Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts

The Indian Spring: Lessons for the world

This piece was first published by www.rediff.com on 30 December 2013 under the headline The Indian Spring: Lessons For The World


n The Indian Spring represented by Anna Hazare's anti-corruption campaign, which has culminated in the Aam Aadmi Party's impressive electoral debut, began around the same time as the Arab Spring in 2011 but they led to different outcomes. A comparison:
A scene from an anti-corruption protest in India
A photograph from the Arab Spring
New Delhi
28 December 2013 

O


n 17 December 2013, as Tunisians observed the third anniversary of the self-immolation of a 26-year-old street vendor Mohd Bouazizi in Sidi Bouzid that sparked protests in their country and triggered a wave of similar uprisings across North Africa and West Asia, people of Delhi broke out into celebrations for the second time in less than 10 days. A rank outsider, 45-year-old Arvind Kejriwal had just announced a referendum of sorts to ascertain the people’s wishes on whether his Aam Aadmi (common man) Party should take the lead for forming a government or not, after the fledgling party made a historic debut in the recently concluded provincial elections winning 28 seats in the 70-member Assembly and coming second behind BJP and its allies (32) but far ahead of the Congress’s tally of eight seats. Less than a week later, Kejriwal had staked claim to form the government, bringing to a successful culmination an unprecedented experiment in Indian democracy and bringing cheer to ordinary citizens who had had enough of the corruption and inflation that had peaked of late.

The contrast between Sidi Bouzid, a town 260 kilometres southwest of capital Tunis, and a Delhi located 6,000-odd km away, could not have been starker. Three years after the first stirrings of the Arab Spring, Tunisia – much like the rest of the Arab world – is still coming to terms with the contagion that was unleashed on an unsuspecting society and government alike. But the Indian version of the Arab Spring that began with a septuagenarian anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare’s fast at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on 5 April 2011 can draw satisfaction from the many successes it has notched up on the way. There is a sense of accomplishment in the air. The spontaneous public movement that captured the imagination of men and women, young and old, in cities and towns across much of India has finally paid dividends. Not only does India today have a new Lokpal Bill that provides for a nationwide anti-corruption ombudsman, Hazare’s one-time protégé Kejriwal has turned a people’s movement for good governance, transparency and accountability into a political party with a remarkable felicity of democratic expression. That this was achieved without any blood-letting is a tribute to the virtues of democracy in general and the sagacity and maturity of the Indian voter in particular. Compare this with the less than two lakh people killed in the Arab Spring, including, but not limited to, 300 in Tunisia, 1,700 in Egypt, 2,000 in Yemen, 25,000 in Libya, 1.2 lakh in Syria and over 100 in Bahrain, all of which are yet nowhere close to overcoming the challenges such as corruption, unemployment, inflation and inequality that bedevils Sidi Bouzid as much as it does Chandni Chowk. The events that unfolded in those countries brought home the tragic consequences of choosing the bullet over the ballot.

The phenomenon sweeping across much of the Arab world did not leave democratic societies such as the United States, where the Occupy Wall Street movement gained traction, or India, untouched. No country was immune from its reach. Social media ensured that the word spread farther and anger travelled faster. It sprouted wherever it found a ground made fertile by misgovernance. It spared neither the dictator nor the democrat. Five governments were overthrown, including two in Egypt, just as the ruling Congress party was ousted from power in the province of Delhi but, unlike India and the US, the levels of disenchantment continue to remain high in the democracy-deficit countries in North Africa and West Asia. The prevailing sentiment in Tunisia, which has seen changes wrought by the Arab Spring, is that people’s lives and their economic situation has improved only marginally but it is not likely to improve any further in the immediate future. Tunisia is likely to witness the approval of a new constitution and the holding of parliamentary elections in 2014. In a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and the University of Maryland in the United States, more than 60 per cent of the 3,000 Tunisian adults surveyed said that they are not happy with the current political leadership and 86 per cent said that corruption is common. The situation is worse in Egypt, which increasingly resembles a police state, or, Libya, where militias run amok, throwing the country into further instability. In Yemen, attempts are still being made for a national dialogue and reconciliation involving multiple stakeholders. “It is clear that the process of Arab transformation will need decades to mature and that its success is by no means guaranteed,” says Marwan Muasher, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the oldest international affairs think tank in the United States. Muasher’s prognosis for some of the countries affected by the Arab Spring is not encouraging. According to him, Egypt, which can be expected to hold a referendum on a new constitution in addition to presidential and parliamentary elections in 2014, “is not out of the woods yet.” He sounds a warning for the Arab monarchies who have not succeeded in tackling the underlying political, economic, and social challenges their nations face. “Jordan will continue to feel that it has successfully ridden the wave of Arab transitions without seriously addressing some of the key economic and political challenges facing the country. And it will probably get away with it, at least for now,” notes Muasher, who served as Jordan’s deputy prime minister from 2004 to 2005 and foreign minister from 2002 to 2004.


