wrong hands.
It is a similar lack of understanding
that leads the two Leftist parties to criticise our recent policies on
Arab-Israeli issues. India recognised the State of Israel in 1950. But
it took us over four decades to establish full diplomatic relations with
it. In the meantime, discreet contacts with Israel were maintained in capitals
like Washington and through the Israeli consulate in Mumbai. In 1974, Indira
Gandhi flatly rejected a Saudi Arabian demand for the closure of the Israeli
consulate even when India faced a severe balance of payments crisis. We
had earlier sought and obtained arms from Israel just after the 1965 conflict
with Pakistan.
It is also worth mentioning that
the supply of nuclear capable F-16s to Pakistan by the US in 1981, was
seen as a security threat not only by us, but also by pro-Israeli groups
like the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who joined
us in lobbying against this sale. Thus, if there is a "US-Israel-India
Axis", as the CPI(M) and the Pakistanis claim, this so-called "axis" has
played an important role in promoting understanding of our security concerns
in the US and elsewhere in the world.
Our ties with Israel have expanded
significantly over the past decade. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Mr Arjun
Singh, Mr P Chidambram and Mr Sharad Pawar have visited Israel during this
period. Our annual bilateral trade with Israel has reached around $1.3
billion. Israel has played a key role in the conclusion of over 200 agreements
for agricultural development in crucial areas like drip irrigation, greenhouse
technology and horticulture in India. It is in recognition of the importance
of Israeli investments and collaboration in these fields that Mr Jyoti
Basu visited Israel in August 2000, just before he relinquished office.
Both China and India have developed extensive defence ties with Israel.
While as a result of American pressures, Israel could not sell advanced
AWACS systems to China, it agreed to their sale to India. These systems,
mounted on Russian aircrafts, are crucial for our air defence. They are
reportedly being assembled in Uzbekistan. Is the CPI(M) going to criticise
this agreement as constituting an "India-Israel-Russia-Uzbekistan Axis"?
It is also pertinent to stress that in view of the continuing Sino-Pak
nuclear and missile nexus, we should not close the option of obtaining
missile defenses from any source, including Israel. The Defence Minister,
Mr Pranab Mukherji, has rightly rejected suggestions for a review of defence
collaboration with Israel.
Developing military, economic and
security ties with Israel should not create a situation where we neglect
our relations with our Arab friends. It is a fact that we have tended to
neglect our relations with the very friendly governments in most Arab Gulf
states. Over 3.5 million Indians live in these kingdoms. We get over 70
per cent of our oil from this region. We have also taken some initiative
in developing institutional links with the Gulf Cooperation Council. These
need to be developed further. Most importantly, we need to cultivate the
rulers and royal families of these states much more assiduously than we
have in recent years. With the situation in Iraq set to deteriorate with
continued American bungling and insensitivity, we will have to keep a close
watch on developments in this region. We will also have to chart new links-political,
economic and military, with the Arab Gulf States. Saudi Arabia suffers
from continued terrorist attacks and the prospects of instability. Keeping
this in mind, we require to develop a cooperative and comprehensive approach
to issues of energy security, both with the oil producers in the region
and the major oil-importers like the United States, European Union, Japan,
China and South Korea. Further to the west, we should seek wider economic
and investment ties with countries like Jordan, Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia,
especially since India remains a growing market for their exports of phosphatic
fertilisers.
No foreign policy can be devoid
of moral content. Even if we have good reasons to maintain our ties with
Israel, we should not hesitate in voicing our opposition to unjust Israeli
acts like the demolition of the homes of innocent Palestinians. It is equally
important to advise our Palestinian friends to curb the excesses of groups
like Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. The success of our diplomacy would lie
in being seen as a constructive voice urging moderation and negotiated
settlements by both Israel and the Palestine. It is also important to consider
that with the exception of few countries like Algeria, some of our Arab
friends, particularly Saudi Arabia, have shown no sensitivity to our concerns
when they join the anti-Indian chorus on Kashmir on forums like the OIC.
Saudi Arabia's role in getting OIC endorsement for the Pakistani -backed
extremists who have left the mainstream Hurriyat Conference is a matter
of particular concern. Friendship cannot, forever, be a one way street.
