Despite tremendous international pressure led by the United States and Japan, North Korea did finally fire its long-range rocket. While North Korea has been maintaining that the mission was to launch its communication satellite, the West and some other countries have been alleging the launch as a cover to test North Korea’s Taepodong-2 missile, which is believed to have a range of over 6000 km directly bringing America’s west coast within its range. Given North Korea’s known mendacity in past to achieve its military ambitions, there is no reason to doubt the West’s apprehension over North Korea’s real intention behind the launch.
The response from Japan, US and some other countries was immediate in form of a strong rebuke and condemnation. Calling it a provocative act amounting to a test of missile technology, US president Barack Obama said Pyongyang should be punished and sought a UN Security Council meet. “With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations,” he said in his speech in Hradcanske Sqaure outside the Prague Castle and his pledge to cut the US nuclear weapons stockpile, to bring into force the Comprehensive test Ban Treaty and to seek tough penalties for the violators of the rules of non-proliferation reflected the new urgency coming within hours of the North Korea’s defiance. Through these commitments, Obama sent signals to the world that America is ready to take fist step and expected other countries to do their bits towards making the world free of nuclear arms.
And how did India respond to the North Korean missile crisis? India’s dilemma was clearly discernible in its response to the launch. As a nation aspiring to play a greater role on the global stage, it was necessary to respond. But at the same time, it had to be cautious. India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the fact it knew would expose it to rejoinders questioning its credibility to comment on matters concerning the non-proliferation regime. So while in its response India stated that the IAEA was an appropriate body to decide whether Stalinist country had violated its international obligation on the NPT, it added that while it has not been a signatory to the NPT because it felt it was loaded in favor of nuclear weapons state, it believed in total non-proliferation. The second reason for a diluted response could be because general elections are round the corner. One unique factor of this general election is absence of any overriding issues. At a time when major global economies are struggling to get back to the growth path, the Indian economy is expected to grow at more than 6 percent. The inflation is at a record low level, prices of essential commodities are relatively in comfortable zone and the growth in agriculture has doubled since 2004. In absence of any mass-appeal issue to build rhetoric on, candidates across the political spectrum are indulging in provocative speeches and resorting to politics of language, caste, region and religion to mobilize different vote banks behind them. The Indian Left parties have become increasingly aware that it would be difficult to retain their present strength in Parliament in wake of multiple challenges they face in their traditional stronghold states of West Bengal and Kerala. Any response that could be projected as the one siding with America would have been a much needed fuel for the Left parties to mount their campaign along ‘Congress surrendering national sovereignty to America’ line to realign their eroding vote banks with them. The Congress probably did not want to concede that space to the Left. The third and probably the main reason was that India did not want to displease Russia, a known supporter of North Korea, with a strong rebuke.
I think India missed opportunity here. Without bothering much about any of the above considerations, India should have issued a strong condemnation as well as should have backed America’s call for tough punishment. First, given the fact that India’s non-proliferation record has been widely acknowledged and applauded, it should not have feared any backlash questioning its credibility. Second, it could have effectively countered the hysteria the Left parties might have created by saying that North Korea was the nation which acted against India’s interest by providing missile technology to Pakistan. Remember Pakistan’s now disgraced scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferating network which provided nuclear technology to North Korea in return for their missiles? I don’t think any political parties would have courage to challenge the position that the action was to safeguard India’s interest vis-à-vis Pakistan. If they did, it would be on their own peril. And why not back America to censure North Korea? We did that when we supported a UN resolution moved by America against Iran, our traditional ally, not a long ago. As for Russia, it would not have bothered much on India’s strong stand against North Korea. It still would want India to continue as their principal partner for defense deals. I don’t think Russia would have seen a strong condemnation by India on North Korea’s action as a great strategic shift by India.
It is high time that India should restructure its foreign policy. The world has changed a lot and India is still stuck to its old cold-war era non-alignment policy, which was even then hypocrisy at its worst. It is also time to recalibrate its stands on the NPT and CTBT. India has already declared a unilateral moratorium on further nuclear tests. Eminent scientists and experts believe India has acquired enough material from previous tests and so it does not require conducting any further tests to build its nuclear deterrent capabilities. If our hesitation is based on the fact that Pakistan has not signed the NPT either is also misplaced in the light of the state of Pakistan today, which has all but collapsed. Under America’s watch and its presence there, Pakistan is no position to conduct nuclear test. India’s cherished dream of being a permanent UN Security Council member state will not realize unless it signs the NPT. So it is time to be bold and show to the world that it means business when it claims leadership position on the world’s stage by signing the NPT and show leadership alongside America in pushing to enforce Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If Obama is serious about his commitments made in Prague, India should support him with all zeal. India stands to lose nothing but what it stands to gain is significant in terms of its raised stature among the comity of nations. It is not surrendering or being subservient. Rather it is playing our cards cleverly to keep China and Pakistan at bay.
Look what China and Russia did. It vetoed the move by America to impose sanctions on North Korea in retaliation to its provocative act. Have we not sided with them or surrendered our sovereignty to them by muffling our response? Don’t we want to practice our own preaching that democratic nations should support other democracies rather than military or authoritarian or states which allow safe heavens for terrorists in their territories? You decide and vote which way to go.