A
t the same time, the Aam Aadmi Party’s ascension to the front and centre of the political landscape and discourse is instructive for a proud democracy such as India. We are seeing Kejriwal’s fourth avatar, this time as a politician, after the engineer-turned-bureaucrat quit government service to launch a non-government organisation (NGO.) He was in every sense of the word an antithesis to the reticent and self-effacing Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who for many had come to symbolise some if not everything that was wrong with the government and governance. By any reckoning, the recently concluded elections in Delhi that catapulted the Aam Aadmi Party to centrestage had to be among the most secular electoral contests in recent memory because it was fought on the twin issues of corruption and good governance, and these are as secular an issue as secular gets. The usual considerations of caste, sect or religion were trumped by the near universal outrage against corruption. Contrast this with many of the countries affected by the Arab Spring which descended into sectarianism, majoritarianism or plain terrorism; where people still yearn for the rule of law and many of the personal freedoms and human rights that many around the world take for granted. The Indian Spring also took under its wing issues other than corruption, such as crimes against women. The common man was once again at the forefront of the apolitical, secular protests following the 16 December 2012 gang rape of a young woman in Delhi. The Indian Street, similar to the Arab Street, had well and truly begun to take spape. The unprecedented outrage forced Parliament to pass the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill to tighten the legal framework against rape. Women have found the voice to assert themselves like never before. It has led to the arrest of a magazine editor on charges of rape and a retired Supreme Court judge finds himself at the centre of a row over the alleged sexual harassment of a law intern. Having said that, if the groundswell of opinion in favour of the Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi extends to even some of the other states of Indian Union and/or the mandate decisively shifts away from the two blocs led by the Congress and the BJP to regional parties, then the 2014 parliamentary elections could throw up a more representative government bringing in its wake certain implications for the economic and foreign policies of India. Be it 51 per cent foreign direct investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail; policies vis-à-vis Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka; National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC); or setting up of new nuclear power plants, what cannot be overstated is that devolution of economic or foreign policies to more stakeholders than what is currently assumed should not be entirely unwelcome. In a federal structure such as India’s, foreign policy in particular cannot be practised in a vacuum or in isolation or without consultations with all stakeholders concerned, including, but not limited to, the states, particularly those that share contiguous borders with neighbouring countries and/or share ethnic, linguistic, cultural or geographical affinities with them. A foreign policy drawn up in the corridors of the South Block in New Delhi may have served India well in all these decades but contemporary realities dictate that in a federal set-up and in an era of coalition governments the views of the states are factored in at the time of formulation of a foreign policy. The democratisation of policy-making and the salience of the states in shaping it cannot be continued to be treated as an exception; and the sooner New Delhi gets used to executing its foreign and domestic policies in a coalition with sometimes competing political interests, the better it will be for all the stakeholders concerned.

At the time of writing, protests reminiscent of the Arab Spring are happening in Thailand, where at least five have died so far, and Ukraine. The international community could draw the right lessons from the Indian Spring, which spawned the rise of the Aam Aadmi Party. It has stirred even a 128-year-old party such as the Congress from its complacency and put others on notice. The three-time chief minister of Delhi, who had derisively asked “Who is Arvind Kejriwal? What is [Aam Aadmi Party]?” on election day, got her answer four days later when the votes were counted and how: Her party had been trounced and she herself had lost the election from her constituency. All of which can only mean one thing for political parties and governments everywhere: Thou shalt not mistreat the common man.

India's poser to US: If you won't dump Pakistan, why should we jettison Iran?

Hyderabad
18 March 2012

As India negotiates the diplomatic minefield that is West Asia, questions are being asked of the government as to whether and how it could engage differently with Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, without having to taking sides or pick and choose one over the other.

