rediff.com
Hi Guest
Log in | Sign up
Skip to content

Putin drops out of G-8 summit

The Kremlin’s announcement earlier today that President Vladimir Putin will not be attending the G-8 summit in Camp David on May 18-19 comes as a surprise. This is a most recent decision, as all indications were that Putin had accepted President Barack Obama’s invitation. 

In an extraordinary gesture, Obama’s National Security Advisor Tom Dillon met Putin in Moscow on the eve of the latter’s taking over as president. The White House statement conveyed that Dillon had ‘constructive’ discussions on US-Russia relations. It referred to “consultations on mutual strategic interest”. Evidently, the topic of missile defence figured. 
The Kremlin has rubbished the speculation that Putin chose to skip the visit to the US to avoid embarrassment over western criticism regarding ‘democracy deficit’ in Russia. Interestingly, Putin has nominated prime minister-designate Dmitry Medvedev to represent him. A tongue-in-cheek remark said “During Medvedev’s work as the president, Russia-US relations have experienced a notable progress, ad the work on that direction is to be continued.”   
Curiously, Putin also had a phone conversation with Obama on Wednesday, which was described as a “constructive conversation” by the Kremlin. So, what prompted Putin’s decision to drop out, finally? In all probability, missile defence poses a formidable obstacle in the Russia-US discourse. 
One of the first acts by Putin after taking over as president was to issue a decree affirming that Moscow will remain consistent on its policy to seek “guarantees” that the US missile defence system will not be “directed against Russia’s nuclear deterrent forces.” 
Without doubt, Putin would have factored in that Obama hopes to showcase the G-8 summit at Camp David for political mileage in the US presidential election campaign. The ‘downgrading’ of Russia’s representation at the summit will be invested with political symbolism when things look somewhat grim on the missile defence issue. Indeed, Putin is scheduling a visit to China in June. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics, Uncategorized.

Tagged with , , .

6 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 10, 2012


India leverages Iran’s woes

Indian diplomacy is doing splendidly well in leveraging the United States’ sanctions against Iran to its advantage. All indications are that India has cut down its oil imports from Iran despite the official stance that India observes only the UN sanctions on Iran. The visiting US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed appreciation more than once this week that Washington feels “encouraged” by the Indian government decision to reduce oil purchases from Iran.

She went a step ahead and offered help to India to diversify its sources. In fact, a senior US official is on his way to Delhi to help India locate alternate oil supplies. Reuters, meanwhile, confirmed that India’s oil imports from Iran in April dropped by over 30 percent. No wonder, Clinton was absolutely thrilled.
In the face of these hard facts, our government now concedes finally that, yes, oil imports from Iran have been reduced. But the new mantra is that this is due to “commercial, financial and technical considerations” and not because of US arm twisting, and, secondly, because the Indian refineries only are deciding on the oil imports from Iran — meaning it is not a government decision as such.
Of course, only a total duffer will fall for the sophistry. Our government is lying through its teeth. How come the government-owned refineries have suddenly developed cold feet toward Iranian oil but not privately-owned Essar Refinery?
Clearly, government has meekly succumbed to Washington’s diktat. Which is of course pitiable, but not surprising. All the same, curiously, the government is also leveraging the US arm twisting to its advantage. For one thing, it expects Washington not to impose sanctions against India in July for purchasing oil from Iran.
Besides, the US Congress, where the Israeli lobby is active, has been placated. Hopefully, India will get some benefit out of this ‘goodwill’ at the forthcoming Strategic Dialogue in Washington? Say, a permanent seat at the UN Security Council? Or, at the very least, a membership of the Nuclear Supply Group?
India has done well to take advantage of Iran’s woes. Forty-five percent of oil purchase from Iran will now be as barter trade. India manipulated the crisis in the payment mechanism (precipitated by the US, of course) to bring in the formula that since money can’t change hands between India and Iran, why not switch to barter arrangement?
So, India will sell tea and basmati rice and so on for half of Iran’s ’sweet oil’. Isn’t that splendid? Besides, Iran also now needs to mandatorily buy from India products valued up to 45% of the income out of its oil exports to India. Isn’t that an ingenuous export promotion drive for India? Would Saudi Arabia or Qatar agree to such a deal — sell their oil and gas for India’s attar or aphrodisiacs? I wonder if our political elites who mollycoddle the wealthy Gulf sheikhs to their personal benefit could swing such a deal for India.
And, what does Iran get in return for this lop-sided deal? Nothing very much. Except, an Indian official or two may say now and then that Iran has the right to pursue its nuclear programme as an NPT member and that Iran nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through negotiations.
To my mind, Indian diplomacy has never showed such ruthless efficiency in leveraging a regional conflict situation to its advantage. I am waiting to see what happens if and when the US and Iran decide to kiss and make up sometime during Barack Obama’s second stint in the Oval Office. Hopefully, India will have become a permanent member of the UN Security Council by then?

