India, Spain ink agreement on defence cooperation
Spanish Minister of Defence Pedro Morenes Eulate and Defence Minister A.K. Antony exchange an MoU on Defence Cooperation in the presence of King Juan Carlos I of Spain with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at Hyderabad House in New Delhi. Photo: V.V.Krishnan.
India and Spain on Friday signed a memorandum of understanding under which they will encourage collaboration between their defence industries and exchange of personnel.
The MoU was signed by Defence Minister A.K. Antony and his Spanish counterpart Pedro Morenés Eulate here, said an External Affairs Ministry statement.
The two sides agreed to exchange defence-related experience and information, and encourage visits of personnel and collaboration in the defence industry and similar areas of cooperation.
Spanish firm Navantia is planning to offer its S-80 diesel electric submarine for the Indian Navy's Project 75-India, under which it plans to procure six large conventional submarines at a cost of more than Rs. 50,000 crore.
Its defence firms such as INDRA are doing business with the Indian armed forces in the areas of radar and communication.
The MoU on defence was among the five pacts signed after comprehensive talks between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the visiting King Juan Carlos I on bilateral, regional and international issues.
A.U. readmits Mali with 2013 poll plan
Mali was readmitted into the African Union (A.U.) after a meeting of the A.U. Peace and Security Council [AUPSC] on Wednesday. The A.U. had suspended the West African nation after a coup in March this year saw a military junta seize power even as two thirds of Mali slipped into the control of a coalition of armed groups and organised gangs. The soldiers behind the coup had claimed that the existing dispensation was unable to tackle the insurgents in the north.
Since then, the junta has given way to a transitional all-party government and has asked for pan-African assistance to regain control of its territory. In its communiqué, the AUPSC endorsed a comprehensive plan to stabilise Mali using an African-led international force to end the conflict, and to reinstall a democratic government by holding free and transparent elections in the first quarter of 2013.
Next month, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) will hold a planning meeting with the U.N., EU and Malian government to finalise a strategy to deploy troops in the region, before approaching the U.N. Security Council for a resolution authorizing military action in Mali.
ECOWAS has committed 3200 troops for the mission and has called on other African nations to contribute troops as well.
Northern Mali has steadily slipped into chaos since late 2011, when entrenched gangs involved in smuggling and drug trafficking struck up alliances with a variety of armed groups — ranging from the self-proclaimed secular Tuareg combatants, some of them from Libyan Army of the Qadhafi regime to al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a north African group associated with al-Qaeda. According to A.U. reports, the hard-line Islamist groups, backed by drug traffickers, like the Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), appear to have the upper hand in the region.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been displaced by the fighting; the A.U. estimates that the conflict has resulted in 160,000 Internally Displaced Persons, and another 202,000 Malians are living as refugees in the neighbouring countries of Algeria, Burkina Faso, Mauritania and Niger.
Teesta to figure in Khaleda talks in India
Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), main opposition party, has expressed the hope that the visit of its leader Khaleda Zia to India would play a “very significant role” in building a strong relationship. This was conveyed by party vice-chairman Shamser Mobin Chowdhury after Ms. Zia met Indian High Commissioner Pankaj Saran on Tuesday night.
Ms. Zia, twice the Prime Minister and now the Leader of the Opposition, will leave for India on October 28 on a week-long tour, at the invitation of the Indian government. She will meet, among others, President Pranab Mukherjee, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Congress chief Sonia Gandhi and leaders of the opposition.
Mr. Chowdhury added that a broad range of bilateral relations including water sharing of rivers including Teesta, border killings, trade deficit and Tipaimukh dam would be discussed.
Mr. Saran paid a courtesy call on the Leader of the Opposition ahead of her India. The meeting reportedly lasted for 45 minutes.
“Our relations with India are important, and there are some unresolved issues between the two countries, which will be discussed,” Mr. Chowdhury told reporters. The BNP chairperson, who has just concluded a visit to China at the invitation of the Communist Party of China (CPC), is expected to lead a nine-member delegation. Ms. Zia has been quite critical about the renewed relationship with India under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s government. She will also visit Sufi saint Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti’s shrine at Ajmer.
OPPORTUNITY
While one section of political observers see this as an opportunity for a breakthrough — considering Ms. Zia’s traditional anti-Indian posture — others are sceptical.
However, coming as it does before 2014 Bangladesh general elections, it would be of interest to them.H M Ershad, who leads Bangladesh’s third biggest political party, Jatiya Party (JP), had paid a similar visit to India recently at the invitation of New Delhi.
