By Inder Jit
(Released on 1 September 1990)
Free India’s foreign policy and its conduct has suffered from one grave failing over the years. Its Foreign Office has mostly reacted to developments, seldom anticipated and, accordingly, acted. The appointment of Mr I.K. Gujral, a suave diplomat amongst politicians, as Minister of External Affairs in the National Front Government, roused hopes and expectations. Most people expected a new chapter to be opened in accordance with the National Front’s manifesto and its promises in the field of external relations. Fond hopes of some meaningful initiative by India in regard to the Gulf crisis were further roused when Mr Gujral suddenly took off for Moscow and from there flew to Washington in a dramatic development. India seemed to have “done it” when Mr Gujral proceeded from there to Amman, next to Baghdad and, finally, to Kuwait. Have the hopes been realised? How has India fared?
Sadly, New Delhi once again failed to anticipate the developments in the Gulf area and take appropriate action. I learn on good authority that President Ozal of Turkey had cautioned President Bush as far back as February 22 that Iraq would possibly attack Kuwait. (This explains frequent contact made by President Bush with the Turkish President in recent weeks.) Newspapers in Turkey are said to have even published the news. Elsewhere in the region, most observers expected Iraq to turn its attention to Kuwait, since its war with Iran had come to an end. Many felt that Iraq would merely try to take over the disputed oil field and two islands nearby. But some like President Ozal feared a lot more. At any rate, there was little doubt about what was coming by July 25 when Iraq was reported to have “massed tens of thousands of troops and hundreds of tanks on its border with Kuwait.”
What is worse, India’s reaction to the Iraqi aggression and occupation of Kuwait on August 2 was slow and halting, even muted. New Delhi did restate through the official spokesman on August 3 its well-known position against the use of force in any form in settling disputes. It also urged Iraq to withdraw its troops from Kuwait. But Mr Gujral himself told the Lok Sabha on August 9 that the National Front Government had yet to draw up a policy on the Gulf crisis. When the Congress-I and some other members demanded that the evacuation of Indians in Kuwait be taken up directly by the Prime Minister or the Minister himself with the Iraqi President, Mr Gujral said it would not be “diplomatic” for the Prime Minister or him to communicate with their Iraqi counterparts. He added astonishingly: “In that event, Mr Saddam Hussain might ask: ‘What is India’s policy?! We have yet to evolve our policy.”
India’s policy was mercifully clarified in the Minister’s suo moto statement in Parliament on August 23. But New Delhi made little use of the intervening fortnight to take much-needed initiative directly or, appropriately, through the Non-Aligned Movement for finding a solution of the Gulf crisis. Mr Gujral said in his statement: “Escalation of tension or conflict will have serious repercussions on us. This makes it incumbent on us to look for an opening for de-escalation and defusion of tension.” He concluded laconically: “Both the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement have an important role.” Mr Gujral, as we all know, rushed at short notice to Moscow and from there to Washington, Amman, Baghdad and Kuwait. Sadly, however, no effort was made to get in touch with Yugoslavia, NAM’s Chairman at present. In fact, a visit by him to Belgrade would have been very much in order before he flew to Amman from Washington.
New Delhi has tried to defend its lack of initiative in activating NAM on the issue by virtually putting the blame on Yugoslavia and the divisions within the Non Aligned Movement. Yet, the truth, I gather, is that Belgrade has not been inactive. Initially, on August 2, it condemned Iraq’s armed intervention and demanded immediate withdrawal of Iraqi forces. Further, Belgrade convened the same day an emergency meeting of the ambassadors of the non-aligned countries which “expressed concern at the Iraqi troops’ entry of Kuwait’s territory and pointed out the unacceptableness of such conduct…” A day later on August 3, it convened a meeting of the Non-Aligned Coordinating Bureau at New York. The Bureau, barring Iraq, denounced Iraq’s armed attack on Kuwait and called for urgent withdrawal of Iraqi forces. It also complimented Yugoslavia for its initiative.