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , .

12 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 9, 2012


What’s for India if France swings to left

Francois Hollande’s stunning victory in the French presidential elections turns European politics upside down. The fact that he has never ever met German chancellor Angela Merkel or that British prime minister David Cameron refused to meet ’socialist’ candidate Hollande when he crossed the Channel and went over to London to say ‘hello’, suggests a lot. A ’socialist’ wave is sweeping over Europe — Hollande is leading the 11th ‘regime change’. 

It is improbable that the German-French axis is going to remain intact. ”Austerity is not an inevitability” — these words are from FH’s first speech after he won the election. Most commentators have framed FH’s victory as a challenge to the European Union’s compact on strict budgetary discipline, which carries Germany’s imprimatur. (By the way, on Sunday, Greece also voted for change in the EU’s bailout terms.) 
But the fact is also that FH’s has little room for manoeuvering. Besides, how ’socialist’ FH is in office remains to be seen. True, he famously said, “my opponent is the world of finance”; or, “I don’t like the rich.” But then, remember Tony Blair who was also ‘centre-left’ when he aspired for prime ministership? 
FH narrowly won. And he got a lot of protest votes. Sarkozy was widely loathed by large sections of French people for a variety of reasons, and the poll turned out to be a referendum on his political personality than about FH’s economic agenda. Sarkozy’s combative style and aggression put off the French but even then nearly half of France voted for him. 
Surely, FH would know that, too. FH is an experienced and shrewd politician who cashed in on the national ‘mood’ with some astute grandstanding. To cap it, he is blessed with a complete lack of track record as a public official at the national level. The point is, we know more about his love life than about his politics. 
The big question is what is there in it for India? The Euro zone crisis no doubt impacts us. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee listed out the fault lines just 3 days ago — Europe’s lower growth, falling business sentiments, declining capital flows, and exchange rate and stock market volatility with attendant implication for investor confidence. The reshaping of the debate over the Euro zone crisis will be keenly watched in North Block. 
There is a political moral here, too — the political cost of pursuing economic policies that cater to the rich. (One of FH’s major election pledges is to hike taxes on the rich and on companies that distribute profit to shareholders instead of ploughing it into investment.) 
It can be safely said that he won’t be half as messianic about Syria as Sarkozy has been. France’s alliance with the United States (and NATO) is going to loosen. FH favors fast-tracking the withdrawal of the French contingent in Afghanistan within the year. He also calls for early settlement of the Palestine problem. 
But, his foreign policy agenda remains a big unknown as of now. India may have to mothball the grandiose visions of strategic partnership with France. FH is highly unlikely to be interested in a muscular foreign policy or military adventures as in Libya. On the other hand, India can draw comfort that FH is enthusiastic about the enlargement of the UN Security Council. 
Let us pray that no Sarkozy-era skeletons tumble out of the cupboard in the Elysee Palace relating to France’s arms deals with India. Anything is possible, if there is an iota of truth in the recent disclosures by a former Libyan prime minister that Moammar Gadhafi had financed Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign. 

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , , , .

6 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 7, 2012


Clinton takes charge of Mamata

The United States is paying flattering attention to West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee. Within weeks of her assuming office as chief minister, the US assistant secretary of state Robert Blake travelled to Kolkatta to greet her. Soon after that, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton almost made it to Kolkatta, except that for some obscure reason, New Delhi torpedoed her travel plan. 

Then, of course, Time magazine came out flashing Mamata as one of the most influential 100 human beings on the planet. Now, finally, Clinton is going to make it in a second bid when she flies into Kolkatta from Dhaka by tea time Sunday for a pow-wow with Mamata before proceeding to New Delhi. 
What is the secret of being Mamata? Why is Uncle Sam so obsessive about her? After all, she has been a feisty Indian politician, albeit one of a kind, for decades. True, she disrupted the 3-decade long run of communist rule in West Bengal. But that alone cannot be the leitmotif of the passionate attraction she holds for the Americans. After all, these are days when the US is quite comfy with communists who are willing to assume local characteristics, and, equally, there is nothing earthshaking if a communist government falls out of power in a bourgeois democracy. So, what is the big deal in Kolkatta? 
Look eastward at Sonar Bangla for the answer. The great game has reached Bangladesh. ConocoPhilips is already exploring oil reserves in the Bay of Bengal. The maritime boundary dispute between India and Bangladesh might be resolved in 2014 if the international court gives the verdict, as seems likely.
There are huge business opportunities opening up for Big OIl and the American companies in Bangladesh and Myanmar and their vast economic zones in the Bay of Bengal now that the maritime boundary dispute between the two countries has been resolved. Kolkatta is the gateway that connects the Indian market with the El Dorado. 
To be sure, Mamata has a crucial role to play in the US geostrategy, which also happens to be a crucial template of Washington’s ‘containment’ strategy toward China. That is, provided she graduates from being a mofussil politician and mercurial street fighter and intellectually and politically develops what we Indians usually call a ‘vision’. This is a bit like ‘educating Rita’. Clinton is going to give Mamata the first lessons. 
It is in the US’ interests that this thorn in the flesh of India-Bangladesh relations is clinically removed and immobilized once and for all. Before Clinton addresses the problem on Sunday, it seems External Affairs Minister S.M.Krishna has given Mamata a bit of tutoring on how the world functions. There is great convergence of interests between Clinton and Krishna in ensuring that Mamata becomes erudite at the earliest opportunity. 
The US-Indian axis is working overtime to keep China out of Bay of Bengal. Now, Dhaka happens to be a crucial cog in the wheel of the US-Indian regional strategy. Clinton is dropping by over the weekend in Dhaka to cement a strategic partnership with Bangladesh. It is an urgent necessity that Dhaka should be incentivized to get over its allergy toward India. 
The US has been counselling Delhi also to move fast to build up trust and bonhomie with Dhaka. And, Delhi is trying hard. Much ground has been covered. But the crucial home stretch can be covered only if Mamata concurs. Delhi already burnt its fingers once during prime minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Bangladesh last November by foolishly assuming Mamata can be taken for granted. She spoiled Dr. Singh’s party — and Washington was aghast at the appalling miscalculation by New Delhi. Now, they won’t leave things to chance anymore. Clinton is handling matters herself. 
So, we come back to Mamata, the deal breaker of the US’ geostrategy in South Asia. Washington appreciates that Mamata holds the key to India-Bangladesh relations. And the US regional strategy is predicated on the India-Bangladesh relationship. The US-India regional axis has reached a cul-de-sac and the impasse can be broken only if Mamata plays ball. 
The point is, there is also no time to be lost. As the saying goes, strike when the iron is hot. Time is indeed running out, as the Sheikh Hasina government may not last forever. Bangladesh may overnight change its disposition toward India and then everything goes phut.
If I were in Clinton’s place, I wouldn’t take risks. I’d straightway arrange a Nobel for Mamata — so that the Big Oil caravan moves forward without impediments on the road to Dhaka and arrives there ahead of the China National Petroleum Corporation which has a habit of reaching such destinations first. 
I am holding breath till Sunday night. If this experiment in Kolkatta succeeds, a new vista opens for India’s foreign policy. We could next request Clinton to handle Muthuvel Karunanidhi (and Vaikko Anna) as well — so that the US-Indian axis makes headway in Colombo as well.

