Making A Difference

Gujral Triumphs

The less developed nations find a leader in the Indian PM

Advertisement

Gujral Triumphs
info_icon

THE Commonwealth has been trying to tell the world it isn't a yawn, but who's listening? Yet something emerged from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting just ended to corner cynics into rethinking. The Commonwealth did much for India, and India did something for the less developed world through it. Who can remember the last time that happened? Prime minister I.K. Gujral led India and more than India in Edinburgh—from the front.

That Gujral delivered the keynote address on the opening day was an acknowledgement of India's size—six of 10 Commonwealth citizens are Indian (one in four people in the world are in the Commonwealth). Gujral called it "a privilege to be invited to speak on behalf of the participating heads of government." From that ceremonial start it wasn't a long way to the hard stuff. Some things he did, other things he stopped.

Advertisement

It was about 10 minutes before the end of the debate on an economic declaration that Gujral raised his flag to speak. He was not scheduled to. Heads of many smaller states had been arguing against a draft prepared by the Commonwealth Secretariat that wanted agreement on new trade talks after the Uruguay round. The so-called ABC countries among the Commonwealth (Australia and New Zealand, Britain and Canada) were saying that it is time to lift whatever controls in trade that still remain in place.

Sounds fine, but if Windward Islands can't sell bananas preferentially, the bananas will rot. The Indian insurance business would collapse, the rupee would take more knocking than the Reserve Bank can handle. The first trade round has unsettled more than it settled, Gujral was saying, it had brought too much "indigestion." That remark sent supportive flags up in the room. At times bonding over indigestion can become part global. The demand for a new trade round was stalled and officials were asked to thrash out a consensus.

Advertisement

They thrashed about for one until 2 am that night and then again all of the next day. More than 22 hours of what were said even in diplomatese to be "protracted and long drawn-out negotiations" failed. Officials gave up then, and handed the differences to their heads of government to sort out. The ABC countries were targeting Gujral, the rest were looking to him to speak for them. Australian prime minister John Howard took Gujral aside to insist that a joint declaration needs some language on liberalisation. Gujral stood his ground. Back at the negotiating table the New Zealanders were more insistent. Gujral took the floor again. He had gone as far as he could with the Australian PM, he said, he would go no further.

British prime minister Tony Blair, who was in the chair, finally stepped in. He and Gujral exchanged notes. Gujral was holding firm, as much for Windward Islands as for India, and Blair could see that. Newsmen waited outside for a joint declaration that wasn't coming because it wasn't happening. Blair decided that the only way was to give in to Gujral, he seemed to be speaking for the majority. The economic declaration was released at last, well beyond its deadline. The final text resolved no more than to say that Commonwealth countries will "maintain the momentum towards freer trade through multilateral negotiations... taking into account the interests of all countries at different stages of development." The stronger economies had lost their case.

Advertisement

Officials found in this successful resistance at Edinburgh something exciting for the developing nations. "Look at it this way," Hardeep Puri, who was in the thick of the negotiations for the Indian government, told Outlook. "Had we relented here, they could have taken this agreement to any trade meeting as a precedent," he said. "They could have said you agreed to this at Edinburgh, why not now?"

Conversely, the successful resistance has meant that developing countries outside the Commonwealth can recall the consensus at Edinburgh to fight off inevitable pressure to abandon regulation fast. "India has been able to safeguard interests of the developing world a great deal," Gujral said. "Leaders of many small nations told me India's expression of concern on their behalf has been appreciated." The Financial Times reported India had led the successful opposition to any agreement on a new trade round. Gujral was the Bad Boy of the ABC countries. A good thing, the rest were saying.

Advertisement

While Nelson Mandela remained prime media darling and Mahathir Mohammed was always a man to watch, it was Gujral who made the difference where it mattered. He took the debate to something more than a grabbing for home benefits. There was a dash even of something like statesmanship, and that's not a word keyed in at newspaper offices these days. Gujral won through with some fundamental arguments.

