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

Dinesh Trivedi calls for a national railway policy, lays stress on beefing up infrastructure along China border

Hyderabad

14 March 2012

Dinesh Trivedi made an impassioned plea for augmenting rail infrastructure in the border areas, in an implicit reference to China building a network of rails and roads in areas bordering India's north-eastern states.

In the same breath, he pitched for evolving a national policy for Railways, so that there is continuity of policy across successive governments and policies can be executed without them falling a victim to partisan politics.

"... the time has come to think of a national policy for Railways, just as we have one for defence and for external affairs," Mr Trivedi said Wednesday in his budget speech in the Lok Sabha.

Uncharacteristically for a railway minister, Mr Trivedi spoke about how the geopolitical situation on borders arising out of building of state-of-art road and rail network by neighbouring countries "requires a matching response."

The Railways, he continued, must remain in a state of preparedness to move men and machines to border areas.

Mr Trivedi sought to impress upon the relevant ministries of the government, not least of all the ministry of finance, that it was therefore necessary to undertake projects of national importance on priority and to ensure adequate funding.

Similarly, he argued for liberal funds for connecting the remote and backward areas in Jammu and Kashmir and the north-eastern states, without worrying about the return on investment or such other factors.

He warned that the projects in J&K and in the north-east, which required more than Rs 4,000 crore for the current year, may get delayed for want of adequate funding.

"The budgetary support to Indian Railways has been pegged at a modest level of Rs 24,000 crore as against a projected requirement of Rs 45,000 crore. The national projects in Kashmir and northeast region have also to be funded out of this," he said.

In his speech, Mr Trivedi also dwelled on how the Indian Railways was contributing its bit for improving India's relations with her neighbours. He cited the proposed Tripura-Bangladesh railway link, and the new Jogbani-Biratnagar line and Jaynagar-Bijalpura-Bardibas to provide connectivity to Nepal as a case in point.

PM skips foreign policy issues

New Delhi

15 August 2007

Two years ago, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, fresh from signing

the July 18, 2005 Joint Statement with the United States, held forth extensively on

India's foreign policy in his Independence Day address to the nation. He showcased

India's relations with the US, Russia and China, he spoke about the composite dialogue

with Pakistan, and he did not forget to mention the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline.

Two years later, speaking from the ramparts of the Red Fort, he dismissed the foreign

policy of his government in a few lines. Gone were the long paragraphs outlining the

government's vision. Also gone were the specifics.

Prime Minister Singh merely said: "India wants to have good relations with all the

countries of the world. Big and small. Countries of the East and the West, the North and

the South. Today, we enjoy good relations with all major powers and all developing

countries. We have emerged as a bridge between the many extremes of the world. Our

composite culture is living proof of the possibility of a confluence of civilisations."

He added: "India will always be a nation bridging the many global divides. India wants to

live in a neighbourhood of peace and prosperity. I assure all our neighbours that we in

India want peace and the best of relations with all of them. I sincerely believe that in the

prosperity and well-being of our neighbours lies the key to our own security and

progress."

Wednesday morning's speech was unlike any he has delivered since becoming Prime

Minister on May 22, 2004.

His Independence Day address last year was delivered in the aftermath of the July 7

train bombings in Mumbai. Predictably, he dwelled at some length on national security

and terrorism. He said that Pakistan must take concrete steps to prevent cross-border

terrorism. He focussed on other issues too, like India's relations with the US, China,

Japan, the European Union and Russia. South-East Asia, the Gulf and the Arab world,

and the continents of Africa and Latin America, came in for particular mention.

His 2005 speech was even more elaborate. He said: "My visit to the United States has

been a major step in promoting friendship with that country. By deepening our economic

and technological relations, we will be accelerating our own growth. Simultaneously, our

two democracies can work together to strengthen democracy in the world."

He added: "In my visit to the United States, we have managed to reduce some of the

constraints which have been hampering the growth of our nuclear energy programme

and in the next 10 years, in addition to the 1,50,000 MW of capacity being added in the

thermal and hydro sectors, another 40,000 MW could be generated through nuclear

energy."

The 2004 speech, which was his first as prime minister, had spelt out his foreign policy

priorities. He favoured a "purposive" bilateral dialogue with Pakistan to resolve all

outstanding issues. The only other country to find a mention in his speech was China.

India, Syria to hold talks

New Delhi

11 August 2007

India will review the situation in West Asia when she hosts Syrian

Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem next week. He will arrive in New Delhi on Monday for a

three-day visit.

Both sides are likely to discuss enhancement of political, economic and cultural

relations. The last visit by a Syrian foreign minister to India was in 2002. Union Minister

of Petromeum and Natural Gas Murli Deora was in Syria in April this year. Former prime

minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and former minister of external affairs Jaswant Singh have

visited Syria. New Delhi has said that India and Syria have enjoyed ancient civilisational

ties and their ties were based on similarity of perception on many international and

regional issues.

Ambassador CR Gharekhan, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special Envoy for West

Asia and the Middle East Peace Process, told this newspaper: "It is an important visit.

Syria is an important player in the region. We have excellent bilateral relations with

Syria."

He said that bilateral matters, the situation in the region and the prospects for the peace

process would figure in Mr Mouallem's talks here.

"It is good to have a briefing [from] a veteran diplomat [who was] involved in the bilateral

negotiations with Israel [over] Golan Heights, when they talked directly in Washington.

He is an expert on the peace process," Ambassador Gharekhan recalled. Making a

distinction between India's ties with Syria and the ties other countries, including the

United States, have with Syria, he added: "India is in touch with all parties. It is normal

for us to interact with friendly countries."

In a rare diplomatic encounter, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Mr

Mouallem in May this year on the margins of an international conference on Iraq, which

was held in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh. It was the first high-level diplomatic

contact between Washington and Damascus in more than two years. The US sees Syria

as a state sponsor of terrorism. Washington recalled its ambassador two years ago after

it accused Syria of having a hand in the assassination of former Lebanese rpt Lebanese

prime minister Rafik Hariri.