Natwar Singh and the Oil For Food Scam

The international media has highlighted the Independent Inquiry Committee Report led by Paul Volcker, former head of the U.S. Federal Reserve, on corruption related to the United Nations Oil for Food Program in Iraq. The report named several "non-contractual beneficiaries" that included India's ruling Congress Party and its Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Natwar Singh. The charges are serious. Australia, Russia, South Africa and Switzerland had promptly launched commissions of inquiry to investigate the alleged financial indiscretion of companies and individuals domiciled in their countries. India will need to do likewise. The Government of India has called for the UN to fully disclose the materials upon which the Volcker report had based its conclusions. This is a fair request but not sufficient. Natwar Singh will need to step down until such time that his name is cleared.

A lot is at stake here. While Natwar Singh is innocent until proven guilty, he holds high office and is therefore held to higher standards than ordinary citizens. Accountability and national security are of essence here. The integrity of Indian foreign policy might well have been undermined by Saddam's "dirty money". As an opposition legislator and shadow foreign minister, Natwar had played a key role in the parliamentary resolution in New Delhi in 2003 that condemned the U.S. invasion of Iraq. With the benefit of hindsight, one now wonders whether Natwar Singh had India's best interests in mind or whether he had been bought over. As a possible recipient of Saddam's illicit largess, he might have compromised national interests and might have allowed himself to be used as a lobbyist for Iraq irrespective of whether this was in India's interest or not. Natwar Singh represents India on the world stage and if media reports stand true, might have once derived financial benefits from a foreign dictator. A person indicted in a United Nations report can not uphold India's interests in the international arena with credibility. India aspires to be a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. This entails certain obligations. The least the Government can do is to transfer him out of his job until the issue is clarified.

Natwar Singh represents the politics of international appeasement. Media reports in 2004 suggested that he had pushed for India to accede to the Chinese annexation of Aksai Chin in 1957 in return for China's recognition that Arunachal Pradesh belonged to India. He denied the reports in the face of strident BJP criticism. In August, 2005, Natwar Singh had opposed western efforts to mobilize international opinion against Iran's nuclear program. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear technology, is not in India's interest given the links between Iran and international terrorism. In October, 2005, Natwar failed to take action against Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir. He instead went beyond the call of duty to initiate efforts to open the line of control in Kashmir to international relief efforts despite the escalation of terrorism with the Kashmir earthquake and to organize an unprecedented US$ 25 million relief package for Pakistan. Unconfirmed reports in 2004 had it that Natwar Singh had argued that India accept the line of control in Kashmir as the legal international border in exchange for a peace accord with Pakistan. The reported deal had allegedly entailed India moving its troops back a few miles in Kargil. While the Manmohan Singh administration denied the reports, the possibility that policy-makers might compromise national interest in return for financial benefit is indeed worrying.

Natwar had earlier vigorously opposed the invasion of Iraq which I had assumed was on principle. I now have my doubts. I question his judgement and financial probity. The least the Government can do is to remove him from his position until the investigation is completed. India, a country of 1.25 million square miles, a population of 1,100 million and with one of the largest economies in the world, can not be represented on the world stage by an outdated ideologue whose policies now stand under the shadow of possible financial misdemeanor.