SPEECH

Foreign Policy lacks Depth & Direction : Natwar Singh

When I joined the Indian Foreign Service 49 years ago, diplomats were told that a good diplomat thinks twice before saying nothing. In the last 50 years, the content of diplomacy, the nature of diplomacy has altered the world over. In our country, for the past 50 years, there has been a broad national consensus on the foreign policy. The framework that Nehru constructed has survived the test of the time even when some superficial and supercilious predators have tried to tamper with that framework. You abandon Nehru and you are left naked in the foreign affairs field.

There is an important link betwen the domestic policy and the foreign policy. This is most dramatically made available by the recent events in Gujarat. I will quote from a book written by P.N. Haksar whom the Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Jaswant Singh like me, admires very much. Nehruji said, "Foreign policies depend ultimately on internal conditions and developments. Internal progress for us, therefore, becomes essential if we have to play an effective part in world affairs". Shri P.N. Haksar says, "Thus sovereignty and independence are indispensable to conduct of foreign policy of any nation and even if a country is sovereign and independent, it cannot effectively pursue a foreign policy unless it is cohesive within itself and consistent in its purpose."

The instrument that the diplomats have to have is a clear-cut policy framework and a leadership which is familiar with the foundations of India’s foreign policy laid down before independence; what are its sources of inspirations and what are the springs from which it flows. If you are not familiar with those; then you fall into the kind of traps we have been falling for the last few years.

One of the fundamental problems the NDA Government is confronted with is they are not clear about what India’s foreign policy is. For example, take the statement made by the Prime Minister in Ahmedabad before going to Singapore. As many as 120 foreign missions in Delhi reported to their Governments that the Prime Minister of India has spoken like a statesman. He comes back and speaks in Goa. The same 120 missions send reports to their Governments that the Prime Minister of India has spoken like a Swayam Sewak.

Now, the Prime Minister has been facing a great dilemma ever since he became Prime Minister : when is he a statesman and when is he a Swayam Sewak? It is no use telling the diplomats from this country or that country that you have no business to interfere in our internal affairs. The fact of the matter is that a large number of people of Indian origin are citizens of the USA, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and the Netherlands. They have relations in Gujarat and naturally anxious about their welfare. It is the duty of High Commissions and Ambassadors to speak about the welfare of these people.

I have been in this game for nearly 50 years; I am still learning. I am not sure if the dispensation in the External Affairs Ministry is aware of the shortcomings from which some of them suffer. Let me now come to the fundamentals of India’s foreign policy, that is, non-alignment. It has become fashionable to say that non-alignment is not relevant. And I have seldom heard Jaswant Singhji referring to non-alignment. He has done so rarely, and I would like him to read the Prime Minister’s speech in Durban, where the Prime Minister praised non-alignment.

"The Cold War has ended, the Warsaw Pact is wound up, but NATO is expanding to the borders of Russia. Against whom? If non-alignment is irrelevant, then, I think, NATO is even more irrelevant?" But I will tell how and why non-alignment is relevant even today as it was 20 years or 40 years ago. The international agenda has changed, which, of course, is inevitable. When I represented India in the 50’s and the 60’s, the agenda was colonialism, imperialism, rationalism, apartheid and so on. Today, the agenda is environment, drungs, AIDS, population and ecology. Even in this new situation, it would help us if the non-aligned movement had a proper leadership, and India is the country which can give that leadership, which this Government is not giving. On these issues which affect human kind, we should take a lead in the non-aligned movement and speak with one voice. A very distinguished European Statesmen, Dr. Richard Von Weizsacker, who was the President of Germany for 10 years, said in a lecture he delivered at the Nehru Memorial in 2000, "Nehru was among the first and foremost to look for a non-bloc internationalism. His ideas of non-alignment became of global importance. He spoke about peace clubs against Cold War-clubs, nuclear clubs. He was pondering how to create a sort of no-war-zone between the military blocs. From the outset his thoughts became and remained fruitful. Non-alignment was aiming at more than equidistance from blocs. It was a denial of the gist of bloc thinking, an endeavour to detect inside those blocs the growing trends of openness, of looking for common interests, of conditions to survive together, of detente-policies as recommended and practised by leaders like Willy Brandt, of arms control and arms reduction proposals. Nehru’s non-alignment was not a means to prevent cooperation. It was, on the contrary, an invitation never to give-up the search for new ways leading to peaceful coexistence, detente and reconciliation. What echos can we find today?