The Indian team at Edinburgh put every word to be agreed upon under a magnifying lens. It was Gujral again who led opposition to the human rights hawks demanding expulsion of Nigeria from the Commonwealth. Gujral joined with several African countries to support the transition of Nigeria to democracy rather than insist on its expulsion. The Nigerian junta was given time to reform. But it remains a member, if a suspended one. The moderate majority prevailed over the ABC group again. The draft on Nigeria was toned down considerably.

Advertisement

The four days of negotiations found Gujral in regional leadership even if he wouldn't claim it for India. Gujral's magnanimous views on neighbours that have congealed into what is called "doctrine" were more than vindicated at Edinburgh. India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, and often even Pakistan, worked together on many issues.

There was, of course, always going to be more to the Pakistani presence than the puri and halwa Gujral famously had with Nawaz Sharif for breakfast—they failed to bridge differences on the vital issue of a joint working group on Kashmir. Pakistan foreign minister Gohar Ayub had slipped in a resolution suggesting that the Commonwealth should welcome the dialogue between India and Pakistan. A draft of the final communique congratulated India and Pakistan on 50 years of independence "and expressed support for the processes of peace and rapprochement in South Asia". Indian officials read right through the seemingly innocuous stuff and resisted it, with strong backing from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. Pakistan had to give in.

Gujral did more than lead in negating the negative. He had spoken of terrorism in his keynote address. And that was not intended to be something said in speech. "He had told us he wants it in the communique, and there was no way we were going back without that in there," said Puri. The result was an agreement that is potentially a potent weapon against terrorism. The final communique says all leaders "reiterated their determination to combat terrorism, whether perpetrated by individuals, groups or states, by every means consistent with human rights and the rule of law". They also recognised the "linkages between terrorism, illegal trafficking in drugs and arms, and money laundering". The agreement stopped just short of Gujral's demand for universal extradition arrangements. It "called on all states to enact laws to make punishable acts of conspiracy within their jurisdictions to commit terrorist offences." It was, an official said, "hard language by any standards".

Advertisement

The Pakistanis objected at first to references to "state terrorism" and to framing laws to punish conspiracy to terrorism in their own country. But not too loudly. If they objected, the matter would be sent back to the heads of government, they were warned. Pakistan could not be seen to be opposing this provision too strongly—the inferences would become too transparent. The Pakistanis accepted the resolution because opposition would be embarrassing—and revealing. They have now signed an international agreement to counter state terrorism and to enact laws against conspiracies in terrorism on their land. Nobody expects a new law in Islamabad tomorrow with action to follow on it. But to counter the Pakistanis who go on about UN resolutions, Gujral has given India an international agreement to talk to Pakistan about. In diplomatic ding-dong, quite a score.

Advertisement

Gujral talked tough through the Commonwealth meeting, as he had before it began. His strong stuff to Britain over Kashmir had sorted that problem out before he landed at Edinburgh. Tony Blair confirmed to him the first day of the conference that Britain will not mediate in Kashmir, Robin Cook went on BBC TV from Edinburgh to declare that Britain does not intend to mediate in Kashmir if one side does not want it. Indian diplomacy slowly seems to be giving up obsequious explanations for tough talk. The Indian negotiations at Edinburgh gave structure to that new confidence.

Advertisement

To the Queen the Commonwealth might be nostalgia for Empire extracted into a token headship. India had joined the Commonwealth, Gujral said in his keynote address, because it "did not wish to make the promise of the future a hostage to the rancour of the past". He went on to use the Commonwealth well for India. The results are intangible but not unreal. Indian media in Edinburgh, cynical as ever, seemed a little surprised that something seemed to have emerged from what was expected to be nothing. Newsmen even found for Gujral sentiments as scarce among them as affection and respect. Carry on, Inder.

Advertisement

Tags

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement

    Advertisement