NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTION 99
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Rediff Shopping

Shop & gift from thousands of products!   Books     Music       Apparel   Jewellery   Flowers   More..      Safe Shopping

The Arab-Israeli dispute -- The need for realism in India

Nostalgia and sentimentality are two attributes that seem to constantly influence intellectual and political thinking in the conduct of foreign policy in India. Slogans like "solidarity of developing countries" and "support for the Arab cause" are freely touted, with scant regard for the fact that Nasser and Tito have been long buried. Their successors now have policies, priorities and programmes that have nothing in common with those the likes of Nasser, Tito and Nkrumah espoused a few decades ago.

No lessons also seem to have been learnt from our experiences during the Uruguay round of trade negotiations that led to the establishment of the WTO. Espousing the cause of solidarity of developing countries, we were left out in the cold, when other developing countries individually and regionally ensured that their interests were safeguarded, by striking separate deals with the European Union and the USA.

On April 9, 1995, Nehru's India and Nasser's Egypt signed what was then labeled as a historic friendship treaty. India rendered unflinching support to Egypt during the Suez crisis in 1956. When Nasser mobilised Egyptian forces with the avowed aim of throwing Israel into the sea in 1967, we again supported our Egyptian friends as we had done earlier. Thereafter, when Sadat threw all talk of "Arab Unity" out of the window and signed the Camp David Accords with Israel, we again lent our support to Egypt, by opposing moves to expel it from the non-aligned movement for violating non-aligned resolutions on the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The Egyptians are, however, hard-headed realists who have no time for sentimentalism. Egypt has realised that its interests lie in wooing the United States and in supporting American moves to broker a Middle East peace that would naturally guarantee Israel's security, while seeking to address Palestinian grievances. Jordan has done likewise. Given a chance, Syria's new president would also follow the same path. Most importantly, Yasser Arafat now believes that he has no option but to seek American good offices and assistance, if there is to be any movement at all in getting the Palestinians a progressively better life.

While we have spared no effort to please Israel's Arab neighbours, what has their response been? In 1995 the Narasimha Rao government conferred the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for Peace and International Understanding on Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in recognition of his contribution to peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. Though five years have elapsed, President Mubarak has not yet found the time to visit India to receive this country's highest award.

During the Charar-e-Sharief crisis in Kashmir, the Egyptian government conveniently forgot that Egypt itself was a victim of terrorist violence flowing from the activities of religious extremists trained and armed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Egyptian embassy in Islamabad had been reduced to rubble in a terrorist attack. One would, therefore, logically have expected the Egyptian government to condemn the Harkat-ul-Ansar for violating the sanctity of the holy Kashmiri shrine, by occupying it by resort to arms.

The Egyptian government however, chose to express regret about New Delhi's policies and in fact called on India to protect Muslim shrines. Cairo's approach to issues of nuclear non-proliferation also seems to show scant regard for India's security interests or imperatives. Egypt naturally has to show greater sensitivity to the concerns of Washington, rather than those of New Delhi. Finally, one would be really living in a dream world if he believed that Egyptian support was forthcoming for India's candidature for permanent membership of the Security Council.

Cairo is not alone in the Arab world in adopting an approach to relations with India that is radically different to that adopted in the heyday of non-alignment and the Cold War. While India supported the Palestinian cause in world forums, the Palestinian leadership has been an active participant in Islamic fora where there has been strident criticism of India. Individual Palestinian leaders have made comments about Kashmir that would evoke the same resentment in India that a statement by us justifying new Israeli settlements would cause to the Palestinians.

We are regularly told by the Egyptians and Palestinians that we should not get unduly concerned by such criticism. They assert that they do not nationally subscribe to the views expressed in Islamic fora. But those who claim to be India's friends should realise that friendship and amity cannot continuously be a one-way street.

While there is a tendency to regard the Arab countries as a monolithic grouping, there are really three distinct Arab groupings.

There are the Arab Gulf countries comprising Iraq and the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The GCC members are generally oil rich and depend heavily on British and American security guarantees. Their primary external security concerns flow from the policies and ambitions of Iran and Iraq.

Then, there are the countries in Israel's immediate neighbourhood like Egypt, Jordan and Syria. These are countries directly affected by the effects of the disastrous 1967 conflict. Egypt and Jordan have thriving diplomatic and economic ties and are believed to even have covert security links with Israel. They share Israel's concerns about religious extremism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Finally, there are the Arab countries of the Maghreb -- Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco -- that are closely linked to France, but politically involved in the Middle East Peace Process. A little known fact even within India is that we have extended active support to the multilateral track of the MEPP, by participating in working groups on regional economic development, arms control and regional security, environment and water resources.

India's main political, economic and security interests are in our relations with the Arab Gulf countries located in our neighbourhood. Given the fact that the Gulf region contains two thirds of the proven reserves of oil and one third of the gas reserves of the world, the region is of crucial strategic interest not only to us, but also to the United States, Europe and Japan.

Sadly, successive governments in India have paid less than adequate interest in high-level exchanges with our neighbours in the Gulf. While there is a competitive rivalry between the Gulf Arab states and Iran in voicing support for the Palestinian cause (Arabs and Persians have historic rivalries), countries like Kuwait view the Palestinians with considerable suspicion and place severe restrictions on the immigration of Palestinians.

Oman has developed trade and economic ties with Israel and has taken a moderate and low- key line on Arab-Israeli issues. As the United States and Iran seek to mend their strained relations, it is important for New Delhi to strengthen its ties with Iran and simultaneously forge new strands of cooperation with the member states of the GCC. We will have to get both our public and private sectors to be more active in seeking investment collaboration, especially in the oil, petro-chemical and fertilizer sectors throughout the Gulf region, including Iraq.

Given our growing demand for phosphatic fertilizers, a similar effort needs to be mounted in Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. In a globalised world economy, it is economic cooperation that ultimately determines the course of relations between countries. We should not forget that despite all our solidarity with and support for Arab causes, most Arab countries preferred to vote for Japan (which has had close diplomatic ties with Israel for decades), rather than India, when the Deve Gowda government embarked on its disastrous quest for a non-permanent UN Security Council seat in 1997.

The recent spurt in violence in the West Bank and Gaza have predictably led to demands that we should play an "active role" in defusing tensions. One hopes that we will be realistic enough to recognise that in the present circumstances the United States alone has the power to move Israelis and Palestinians on the road to reconciliation. We should lend broad support to these US efforts.

While there is naturally sympathy in India for the travails and tribulations of the Palestinians, there is also recognition that after its experiences in the 1948, 1967 and 1973 conflicts, Israel will make no compromise on issues it considers vital for its national security. One hopes that like the Israelis, the Arab states will also, in their own enlightened interests, cooperate positively with New Delhi in dealing with the scourge of religious extremism and terrorism.

While we have abided by our commitments in the non-aligned movement while addressing the Palestinian issue in the United Nations, we should continue to develop our ties with Israel and its Arab neighbours in a manner that best serves the interests of our own national security.

G Parthasarathy