The Left And The Right Of It

Nagendar Sharma: Have the pulls and pressures of pro andanti-American posturing by various political parties rendered India’s foreignpolicy directionless?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, there is a certain confusion,but this country has such a reserve strength inherent in it that a foreignpolicy cannot be directionless. Certain decisions may seem to suggest that theforeign policy is dithering, it happens at times, but it cannot be calleddirectionless. 

Sitaram Yechury: Well, as Mr Sinha has said, it is notdirectionless, but has shown a deviation in the recent days. The foreign policyin recent days has shown a clear pro-America tilt from the earlier independentpolicy. It is clear from the Indian decision on Iran, which in our view was agrave error, and it is the work of Left parties to bring back the policy on theright track, as being a stooge of any country would not help in any way.

Nagendar Sharma: Is the Iran issue heading towards being a major point ofconfrontation between the UPA government and Left parties ?  

SitaramYechury:  It may become a major issue of confrontation. The danger ofinstability for the UPA government would be there if it violates the CommonMinimum Programme. Our point is that the government would last five years if it adheres to the CMP. We find that the CMP is not being followed in theforeign policy - as was done in the economic policies earlier. We want thegovernment to follow the CMP. The stability of the UPA government depends on itsrectification of mistakes in these policies - if it does not do so, we may haveto think afresh. 

Listener from Bhagalpur: The July visit of PrimeMinister Manmohan Singh saw India and the US sign a nuclear pact, which hasresulted in our country losing its nuclear sovereignty. Now the latest decisionto please America by voting against Iran at the International Atomic EnergyAgency (IAEA) meeting in Vienna gives an impression that the UPA government istrying to secure the UN Security Council permanent membership by Americansupport. Would it help ?  

Yashwant Sinha: I think you are right. Weopposed the Indo-US nuclear pact as we do not agree with many points of theagreement, and similarly we opposed the vote against Iran also. These twodecisions have created a wrong impression about India’s foreign policy, andyou are right in saying that the present government is more than inclined toplease America without considering its repercussions. Now it is not clearwhether America would help the Indian candidature for the UN Security Council,there is no clarity in the American view so far. Therefore we must not take ourforeign policy on a path of blind pro-Americaism. We should do what is in theinterests of the country.

Sitaram Yechury: For a change it looks nice toagree with Mr Yashwant Sinha, because when he was the foreign minister wediffered with him on many issues.  The UPA government is deviating from theCommon Minimum Programme (CMP) on key foreign policy decisions and we stronglyobject to this. We would like to tell the government very clearly that Indiashould at least abstain and not vote against Iran, if the issue comes up atInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna on November 24, and Indiashould strongly place its view that this entire issue should be solved withinthe IAEA and should not be taken to the UN.  

Nagendar Sharma: But Mr Yechury, thereare no indications from the government that it is taking your suggestions onIran seriously. Even the Prime Minister has hinted that if a second vote on Iranwere to take place, the government would decide at an appropriate time. In thesecircumstances, how far would your opposition go? Would it be merely criticismor something more than that ?  

Sitaram Yechury: That would depend on whatstand the UPA government takes on November 24. We are clearly telling ManmohanSingh government that it should not repeat its past mistake. At this moment weare doing all that is possible to put pressure on the government, and it is notLeft pressure alone, there is pressure from the international community as well.The experience of trying to secure a permanent membership of UN Security Councilby being a stooge of America shows it was a wrong move. If the Indian governmentmakes the same mistake again, the experience would be the same.

Listener from Rajasthan: All major political parties in thecountry say there is a consensus on the foreign policy, but in reality it doesnot seem to be so. Today NDA criticises all decisions of the UPA government, andearlier the Congress and Left were doing the same when NDA was in power. Whythis contradiction?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, there is a broadconsensus on the foreign policy within the political class of the country. Thedifferences which emerge are due to the details on how to reach a point ofagreement, and I think such differences are essential for a vibrant democracy.The direction of the foreign policy is right, at times we tend to deviate from aconsensual point, that is what draws criticism, I see nothing wrong in this.

Listener from Rajasthan continues: Mr Yechury, during the past year and ahalf, Left parties pressure on the government has been ineffective as is clearfrom the Indian decision on Iran. Why so?  

Sitaram Yechury:  Whetherthe Left pressure has been successful or unsuccessful would be known during thenext ten-twelve days’ time, when we would come to know about the governmentdecision on Iran. Our pressure on the government would be continuous for theimplementation of the CMP, which very clearly states that UPA government wouldpursue an independent foreign policy and not be a stooge of any country. Itremains to be seen whether the government would return to the originalindependent policy. If it does not, then our decision would be known soon.

Listener from Delhi : Mr Yechury you are the head the CPI(M)’sinternational department, and have recently returned after addressing the UNGeneral Assembly session. Why is there a contradiction in your stand on theforeign policy and Volcker issue? You criticised former foreign minister NatwarSingh on the Iran vote and are now defending him on the Volcker issue...

SitaramYechury:  We are not trying to save anyone on the Volcker issue. We wantto make it very clear. What we are saying is almost the same what Mr Volcker hashimself said, that he prepared the report on basis of what he got from Iraq. Hehas himself admitted that neither did he go to Iraq nor did he verify anydocuments. He has also said he did not feel the need to do so - if India wantsit can conduct its own probe. This is precisely what we have been saying sinceday one, that the entire matter should be probed and then only can something besaid with surety.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Yashwant Sinha, is the Volcker report andnaming of Mr Natwar Singh a fallout of the perception that he holds anti-Americaviews? Why is the NDA seeking his ouster from the cabinet even before a probeon the matter. Does this issue reflect an unease due to India’ relations withIraq ?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, in this issue I do not see anyreflection of Indo-US or Indo-Iraq relations. Volcker committee was not onlyindependent from any American influence, but it was also independent from the UNas well. It was formed by a UN Security Council resolution, it was anindependent committee, it had two members other than Mr Paul Volcker also. Itwas given eighteen months time to probe the matter, and after the report hascome out, there seems to be prima facie basis for a probe. As Mr Yechury hassaid, there was a need for a probe, and we think there should be a proper andthorough inquiry into the matter. Since the probe would be linked to ExternalAffairs Ministry, it would have been inappropriate for Mr Natwar Singh to havecontinued as the minister. Now what the government has done would be discussedfurther in the coming days. But I feel that what the government has done in thematter is incomplete.

