Posted on 07/14/2003 3:48:28 PM PDT by AntiGuv
BANGALORE - India, after foot dragging for over two months, will not send its troops to participate in a "stabilization force" in Iraq. Wary of the negative political and electoral fallout of sending its troops, especially in the context of the recent revelations regarding the Central Intelligence Agency's use of false information in the leadup to the war on Iraq, the government turned down the American invitation.
Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha said that such a deployment could be considered only under a United Nations mandate. The decision came after a meeting of the cabinet committee on security in Delhi on Monday afternoon. "Our longer term national interest, our concern for the people of Iraq, our long-standing ties with the Gulf region as a whole, as well as our growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the US have been key elements in this consideration," Sinha said.
He added, "India remains ready to respond to the urgent needs of the Iraqi people ... were there to be an explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq."
The US put in a request with the Indian government early in May for a brigade-strength deployment of over 17,000 troops in Iraq. If New Delhi had agreed the Indian contingent would have been among the largest in Iraq, second only to the size of the US military deployment there.
Several rounds of consultations have taken place between India and the US over the past month. The government has consulted twice with the opposition parties. Monday's meeting of the cabinet's committee on security, which is headed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, considered fresh inputs received from the visits of the Indian Foreign Secretary Kapil Sibal to the US and of R M Abhayankar, Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), to Iraq and other countries in the region.
The American invitation had generated heated debate in India. Indian opinion has been divided right down the middle on the wisdom of sending troops to Iraq. Those who supported deployment argued that India's ambition of being regarded as a regional or global player of significance would be furthered by sending the troops. For them, the American invitation was an opportunity to further Indian strategic and economic interests, a chance of being accepted as a regional power.
They argued that if India did not send its soldiers or dragged its feet in making a decision, others would take its place and Delhi would be sidelined. Moreover, India's deployment in Iraq would enable it to participate in the CENTCOM (US Central Command) and this was seen as an opportunity to dilute Pakistan's role in that structure.
Furthermore, the Americans, it was argued, were looking at the Indian response to their request for troops as indicative of Delhi's reliability as an ally. Relations between the US and India have shown a remarkable improvement in recent years. Now, with India turning down the US request, Delhi will be worried that an annoyed Washington will tilt even more decisively in favor of Pakistan, undoing years of strenuous efforts at correcting the tilt.
There were several strong arguments against an Indian deployment in Iraq, though. The US war on that country was not initially sanctioned by the United Nations. There was concern regarding the implications of being seen to be too close to the US and endorsing the reality of American occupation of Iraq. While UN Security Council Resolution 1483 provided Delhi some kind of a fig leaf to send troops to participate in the "stabilization force", it was not be cover enough to convince the opposition parties, which were opposed to Indian deployment. Besides, sending troops to Iraq now would be a contravention of the spirit of a parliamentary resolution passed in April that "deplored" the US attack on Iraq and called for an early pullout of American troops.
Some view the US request for Indian troops as the latest example of "outsourcing". It is widely believed in India that the US invitation had much to do with the growing American casualties in Iraq and the high monetary expenses – it costs the US $3 billion a month to keep its soldiers there. There was concern here that Indian soldiers would end up as "cut-price cannon fodder".
In the several rounds of consultations that have taken place, India raised some of its concerns. These included the need for a UN mandate - the excuse it has now used - and the area of operations of the Indian troops, issues of command and control and so on. Indian forces participating in peacekeeping missions abroad have done so only under the UN flag. A key reason for opposition to participation is aversion to working under American command.
According to an official in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, the Bush administration had addressed some of these misgivings. Indian troops would have been responsible for one of the five sectors into which Iraq has been divided, and as a "sweetener", the US had apparently offered India "the most peaceful of the five sectors" – the Kurdish-dominated areas in northern Iraq. American casualties in the Kurdish areas have been minimal. There is little insurgency here, say analysts, which means that Indian troops would have been less likely to get killed or caught in situations where they would have to use force on the locals.
One of Delhi's main concerns has been how the Muslim world, especially Iraq's neighbors, would have viewed India's deployment in Iraq. According to MEA sources, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are said to have indicated their support; Jordan and Turkey were not opposed but wanted it only with a clearly-defined mandate. Although India-Iran relations are warm, Tehran was uncomfortable with Indian troops working to stabilize the US occupation of Iraq. Syria and Iran feared that India's presence would delay the US exit from the region.
Last month, the Indian government said that it would make a final decision only after evolving a national consensus. The opposition parties and some constituents of the ruling coalition have been opposed to deployment under US command. Incidentally, even the Samata Party to which Defense Minister George Fernandes belongs and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a fraternal organization of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, were against India accepting the American invitation.
And with general elections due next year, the ruling coalition was clearly reluctant to take a decision that was fraught with risk and which could have led India into a quagmire. While the strategic and economic gains were weighed carefully, the final decision was a political one.
2 posted on 3/6/02 7:30 AM Pacific by grammymoon:
"What would you do Without FR?
How would You Feel without FR?
Suppose one day you tried to log on and Free Republic wasn’t there?
Where would you get your up to the minute news? How about the live threads as things are happening?
How would you know about the latest Demorat scams, anti-second amendment schemes and all the other liberal, anti-American ploys that are tried every single day?
Insight into world affairs, brilliant wit, sharp retorts, instant information gratification are a few of the things that make FR so vital.
How would you keep on top of things without FR?
How would you know who to contact to complain about the lying politicians, Media Bias, Hollyweirds latest mouth off, sponsors of these idiots, company policies that are unfair and all the other things we need to know to counteract the liberal mindset and the evil plans of liberals?
How would you be part of a Freep?
What would you do without FR????
Freedom isn’t free.
If you enjoy the site and find it a place of like minded Americans to sound off, to get together, to fight back, to have your voice heard and make a difference,PLEASE CONTRIBUTE NOW ! Donate Here By Secure Server
Jim can’t do this alone.
The liberals are sure we won’t be able to keep FR up & running. Prove them wrong. Show them we are indeed united Freepers. Whether it is $5.00, $50.00 or more, it all adds up. Please send a donation now to Free Republic.
I'd love to see our response be to slam the software jobs window down on India's fingers.
The incompetent Indians H1B's/L1's who cannot even spell words like "PHOENIX", will be FORCED to leave. They need to go home and turn their own turd world home into some thing better than the rat holes they are now.
By the way old boy...WHY IS YOUR NAME SPELLED INCORRECTLY? ENGLISH A SECOND LANGUAGE FOR YOU?
PHOENIX IS THE CORRECT SPELLING!!
Oh, yeah.... the Indians and the French make loosey soldiers anyway... who needs their sissy-boy soldiers?
American Soldiers, Sailors and Marines ROCK this world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.