No
Indian Troops For Iraq
By Brian Cloughley
Daily Times
26 June, 2003
India is a good internationalist
country, having contributed to UN peacekeeping over the years. But 'stabilising'
Iraq is not peacekeeping: it is weasel-speak for muscular occupation
of territory on behalf of a conquering power
There is a man of whom it
can be truly said that he has contributed more to increasing mutual
suspicion and fostering hatred between India and Pakistan than any other
individual in recent years. He is America's ambassador to Delhi, Robert
Blackwill, who, mercifully, has resigned and will be leaving India shortly
to spend more time with his self-importance.
His embassy will draw a collective
sigh of relief (the State Department was officially critical of his
arrogance), but with customary lack of finesse, tact, sensitivity and
diplomatic skill he made yet another inept statement in his final days.
He announced that if India sends troops to Iraq they would 'be under
Indian command and not be involved in combat'.
There has been much discussion
between Washington and Delhi about a possible Indian military contribution
to the occupation force in Iraq and it is apparent that US negotiators
cannot guarantee that India's (or any other) national contingent would
not be answerable to an American general. And nobody, not even the all-seeing
Blackwill (who the other day had the ludicrous temerity, the preposterous
presumption, to compare himself to JK Galbraith), can pledge that foreign
soldiers in Iraq will not be involved in combat.
Blackwill avoided serving
his country in Vietnam and never wore uniform, so perhaps his notion
of combat differs from those who have actually been shot at. For him
to aver that no Indian soldier in Iraq will ever be subject to hostile
action by reason of which he will return fire is fatuous and engenders
misgivings about directives issued at the highest levels of the US administration.
Or - perhaps more to the point - might indicate how State Department
instructions are interpreted by pompous, overblown asses.
Contrary to precise undertakings
about establishment of Iraqi primacy in government, the occupying power
has assumed complete political control and seemingly intends to wield
this for the foreseeable future. The New York Times noted that "events
exposed an uncomfortable truth of the American occupation.... American
officials are barring direct elections in Iraq and limiting free speech,
two of the very ideals the US promised to Iraqis. American officials
have said it may take up to two years for an elected Iraqi government
to take over the country." Members of the Lok Sabha might have
a few observations to make on these aspects of the proposed bilateral
military arrangement with Washington.
An Indian military contribution
in Iraq could not be under the auspices of the United Nations as there
is no UN administrator, civil or military, to whom foreign contingents
would report, nor is there intention on the part of the occupying power
to permit such an appointment. Were there to be a UN Mandate in Iraq,
similar to that of the British in Palestine from 1918 to1948, then US
and other occupation troops would be legally accountable to an internationally-appointed
commissioner. But I say categorically that under no circumstances, at
any time, anywhere in the world, in no conceivable situation, would
US forces be subordinated to a UN appointee, no matter how competent
and distinguished.
Who decides where troops
of a contributing country to the 'stabilisation force' in Iraq are to
operate? The UN will not have a say in allocation of the sector in which,
so Blackwill states, Indian soldiers will be 'under Indian command'.
If it is to be the Pentagon (who else?) that allocates areas of responsibility,
then to whom would national contingents answer? There is no practical
alternative but to place them under overall American command. But why
should others take orders from the US when the US refuses to accept
stewardship by the UN?
Under which laws would an
Indian soldier be authorised to return fire? Who would decide upon -
and enforce - rules of engagement? (It appears there are no rules of
engagement at the moment, and recent catastrophic results of this omission
highlight potential problems.) In what circumstances would the laws
of Iraq apply? If a driver from a foreign contingent negligently runs
over an Iraqi citizen is he to be arraigned under Iraqi national law?
What happens in Kurdish regions, where there is a separate legal system
(of sorts)? Will deference be paid to Sharia law in Shia areas, and
are body searches of women to continue to be carried out by male soldiers?
Is there to be the equivalent of a 'Visiting Forces Act' which provides
for immunity from civil prosecution of a soldier committing an offence
against the laws of the country in which he is serving?
If an Indian soldier is killed
by an Iraqi who is then arrested for the crime, who would be responsible
for legal process thereafter? Who would provide compensation? Proceedings
could not be under international law because there is no UN Mandate.
Then perhaps Indian military law? - a possibility ; but would the jurisdictions
of contributing countries therefore be applicable outside their own
sectors? What process would apply, for example, if an Iraqi killed a
Polish soldier driving a US truck in the Indian sector? These are serious
matters, but Rumsfeld made no plans for the occupation and last week
claimed Baghdad is safer than Washington because it has fewer murders,
which is an intriguing contention.
The bill for such a massive
operation will be considerable. If India sends an entire division will
Delhi have to meet the entire costs of transportation and for the plethora
of extra operational and logistic equipment and systems that will be
required? Communications alone would be a nightmare of non-interoperability
with other contingents. It is nonsensical that India should have to
pay for an open-ended venture undertaken solely at the behest of another
country, especially as nobody knows what costs might eventually total.
Mr Advani described domestic opponents of Indian involvement as 'uninformed'
and from this it can be gathered that, like Rumsfeld, he has not done
his homework, either.
India is a good internationalist
country, having contributed its fair share and more to UN peacekeeping
over the years. But 'stabilising' Iraq is not peacekeeping: it is weasel-speak
for muscular occupation of territory on behalf of a conquering power.
US political, military and commercial activity in Iraq would be seen
to be unquestioningly endorsed by India because of the presence of its
troops under the patronage of Washington, which could have unpleasant
consequences. America and Britain got themselves into this mess in Iraq,
and it is up to them to sort it out. In present conditions, India and
others would be wise to steer clear of the whole dismal affair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Cloughley is a former
military officer who writes on international affairs. His website is
www.briancloughley.com