• 목록
• 답변
• 글쓰기
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

India's foreign policy establishment is said to be divided on the issue of Iraq. Some believe that with Bush set on ousting President Saddam Hussein through military strikes and in determining the nature of a post-Saddam dispensation, it would be in India's interest to just go along with the US now and gain a share in the spoils (reconstruction projects) as it has in Afghanistan. However, others believe that India does not stand to gain from an Iraqi invasion. The political upheaval and economic uncertainty it will engender across the Middle East will severely affect India. It could mean the return to India of millions of Indians working in the Middle East who are currently remitting around US$6 billion annually. Furthermore, the impact on the Indian economy will be severe given the fact that Arab oil accounts for almost two-thirds of India's crude imports. Indian officials are worried that Washington's current preoccupation with Iraq has distracted its attention away from the military operations against al-Qaeda.

An American invasion of Iraq would lead to a more serious dilution of the operations, Delhi fears. India has an enormous interest in seeing al-Qaeda rooted out. M H Ansari, a former Indian ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told the weekly news magazine Outlook that "India should be happy with the status quo where there's no strategic hostility to New Delhi in the Arab world and there's $10 billion trade with the Gulf countries." While India's support will not influence US decisions on Iraq, New Delhi's position on the evolving situation is of some significance. India not joining an anti-Iraq coalition in the event of an attack on that country will underscore the fact that democracies do not go to war easily. For long, the US, while willing to overlook India's trade ties with Iraq, has been peeved with its reluctance to vote with Washington in the UN on key global issues.

It is unlikely that it will commit combat troops. Foreign Minister Phil Goff spelled out New Zealand's position during a 40-minute meeting yesterday with US charge d'affairs Phil Wall, second-in-charge at the American Embassy in Wellington. The meeting was held at Mr Wall's request as Washington sounds out about 50 countries on possible contributions to an American-led force. After the meeting, Mr Goff said Mr Wall had outlined contingency plans for action if Iraq did not comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council. For this reason and as a contingency against Iraqi refusal to comply, the United States is seeking possible contributions for military or humanitarian assistance if force is used against Iraq." Mr Goff told Mr Wall that New Zealand would consider calls for assistance if action against Iraq was UN-mandated and within international law. "However, I reiterated that these conditions needed to be met, and that New Zealand's strong view was that force should be used only as a last resort.

It is unlikely that it will commit combat troops. Foreign Minister Phil Goff spelled out New Zealand's position during a 40-minute meeting yesterday with US charge d'affairs Phil Wall, second-in-charge at the American Embassy in Wellington. The meeting was held at Mr Wall's request as Washington sounds out about 50 countries on possible contributions to an American-led force. After the meeting, Mr Goff said Mr Wall had outlined contingency plans for action if Iraq did not comply with the requirements of the UN Security Council. For this reason and as a contingency against Iraqi refusal to comply, the United States is seeking possible contributions for military or humanitarian assistance if force is used against Iraq." Mr Goff told Mr Wall that New Zealand would consider calls for assistance if action against Iraq was UN-mandated and within international law. "However, I reiterated that these conditions needed to be met, and that New Zealand's strong view was that force should be used only as a last resort.

When asked about Delhi's position on the various proposals, officials of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs refrained from commenting; the reason for the silence being that India had no part to play in hammering out the resolution since the matter concerned the Security Council alone. From a position of merely supporting the UN role in defusing the crisis, India has now shifted to opposing US goals and proposed strategy in Iraq. India's disagreement with the Bush administration's approach on Iraq does not come as a surprise. Delhi has consistently expressed its opposition to international interference in the internal affairs of a country. It has also supported the pursuit of a diplomatic approach to ensure Iraq's full compliance with UN resolutions with respect to inspection of its suspected chemical and biological weapons facilities. It has opposed the use of force against Iraq to ensure compliance. In 1998, for instance, when the US and Britain launched air strikes on Iraq, India called for an immediate halt to the military operations.

Here is more on Diyarbakır Escort check out the web site.