Posted in Uncategorized.

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 4, 2012


Russia, China and US-Afghan pact

Russia has been constantly taunting Washington in the recent months about the latter’s plans to keep a long-term military presence in Afghanistan. China is also widely rumored to harbor similar views as Russia, but it kept its thoughts to itself. Russian foreign minister has been quite outspoken on the issue whereas his Chinese counterpart avoided public articulations on the subject. 

Thus, the Russian and Chinese reactions to the signing of the US-Afghan strategic pact in Kabul on Tuesday present a case study. Neither Moscow nor Beijing has uttered an official word yet. Of course, they don’t have to, since the US and Afghanistan are sovereign countries and strictly speaking, it is none of their business that Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai got together and put their signatures on a common document. But then, it is a silly argument, since the strategic pact is also about the fate of the ISAF mission, which indeed carries a United Nations mandate that was sanctioned by Russia and China along with the western troika in the Security Council.  
Meanwhile, Russian official media also kept mum about the historic development in Kabul. Xinhua, on the other hand, has come out with a commentary with Beijing dateline. The curious thing is that the commentary acknowledges that the US-Afghan strategic pact is “perceived as beginning a new chapter in US-Afghan relations and paving the way for a continued military presence central asia after NATO troops withdraw in 2014,” but it fails to offer a word of criticism about this development of immense consequence to the geopolitics of the region.
The commentary instead takes a detour to proceed to evaluate the prospects of the US’ strategy, the formidable challenges that lie ahead and it finally concludes that the strategic pact is “just the first step in the next stage of the US’ strategy for the region.” In a cooperative spirit, Xinhua offers some good advice as well as to how Washington could make its strategy work: “US should concentrate on plugging the loopholes in security and strive for a smooth transition leading up to the withdrawal of the NATO forces.”
Significantly, government newspaper China Daily also featured a commentary drawing attention to the US’ travails in dealing with Pakistan. It mocks at Pakistan’s claim that it knew not that Osama bin laden was living in Abbottabad all those years or that he begat two children in Pakistani hospitals. It underlines that Islamabad even went back on its word to conduct a decent, transparent enquiry about the bin Laden affair.
The commentary stops just short of calling the Pakistanis as liars and it somewhat commiserates with Uncle Sam’s plight that despite such manifest duplicity and doublespeak, Washington is still compelled to deal with that country because it has nuclear weapons and its role remains important in the fight against al-Qaeda. “Many believe Islamabad’s cooperation is essential for getting any Afghan deal to stick, allowing the US to withdraw troops.” Hey, is this the ‘all-weather friend’ speaking? Beijing seems to be marking its distance from the Pakistani shenanigans. To be sure, some food for thought. The China Daily commentary is here.    

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , .

4 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 4, 2012


The eagle has landed in Central Asia

The signing of the US-Afghan strategic pact by presidents Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai is undoubtedly a landmark event in regional security. A long-term American military presence in the region has become a compelling reality for all countries neighboring Afghanistan. Obama has scattered all skepticism about the US’ resolve to remain committed in the region’s security. The shadow of the US presence will fall on the Central Asian steppes and may well thwart Vladimir Putin’s Eurasia Union project. China has to contend with thousands of American troops on the borders of Xinjiang. 

