Iraq

Communalism

US Imperialism

Globalisation

WSF In India

Humanrights

Economy

Kashmir

Palestine

Environment

Gujarat Pogrom

Gender/Feminism

Dalit/Adivasi

Arts/Culture

Archives

Links

Join Mailing List

Contact Us

 

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