Rare South Asian unity on Syria - bdnews24.com
Rare South Asian unity on Syria
Subir Bhaumik, bdnews24.com
Published: 2013-09-04 10:19:23.0 BdST Updated: 2013-09-04 18:22:59.0 BdST
South Asian nations, perpetually at loggerheads and rarely on the same page on key regional and global issues, have all come out strongly against a proposed US military strike in Syria.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all opposed the US military strike that seems imminent after President Barack Obama have won backers in the Congress for his plans.
Sri Lanka and Nepal have also called for peaceful solution of the Syria crisis.
"As the US is preparing for aerial strikes within Syria, Pakistan believes that it will make the situation more concerning," Sartaj Aziz told the Pakistan parliament at the weekend.
Aziz is National Security and Foreign Affairs advisor to Pakistans new Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif.
He said Pakistan does not support use of chemical weapons but thinks that report of the UN Mission already present in the country should be waited for.
Aziz said Pakistan's stand on Syria is based on principles of international law and UN Charter to respect territorial integrity of Syria; the policy of non military or otherwise intervention and interference; settlement of dispute; and transition or transfer of power through peaceful means.
Bangladesh Foreign Ministry spokesperson M Shameem Ahsan strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons by any party under any circumstances.
But he said Bangladesh would like to emphasise the centrality of the United Nations in resolving the Syrian crisis with immediate cessation of hostilities in Syria and to end the suffering of the Syrian people, both inside in the country and those who have become refugees outside the country.
Bangladesh believes that resolution of the Syrian crisis, with the involvement of all concerned parties, should be able to address the aspirations of the Syrian people for a peaceful and stable country, ensuring national sovereignty, independence, national unity and integrity of Syria, Ahsan said at the weekend.
Indias Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid was equally candid in opposing a US military strike in Syria.
I dont think we can support any action that is not endorsed by the UN, Khurshid said. Any attack on Syria at this point could exacerbate the civil war there and turbulence in West Asia.
I am hoping that sanity will prevail and that people will step away from actions that could escalate matters, Khurshid said.
All three South Asian nations share three major concerns about an US military strike in Syria that has the potential to escalate into a larger conflict in West Asia.
* India, Pakistan and Bangladesh import much of their oil from West Asia.
* They have large number of migrants workers employed in the region. India alone has six million workers in West Asia, many in countries around Syria, if not in it.
* While Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim majority nations, India has 170 million Muslims, who may react adversely if their governments supported an US military strike. Both Bangladesh and India are headed for national parliament elections in early 2014.
Other smaller South Asian nations also import oil from West Asia and many of their citizens work there.
India is US leading strategic partner in Asia, much sought by Washington as part of Obamas Asia Pivot strategy to contain China.
Pakistan has been treated by the US as a frontline state in both the Afghan war against the Soviet occupation army and also during its own war against terror against the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine.
Bangladesh also has developed its strategic relationship with the US, though its Awami League government has opposed any US bases in the Bay of Bengal. India has also denied media reports that it was prepared to give US a base in the southern city of Trivandrum to locate some of its air assets in the region.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is slated to visit the US for a meeting with President Barack Obama in September to carry forward issues raised during Julys Indo-US strategic dialogue in Delhi.
Indias unambiguous stand on Syria ahead of Prime Minister Singhs Washington visit is significant. It reaffirms the centrality of Indian interests in deciding the course of our foreign policy while dealing with the US, which Delhi surrendered on the Iran question, says foreign policy analyst Jayanta Kumar Ray, now with the Calcutta University's Institute of Foreign Policy Studies.
With its economy in a sharp downturn and its rupee in a nosedive over the last two months, India can ill afford a sharp rise in oil prices which will aggravate its balance of payments problem and eat into its dwindling foreign reserves now barely enough to finance five months of imports.
India imported $156.97 billion worth crude oil and products in 2012-13 but ended up with a net import bill of $98.14 billion as it exported finished petroleum products to neighbouring countries worth $58.84 billion.