For U.S. voters, foreign policy needs to reflect immediate economic goals
The October 22 debate between Romney and Obama offered a perceptive glimpse of the most urgent short-term international worries of the electorate
The defining image from the October 22 debate between President Obama and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is of the two candidates passionately disputing their prescriptions for the U.S. domestic economy. The moderator, veteran TV journalist Bob Schieffer, caught the spirit of the evening with his final words before inviting the debaters to make their closing comments — “I think we all love teachers.” A visitor from Mars might be forgiven for not realising that this was a debate on foreign policy.
Schieffer’s choice of subjects for the debate is revealing, and sheds light on the most immediate voter concerns. Three of the themes had to do with the Middle East: Libya; Syria; and Israel and Iran. Despite America’s political polarisation and Romney’s months-long drumbeat for a more muscular approach to Iran’s nuclear programme, there was striking similarity in the views of the two candidates.
A fourth theme, Afghanistan and Pakistan, extended the discussion of America’s difficult relationships in the Muslim world. Both candidates stressed that the United States was leaving Afghanistan; gone were Romney’s earlier hints that he would slow down the departure and “consult the military commanders.” Despite a provocative question from the moderator, neither wanted to “divorce” Pakistan. Again, little discernible difference.
‘VERY IMPORTANT’ GOAL
The two final themes were broader: a wide open question about the U.S. role in the world, and a final theme combining China and security challenges for the United States. Both themes in practice shifted the discussion back to domestic policy. Indeed, fully 13 pages out of the 36-page transcript were about the domestic economy. This is more “air time” than the candidates gave to any international topic. In fact, however, this reflects one of the important insights the debate provided about how American voters look on foreign policy: it matters, but the U.S. economy is a more immediate concern. Both men made the case — either implicitly or explicitly — that the greatest boost to an effective U.S. foreign policy would come from an economic turnaround.
These observations track closely with a recent report by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on U.S. public attitudes toward international affairs. This organisation has covered this subject matter in highly respected surveys every two to four years over several decades. Every year, the top foreign policy goal is the same: “protecting the jobs of American workers.” This year, 83 per cent of those surveyed cited this as a “very important” goal. Respondents still list as top threats international terrorism and Iran’s nuclear programme, though the majorities are now 67 and 64 per cent respectively, down from 90 per cent plus in 2002. Only 14 per cent still believe that promoting democracy abroad is “very important.”
Tellingly, the Chicago Council report found Americans weary of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Only 17 per cent thought the United States should keep troops in Afghanistan beyond 2014. Two-thirds majorities believed that neither war had been worth the cost in blood and treasure.
Some respondents were still willing to see the United States engage in military action overseas — but fewer than in past years, and on a highly selective basis. Majorities favoured the use of U.S. troops to prevent genocide, to avert humanitarian disaster, or to secure the oil supply. Less than half favoured using U.S. troops to respond to invasions of Israel, Korea, or Taiwan. There was strong support for diplomacy, including talking with leaders of hostile countries such as North Korea, Cuba and Iran, and surprising support for multilateral efforts.
The percentage of Americans who consider Asia the most important region for the United States is steadily growing. In this report, for the first time, a majority of Americans — 52 per cent — agreed with this view. Consistent with this was the widely shared judgment that the United States needed to engage with China, and that U.S.-China economic relations were of critical importance. A majority continues to back the U.S. having “the world’s strongest military,” but solid majorities oppose “military bases” in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and even Turkey.
With a handful of exceptions, views on top foreign policy goals and on threats were widely shared across the U.S. population. Republicans, for example, scored 20 points higher on the importance of maintaining U.S. military strength and in their concern about illegal immigration; by a similar margin, Democrats felt more strongly about ending world hunger. More surprisingly, Independents were less committed to international engagement than those who identified themselves as either Republicans or Democrats. Americans under 30 were the least “internationalist” of any age group.
THREE POINTS
The debate and the Chicago Council report, taken together, suggest a few broad conclusions about prospects for American foreign policy.
First: The U.S. electorate is more moved by short-term issues than by long-term ones. This helps explain the astonishing omissions in that night’s debate. No India, no Japan, no Europe, only a cursory mention of Russia, no Korea, China mentioned only as an economic rival, Latin America only as an economic opportunity. Surveys suggest that none of these places is considered unimportant. However, none is now in crisis, and the candidates and debate organisers gave their primary attention to crisis countries.
