Crimea: The West must watch as Russia flexes its muscles in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Moscow does not seem to be able to put behind its past as a great power. The decision by the Russian Federal Council or the upper house on Sunday to unanimously approve President Vladimir Putin’s request to send troops into the Crimean peninsula is a clear sign of Moscow’s inability to accept Ukraine as an independent and sovereign state. That Ukraine is divided in its response to Russia’s actions in the Crimea is evident in pro-Russia forces marching across cities in the south and east of Ukraine and navy chief Rear Admiral Denis Berezovsky swearing allegiance to the government of the Crimea region. Russia is unhappy with the pro-European government in Kiev after president Viktor F Yanukovych, who was close to the Kremlin, was ousted recently. Russia’s “uncontested arrival” — to quote Washington — in the Crimea reflects Putin’s unrealistic ambition in Eurasia, where he sees Moscow lording it over the former Soviet states. However, tension in Ukraine can be traced back to the trouble Russia is facing. Many see Putin’s actions as an effort to deflect attention from Russia’s ailing economy and breakdown of social systems. With rampant corruption, oil prices set to stay low and with its growth crawling along, Russia is crumbling from within. Russia, though still a superpower, is a shadow of the erstwhile USSR. Putin refuses to acknowledge this reality and that Russia’s days of supremacy are long gone.

US secretary of state John Kerry

The West has condemned Russia’s actions and the United States, Britain and France have threatened to boycott the G8 summit to be held later this year in Sochi. US secretary of state John Kerry warned that if Russia did not pull back its forces Putin may not “even remain in the G8”. Though hues of a Cold War US-Russia face-off is being projected, a war-weary West would do well to address this threat through diplomatic channels by imposing sanctions and bans, and not use force on the ground.
With more than 17 bilateral agreements and cooperation in the fields of defence, nuclear energy, science and technology, space research, etc, India cannot ignore the rising tension in Ukraine. Trade relations with Kiev have increased almost 50% from $1.93 billion in 2010-11 to $2.86 billion in 2012-13. The Indian community in Ukraine is relatively small but it has about 3,500 students studying in various medical and technical institutions. It might be too early for India to comment on the situation in the Black Sea, but it should use its good ties with both Ukraine and Russia to ensure the safety of Indians in Ukraine.

Modi-Powell meeting: Does Modi need the United States?

For anyone who has been following the campaign by political parties in India leading to the general elections this summer, the Hindustan Times report that United States ambassador to India Nancy Powell has got permission from the Centre to meet Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not come as a surprise.
If opinion polls are anything to go by, Washington will soon have to do business with a government in New Delhi headed by Modi. For the US, which holds the adage 'there are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests' as the bedrock of its diplomatic relations with foreign nations, it was natural to warm up to Modi. Clearly, both the US and Modi have come a long way since 2005 when the Gujarat CM was denied a US visa.
However, there are two points to take away from this US climb-down. The first: Is Washington trying to 'influence', albeit covertly, the political scenario in India? Citing this, many political parties have taken objection to Ms Powell's move. This is also because the US has a checkered past when it comes to 'influencing' elections (a recent example being the admission by former US defence secretary Robert Gates in his memoir that the US tried to delay and manipulate the 2009 Afghan presidential election outcome). Given this, the US embassy statement that the meeting was "part of our concentrated outreach to senior political and economic leaders which began in November to highlight the US-India relationship" can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The second: Is it really a victory for Modi? The party has rightly refrained from speaking about this proposed meeting in a shrill pitch and will do well to overcome the temptation to go to town tom-toming this as Modi's 'achievement'. If the BJP was to highlight this as an achievement, it can be accused of doublespeak and of being opportunistic.
Modi has grown in stature over the years despite the US and to a certain extent the US boycott has helped further his image as a 'desi' leader who 'is-not-a-American-stooge'.
In the crystal ball of Indian politics, Washington's retraction is a clear shot in the arm for the BJP's prime ministerial candidate. It does not require clairvoyance to see that countries, like the UK, the EU and now the US, are reacting after witnessing the 'Modi wave'.
When the political and diplomatic dust settles one thing is evident: This is a victory for Narendra Modi. But the question to be asked, in true 'NaMonomic' style is: Does Modi require the US or its endorsement at this point of time?
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on February 11)

Obama’s New Team Set to Give India the Jitters

Statements by Charles Timothy ‘Chuck’ Hagel, the new United States Defence Secretary, that “India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border” and “used Afghanistan as a second front” are bizarre to say the least. Hagel’s speech, made at Oklahoma’s Cameron University in 2011, which was uploaded by Washington Free Beacon recently, also gave Pakistan a clean chit. It goes without saying that Hagel’s statements are the much-required fuel to run the anti-India mills in our neighbourhood.

Hagel’s comments are contrary to the US stand on India’s commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan. India’s role was appreciated in a statement released by the US embassy in New Delhi, which distanced itself from Hagel’s views. Whether Hagel is fit for the demanding job or not is a different question but what should be concerning the mandarins in New Delhi is that such a comment is coming from a top authority in the Obama administration at a time when the Manmohan Singh-led United Progressive Alliance government is turning to the United States to protect Indian interests in Afghanistan. These comments by Hagel, when seen with Secretary of State John Kerry’s January statement that “I don’t think the Pakistanis have frankly gotten credit, sufficiently, for the fact that they were helpful” in catching Osama bin Laden, poses serious questions on what course Indo-US ties will take at this crucial juncture.
New Delhi will have to work overtime to ensure that the new ring of leaders in the Obama administration are on the same page as its immediate predecessors and that they talk in one voice about India’s support to US goals in Afghanistan. It should impress upon Washington to see through Islamabad’s double game of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares. It will, however, be prudent to not rely heavily on a United States that is waiting to board the last plane out of Afghanistan.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on February 28)

Arab Spring Exploits Haunt US in Autumn

An attacker at the US consulate at Benghazi, Libya. (Inset: J Chris Stevens)

On Wednesday in an attack on the United States consulate at Benghazi, in Libya, four Americans, including Ambassador John Christopher Stevens, were killed. US diplomatic missions in Egypt and Yemen were also targetted. People were protesting after a film made in the US portraying the Prophet in bad light was picked up by the sections of the media in Egypt. It was later used by radicals to fan anti-US sentiments, leading to the attacks.
While the attack has been condemned by one and all, this should make Washington introspect and see why its actions have led to harnessing hatred among people in the region. That Stevens was killed in Benghazi, a stronghold of the NATO forces in the war to liberate Libya from Muammar Gaddafi, shows that the basic tenets on which this campaign is led needs to be looked into. After the 9/11 attacks the US has been on a ‘War on Terror’ overdrive, often taking questionable decisions and supporting wrong groups. From the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan to the 2003 invasion of Iraq — on the concocted claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction — the US has been more than enthusiastic about extending its vision of democracy to West Asia, ignoring regional complexities. Washington’s role in the ‘Arab Spring’ is also questionable. While in all these cases it overtly or covertly lent a hand to overthrowing the regime, it did not have a plan in place to ensure that the vacuum was not exploited by extremist groups.
The White House must think before toppling governments in West Asia and make sure that fundamentalists do not use the situation to extend their influence and spread hatred. It is election year in Washington and as expected Mitt Romney’s Republican camp has accused the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi. Rather than getting lost in political one-upmanship, the US must rework its approach towards West Asia. It should ensure that the opposition to American adventurism does not lead to a terror nightmare for the rest of the world.
(This appeared as an edit in The New Indian Express on September 14)