news details |
|
|
| Foreign policy must back trade | | |
Power game in a democracy depends on electoral success, and the recent death-by-hanging verdict given to Saddam Hussein was timed to help US President George W. Bush and the Republican Party to retain their majority in the Congress. Iraq has been a disaster and public opinion needs a scapegoat. And both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair are under siege and face political defeat. The decision on Saddam Hussein is subject to appeals, and a long legal procedure, and it would suit all concerned that no immediate action is taken on the sentence. The armed struggle in Iraq is far from over and the casualties reflect the situation on the ground as over 3,000 US soldiers are killed and many thousands injured. Over 50,000 Iraqis have perished in the continuing violence after the war got officially over. National interests and global power balances will dictate political postures adopted by nations, and sadly, have little to do with the death and destruction of innumerable innocent civilians in Iraq and the mounting war casualties on both sides. The future is uncertain as few can predict the outcome of the events in Iraq in the immediate future, or the pattern of governance which will follow.
Elections in the US and the UK can result in changes of leadership and new policy initiatives to end the war, the withdrawal of troops and letting the people of Iraq determine their own future. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or with terror tactics or weaponry (the WMDs did not exist). And sadly, this war was waged on false pretences, while Osama Bin Laden and the actual instruments of terror in Afghanistan continued — and continue — to function and spread death and destruction on targets across the world. We are always wiser by hindsight, but on balance it would be in everyone’s interest if global attention is focused on the real instruments of terror and these exist on both our western and eastern borders.
We often get emotional as we judge the present and the future in terms of our responses in the past on foreign policy, and I think this is a wrong approach. Times have changed, and as we undertake global challenges in the economic field (this is the only solution to tackle poverty) we need an acceptable image on the political front, backed by a reform agenda which takes into account global trade priorities for investment.
The arguments and the language of the Cold War are no longer relevant, and if we are to succeed as a global economic superpower then we have to create a global attitude and develop our skills to compete with the best. And as things stand, our business leaders are doing just that. I think in the next decade we will acquire financial assets abroad in excess of what we receive as FDI. We have spoken of the need of effective infrastructure assets, and in addition to these we have to develop and improve upon our huge resources of human assets to meet global challenges. To do this we need to have reforms in virtually every field of human activity. We are battling huge odds to achieve the impossible, and it is time that our powers of governance came to the assistance of our business leaders who have literally performed miracles.
The Prime Minister is criticised for having a "special relationship" with the United States. But I think it is right to have a special relationship; the BJP did the same thing. In fact, I think it should be our objective to have similar relations with China, the European Union, Russia and Japan who are our major trading partners today. There is no conflict or contradiction in this policy. The Left has before it the example of China and Russia, and nearer home, the West Bengal chief minister. We are for the first time generating and producing real wealth, and we have the opportunity now to effectively tackle issues of development and employment in rural India. Foreign policy initiatives must be closely linked with trade objectives at the highest level.
I had remarked earlier on the election trends in Uttar Pradesh, but over the past month there has been a change in assessment as field reports indicate that the Samajwadi Party is edging ahead of the BSP and making up lost ground. The electoral battle is close and it is difficult to indicate who is ahead at this stage. But as things stand, I see the SP and BSP winning 280 out of 400 seats, with the BJP in third place with 40-45 seats, and the Congress with 25-30 seats in fourth place.
Independents and smaller parties will get another 50 seats and clearly, a "political auction" is inevitable to get a working majority. And here the SP may score over the BSP. Mulayam Singh and Amar Singh have a secret weapon in the presence of Amitabh Bachchan, and cutting across party lines the feedback I am getting is very positive. Amitabh Bachchan is no longer treated as a Bollywood superstar but as a living legend. And his appearance even on a social platform may well create the difference between victory and defeat in many seats.
The firepower at the disposal of the SP is formidable and while BSP chief Mayawati is a mass leader with a great deal of charisma, she lacks other leaders of stature in her party. The BJP star campaigner will be Atal Behari Vajpayee once again, but his appearances will be limited. I hope Varun Gandhi displays his political skill and talent by a prolonged and sustained campaign in the interiors of the state.
The BJP lacks charismatic leaders as does the Congress. The Congress’ two star campaigners (Sonia and Rahul) have security concerns and have yet to make a forward move.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
