Dangerous drift

Editorial opionion by The Hindu, Wednesday 12 March 2003

THE PUSILLANIMITY DISPLAYED by New Delhi in its refusal to stake out a position against a war on Iraq is inexcusable. The Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has sought to portray the situation that India confronts in regard to this issue, at this juncture, as one where India is being made to choose between two friends. He has advocated that India follow a middle path and, thereby, implicitly suggested that the country make no choice at all. Such an approach to global affairs, wherein the fear of alienating one side or the other is the operative factor, not only represents a total abandonment of principle but also indicates a lack of the sense of purpose and will that add weight to a country’s status within the international community. By expressing the pious hope that a peaceful solution will be arrived at rather than taking a categorical position against war, New Delhi appears to imply that it does discern some justification for a U.S.-led military strike against Iraq. What is at the forefront of global events at this point in time, and therefore what needs to be urgently attended to, is the seemingly unstoppable slide towards hostilities. The question of Iraq’s non-compliance with its obligations to rid itself of a weapons of mass destruction capability is a matter that the global community has been seized of and has constantly addressed. Global activism on the score has begun to produce results with Iraq stepping up the pace of its cooperation with the United Nations weapons inspection teams. With a peaceful solution having become viable, it is all the more necessary that a stand be taken against a war that is ostensibly meant to achieve the same purpose. While it was slow to take a start, the campaign against war has picked up such momentum as to cause an upheaval in many parts of the world, including within the United Kingdom, the country that was otherwise seen to be mostly closely aligned with the U.S. With a multitude of countries taking a stand, Mr. Vajpayee ought to have acceded to the Opposition’s demand and taken a position that reflected the strong sentiment against war shared by many people across the country.

Neither can New Delhi afford to be ambivalent about the collateral objective that Washington apparently seeks to achieve through war, namely a regime change in Iraq. The U.S. is desperately trying to convince the rest of the global community that the removal from power of Iraq’s President, Saddam Hussein, is necessary not only because he threatens the world outside his country but also because he represses his own people. This policy, for which Washington is assiduously drumming up support, directly contravenes a principle of international politics which India has always treated as a matter of faith—that of non-intervention in the internal affairs of any country. The change of a country’s regime might be presented as a remedy only for extreme cases at the present, but if it comes to be accepted in principle it could spin off other doctrines that advocate external intervention at different levels, for different reasons and on different scales. Confronted as it is by multiple challenges in trying to integrate a multitude of disparate groups into the national mainstream, and displaying many lacunae on the score of good governance as it does, India has to be extremely wary of doctrines that promote external intervention in domestic affairs. The principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of any country has to be given sustenance, and should not be allowed to erode, at a juncture when the sovereign space of many countries is already being invaded by the forces of economic globalisation.

With so many aspects of India’s national interest likely to be challenged by these developments, and with its world view likely to be buffeted by the new doctrines, Mr. Vajpayee and his colleagues should have invited a wide-ranging and in-depth discussion on the issues instead of presenting an anodyne version of such debate as did take place at the all-party meeting. But hopefully, Parliament will take on a burden that the Government has not cared to pick up.