Oil imports account for 34 per cent of the total import bill and a dollar increase per barrel raises trade deficit by $900 million.
But with the rupee depreciating 20% against the dollar and other leading currencies, the oil import bill is fast becoming a huge drag.
In desperation, India is risking upsetting the US by seeking more oil imports from Iran.
The Indian petroleum minister Veerappa Moily said a plan to import oil from Iran has been worked out that will help the country save$ 22 billion in oil imports that will help reduce her current account deficit that is driving down the value of the rupee.
"Oil (imports) is one of the components responsible for the worsening current account deficit (CAD). The prime minister has told us to save $25 billion in the import bill. As of today, we have pieced together a plan to save $22 billion in import bill," Moily said.
He said the savings would be around one percent of the GDP.
Renewing oil imports from sanctions-hit Iran helps India because Teheran accepts Delhis payment for oil in rupees and helps India save foreign exchange.
Officials calculate that importing, for instance, 10 million tonnes of oil from Iran means saving $10 billion in foreign exchange outgo. During the last fiscal, India imported 13.1 million tonnes of oil from Iran, down from 18.11 million tonnes of 2011-12.
The cutting down on Iranian oil imports was attributed to an effort to placate the US something Jayanta Kumar Ray says was suicidal to Indian interests.
Pakistan imports 78 percent of its oil consumption, mostly from West Asia and is indeed seeking to develop a gas pipeline to its new port of Gwadar from Iran.
Bangladesh also imports much of the oil it consumes and most of it is sourced to West Asia.
The South Asians have good reasons to oppose any escalation in West Asia. No country in the region can overlook its crucial interests and support an US military adventure in Syria after Iraq and Afghanistan, says Binoda Mishra of the Calcutta-based Centre for International Relations and Development (CSIRD).
Oil prices, migrant workers, adverse Muslim reactions and much more. On Syria, we are on the same page with China rather than with the US, he said. We want no more trouble.
India is upset with US plans to pullout from Afghanistan and involving the Taliban in the peace process in haste because it sees a spill-over of jihad in its troubled Kashmir.
This has figured in the Indo-US strategic dialogue and will figure big-time in the Obama-Singh dialogue this month, as Washington seeks to push for export of nuclear reactors and key military equipment as it encourages India to build up its defence against China.
Pakistan is upset with US drone attacks, accepting which as a fait accompli has made its government unpopular at home.
Bangladeshs present government is upset with Washington for a host of what it suspects to be subtle interference, including the backing Prime Minister Hasinas bête noire Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus receives from Washington.
The Hasina administration has not taken kindly to pressures from the US to seek a deal with Opposition leader Khaleda Zia to restore the neutral caretaker system to conduct the parliament elections. It is also upset with the UN envoy coming out in support of Human Rights Watch which severely criticised the war crimes trials in the country. And some in the Awami league suspect a US role in the World Bank tantrums that finally led to the withdrawal of funding request for the Padma bridge.
There is also a gnawing suspicion in some circles in India and Bangladesh that Mamata Banerji's strident refusal to allow the Land Boundary Agreement and the Teesta Water-sharing treaties to go ahead owes much to encouragement from quarters who would like to pamper her for her role in bringing down the world's longest serving elected Communist government in the state of West Bengal.
Her role in eating away the Communist influence in India's coalition-dominated federal politics by striking at their source of power in West Bengal cannot but find a huge appreciative audience in Washington, where the Communist role in trying to block the Indo-US nuclear deal had evoked much concern and angst.
So, as is rare, all South Asian countries, specially the Big Three, have good reasons to feel uncertain over the proposed US military strike in Syria. That they have come out in the open to insist on UN rather than US action also has some significance for South Asia's future.
This could be the beginning of a process where the countries in the region would seek to find their own way out rather than look to Washington for mediation for conflict resolution.