Where do we go from 1989, from the end of the two-bloc confrontation, under the influence of ever-growing globalizing tendencies? So, what is to be expected from this only prevailing super power? Are we heading for a new Pax-Americana? Or, will the next few decades produce a balance of global powers such as China, India, Russia, again, after a while, Japan; possibly, the European Union? What kind of internationalism is to be expected from such powers?"

What substitute do we have for the policy of non-alignment? I would like to know if any thought is given because the External Affairs Minister, had said, according to newspapers, some 10-12 years ago in Mumbai "The time had come for us to abandon the Nehru legacy, lock, stock and barrel". If he did not say so, I would be happy. But it was quoted in the Frontline magazine. What substitute he or his colleagues can produce for India’s foreign policy?

Mr Jaswant Singh had 12 meetings with the Minister of State of the United States. He is India’s Cabinet Minister but it never occured to him, or to the Prime Minister, that India’s dignity was involved, that the Cabinet Minister of India, the Foreign Minister, should be parleying with the Minister of State of the United States, Mr. Talbot. And when the same Talbot went to Islamabad, he was met by the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan. Now, what are the Indian diplomats to say when the Foreign Minister of India escorts three hard-core terrorists in an aeroplane and releases them in Kandahar?

There are in the world, today, 57 Islamic countries which have been watching what has been happening in Gujarat, under the dispensation of the BJP. Four million Indians live in great comfort in the Gulf countries and in Saudi Arabia. Their lives, their future and their earnings are being put in jeopardy because of a Swayamsevak Chief Minister. And it is extraordinary that you call it RSS, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh; why can’t you say Rashtriya Samajsevak Sangh? What are these Indians to do if, God forbid, the situation in Gujarat were to spill over? It has not spilled over to Maharashtra and Rajasthan because those States do not happen to be under the BJP. But if it were to spill over, what would be the fate of our relations with these 57 Islamic countries, what would be the fate of these four million Indians in Gulf? If this were to spread, these people would be asked to leave the Gulf within one week. They are not citizens, they can’t appeal to any court. The foreign exchange that we get from the Gulf will stop. The economies of Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, etc. would be adversely affected. Why? That is because, the present dispensation at the Centre is unable to see the damage that has been done by what has happened in Gujarat. And that is the linkage between the foreign policy and the domestic policy.

Let me take another example; and that is about the NDA Government’s policy towards Pakistan. Is there a policy? First, there was no mention of the Shimla Agreement at all. We know what happened after Lahore. The distinguished Foreign Minister, for whom I have very great respect, said that the Lahore Declaration — and the visit — was a defining moment in the Indo-Pak relations. In three months came the Kargil. When the Prime Minister of India was embracing the Prime Minister of Pakistan, the Pakistani Army was occupying the heights of Kargil. Indira Gandhi signed the Shimla Agreement in 1972, and it ensured peace for 27 years. Why? That is because, Indira Gandhi did not lower her guard, which the present Prime Minister did.

You take another event in the foreign policy field. Mr. Clinton arrived here, in India, and he is the only Head of State or Government, or any foreign dignitary — I think it was two or three years ago — in the last 52 years who said, not only on the soil of India, but in the Central Hall of Parliament, that Kashmir was a disputed territory. And the Prime Minister of India was sitting next to him! He did not object. There was a Press Conference at the Hyderabad House where he repeated the same thing. And he repeated that in Washington, on the lawns of the White House. The Congress Party spoke up, and we said that we had great respect for the President of the United States, but it was not up to him to say that Kashmir was a disputed territory, on the Indian soil or elsewhere. I would like to know from the distinguished Foreign Minister : when did you object to this in public or in Parliament or in your private conversations?

Will the Government share with us the discussions that Mr. Jaswant Singh had on the CTBT? The country doesn’t know till this day. Mr. Talbot called him to Rome; he went to Rome. He was called to London; he went to London. He was called to Berlin; he went Berlin. He was called to Washington; he went to Washington. It was, to say the least, an unseemly sight to see the Cabinet Minister of India parleying with the Minister of State of the United States of America, and, to this day, the country does not know anything about the talks. An impression was being given, that if we signed the CTBT, a lot of financial advantages would accrue to India. Since when has the security of India being bargained for a few dollars and financial gains? The security of India is sacred. And, with regard to the CTBT, in an article published in the Foreign Affairs magazine of September, 1998 when these discussions were being held, Mr. Jaswant Singh wrote, "After the two tests, India has stated that it will henceforth observe a voluntary moratorium and refrain from conducting underground nuclear tests and explosions. It has also indicated a willingness to move towards a de jure formalisation of the declaration. The basic obligation of the CTBT is, thus, met" — ‘met’ by whom? — "to undertake no more nuclear tests as India has already subscribed to the substance of the test ban treaty. All that remains is actually the signature". Now, who authorised him to say this, that India was ready to sign the CTBT, without a discussion on the issue, or disclosing it to Parliament what discussions were held with Mr. Talbot? It was we who raised this question, both in Parliament and outside, that it was an unequal treaty; it could not be signed. And Mr. Vajpayee repeated this when he spoke at Durban about CTBT being discriminatory. I do not know who drafted his speech. But whoever did, he had some idea of what the foreign policy was all about.

There is a difference between the foreign policy and diplomacy. Foreign policy is what you do; diplomacy is how you do it. We have one of the finest Foreign Services in the world. And Mr. Jaswant Singh was reported to have told a gathering of former Foreign Service officers and some other senior officers, that the Ministry of External Affairs was unable to give something worthwhile with regard to China and Pakistan. I am not quoting his exact words; but this is what has been reported. And he said this to people who have spent 35 years in the Foreign Service, who have vast experience. Mr. Jaswant Singh has only three years’ experience as the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have nearly fifty years’ experience, and I am still learning. There are very few countries in the world that have the expertise on China and Pakistan that India has. And I am very proud to say this as a former member of the Foreign Service. We have nearly 85 officers who are fluent in the Chinese, who have served in China a number of times. I have been the Ambassador to Pakistan. What the India Foreign Service Office does not know about China and Pakistan is not worth knowing. And for the foreign Minister of India, who should be an inspiration to his instruments, the diplomats and the officers, to say that he has not got the kind of analysis or the background or perception, is mind-boggling, really.

Now, take the relationship with China. We are very glad that, finally, the Government is taking some interest in Sino-Indian relations. The BJP had been critical of our relations with China in the past.. The BJP was very sceptical about India’s relations with the Soviet Union. But, today, because of the visit of late Shri Rajiv Gandhi in December, 1988, Sino-Indian relations are on an even keel, regardless of what the Defence Minister of India said in 1998, that China was enemy number one. Instead of dismissing him, the Prime Minister pampered him. The Sino-Indian border has been quiet, has been peaceful, for the last 14 years. Why? It is because Rajiv Gandhi put back the 1962 hang-up and started a new path when he and Deng Xiao-Peng shook hands, and a new beginning was made. I was present there. It has taken some time for the present Government to realise the importance of Sino-Indian relations. I am glad Mr. Jaswant Singh had been to China, and he must have heard there the high praises which the Chinese leadership would have sung on the role of Rajiv Gandhi in improving Sino-Indian relations.

Now, take Palestine. It is singularly fortunate for Mr. Vajpayee that the incidents — unfortunate, sad and tragic — in Palestine have been more on the American radar screen; otherwise there would have been Gujarat in every bedroom in America. I don’t know if any worthwhile statement has been made on Palestine by the NDA Government. Mr. Jaswant Singh went to Israel and said that India’s policy with Iarael has been hostage to the Congress policy on minorities. It was an extraordinary statement to make. It shows that he is unfamiliar with the foundation of India’s Foreign Policy because, before Independence, Gandhi and Nehru had said that Palestine was for the Palestinians. This does not mean that we don’t want friendly relations with Israel. Of course, we do; and this does not mean that we should take a one-sided view. Recently, when Mr. Arafat was under arrest, Mr. Jaswant Singh said in Shanghai that Mr. Arafat was still the leader of the Palestinians. This was quoted in the newspapers. I don’t know when he last met the Arab Ambassadors here. Because only last week, I had to draw the attention of the higher-ups in the Prime Minister’s Office that these poor dears have been asking for an appointment with the Foreign Minister for weeks. He should have been seeing them every day. Our relations with Palestine are of utmost importance. It is, therefore, vital that we have closer relations in this hour of need when Palestine is going through hell because of the policy of Mr. Sharon, who even the Americans are trying to abandon. No worthwhile statement condemning what is happening in Palestine has come from our Government. The Congress Working Committee passed a resolution condemning it in the strongest possible terms.

Now, what were the consequences of the appointment of an individual called Agnihotri as Indian Ambassador in the United States? How our envoy, Mr. Lalit Mansingh would have felt? I would like the External Affairs Minister to confirm or deny that the Americans have told Mr. Agnihotri that either he should surrender his green card or be Ambassador; Mr. Agnihotri has abandoned being the Ambassador of India and retained the green card. The appointment was made for the services rendered to the Sangh Parivar by Shri Agnihotri, whom nobody ever heard of, and nobody will hear again.

Now, about the relationship with the United States of America. Jawaharlal Nehru's first major visit outside England was to the United States of America. He spent six weeks there in 1949. The NDA Government has done nothing miraculous for the improvement of Indo-American relations. It is in the very nature of the present day world that the United States of America and India have come closer. The Indian community there is playing a vital role in acting as a bridge between India and the United States of America.

I don't think the United States of America respects any nation which doesn't stand up to it. There was an amount of pressure that was being put on us to sign CTBT and New Delhi was conniving at it. This could not have happened in the past. What horrified me was that the Prime Minister, in a Joint Session on 26th February, said that he had the courage to have Pokhran-II whilst the Congress Prime Minister, a few years back, had buckled under the American pressure and abandon the exercise.

I presume the Prime Minister has taken an oath of secrecy. For him to make public reference to what a previous Prime Minister did on the nuclear issue and programme of India to be spelt out in public is, if I may say so respectifully, the height of irresponsibility. No Prime Minister should ever, in public or even private, refer to these matters, because it is only he who knows and he presses the button.

At a meeting Shri Narsimha Rao had with the present Prime Minister. Mr. Rao had said, "Jaswant Sinhaji, you know nothing about these things. Myself and Vajpayeeji know about it." Mrs. Sonia Gandhi didn't refer to Pokharan-II. But this was said in bravado by the Prime Minister. He says he has 45 years of experience, and we are all aware of it. Arjun Singh was here and he too has 45 years of experience. I may be a very big man but I have also had 50 years of experience in public service, representing India, and I have not done a bad job of it. But when this kind of a thing is done, what impression is being created? The Government was very, very happy at Pokhran-II. But what were the consequences? The superiority India had for 52 years in conventional weapons and arms against Pakistan disappeared: now there is nuclear parity. Pakistan will never sign any agreement with us on 'no-first-use'. Why should they? When you opened your fist it was five, when he opened opened his fist it was six.

Musharraf says that he will use nuclear weapons against India and there is no response from the distinguished Government of the NDA, which is neither national nor democratic, nor an alliance. The only sensible thing, as far as foreign policy is concerned, the Prime Minister has done is to appoint Omar Abdullah as Minister of State. At least, somebody talks sense in the NDA set up. But what did he say on Gujarat? He said it to the House, he said it on television. He abstained. But NDA can't do without him, so his resignation was not accepted. But he has the pulse of the repercussions and the consequences of Gujarat or India's good name abroad. A bad domestic policy can never have a good foreign policy.

We must go back to Nehru because if we do not, then we will be going into every single conference with nothing worthwhile in our hands. In 1998, Nelson Mandela at the Non-Aligned Summit in Durban named eight areas of the world where there was tension and a conflict possibility. And he mentioned Kashmir. And the entire Vajpayee set-up, jumped on Mandela apologise, how dare you mention Kashmir'! Clinton comes here and says in the Parliament House that it is a disputed territory. The government does not say anything. What was the result? Nelson Mandela, who is a great, great friend of India, went on a farewell visit after he retired as President. Where do you think he went? - China, Russia and Pakistan. He did not come to India. While after his release, one of the first countries he visited was India and the Sabarmati Ashram, which has been desecreated by the Sangh Parivar.

(Based on the author’s speech in the Rajya Sabha on 7th May, 2002)