'Traps And Norms'

Sir, it gives us extreme satisfaction that, notwithstanding the avoidable delay, the fact that the hon. Chairman has moved the Resolution -- which, I am sure, is going to be supported by theentire House, which represents not only the political spectrum of this country, but also, overwhelmingly,mirrors the national opinion and the public mood in this country -- goes to show the maturity and theresilience of our parliamentary system.

Having said that, we have to also to consider that the kinds of issues and politicalprocesses that have been thrown up as a result of the unilateral invasion by US-led forces in Iraq, haveramifications which will lead to developments in the future, which will engage our attention, and which willalso require our national response in the future.

Therefore, while agreeing with the suggestion of the hon. Chairman that normally theMembers speaking here should try to confine  to the Resolution, I think references to issues, which arepregnant in the formulation of the Resolution will, indeed, come in for the consideration;  a sharing ofthe concerns and experiences of different parties will have to be articulated, which, I think, will not weakenbut actually strengthen the Resolution.

Now, Sir, why was there the need for this Resolution?  As the hon. Members of thisHouse will recall, some of us had raised the need for adoption of such a Resolution in the first half of theBudget Session but, somehow, there was an understanding among a section of the House that adoption of such aResolution will inhibit the diplomatic latitude, the diplomatic elbow-room that was needed by the Governmentto intervene in the situation.

But, nevertheless, we had discussed that issue in this House on 12^th of March,and it was the hon. Prime Minister, who at that point of time had very emphatically and unequivocallyreassured this House that a military action will never take place. But, notwithstanding that reassurance, someof us had said that the tendency that was already on evidence suggests otherwise. Therefore, it is very vitalfor the Indian Parliament to express itself in very unambiguous terms because the problem is, the Iraqdevelopments have shown failure of global diplomacy. Had the sequence of evidence underscored the need forgreater diplomatic efforts, we would have tended to agree with the Government at that point of time. But theIraq crisis underlined the very failure of global diplomacy which is leading to apprehensions about therelevance of the U.N. system itself. If one analyses the sequence of events, which is being detailed out, notonly by the critics of America, but even by the media in the United States itself has pointed out that thereis a very, very disturbing trend in what is happening.

Sir, I refer to an article in the Time magazine, dated 31^st March wherethey have given the graphical accounts -- why the U.S. Administration have targeted Iraq and what is thepolitical and ideological basis of this attack. There, it has been pointed out that one of the DeputySecretaries of the U.S. Administration, Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, who represents and reflects the core ofneo-conservative political thoughts has been a person who has been instrumental in shaping the U.S. policytowards Iraq, and how he has won over important Administration officials like the Vice-President, Mr. DickCheney and the Defence Secretary, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld. If one goes into the core of the theory ofneo-conservatism, one finds a chilling similarity with what was articulated in terms of Nazism in the mid-30s,the same concept of supremacy of master race, the articulation for the need to accept American way of life,for the acceptance of the American values as the prerequisite for stability and collective security of theworld. This is something which poses a grave threat which goes beyond Iraq. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, Sir, withthe greatest deference to your wish that one need not go beyond the words of the text of the Resolution, onehas to refer to these implications which will affect particularly countries like India.  

We would like to point out that this kind of unilateral aggression is actually knockingout at the very foundational principles of international jurisprudence. For example, the justification of thisaggression. Americans are saying that they are doing this to find out weapons of mass destruction. This is acharge which has been laid at the doors of Iraq by the U.S. Administration without any respect for theinternationally established procedures to justify that charge. In effect, the U.S. has acted in this case,both as a prosecutor and as a judge. The same entity is the prosecution and the judge! Now this is a breakdownof the very principle of natural jurisprudence which has been known to human civilization. This isunacceptable to us.

While we see Operation Iraqi Freedom has been launched with the purported aim of findingweapons of mass destruction, there are evidence that in this blatant aggression, weapons of mass destructionhave been used by the U.S. and the British forces, which are banned by the Geneva Convention. There has beenthe use of shells which have been enriched by uranium waste which, indeed, constitutes weapons of massdestruction. The cluster bombs, which have killed thousands of civilians at one go, are weapons of massdestruction. The huge loss of civilians can't be justified by the claim of precision technologies which theU.S. have been claiming to have used.

