Escapist Foreign Policy of our country Our Prime Minister has not participated in Chogam that was held at Sri Lanka but still he sent his foreign Minister to represent the country. What did it mean and what have we achieved? There was confusion going on for a month revealing a Hameletian dilemma to participate or not participate. A government that was running on the crutches of allies had been threatened by DMK against participation. Retention of power was more important for the establishment than serving national interest. Finally the government escaped the decision by Prime Minister making an excuse and instead sending his Minister. Does that speak of the dignity and stature of the country that claims to running a race to enter super power club? The record of Sri lanka is terrible in human rights. Tamils who had Indian orgin suffered both at the hands of their own government and even their country of origin. Initially our sending the army proved a folly but later we should have either befriended the neighbor or taught them a lesson. Even while befriending them we could contain the brutality to Tamils and played some role in moderating the burnt that the defeated rebels had to bear. These are difficult choices and delicate missions but that is what diplomacy is. We simply allowed it to drift and always followed the route of escapism. We failed to act with courage and wisdom. Great Indian thinker of foreign policy Kautaliya advocated the extension of control and influence as the prime objective of a state. At the same time he pleaded for the supremacy of national interest over all other considerations. In this context what did we achieve by this escapism? On the other hand Canada and Mauritius boycotted Sri lanka conference due to its abominable human rights record. Brittan as head of common wealth reached Sri lanka and its Prime Minister David Cameron went to Tamil areas to listen to grievances and saw the pathetic conditions of victims’ families. After the visit Cameron issued a ultimatum to the government to do a credible and transparent investigations about human rights in Srilanka, otherwise they will ask for International probe. Sri Lanka might appear defiant but there is clear international opinion against the atrocities committed in their country and the people who suffered had Indian connection. Government own commission has put the deaths at 1000 but actual number are much more, Journalists have been killed and even judiciary is under attack. The Chief Justice has been impeached as she was not following the Government line. Entire world of judiciary has condemned it. Our response is to escape from hard decisions; same thing is done with Pakistan and China. If British PM could go and issue a warning to them why Indian not make a point, if not warning, for fair investigations? We play down their incursions or violations and avoid any aggressive e diplomatic measure. Our entire approach is to escape from the field and avoid a firm posture in diplomacy leading us to appear as weak and vulnerable nation. Our foreign policy is being determined by regional parties. Even when making a statement against Pakistan or China we hesitate and shy away even when the situation is unjustifiable and wake up late to make some whimpers. Can we enhance the prestige of the country with such escapist policy?
Posted on: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:08:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015