Second: Among the long-term “structural” issues in U.S. foreign policy, the broader view of Asia that this administration has developed — President Obama referred to the “pivot to Asia” — is likely to continue. Both the Americans surveyed in the report and the two candidates clearly believe Asia matters — meaning both East and South Asia. The electorate and officeholders alike are influenced both by the region’s security importance and by its economic prominence.
Third: Despite the profound polarisation of the U.S. political scene, much of the substance of current U.S. foreign policy will carry over even if there is a change of president. However, the tone of the debate and the way the candidates handled broad questions like America’s role in the world suggest that a Romney administration would project a more unilateral and assertive style, and the Chicago survey confirms that this would play well with his base.
Syria accepts ceasefire
But if terrorists continue to attack the armed forces would retaliate, warned the general command of the army
The Syrian army has said it will halt all military operations beginning Friday morning in response to a proposal for a temporary ceasefire by international peace envoy Lakhdar Brahimi.
The general command of the army added in a statement broadcast on Syrian state television that it would abide by a truce during the four-day Muslim holiday of Eid al-Adha, which starts on Friday.
“Our armed forces preserve the right to respond if the terrorist armed groups continue to fire on civilians and government troops, attack public and private properties and use car bombs and explosives,” read the statement.
It added that there would also be responses if the rebels took advantage of the truce to reinforce their positions and get military supplies, or if neighbouring countries facilitated “terrorists’ passage” into Syria.
The rebel Free Syrian Army said its fighters would abide by the truce and called for the release of all prisoners held by the Syrian government starting on Friday, the Dubai-based broadcaster al-Arabiya reported.
Brahimi said he hoped that the truce would clear the way for initiating a political solution to Syria’s 20-month conflict.
The United States expressed scepticism over the ceasefire, saying the Syrian regime has not proved that that it can uphold agreements.
“What we are hoping and expecting is that they will not just talk the talk of ceasefire, but that they will walk the walk, beginning with the regime,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at a briefing with reporters in Washington. “And we will be watching very closely.” She added that any day in Syria without violence could be considered progress, and if a ceasefire can be put in place, it might open the way for more work to be done on a transition to a new government.
Russia welcomed the planned ceasefire as “fundamentally important.” Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said in Moscow the plan opened the door to a political solution to end the fighting.
The Syrian opposition was sceptical about the Syrian government’s adherence.
“We do not have any trust in the regime, which has not kept any promise,” said Burhan Ghalioun, a former head of the main opposition group, the Syrian National Council.
The Al-Nusra Front, an Islamist militant Syrian opposition group, has already rejected Brahimi’s proposal.
“There is no truce between us and this regime, which is shedding the blood of Muslims,” the group said in a statement posted on the internet.
The United Nations Security Council and China have both backed Brahimi’s efforts to broker the truce
Netanyahu: no limits on construction
Israel’s prime minister vowed on Sunday to continue building in east Jerusalem, despite objections from Palestinians who claim the territory as capital of their hoped—for state.
Benjamin Netanyahu spoke Sunday after the European Union’s foreign policy chief criticized plans to build 800 new apartments and a military college on contested land, which the international community considers to be under Israeli occupation.
“We are not imposing any restrictions on construction in Jerusalem” Netanyahu told his Cabinet. “It is our capital.”
A top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promptly accused Netanyahu of deliberately destroying prospects for peace.
The Israeli leader’s comment “comes in the context of the continuing destruction of the peace process and the two—state solution,” Nabil Abu Rdeneh said.
The fate of Jerusalem lies at the heart of the Israeli—Palestinian conflict. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate while Israel continues to build settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, areas captured by the Jewish state in 1967.
Netanyahu has rejected the notion of partitioning the city.
Meanwhile, American academic Noam Chomsky made his first ever visit to the Gaza Strip, where he called on Israel to end its blockade of the Hamas—ruled territory.
The octogenarian Chomsky, an ardent critic of Israel who was banned from entering the country in 2010, entered Gaza through neighboring Egypt to attend a linguistics conference. While there, he accused the U.S. of allowing the Jewish state to act with impunity for its continuation of the blockade, which Israel imposed after the militant Islamist Hamas group violently seized control of Gaza in 2007.
The restrictions were loosened after an Israeli raid on a blockade—busting boat in 2009 killed nine Turkish activists, but there are still limits on movement, imports of raw materials, and exports.