New Delhi would have you believe that the overlapping tensions in West Asia, manifested in the Israel-Iran stand-off over the latter's nuclear ambitions, the proxy war being played out in Syria between a Shiite Iran and the Sunni-bloc led by Saudi Arabia, or more generally the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy, constrict India's options.

In an example of some nimble Indian diplomacy, the government despatched external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia in order to offset any adverse fallout from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposed visit to Iran later this year. However, the same government chose in its wisdom to support a UNSC resolution against Syria.

While there is merit in New Delhi's argument, an influential section of the Indian diplomatic community contends that the ongoing investigation into the attack on an Israeli envoy in New Delhi or the threat of US sanctions on Indian entities post-June 28 for not reducing oil imports from Iran should not deter the government from pursuing what it deems is in its enlightened national interest.

"The US not only does not choose between India and Pakistan but actually assists our adversary in many ways, so why should we forego our limited relationship with Iran for the sake of the US?" wondered Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary.

"Do Iran and Saudi Arabia choose between us and Pakistan? If at all they have been historically closer to Pakistan than to us. If Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust are objectionable, the Wahabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia is objectionable too. We should safeguard our energy relationship with Iran as best as we can despite US and EU sanctions and the Arab position," Mr Sibal told this newspaper.

Increasingly, diplomats who have observed or served in the region insist that India's relationship with Iran should stand on its own feet and not linked to its relations with Saudi Arabia. They maintain that whatever the differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Sunni conflict that is building up, India does not need to take sides or feel compelled to choose.

They cautioned against a repeat of 2005 when New Delhi jettisoned its ties with Tehran in its narrow pursuit of the India-US nuclear deal. While some claim that Iran's rise as a regional power is inevitable, others cite the significance of Iran as land bridge to Afghanistan and beyond as a case in point.

From The Asian Age, New Delhi, edition

Indians safe in Syria, no travel advisory for now


From Left, the clipping from The Asian Age; the International page of the Bengaluru edition of Deccan Chronicle; and the clipping of the article from the edition

New Delhi

4 August 2011

Some Indian nationals living in Syria have shifted from the city of Hama, which has witnessed protests, to Aleppo, the largest city after the capital Damascus.

Similarly, a few Indians living in the Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor have moved to safer areas in the same province following the recent unrest.

There are about 1,000 Indian nationals in Syria and all of them were reported to be safe. There were no reports of casualties or injuries to Indian nationals.

A majority of the Indian nationals, about 600 of them, including their families, are located at the Shia shrine of Sayidda Zeinab, on the outskirts of Damascus, where they learn the religious scriptures.

Some 300-odd Indians live in Damascus, and another 35, mostly oil workers, in the province of Deir ez-Zor. The remaining Indian nationals are scattered across Syria.

Unlike some countries, India does not intend to issue a travel advisory warning its nationals to leave Syria or to not to travel to Syria. Their evacuation is ruled out for now.

New Delhi has sought to justify its stand by saying that its assessment is different from that of some other countries whose decisions are clouded by political factors. It has determined, using its mission in Damascus and other means, that the situation inside Syria is not as bad as it is made out to be by a section of media, mostly based in the US and Europe. Also, the casualty figures are exaggerated by the particular section of media.

There were only pockets of protests, and the capital Damascus and Aleppo, two of Syria's largest cities, have remained quiet. Moreover, the families of diplomats of some countries, who had been asked to leave Syria following the outbreak of violence, were reported to be returning to Damascus. At the same time, India does not anticipate a problem in relocating its nationals from Syria if the situation worsens because their population is small, unlike Egypt, Libya or Yemen.

The sentiments of India, which is the president of the United Nations security council (UNSC) for the month of August, are shared by some other non-permanent UNSC members who have since issued a presidential statement, as opposed to a resolution, voicing its concern over the developments in Syria.

Sanctions won't help, a combative Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad warns US allies; Damascus banks on IBSA support in UNSC

Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad

New Delhi
2 August 2011

Dismissing the latest tranche of sanctions as futile, Syria has said that the European Union (EU) is mistaken if it believes it can extract "political concessions" from the government headed by President Bashar al-Assad.

The EU on Tuesday added Syrian defence minister Ali Habib Mahmud and
four others to its sanctions blacklist.