The other disturbing trend is that the messengers have been shot at. The incident ofyesterday, targeting the media which was trying to give a version of the war which differed with the Americanperception of the war, the bombing and destruction of the Al-Jazeera Television Centre in Baghdad, shootingdown of journalists who have been acting independently, and the removal of Peter Arnett, are all against thevery grains of human civilisation and the requirements of the millennium.

We have raised these questions earlier in connection with the developments in theaftermath of 9/11. Therefore, Sir, today, we are faced with a very, very critical situation. Natwarji wasreferring to the pronouncements after the Belfast Meeting, but, at the same time, we have seen the BBC, whichwas transmitting to us the agreement which was reached between President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld on thetransfer of money which was sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, that is to be used by Pentagon. Now, strife istaking place within the U.S. Administration on who is going to use this money--whether it is the StateAdministration or the Pentagon. The Bush Administration has decided that Pentagon would use the money now.

Therefore, this is a very, very serious situation. It has implications for the future.Therefore, unless the Indian political process thinks today on how to appropriately respond to the emergingsituation, we would be failing in our duties to exhaust the possibilities that are inherent in thisResolution.

We expect thatour Government would respond to portents of the U.S. national strategy document which was finalised. It wasnot an unofficial document by a think-tank, but it was the official document of the U.S. Administration whichwas finalised; it underpins the future U.S. strategy for the whole world.

We have seen that in order tofurther the objectives of that strategy document, the US has decided it, because it is in keeping with theadministration report which was led during the Senior Bush administration that countries which are defencelesswill be chosen particularly.  Therefore, apparently there was some surprise why the US is not respondingto North Korea. But this appropriately dovetails that formulation in the security document of the US thatparticularly defenceless regimes will be selected so that there can be a speedy 'victory'.  We have seenthis that the UN Security Council was being used to disarm Iraq  so that speedy results could be there.All the formulations that were being tom-tomed before the attack have all proved to be a myth that in spite ofthe weakness, in spite of the defenceless nature of the  Iraqi regime that ultimately the military actionhas continued so long and till now full political control has not been established. 

But the point here is that whateverirrespective and regardless of the military outcome of this action, the political situation, I have seen, thatnations, the so-called permanent allies of the US administration have also not been in a position to expresstheir opinion on this and to oppose this.  They have been backed by a huge mobilisation of the people onthe street.  The redeeming feature, I think, is that there was a danger of that Huntington's theory, ofClash of Civilisations.  But even the God that President Bush invokes every time, we have seen that thevery clan to which Mr. Bush belongs, they have condemned this action. 

The Pope has come out, and cuttingacross religious affiliations, people have opposed this.  This has taken place in Europe, in the Arabcountries and the world over.  Therefore, there is a galvanisation of  process, which is notaccepting the kind of unilateralism that the US administration is trying to impose on the whole world.  Ithink there are reasons to take heart from this because there are contradictions which one cannot overlook. 

The American Congressinterestingly, as a sideshow, during the four days of the Iraq invasion was debating.  What they weredebating was that Afghanistan where the American administration had given its commitment to reconstruct in theoriginal budget papers, which were presented to the US Congress, had not kept a single penny for thereconstruction of Afghanistan.  Then the US Congress intervened and it said, "At least, we have tokeep some money."  And 300 million US dollars were ultimately allocated. 

We know that American economy todayis on a daily basis.  The hon. Minister would know with his background in finance that daily they arerunning a deficit of 1.5 billion dollars.  Their overall budgetary deficit is 432 billion dollars, whichis exactly the defence budget of the US.   Now, who is financing this budgetary deficit?  While wehear sermons about controlling our fiscal deficit, but the fact of the matter is that American economy isbeing financed by the surplus  economies of Europe and Japan.  We will also see efforts to coerceEuropean nations, Japan, the other Gulf countries and the devastated Iraqi economy itself to spend money toreconstruct Iraq.  Therefore, in this situation, there are possibilities, there are tendencies, which canprovide us with space to intervene and try to have a very broad-based political, diplomatic initiative in theinternational sphere to try and reverse this ominous and outrageous unilateralism that has emerged.

