Mamata, Karunanidhi effect: MEA sees red as states veto foreign policy

HYDERABAD

20 MARCH 2012

The protestations from Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her rival and DMK

patriarch M Karunanidhi over India's vote on Sri Lanka later this week, coming as they

do months after West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee vetoed an agreement on

the sharing of the Teesta river waters with Bangladesh, has further fuelled anxiety in

South Block, which also houses the ministry of external affairs (MEA.)

The precedent being set by the Centre caving in or succumbing to the States on matters

that fall in the domain of foreign policy is worrying for India, and more so for the

practitioners of diplomacy in the MEA.

Already, India's engagement of Pakistan on one hand and China and Burma on the other

are determined to an extent by the domestic conditions prevalent in Jammu and Kashmir

and the north-eastern states, respectively.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh betrayed his frustration when he said in the Lok Sabha

that difficult decisions were getting more difficult because of coalition compulsions. He

called for bipartisanship in the interest of the country.

However, not everybody is pessimistic. Lalit Mansingh, a former foreign secretary and a

former ambassador to the US, echoes the sentiments of many who believe that this trend

should not be unwelcome.

"Foreign policy today is made not only in New Delhi but elsewhere, too. There are

multiple stakeholders and one can't deny states a say in foreign policy if it relates to

them," Mr Mansingh told this newspaper. So, if the states assert their rights and seek

more consultations, then the Centre must respect those sentiments, he notes.

Equally worrying for New Delhi would be the erosion in its standing in what it calls its

sphere of influence. The ongoing debate over which way India should vote on a UNHRC

resolution on Sri Lanka is instructive in that it illustrates how far India has come from

being an influential player in its own backyard to a marginal or fringe player.

Irrespective of whether India joins the US, France, Norway and others in voting for the

resolution as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh indicated in the Lok Sabha, or abstains,

which is not ruled out if the resolution is not worded to its satisfaction, the non-binding

resolution is most likely to fall through.

Colombo is sanguine about the outcome of the March 23 vote in Geneva. It believes it

has the numbers required to defeat the resolution. China, Russia, Pakistan, Cuba,

Indonesia, Thailand and others from the Asian and the African regional groups in the 47-

member UNHRC have indicated that they would oppose it.

If that is a probability, then is it advisable for New Delhi to vote for the resolution and

risk losing whatever goodwill and leverage it might have with Colombo? At the same

time optimists take the view that Colombo would be helping itself, and India, by agreeing

to some concessions on the language of the draft resolution and by putting forward a

roadmap for a political solution of the ethnic conflict.

// Table //

Current membership of the Human Rights Council (20 June 2011 - 31 December 2012) by

regional groups

AFRICAN STATES

Angola

Benin

Botswana

Burkina Faso

Cameroon

Congo

Djibouti

Libya

Mauritania

Mauritius

Nigeria

Senegal

Uganda

LATIN AMERICAN AND CARIBBEAN STATES

Chile

Costa Rica

Cuba

Ecuador

Guatemala

Mexico

Peru

Uruguay

ASIAN STATES

Bangladesh

China

India

Indonesia

Jordan

Kuwait

Kyrgyzstan

Malaysia

Maldives

Philippines

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Thailand

WESTERN EUROPE AND OTHER STATES

Austria

Belgium

Italy

Norway

Spain

Switzerland

United States

EASTERN EUROPEAN STATES

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Moldova

Romania

Russia

Alleged supply of chemicals to Iran: India tells US that sanctions on Indian firms not justified

New Delhi

28 December 2005

Amid the negotiations with the United States on the

civil nuclear deal, India on Wednesday termed as unjustified the reports

about imposition of sanctions by the Bush administration on two Indian

companies for allegedly selling chemical materials to Iran.

The spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Mr Navtej Sarna, told

reporters that it was New Delhi's view that the two companies named had

not acted in violation of Indian laws or regulations.

A US media report on Tuesday said that the two Indian chemical

companies -- Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited and Sandhya Organics

Limited -- along with Chinese and Austrian firms will soon be sanctioned

by US President George Bush's administration under the US Iran

Proliferation Act, 2000, for allegedly selling missile goods and chemical

arms materials to Iran.

The spokesman said that the "imposition of sanctions by the US on our

firms, which in our view have not acted in violation of our laws or

regulations, is not jusified." "The Government," he said, "also reiterates

that sactions against Dr YSR Prasad should be removed."

He said the sanctions related to the transfer of some chemicals to Iran.

"Our preliminary assessment is that the transfer of such chemicals is not

in violation of our regulations or our international obligations," he said.

The spokesman observed that the government's commitment to prevent

onward proliferation was second to none and that it has instituted a

rigorous system of export controls. "Our track record in this regard is well

known. India is working with international community including with the

US as a partner against proliferation," he said.

The spokesman said the government has also seen the reports about the

removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar by the US Government. "The

removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar vindicates Government's position

on this matter. Since the imposition of sanctions in September 2004,

Government has maintained that this had no justification. Accordingly, we

had urged the US Government to review the issue and withdraw the

sanctions," he said.