The response from Japan, US and some other countries was immediate in form of a strong rebuke and condemnation. Calling it a provocative act amounting to a test of missile technology, US president Barack Obama said Pyongyang should be punished and sought a UN Security Council meet. “With this provocative act, North Korea has ignored its international obligations, rejected unequivocal calls for restraint, and further isolated itself from the community of nations,” he said in his speech in Hradcanske Sqaure outside the Prague Castle and his pledge to cut the US nuclear weapons stockpile, to bring into force the Comprehensive test Ban Treaty and to seek tough penalties for the violators of the rules of non-proliferation reflected the new urgency coming within hours of the North Korea’s defiance. Through these commitments, Obama sent signals to the world that America is ready to take fist step and expected other countries to do their bits towards making the world free of nuclear arms.
And how did India respond to the North Korean missile crisis? India’s dilemma was clearly discernible in its response to the launch. As a nation aspiring to play a greater role on the global stage, it was necessary to respond. But at the same time, it had to be cautious. India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the fact it knew would expose it to rejoinders questioning its credibility to comment on matters concerning the non-proliferation regime. So while in its response India stated that the IAEA was an appropriate body to decide whether Stalinist country had violated its international obligation on the NPT, it added that while it has not been a signatory to the NPT because it felt it was loaded in favor of nuclear weapons state, it believed in total non-proliferation. The second reason for a diluted response could be because general elections are round the corner. One unique factor of this general election is absence of any overriding issues. At a time when major global economies are struggling to get back to the growth path, the Indian economy is expected to grow at more than 6 percent. The inflation is at a record low level, prices of essential commodities are relatively in comfortable zone and the growth in agriculture has doubled since 2004. In absence of any mass-appeal issue to build rhetoric on, candidates across the political spectrum are indulging in provocative speeches and resorting to politics of language, caste, region and religion to mobilize different vote banks behind them. The Indian Left parties have become increasingly aware that it would be difficult to retain their present strength in Parliament in wake of multiple challenges they face in their traditional stronghold states of West Bengal and Kerala. Any response that could be projected as the one siding with America would have been a much needed fuel for the Left parties to mount their campaign along ‘Congress surrendering national sovereignty to America’ line to realign their eroding vote banks with them. The Congress probably did not want to concede that space to the Left. The third and probably the main reason was that India did not want to displease Russia, a known supporter of North Korea, with a strong rebuke.
I think India missed opportunity here. Without bothering much about any of the above considerations, India should have issued a strong condemnation as well as should have backed America’s call for tough punishment. First, given the fact that India’s non-proliferation record has been widely acknowledged and applauded, it should not have feared any backlash questioning its credibility. Second, it could have effectively countered the hysteria the Left parties might have created by saying that North Korea was the nation which acted against India’s interest by providing missile technology to Pakistan. Remember Pakistan’s now disgraced scientist A.Q. Khan’s nuclear proliferating network which provided nuclear technology to North Korea in return for their missiles? I don’t think any political parties would have courage to challenge the position that the action was to safeguard India’s interest vis-à-vis Pakistan. If they did, it would be on their own peril. And why not back America to censure North Korea? We did that when we supported a UN resolution moved by America against Iran, our traditional ally, not a long ago. As for Russia, it would not have bothered much on India’s strong stand against North Korea. It still would want India to continue as their principal partner for defense deals. I don’t think Russia would have seen a strong condemnation by India on North Korea’s action as a great strategic shift by India.
It is high time that India should restructure its foreign policy. The world has changed a lot and India is still stuck to its old cold-war era non-alignment policy, which was even then hypocrisy at its worst. It is also time to recalibrate its stands on the NPT and CTBT. India has already declared a unilateral moratorium on further nuclear tests. Eminent scientists and experts believe India has acquired enough material from previous tests and so it does not require conducting any further tests to build its nuclear deterrent capabilities. If our hesitation is based on the fact that Pakistan has not signed the NPT either is also misplaced in the light of the state of Pakistan today, which has all but collapsed. Under America’s watch and its presence there, Pakistan is no position to conduct nuclear test. India’s cherished dream of being a permanent UN Security Council member state will not realize unless it signs the NPT. So it is time to be bold and show to the world that it means business when it claims leadership position on the world’s stage by signing the NPT and show leadership alongside America in pushing to enforce Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If Obama is serious about his commitments made in Prague, India should support him with all zeal. India stands to lose nothing but what it stands to gain is significant in terms of its raised stature among the comity of nations. It is not surrendering or being subservient. Rather it is playing our cards cleverly to keep China and Pakistan at bay.
Look what China and Russia did. It vetoed the move by America to impose sanctions on North Korea in retaliation to its provocative act. Have we not sided with them or surrendered our sovereignty to them by muffling our response? Don’t we want to practice our own preaching that democratic nations should support other democracies rather than military or authoritarian or states which allow safe heavens for terrorists in their territories? You decide and vote which way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment