Round The
World
New Delhi, 28 December 2017
UN Vote On Jerusalem
READING MODI’S MIND
By Dr DK Giri
(Prof, International Politics, JMI)
The US President
Donald Trump’s declaration on 6th December recognising Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel had surprised and shocked the world. But, the UN General
Assembly vote on 21 December condemning US decision was less of a surprise. Out
of all the UN members, 128 countries voted in support of the Resolution that
condemns the US action, 35 countries abstained, and the rest did not vote, many
countries could not vote due to non-payment of their arrears etc!
Curiously, many
foreign policy observers are surprised that India voted along with other 127
countries against the US declaration; India did not abstain let alone vote in
support of the US, as India and Israel are moving unprecedentedly close as
friends, as the current Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had said, “it is a
relationship made in heaven”. The US too has decidedly titled towards India in
the Indo-Pacific region for various reasons including countering China. Recently,
the US had announced India as a ‘global regional power’ while criticising both
China and Russia.
What were New Delhi’s
calculations prompting Indian decision to vote against the US? Did India think
that it should not topple its applecart with the Islamic world, especially some
strong strategic partners like Iran? Or, did India downplay the UN resolution
as it is non-binding? Or as is its wont, India voted in accordance with its
traditional foreign policy. The Ministry of External Affairs, predictably,
said, ‘Indian position on Palestine is consistent and independent, not
influenced by a Third Party’.
However, BJP Rajya
Sabha Member Subramanian Swamy, a long-time Israel supporter differed with his
government saying, “It is a huge mistake to vote against the US decision, it is
not in our national interest”. He added that the BJP government followed the
foreign policy made by the Congress Party.
Undeniably, India’s
Palestine policy has been a very delicate one, walking a tight rope. Going by
principles of justice and fairness, India will have to stand by Palestine which
is under long occupation and constant threat of Israel. From our national interest
point of view, mainly security, India should be an ally of Israel and US. In
the past, Congress governments’ policy towards Palestine was driven by Muslim
votes, back home. BJP has greater leeway as it is much less dependent on these votes.
Undoubtedly, Prime
Minister Modi is capable of springing surprises both at home and foreign
affairs, like he de-hyphenated Palestine and Israel in his approach. He met
Benjamin Netanyahu in the US, without meeting the Palestine President around
the same time, visited Israel without going to Palestine. Then, why did he not
support the US in UNGA, even if the Resolution was politically innocuous as
non-binding? One would not have been startled by his support of Trump’s decision.
The explanation for
India’s decision may have several assumptions. First, India did not want to
lose all its good relations with the Arab world, face an oil embargo, and incur
hostility for many Indians working in the Arab world. India has crafted a
strategic partnership with Iran through the Chabahar port which connects India
to Afghanistan and Central Asia, and more importantly, kills the
indispensability of Pakistan for securing access to central Asia.
The second reason
trotted out by some is the Muslim votes against BJP, or Muslim outrage against
the decision. The Muslim vote is not a factor, as BJP can hardly count on these
votes, and there is little evidence to show that Indian electorate votes on
foreign policy issues. Yes, admittedly, Muslim outrage may be a concern. Under
BJP rule, communal harmony is already so disturbed, with cow vigilantes, church
vandalism, etc., the party could hardly risk another mass minority outrage.
This concern could be a contributory factor.
The third could be
that India has taken Israel and US into confidence on this vote. As said
before, the vote is non-binding. After the dust settles in, countries may come
around to support the mighty USA on Jerusalem. India could play an ‘honest
broker’ for both US and Israel with many Muslim countries. Israel is used to
aggressive and hostile posturing by many countries. It could ignore India’s
slight on such a resolution. Netanyahu is visiting India next month, and has
not cancelled the visit after the vote. Even the US could ignore it as this
vote was about scoring rhetorical points.
The fourth could be
that NaMo was too engrossed in crucial Gujarat elections, could not pay
attention to rigorous thinking on pros and cons of this vote, and allowed
himself to be persuaded by the mandarins in South Block.
Understandably, there
are usual arguments that Israel needs India more than we need it. India buys
two-thirds of its defence material from Israel, likewise US needs India to
counter China in Asian territory; it needs to tap into India’s huge market
potential and so on. But to a dispassionate and discerning international
politics expert, these arguments are vacuous. In real politik, it is the
mutuality that sustains a relationship. Many would argue that India could have
abstained, if not voted in favour of the US. That would have secured its
new-found closeness with US as well as Israel.
Making allowance for
careful and deft reasoning by NaMo and his team, not the bureaucratic inertia,
it is possible that India is playing a bit hard for both Israel and US. India
has built an image for itself for ethics and scruples in foreign affairs over a
period of time. Although the US is warming up to India, it has not been
unequivocal in its policy in South Asia. So, India could not, all of a sudden,
jump into the bandwagon of US-Israel by sacrificing everything it has achieved
in terms of goodwill and active support from many countries. In recent vote in
ICJ election, 183 countries supported India, whereas US had voted against, in
solidarity with its fellow-Security Council member Britain.
A word on Jerusalem,
which is emblematic of the Israel-Palestine conflict: Jerusalem is the
spiritual citadel of Jews, Christians and Muslims. After the end of Arab-Israel
war in 1948, Jerusalem was partitioned into West and East, under Israel and
Palestine occupation respectively. In the six days of war of June 1967, Israel
snatched East Jerusalem from Jordanian forces and annexed it and Israel
Parliament had then declared that Jerusalem was united. Jerusalem is, however,
key part of a possible two-State solution.
The entire world,
Europe, Arab, Asia and Africa, have reservations about giving Jerusalem away to
Israel. America would consider Jerusalem as a part of Israel for its domestic
compulsions. Way back in 1995, US Congress had passed the Jerusalem Embassy
Act, but Presidents Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, and Obama were deferring its
international application with Presidential waivers every six month. Donald
Trump kept his election campaign promise, and implemented the Act.
Given that the US decision
was anchored in domestic reasons, India could ‘wait and watch’ and has,
perhaps, done right in voting against. But it will have to think deep and hard,
before taking the next step. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit could be the first
test of India’s deft diplomacy on Israel. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|