It is, in this context, I agreewith what Mr. Ramachandraiah has said about the adoption of the Resolution and about the shortcomings of ourGovernment in intervening appropriately in the situation.  But, I think, this Resolution was verynecessary.  It is more than necessary for sending some message outside and to gel the unity of our view. There has been a criticism on Parliament for not adopting this Resolution.  But, adopting this Resolutiontoo late is not good.  The people of our country, the entire political establishment of this country andthe entire political process of this country should act firmly, act unitedly and act in a very, very rapidmanner.  As such, we have been delayed in our reaction and, therefore, I think, this Resolution shouldtrigger off a process by which we can galvanise the unity of purpose and the unity of thinking among ourpeople in carrying on this process forward whereby we can appropriately reflect the political will of thiscountry. 

And, at the same time, I think, itis a very unique feature that we have asked for the withdrawal of the U.S.-led military force immediately. That is very vital.  That is one of the areas on which a great debate is taking place in theinternational sphere.  That is where our Resolution becomes more contemporary.  Even within the U.S.administration, there is a difference of opinion.  There is a fight between the Neo-Conservatives and theLiberals where people are saying,  'America cannot risk by using its own administration to deal with thepost-invasion situation in Iraq.' 

Therefore, India could take thelead in voicing this concern that the process for restoration of democracy, contrary to the claims of Mr. Bushadministration, should be overseen by the international community and the institutions which areinternationally accepted -- precisely, the U.N.  And, it is one of those issues where India can play animportant role in galvanising the resistance to unilateralism.  I agree with hon. Mr. Natwar Singh thatwe need to take a principled position.

Our Pakistan-centric approach toevery international development is not going to help us.  We cannot justify or we cannot claim to indulgein unilateralism and unilateral adventure by drawing parallels with what U.S. has done to Iraq.  We are,inadvertently, trapping ourselves to the 'traps and norms' which are being sought to be established by theBush administration.  Therefore, our foreign policy and our traditions in foreign policy have always beeninformed of the need about the global peace.  Our concerns for removal of weapons of mass destructionhave been premised in the need for global disarmament.  Now, those positions had given to the Indianestablishment and to the Indian nation the kind of leverage which we exercised in the past.  I think, weshall have to reinvent our foreign policy based on those basic principles which have paid us rich rewards incontributing to the global process.

Finally, Madam, I think, the otherissue that should be taken up by the Indian Government and our political establishment is the civilizationalaspect.  The great civilization, which had been housed by the soil of Iraq, and which dates back to the 3^rdmillennium B.C., the Assyrian Civilization, was subsequently followed by the Sumerian and the MesopotamianCivilizations.  They are saying that about one lakh sites are there in Iraq, out of which only 12,000sites have been discovered.

I would be concluding, now. So, these one lakh historical sites, which are supposed to be there, which are housing the evidence of thisgreat civilization over the years, is under serious jeopardy.  The Gulf War- I, because of the kind ofbombing that had taken place there, had already given rise to serious concerns among the historians and theintellectuals all over the world. And, now, we don't know what has happened to this.  So, it is also amatter of  defence of the civilization, which is under physical threat as a result of this invasion. Thisalso needs to be articulated, because the world would go on, the human civilization would go on, if we canprotect this great civilizational heritage.  

Therefore, in conclusion, I wouldlike to say that the core of the neo-conservative theory, which informs the American invasion, has alsocreated the space for a big platform of resistance against the global and complete unilateralism and terrorismthat has come about.  Therefore, I think, when we would pursue policies, which are friendly to allcountries of the world, unless the principles can actually inform the expectations of the human race all overthe world, those principles need to be brought back to the centre stage of the paradigm and the discourse thatwill henceforth follow in this world.  We have to strengthen this process.  And, with that, I think,our Resolution will contribute to this process. I commend this Resolution for adoption by the House. Thank you.