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

Search Rediff

A naïve decision

Buried in the government's diplomatese about India's decision to pull out from Sierra Leone is extreme naivete: the misplaced generosity to give other countries a chance to take part in peace missions and to appoint a new force commander is bad camouflage for a sound decision not to participate in peace enforcement.

Why is India not calling a spade a spade by signaling its refusal to go along with a war-fighting mandate?

The present impasse in Freetown is over the leadership of Major General V K Jetley, the Indian force commander. He and Indian peacekeepers have become unacceptable to the Nigerian-led comity of West African states. This became obvious from day one of their arrival in Freetown after they went about their operational mandate with a no-nonsense approach. In contrast their predecessors, the failed West African regional force, had followed a policy of live and let live.

The diamonds in Sierra Leone which account for one third of its economy were for everybody, not just the British, Nigerians or Liberians. But Jetley was not going to permit any private trade in diamonds while the more serious business of keeping the peace was still at hand. The West African leaders were therefore gunning for Jetley and insisting on his replacement by a commander from the region. This is analogous to the Europeans in 1992 wanting our General Nambiar in Bosnia to be replaced by a general from Europe.

Jetley has been in the eye of the storm for demanding mission accountability from his Nigerian, Zambian and Kenyan commanders. His deputy military commander and the UN Secretary General's political representative, both Nigerians, were profiting from the trade in diamonds. He let this be known. This put the Nigerians' back up. They have the biggest military force of four battalions in Sierra Leone with another two standing by.

The annual Worldwatch report on corruption has named Nigeria as the world's most corrupt nation with upto 100 billion dollars stashed away in Swiss banks or invested in Britain. Next to Congo, Nigeria is Africa's most resource-endowed and large country.

Relations between India and Nigeria have been traditionally strong and friendly. When the first Indian peacekeeping force went to Congo in 1961, it was the largest-ever commanded by a major general but under the overall command of a Nigerian lieutenant general. The Nigerian president was the chief guest at this year's Republic Day celebrations. And it was he who first lambasted the military ruler of Pakistan from Delhi. Nigeria is rich in petroleum products while India is energy starved. The Delhi-Lagos connection is all too important to be sacrificed for the mere command of UNAMSIL that, in any case, is doomed to failure.

What has angered the Indian government is the public demand on the part of West African states, notably Nigeria and Zambia for Jetley's head. Curiously, UN has suggested India provide a lieutenant general because the force is to be expanded from the present 13,000 to 20,000 by next year. But this is rubbing salt on wounds. India is also unhappy that hardly any regional country came up with any constructive help to force the RUF to lift the siege of the gurkhas in the east of the country.

In fact, India had to rush a second battalion -- the grenadiers of Tiger Hill fame -- together with attack helicopters as it knew the other military contingents would not risk confrontation with the rebels to rescue the gurkhas. In the end Jetley mounted the brilliant Operation Khukri to free the gurkhas.

Soldier Jetley may have been less than diplomatic in his headquarters but he fought an excellent rescue mission in the field for which he deserves to be rewarded. Under him the Indian contingent has displayed the highest professional qualities for which Indian soldiering is renowned. But there was no let up on the pressure for Jetley's removal.

Early this month, he was asked to take leave and is in Delhi cooling his heels. Initially, the defence ministry had insisted he complete his one-year term by November before relinquishing command. Then it said he would remain on extended leave and return to Freetown to hand over charge to his successor. The latest is that Jetley will now not go back at all.

The 3,000-strong Indian military contingent which provides the muscle for UNAMSIL will be deinducted over a period of three months. Several western countries which do not like to put their own soldiers at risk have pleaded with the government to let the peacekeepers stay another year. Outside UNAMSIL, British military presence in Freetown is surrounded with suspicion about its role. When an Indian officer suggested that Britain send an infantry battalion to join UNAMSIL, a senior British officer shied away saying: "We have global responsibility," whatever that means.

UNAMSIL is likely to be restructured and enlarged, presumably under an expanded mandate: escalation from Chapter 6 (peacekeeping) to Chapter 7 (peace-enforcement). This is also one of the reasons for Indian withdrawal. In UN peace keeping there is a vital commercial attraction. Besides the UN medal and foreign experience, each soldier gets $ 1,000 a month in addition to his pay and allowances. The Army uses the UN prize to reward its units which have distinguished themselves in operations.

In 1992, when after his one year term, Nambiar refused an extension and returned to Delhi, there was great unhappiness in government circles that India had renounced the military leadership of a European peacekeeping force and lost a three star deputation abroad. There was not a single Indian peacekeeper in that force. This time around, it is the government that has opted to withdraw its entire contingent though it was only the leadership that was under a cloud. The government has stood by Jetley. However wise its decision, it may not go down well with the rank and file of the services.

General Ashok K Mehta