The White House fact sheet on the pact confirms an “enduring US presence in Afghanistan” and maintains that there will be no “permanent [US] military bases”. But it is a matter of semantics, since Kabul is “committed to provide US personnel access to and use of Afghan facilities through 2014 and beyond”. We all would know that the Afghans have hardly any control over the bases where the US troops and war equipment are located. 
The fact sheet confirms in essence that US combat troops and special forces, etc. will remain in Afghanistan. A Bilateral Security Agreement ( read status of forces agreement) will be concluded in an year’s time. Interestingly, the US will regard Afghanistan as a ‘Major Non-NATO Ally’ so that it becomes a relationship based on a “long-term framework of security and defence cooperation.” 
The US has done well to sign the pact swiftly within a week or so of its initialing by the negotiators. The risk was always there of a miss between the cup and the lip, as the Iraq experience would tell. The Afghan situation is volatile, Karzai is a mercurial personality and there are regional powers who would do their damnest to scuttle the pact. 
Paradoxically, the recent Taliban attacks on Kabul may have created a climate of opinion within Afghanistan favoring continued US military presence. The Afghan parliament is expected to ratify the pact as early as next week. 
The regional powers too have fallen silent. Iran is preparing for the talks in Baghdad on May 23 with the P5+1. Russia is busy with the transition in the Kremlin. China never voices any public opinions on US military bases in Afghanistan, while India is a silent votary of long-term US military presence in the region as a guarantor-cum-provider of security for Afghanistan. 
The big question is about Pakistan’s attitude. Technically, this is a matter between the US and Pakistan, which are sovereign countries. But Pakistan has to factor in extraneous considerations — Taliban’s visceral opposition (at least, in public) to the US presence; domestic opinion within Pakistan; long-term US intentions toward Pakistan; limits to Pakistan’s influence over the power structure in Kabul, etc. 
But to my mind, Pakistan will learn to live with the long-term military presence in Afghanistan, and may even seek to turn it to its advantage. The military leadership in Rawalpindi will certainly know the futility of a confrontation with the US and would extract advantages out of the US’ long-term heavy dependence on transit routes through Pakistan. Conceivably, continued US engagement in counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan also helps divert Taliban militancy away from Pakistan. In short, it is crunch time for Pakistan to decide what sort of Afghanistan it desires as neighbor.  
There are silver linings. The point is, the ice has been broken in the US-Pakistan standoff. The protagonists are old hands at dealing with each other and they know they can’t do without each other on the Afghan chessboard. Prime Minister Yousuf Gilani will have another meeting with Obama in Chicago during the NATO summit, which will more or less clear the air for the reset of the US-Pak ties. In sum, Pakistan will bend with the wind — and the wind is blowing in favor of Obama. Read my article in Asia Times titled ‘Obama has an Afghan game plan’.  

Posted in Diplomacy, Politics.

Tagged with , , .

3 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 3, 2012


Egypt’s future at crossroads

India would have more than a cursory interest in Egypt’s presidential election Monday. Several opinion polls have shown two frontrunners – former foreign minister and Arab League secretary general Amr Moussa and the islamist leader Abdel Moneim Abol-Fotouh. Moussa of course was a former ambassador to India (1983-86). But then, Moussa has been openly disdainful of the shifts in the Indian foreign policy in the past decade. 