Ultimately, wisdom lies in seeking a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis. India has a role to play both in its own capacity and as a leader of NAM. It must look beyond the safety of our own people in Kuwait— and act.
Fortunately, Mr Gujral has now bowed to a strong demand by some of us in Parliament and its Consultative Committee on External Affairs and got in touch with the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, Mr Loncar, for an overdue NAM initiative. (NAM could, among other things, offer a Non-Aligned peace-keeping force for the Gulf area as a replacement for the US-led multi-national force.) New Delhi should have, in fact, moved in the matter on August 2 itself when Belgrade reacted promptly and held an emergency meeting of NAM Ambassadors to consider Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. We could then have saved ourselves the criticism of non-aligned friends of having tried to ignore NAM and indulged in one-upmanship. Unlike our simple and gullible people, the world at large has its own critical assessment of India’s recent shuttle diplomacy and its principal thrust. This criticism should hereafter end, now that New Delhi has opted for a NAM initiative.
But this by itself will not be enough. New Delhi will simultaneously have to be prepared to stand up for principles and call a spade a spade. Undoubtedly, it faces certain constraints in its stand on Iraqi aggression: the safety and security of some 1,50,000 Indians still in Kuwait and India’s dependence on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil. But its refusal to come out openly against wanton aggression has caused widespread disappointment among members of the NAM, who count on Nehru’s India to give a principled lead. Yugoslavia’s example is cited. In a Government statement dated August 17, Belgrade has declared: “In its capacity as the country chairing the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslavia reiterates its strongest condemnation of the Iraqi act of aggression and annexation of Kuwait and considers it unlawful. Yugoslavia most resolutely demands an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Iraqi troops from Kuwait…”
What is worse, India’s reaction to the Iraqi aggression and occupation of Kuwait on August 2 was slow and halting, even muted. New Delhi did restate through the official spokesman on August 3 its well-known position against the use of force in any form in settling disputes. It also urged Iraq to withdraw its troops from Kuwait.
Iraq has no doubt been a good friend to India and has stood by courageously against fundamentalism. President Saddam Hussain honestly believes that the US and its allies in the Arab world have deliberately and calculatedly caused Iraq a loss of $14 billion during the past year to undermine the country’s progress and him. I gather he also believes that history is on his side and that the Americans have “driven him to the wall.” Further, he is not afraid of going down fighting as a martyr since he belongs to the land of Karbala. Nevertheless, no country and much less India can slur over the fact that Iraq is guilty of having committed naked aggression. (Kuwait may once have been a part of Iraq. But Baghdad accepted Kuwait as an independent sovereign country.) President Saddam Hussain should thus be prepared to listen to India and other non-aligned friends in finding an honourable solution to the crisis.
New Delhi will simultaneously have to be prepared to stand up for principles and call a spade a spade. Undoubtedly, it faces certain constraints in its stand on Iraqi aggression: the safety and security of some 1,50,000 Indians still in Kuwait and India’s dependence on Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil. But its refusal to come out openly against wanton aggression has caused widespread disappointment among members of the NAM, who count on Nehru’s India to give a principled lead.
This will not be easy. My visit to Baghdad in May last left me with one dominant impression: President Saddam Hussain has a Himalayan ego and practises personality cult as none else today. His portraits in various sizes and hues are displayed every thousand yards or so along all the main streets and squares of Baghdad and along the highways. Many of these are also lit up at night. Incredibly enough, I saw President Saddam Hussain’s portrait in coloured chips even embossed on the main entrance of Imam Hussain’s grand mazar at Karbala. A majority of the Iraqis adore him for all he has done to modernise the country. Nonetheless, Iraq is essentially a police state, which creates its own problems. Ultimately, wisdom lies in seeking a peaceful solution to the Gulf crisis. India has a role to play both in its own capacity and as a leader of NAM. It must look beyond the safety of our own people in Kuwait— and act. — INFA