In an exclusive interview to Ramesh Ramachandran in New Delhi, a combative Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad accused the US, EU and Israel of "provoking" violence in his country and attempting to do a Libya in Syria.

"It is very clear they want to repeat the same aggression committed by the NATO against Libya on Syria," Mr Mekdad said, alluding to moves by the US and its European allies to revive a draft United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution condemning Syria for its crackdown on protesters.

He is reasonably sanguine that the IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa), all three of whom currently are non-permanent UNSC members, along with Russia and China, would not encourage adoption of the resolution.

"What prevented the Security Council for the last three months from adopting a resolution is the understanding shown by the friends of Syria. I think this time their [the US and its European allies] attempts will fail again," he said.

The only time Mr Mekdad struck an apparently conciliatory note was when he said that Syria was "ready to cooperate with Europe" provided the terms of engagement were "on equal basis with mutual respect and understanding".

However, he was categorical that "if the objective of the US and its European allies was to help Israel preserve its hegemony and exercise its hegemony on the entire region then they are wrong."

"... what we are looking for is just and comprehensive peace where Israel withdraws from the occupied Arab territories from West Bank and Gaza, from the Syrian Golan and from southern Lebanon, and establishment of an independent Palestine state. This is the way we can establish [peace] but their support of Israel and their attempts to give Israel the peace and the land will lead nowhere."

Mr Mekdad noted that Syria was paying a price for being "the last post of resistance against European, American and Israeli pressures."

He added: "Any meeting between post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt and Syria is very dangerous for American and Israeli and Western interests in the region. That is why they have to destroy Syria before it establishes good, normal relations with new Egypt."

Mr Mekdad, who called on external affairs minister SM Krishna on Monday, said the "help and support received from India at international fora is very important."

India on Monday assumed the rotating presidency of the UNSC for the month of August.

Calling for "strategic" ties between India and West Asia generally and Syria in particular, Mr Mekdad said, "Syria and developing countries should now look to the east rather than to the west [and we] need to develop South-South cooperation."



Clippings from The Asian Age (top), Deccan Chronicle's Bengaluru edition (bottom left), and from Deccan Chronicle's Hyderabad edition (bottom right)

*******

After the 2006 vote against Iran, India abstains on Syria, but questions remain







(L) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and, on the right, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

New Delhi
10 June 2011

India abstained in Thursday's (9 June 2011) vote in the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), which decided to report Syria to the United Nations security
council (UNSC) over its alleged covert nuclear programme.

The 35-member board of governors of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog decided by
a 17-to-six vote, with 11 abstentions, to refer Syria to the UNSC for building an
undeclared nuclear reactor at a site in Dair Alzour (which was unilaterally destroyed by
Israel in 2007), for not allowing the IAEA to carry out investigations, and for not adhering
to its safeguards agreements.

The last time the IAEA reported a member-state to the UNSC was Iran in February 2006.
India's votes against Iran had been widely criticised at home, but Thursday's abstention
did not go unchallenged either.

A section of the official circles described India's decision to abstain, and to not cast a 'no
vote' along with Russia and the others, as being dictated by a desire to keep the US and
Israel in good humour. It felt that the IAEA vote was meant to bully President Bashar al-
Assad of Syria into submission and to set in motion a process to effect a regime change
(similar to Libya) in order to disrupt the Syria-Iran axis.

However, New Delhi defended itself by maintaining that states were required to comply
with safeguards obligations and it has consistently been against clandestine
proliferation. At the same time, it pointed out, scope for dialogue should be fully utilised.

The IAEA's referral of Syria to the UNSC should be seen in the context of the attempts by
the West to push for a UNSC resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on protesters.
With Russia indicating that it might veto any such UNSC resolution against Syria, New
Delhi was of the opinion that putting it to vote in the 15-member UNSC, of which India is a
non-permanent member, would be pointless.

In Thursday's vote, 17 countries voted for reporting Syria to the UNSC. They were: the
US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Germany, Italy, Japan, South
Korea, Australia, Belgium, Cameron, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, and the UAE.
Six countries voted against the motion: China, Russia, Pakistan, Ecuador, Venezuela
and Azerbaijan. India and 10 other countries abstained, which included Argentina, Brazil,
Chile, South Africa, Peru, Jordan, Kenya, Niger, Tunisia, and Ukraine. Mongolia was absent
from the vote.