Prima facie, Moussa would be appealing to the West as a secular, liberal-minded, urbane personality who they have dealt with. But that is by far simplifying matters. For example, Israel detests him and he reciprocates in equal measure. (This was one main reason why he was removed from the foreign-minsiter’s job and sent into ‘exile’ as the boss of the toothless Arab League.) True, he is well-known on the world stage as a gifted diplomat, and he is without doubt an experienced bureaucrat who would know how to exercise executive powers. But it will remain an irony if Moussa gets to lead the revolution in Egypt. 
For, he is a quintessential establishment figure, the very antithesis of the spirit of the tumult bordering on chaos and the revolutionary fervor on Tahrir Square, although he was smart enough to size up the winds of change and distance himself from the Hosni Mubarak legacy. His plea today is simple: he did faithfully whatever job he held in the Mubarak regime, nothing more nothing less, but he wasn’t really one of ‘them’.
It may stretch credulity, but secular-minded Egyptians who are alarmed over the surge of the Islamists would have no option but to suspend judgment and take Moussa for his word. The alternative is Abol-Fotouh, whose credentials in the barricades are indeed impeccable as an inveterate opponent of the Mubarak regime — and even the Anwar-Sadat regime. 
He used to belong to the Muslim Brotherhood for many decades until last year when he was expelled. He is standing as an independent candidate whom, curiously, the Salafists have decided to support. But he is a grassroots politician who is highly regarded as a man of the masses and commands the respect of even liberal-minded people. 
Conceivably, Abol-Fotouh would also get support from large sections of the Brothers if there is no clear winner in the frist round on Monday and a runoff takes place in June, as seems almost certain, Behind the Salafists stands Saudi Arabia. The profile of Abol Fotough by the Said-owned Al Arabiya as a moderate Islamist will be of interest. 
It is going to be a close race but the advantage lies with Abol-Fotough. Everything depends on the preference of the Brothers in the runoff. If the Brothers pitch for Abol-Fotough and there is a consolidation of the Islamist constituency, he will ‘float like a butterfly and sting like a bee’, as Muhammed Ali sang about his halcyon days on the boxing ring.
And if that happens, Egypt will have a parliament dominated by the Islamists and an Islamist head of state with executive powers, which will be a cohesive Islamic regime that is capable of putting behind the country’s drift. And it will also be a resurgent Egypt that will insist on reclaiming its leadership role in the region. Which would doubtless change the course of the Middle East’s history and politics beyond recognition.

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

No comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – May 1, 2012


Turkey in a Middle Eastern fantasyland

Turkey’s main opposition party Republican People’s Party [CHP] began a 2-day conference at Istanbul on Friday on the ‘Arab Spring’. The government’s Syria policy is in the crosshairs. The deputy head of CHP, Faruk Logoglu (who used to be the head of the foreign ministry during my tenure as ambassador in Ankara) made some exceptionally sharp criticism against the Recep Erdogan government’s Middle East policies. He called them ‘dangerous fantasy’. 

Turkish discourses have acquired great transparency — ironically, a legacy of the Erdogan era. Logoglu was blunt about Turkey’s covert help to Syrian fighters opposing the regime in Damascus. I am impressed how mature and calm Turkey has become in discussing such sensitive security issues so openly. If we in India had a Logoglu, we would have branded him by now as hopelessly ‘unpatriotic’ or ‘anti-national’. 
There is merit in the criticism that Turkey is in a fantasyland, regarding itself as a role model for the Middle East when it manifestly needs a lot of social and political awakening itself — although Logoglu didn’t mean it quite that way. 
I believe, the women’s wing of the ruling party Justice and Development Party demanded yesterday that Turkish women should be allowed to wear headscarves in all public places and that the state should “stop imposing secularism”. But it made a distinction: while women members of parliament should be allowed to wear headscarves, women serving in the judiciary, security establishment and schools and colleges should continue to be barred from wearing headscarves. Again, while teachers shouldn’t wear headscarves, students should be free to wear them. 
I am foxed at such hair-splititng. So are my stylish Turkish friends who of course like to defiantly flaunt their lovely blond hair. Why is Turkey wasting its time over archaic issues in the second decade of the 21st century? Logoglu’s remarks are here. 

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

1 comment

By M K Bhadrakumar – April 29, 2012


Turkey risks losing its good times

I knew catching up with old friends in Istanbul after a gap of some two or three years was going to be fun — sitting in my favourite cafe by the Bosphorous, watching the ships pass by, sipping raki and slowly letting it fire up the spirit and exhilarate the mind, while talking politics, about God, life… It is only when you come here to this city of heart’s desires that you realise the Turks have a point in insisting that Istanbul is indeed the centre of the world. But this time around, I am getting a sense they are getting their sums wrong. 