Rare South Asian unity on Syria
Subir Bhaumik, bdnews24.com
Published: 2013-09-04 10:19:23.0 BdST Updated: 2013-09-04 18:22:59.0 BdST
South Asian nations, perpetually at loggerheads and rarely on the same page on key regional and global issues, have all come out strongly against a proposed US military strike in Syria.
India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have all opposed the US military strike that seems imminent after President Barack Obama have won backers in the Congress for his plans.
Sri Lanka and Nepal have also called for peaceful solution of the Syria crisis.
"As the US is preparing for aerial strikes within Syria, Pakistan believes that it will make the situation more concerning," Sartaj Aziz told the Pakistan parliament at the weekend.
Aziz is National Security and Foreign Affairs advisor to Pakistans new Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif.
He said Pakistan does not support use of chemical weapons but thinks that report of the UN Mission already present in the country should be waited for.
Aziz said Pakistan's stand on Syria is based on principles of international law and UN Charter to respect territorial integrity of Syria; the policy of non military or otherwise intervention and interference; settlement of dispute; and transition or transfer of power through peaceful means.
Bangladesh Foreign Ministry spokesperson M Shameem Ahsan strongly condemned the use of chemical weapons by any party under any circumstances.
But he said Bangladesh would like to emphasise the centrality of the United Nations in resolving the Syrian crisis with immediate cessation of hostilities in Syria and to end the suffering of the Syrian people, both inside in the country and those who have become refugees outside the country.
Bangladesh believes that resolution of the Syrian crisis, with the involvement of all concerned parties, should be able to address the aspirations of the Syrian people for a peaceful and stable country, ensuring national sovereignty, independence, national unity and integrity of Syria, Ahsan said at the weekend.
Indias Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid was equally candid in opposing a US military strike in Syria.
I dont think we can support any action that is not endorsed by the UN, Khurshid said. Any attack on Syria at this point could exacerbate the civil war there and turbulence in West Asia.
I am hoping that sanity will prevail and that people will step away from actions that could escalate matters, Khurshid said.
All three South Asian nations share three major concerns about an US military strike in Syria that has the potential to escalate into a larger conflict in West Asia.
* India, Pakistan and Bangladesh import much of their oil from West Asia.
* They have large number of migrants workers employed in the region. India alone has six million workers in West Asia, many in countries around Syria, if not in it.
* While Pakistan and Bangladesh are Muslim majority nations, India has 170 million Muslims, who may react adversely if their governments supported an US military strike. Both Bangladesh and India are headed for national parliament elections in early 2014.
Other smaller South Asian nations also import oil from West Asia and many of their citizens work there.
India is US leading strategic partner in Asia, much sought by Washington as part of Obamas Asia Pivot strategy to contain China.
Pakistan has been treated by the US as a frontline state in both the Afghan war against the Soviet occupation army and also during its own war against terror against the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine.
Bangladesh also has developed its strategic relationship with the US, though its Awami League government has opposed any US bases in the Bay of Bengal. India has also denied media reports that it was prepared to give US a base in the southern city of Trivandrum to locate some of its air assets in the region.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is slated to visit the US for a meeting with President Barack Obama in September to carry forward issues raised during Julys Indo-US strategic dialogue in Delhi.
Indias unambiguous stand on Syria ahead of Prime Minister Singhs Washington visit is significant. It reaffirms the centrality of Indian interests in deciding the course of our foreign policy while dealing with the US, which Delhi surrendered on the Iran question, says foreign policy analyst Jayanta Kumar Ray, now with the Calcutta University's Institute of Foreign Policy Studies.
With its economy in a sharp downturn and its rupee in a nosedive over the last two months, India can ill afford a sharp rise in oil prices which will aggravate its balance of payments problem and eat into its dwindling foreign reserves now barely enough to finance five months of imports.
India imported $156.97 billion worth crude oil and products in 2012-13 but ended up with a net import bill of $98.14 billion as it exported finished petroleum products to neighbouring countries worth $58.84 billion.
Oil imports account for 34 per cent of the total import bill and a dollar increase per barrel raises trade deficit by $900 million.
But with the rupee depreciating 20% against the dollar and other leading currencies, the oil import bill is fast becoming a huge drag.
In desperation, India is risking upsetting the US by seeking more oil imports from Iran.
The Indian petroleum minister Veerappa Moily said a plan to import oil from Iran has been worked out that will help the country save$ 22 billion in oil imports that will help reduce her current account deficit that is driving down the value of the rupee.
"Oil (imports) is one of the components responsible for the worsening current account deficit (CAD). The prime minister has told us to save $25 billion in the import bill. As of today, we have pieced together a plan to save $22 billion in import bill," Moily said.
He said the savings would be around one percent of the GDP.
Renewing oil imports from sanctions-hit Iran helps India because Teheran accepts Delhis payment for oil in rupees and helps India save foreign exchange.
Officials calculate that importing, for instance, 10 million tonnes of oil from Iran means saving $10 billion in foreign exchange outgo. During the last fiscal, India imported 13.1 million tonnes of oil from Iran, down from 18.11 million tonnes of 2011-12.
The cutting down on Iranian oil imports was attributed to an effort to placate the US something Jayanta Kumar Ray says was suicidal to Indian interests.
Pakistan imports 78 percent of its oil consumption, mostly from West Asia and is indeed seeking to develop a gas pipeline to its new port of Gwadar from Iran.
Bangladesh also imports much of the oil it consumes and most of it is sourced to West Asia.
The South Asians have good reasons to oppose any escalation in West Asia. No country in the region can overlook its crucial interests and support an US military adventure in Syria after Iraq and Afghanistan, says Binoda Mishra of the Calcutta-based Centre for International Relations and Development (CSIRD).
Oil prices, migrant workers, adverse Muslim reactions and much more. On Syria, we are on the same page with China rather than with the US, he said. We want no more trouble.
India is upset with US plans to pullout from Afghanistan and involving the Taliban in the peace process in haste because it sees a spill-over of jihad in its troubled Kashmir.
This has figured in the Indo-US strategic dialogue and will figure big-time in the Obama-Singh dialogue this month, as Washington seeks to push for export of nuclear reactors and key military equipment as it encourages India to build up its defence against China.
Pakistan is upset with US drone attacks, accepting which as a fait accompli has made its government unpopular at home.
Bangladeshs present government is upset with Washington for a host of what it suspects to be subtle interference, including the backing Prime Minister Hasinas bête noire Nobel Laureate Mohammed Yunus receives from Washington.
The Hasina administration has not taken kindly to pressures from the US to seek a deal with Opposition leader Khaleda Zia to restore the neutral caretaker system to conduct the parliament elections. It is also upset with the UN envoy coming out in support of Human Rights Watch which severely criticised the war crimes trials in the country. And some in the Awami league suspect a US role in the World Bank tantrums that finally led to the withdrawal of funding request for the Padma bridge.
There is also a gnawing suspicion in some circles in India and Bangladesh that Mamata Banerji's strident refusal to allow the Land Boundary Agreement and the Teesta Water-sharing treaties to go ahead owes much to encouragement from quarters who would like to pamper her for her role in bringing down the world's longest serving elected Communist government in the state of West Bengal.
Her role in eating away the Communist influence in India's coalition-dominated federal politics by striking at their source of power in West Bengal cannot but find a huge appreciative audience in Washington, where the Communist role in trying to block the Indo-US nuclear deal had evoked much concern and angst.
So, as is rare, all South Asian countries, specially the Big Three, have good reasons to feel uncertain over the proposed US military strike in Syria. That they have come out in the open to insist on UN rather than US action also has some significance for South Asia's future.
This could be the beginning of a process where the countries in the region would seek to find their own way out rather than look to Washington for mediation for conflict resolution.
