New Delhi’s willingness to take part in Geneva II may seem like an appeasement of the Sunni Arab world in their efforts to kill the waxing Shia crescent in the bud. Therefore, India must clarify that its decision is born out of concerns to safeguard our national interests and to bring peace in the region
If we consider the spine shown by Indian leadership in the Devyani episode is not a poll-eve gimmick, the formal invitation to India for participation in the Geneva II negotiations on Syria has given us an opportune moment to showcase the world that we have “emerged”.
Since the first spark of Arab Spring in Tunisia, the politically volatile situation in West Asia has thrown an enormous and daunting task for the region and the world. The complexity of the interconnected events poses a special challenge to India for two reasons: its dependence on West Asia for energy requirement, and the need to exhibit maturity commensurate with its desire to be recognised as a global power.
As Geneva II aims to bring all warring parties to the negotiating table to deliberate and resolve the political and humanitarian crises in Syria, an invitation to take part in the multilateral talks may actually force India to choose sides — a proposition which is rife with the danger of upsetting either the Sunni Arab world or pro-Assad group comprising Russia, China and Iran. Against this backdrop, until New Delhi explicitly announced its willingness to take part in Geneva II talks, there was speculation within and outside India that the country will turn down a formal request by Russia to participate in the talks.
India’s dilemma for the last one year has been how to balance its foreign policy towards Syria vis-Ã -vis Sunni Arab world led by Saudi Arabia and Syria vis-Ã -vis the US. And, therefore, India had been following a no-interference policy in the domestic affairs of West Asian nations. However, the involvement of foreign players in stoking crisis in Syria warrants a different approach.
There are, at least, two strong reasons which demand India to eschew the path of neutrality — first, to safeguard our national interests; second, India’s proactive involvement in finding a resolution to the Syrian crisis is vital to put forward its image as an emerging power that can take a strong, positive stand on concerns of global importance.
In fact, Syrian Ambassador to India Syed Kamel Abbas has on record appreciated “India’s position” on the Syrian crisis, and added that they look
forward to seeing India as a “big member” at Geneva II. It is interesting to note that the statement came after India voted along with 11 UNSC members in favour of a non-military resolution on Syria that was vetoed by Russia and China as they feared that Chapter 7 sanctions could lead to a military intervention in Assad’s Syria.
India’s concerns
India’s primary concern in West Asia is to secure energy requirements. We import about 65 per cent of our crude oil needs from the region. As per the trend, in the next 20 years the import may go up to 91 per cent. In order to make the best bargain for a cheaper import price, India has entered into several contracts both with the governments and private companies. Therefore, peace in the region is imperative.
In fact, the Syrian crisis has already affected India. ONGC investment in Syria’s oil and gas fields has gone sore after the rebels captured it from the state agency.
But India must ensure that any resolution at Geneva II shouldn’t jeopardise the interests of Syria’s closest ally Iran. Though China and Russia will, in any case, take care of Iran, we must demonstrate that Iran can trust India for their interests too as the Persian Gulf is important for another reason, besides oil and gas — it may provide India a gateway to post-Nato Afghanistan. This is vital as Pakistan will try to scuttle India’s move to politically influence Afghanistan.
However, considering Saudi Arabia’s influence in the Muslim world, India can’t afford to upset Saudi Arabia either. Saudi Ambassador to the UN has already asserted that the Geneva II conference should focus on transition of power in Syria and that Iran’s presence on the negotiating table will only put hurdle in finding a feasible resolution. West Asia seems to have split along sectarian Shia-Sunni lines, as last week Assad asked devout Muslims to fight against the fundamentalist Wahhabism propagated by Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has already been accused of successfully influencing till-now unbiased lebanon whose armed forces took an unprecedented step to fire on a Syrian aircraft that had entered the former’s airspace last week. Interestingly, a day before lebanese President Michel Suleiman had announced to accept a $3 billion aid for the army from Saudi Arabia. Surprisingly, this financial help is larger than the lebanon’s defence budget. The timing of the aid and subsequent firing on Assad forces is bound to provoke Hezbollah.
Another country in the region which will have a great interest in learning India’s position will be Israel, which is already worried that foreign combatants from western countries fighting against the Assad forces could attack Israeli on their return. The longer the Syrian crisis goes, the better it is for Israel as its arch-rival Hezbollah will remain tied-up in fighting alongside Assad’s forces.
India’s strategic relations with Israel have helped New Delhi in the past as the Jewish lobby in the US has been successful in pushing pro-India decisions by America.
‘Still’ emerging, or reckoning powerIJ
The moot point is: Will India put up a resolute stand in GenevaIJ And whether this will prove that India is going to act like a global powerIJ
Neo-realists believe that effective economic and military capabilities determine whether a country is a superpower. At least India is considered not to be in a position to interfere in a country militarily.
This has helped India in a way: countries that are at loggerheads with each other in their region are good trade partners with India as they know India won’t take sides. But it also has a very serious effect: even smaller countries take India head on. One such glaring example is Kuwait’s protest against India’s move to tap Israel’s leviathan gas field in early 2012.
Conclusion:
For the world and the uninitiated, India’s neutral approach to the Arab Spring has been based on the legacy of the Nehruvian policy of non-interference in the affairs of a sovereign country. But for some, India’s change of stand in case of Syria may seem like an appeasement of the Sunni Arab world in their concerted effort to kill the waxing Shia crescent in the bud. Therefore, India has an enormous task to clarify all that our willingness to take part in Geneva II is born out of concerns to safeguard our national interests and to seek a peaceful solution to the humanitarian crisis in Syria rather than an appeasement.
Till now because of our sheer large size, we have become a soft power, but this is high time we tweak our foreign policy in a way that helps India get recognition as a reckoning global power.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)