I’ve never seen such prosperity in Turkey. Turks are living it up. The economy is doing splendidly well. The leadership of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has given Turkey the political stability that eluded this country for decades and the Turkish genius is finally unbound. The civilian authority reigns supreme in a way as it should be in a real democracy. Erdogan has carved his name in golden letters in the annals of Turkish history and politics. There can be no two opinions here. 
Even my militantly secularist friends, especially the female companions who would pour out their visceral distaste for Islamism, grudgingly admit today that Erdogan has delivered. Three years back they would have quarrelled with me if I said a fine word giving expression to my seamless admiration for Erdogan. 
But Turkey is getting things horribly wrong in its foreign policy. The curious thing is that Erdogan’s foreign policy lacks a national consensus and yet this politician who is an ardent democrat is nonchalantly pressing ahead. The intellectuals I met are aghast that Turkey is reclaiming its Ottoman legacy and is needlessly getting entangled in the Muslim Middle East. 
Yesterday, there was a passionate debate in the Turkish parliament over Erdogan’s Syria policy. I am told that not only the Kemalists but also the ultra-nationalists and even the Kurdish party from the eastern region of Turkey were critical that Turkey is interfering in Syria and it is going to provoke a vicious backlash. But FM Ahmet Davitoglu came up with a spirited defence. He said something like, ‘Turkey owns, leads, serves the new Middle East’. 
Haven’t I heard this bravado before? Yes, I used to hear this in the cocktail circuit in Ankara during the tragic Bosnian war. Turkey used to fancy that it was going to ‘own, lead and serve’ the new Balkans. Pray, what happened? Funnily, the Balkans and Central Europe aren’t Turkey’s backyards by any reckoning. They are not even America’s. If newspaper reports are to be believed, they are probably going to be China’s backyard. Not 6 or 10, but sixteen heads of governments travelled to Warsaw from far and wide in the Balkans and Central Europe to greet Premier Wen Jiabao. Yes, these were ‘New Europeans’ who were supposed to be America’s vassals. 
Isn’t Turkey following the footsteps of the US — getting bogged down in quagmires some place else where angels fear to tread, and somewhere along the line losing the plot? I feel sorry for this country and its gifted people. When things have been going so brilliantly well, Erdogan has lost his way. 
Turkey needs a decade of peace so that it can continue to grow in this way and be a rich country, and Erdogan can complete his ambitious agenda of democratisation and political reform. Instead, he is needlessly asking for trouble, and is risking the spillover of chaos and bloodshed onto his land. This hubris won’t do any good. Mr. Erdogan, watch out: The Chinese are coming! Not only the Balkans but the New Middle East will also be theirs unless you get the plot right. 

Posted in Politics.

Tagged with , , , .

4 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – April 27, 2012


India hopeful on Annan’s Syria plan

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously approved a full-fledged observer mission for Syria with upto a total of 300 observers, based on a Russian draft resolution co-sponsored by China. The Indian statement in ‘explanation of vote’ by Ambassador Hardeep Puri reiterated India’s strong support for the mission of Kofi Annan, Joint Special Envoy. 

Puri once again called for an “inclusive Syrian-led peace process”; adherence to the Annan plan by all parties; and an “impartial supervision and monitoring of the ceasefire.” Interestingly, this is the second time India stresses the imperative of the UN observer team being “impartial”. The initial UN team that went in had Morocco, Brazil, Russia, Belgium, Norway. 
Contrary to the western propaganda that the Syrian ceasefire is “fragile”, “not good” and so on, the Indian statement expressed satisfaction that “Mr. Annan’s efforts over the past seven weeks have resulted in an improvement of the situation in Syria” and went on to estimate that the ceasefire of April 12 is holding and “has been observed by all parties in a large part of Syria.” 
The Indian statement also calls on countries to “refrain from any action that may cause further bloodshed” — an implied criticism of the continuing outside interference. Meanwhile, it is just as well that India jumped out of the ‘Friends of Syria’ cabal in the nick of time.
The big question is whether India is going to be part of the observer mission. It all depends on the UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, who, of course, will want to hear from Washington first. Ban has invited Denmark, for sure. No matter whether he invited China or whether Washington would want China in or out, Beijing has made an offer to Ban to depute a team of Chinese observers that Ban will find difficult to refuse. In sum, 3 out of the five BRICS are ‘in’ already. 

Posted in Diplomacy.

Tagged with , , .

3 comments

By M K Bhadrakumar – April 21, 2012