The listener continues: Mr Sinha, do you think thereis any relevance of SAARC, or its summit is a mere annual ritual ? Why has SAARC not been able to emulate the EU ?  

Yashwant Sinha:  YesSAARC is very much relevant, and in the present times its relevance hasincreased. I am not a pessimist and I see hope in SAARC as a regionalorganisation. It is correct that it has not been able to rise up to the level of,as your mentioned, the EU. Right now, countries of all the major continents,Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia are forming strong regional organisationsto increase trade ties - which is important for development. It is also correctthat SAARC has been moving ahead at a very slow speed, that of a tortoise.The reason for that has been it being overshadowed by bilateral relations - mainlyIndo-Pak relations and more recently Indo-Bangladesh relations. But it isbeginning to move on the right track, and India’s role as a big nation of theregion is very important.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Yechury is the blind anti-Americaisma practically possible proposition in today’s unipolar world? Afterall, it isthe only super-power of the world. If Manmohan Singh government supports the USand in return can get its support for the UN Security Council permanentmembership, what is wrong in it?

Sitaram Yechury: Well, we do not oppose America for the sake of merely beingseen as a force opposed to the most powerful country of the world - ouropposition is based on issues and the reality facing the world. Efforts made by India till now to secure a permanent membership of UN SecurityCouncil should be treated as a closed chapter. Efforts to please America andsecure its support for the UN Security Council permanent membership was a bigmistake. Infact if any country took the most opposing stand against SecurityCouncil expansion, it was America. It should not be forgotten that the US hadgone to the extent of saying it could even veto the resolution for SecurityCouncil expansion, if it was even placed for discussion. We feel thatcompromising the country’s foreign policy for the wishful thinking of securingpermanent membership with American support is not in the country’s interests.

Listener from Southampton: Mr Yashwant Sinha, since you have beena foreign minister of the country, can you tell me how often does a situationarise when there are differences between the Prime Minister’s office and theExternal Affairs Ministry as was seen recently during India’s voting at IAEAon Iran, and the latest Volcker issue?  

Yashwant Sinha: Well, in the recentdays, many developments have taken place which have hurt India’s image.Whether it has been the defence pact with the US or the nuclear pact, on bothissues there was no consensus within the country. Now you have talked aboutgovernment policies and coordination, yes gaps were clearly evident. So far asIndia’s candidature for the UNSC permanent membership is concerned, my view isthat the Security Council is incomplete without a country like India being itsmember. We have been living without this for past 60 years and would be able infuture also. 

However, the major weakness which I saw in the approach of the UPAgovernment, for this whole exercise, was being a part of G-4 (Group of four -with Germany, Japan and Brazil). Now what happened due to thiswas that India was clubbed as a rival country by those who have problems withGermany and Japan, and, infact, had no troubled relations with India. I wouldlike to give you an example here. Russia has been supporting India at allinternational fora on almost all issues including that of India’s candidaturefor permanent membership, since the days of the Soviet Union. This time however,Russia also joined China in opposing India’s bid. This happened because Chinawas against Japan becoming a permanent member. Similarly, America and China alsoopposed India’s bid in almost one voice. So what I am saying is that byjoining the G-4, India attracted the opposition of all the countries which wereopposed to Germany and Japan, but were not directly against us.  I see noproblem in having joined hands with Brazil. 

Infact, to my mind, a betterstrategy for India would have been to form a group with developing countriesfrom Latin America, Africa and Asia. In all three of these continents, India hasmany friends. Look at African Union, it was a big group of 53 countries, amajority of them have good relations with us, but India could not coordinate itsefforts properly with them. So I think that having gone with countries of thedeveloped world, like Germany and Japan, did not prove to be a beneficialstrategy for us.

Nagendar Sharma: Mr Yechury, what should be in Left parties view Indianline for UNSC permanent membership, and should India maintain a distance fromAmerica on this issue?

Sitaram Yechury: I agree that instead of forming a group of G-4,the previous NDA government and the present UPA government should have taken anindependent line for its candidature. India is recognised in the world as aleader of Non Aligned countries and of poor countries, this should have been thebasis of our campaign to seek membership. We have to start afresh now. Indiashould launch a campaign along with other developing countries of the world thatthe United Nations urgently requires major reforms. One of the main areas ofreforms is required in the basic UN functioning. Presently, it is the SecurityCouncil which takes decisions on behalf of this world body. The General Assemblymerely has an advisory role, it has no decisive role, which in our view is amajor flaw. Similarly, keeping big countries out of the Security Councilquestions its representative character. These are key areas which requirechanges, and to play a larger role at the international fora, India should takelead in this campaign.

Listener from Mumbai : Mr Yechury, how is it that despite the Leftparties being in a decisive role today, we perhaps have one of the mostpro-America governments in India’s history. Can you change this?  

SitaramYechury : You are right that there is a strong impression in the country thatthis government is dithering from the CMP. Our pressure is to bring thegovernment back on track. Now the important question is what if the government doesnot return to an independent foreign policy? In this case, our decision would beknown in the coming days.