Saturday, November 05, 2005

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.

9 comments:

doubtinggaurav said...

Jaffna,

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.
George Bernard Shaw

Regards

Anonymous said...

I support this blogs view on Iraq policy. Natwar even sympathises with fall of soviet union. His view are anchronic . I dont know how foreign ministers get chosen?
He is trying to Hogwash by using patriotism as the motive. My friend this guy has serious flaw in his ideology and He may not be the Best man at the table.

Primary Red said...

This blogger has strongly supported the Iraq war and has written public op-eds condemning India's pre-war reluctance to support the war.

Thus, while the alleged sins of Natwar Singh are serious, it is important to note that the Iraq policy was developed by the BJP (who was then the ruling party), the appeasement of Pakistan began with Mr. Vajpayee's decision to pull away our massed troops, and so also the concession on Tibet came under BJP.

The only time India has really stood up and fought was 1971 -- under Congress.

So, lets condemn the alleged sins of Natwar Singh, but its important to note that many of the same sins are -- sadly -- conventional wisdom across party lines in India.

Best regards.

Pankaj said...

Jaffna,

Natwar is a gandhi family toady of long standing. I do not think that Madam Gandhi would sacrifice a loyal servant of the family. Natwar is therefore knows well that survival for him means to "brazen it out for a few months". After that, as all things in India, things will go back to being normal.

Anonymous said...

Jaffna:

I would like to take the post of Primary Red one step further. It was the government of Vajpayee that
"permitted" IC-814 to go Kandhar and succumbed to the demands of the hijackers for the release of
Maulana Masood Azhar, and two others in exchange for the safe release of hostages on board that flight. And to rub salt into Indian wounds, the then Indian
Foreign Minister, Jaswant Singh, accompanied the hostages to Kandahar. This incident is an ignominy that Vajpayee and his BJP can never live down, and will
be a blot on India's pride for years and years to come.

That said, the Volcker committee was constituted in April 2004, by United Nations Secretary-General
Kofi Annan. Therefore, the legitimacy of the committee or of its findings cannot be questioned.
The documentation is extensive and it is difficult to refute the evidence compiled by Volcker.
Moreover, the parties involved were given an opportunity to respond to the charges.

Natwar Singh was not the only person from India who was involved. The Indian Congress Party was named as a non-contractual beneficiary, so was
Reliance Petroleum Limited (Trust the Ambani brothers to be involved in this scam. Their sole
currency is money), and the Indian Oil Corporation. They then sold their right to Masefield AG
(www.masefield.com) in the case of the Congress and Natwar Singh and to Alcon Petroleum Limited (cannot find its website) in the case of Reliance.

It is unfortunate that India has a Foreign Minister who is bought and paid for by a foreign government and whose de facto leader is an Italian. Furthermore, Anil Ambani is a Member of Parliament representing the Congress Party. What a morass. Sections of the Congress party, Natwar included, can not be allowed to sell the country like this.

Anonymous said...

Ps: I forgot to add. India's choice is between the BJP (Kargil, IC 814, Narendra Modi, George Fernandes and his corruption in the MoD); the Congress Party (Natwar Singh bought and paid for by a foreign government, a de-facto leader who is not of Indian origin, Anil Ambani its MP and its servile lack of vision when it comes to Pakistan); the Communist Parties (clueless about the global economy and who idolize tyrants like Saddam Hussein); Lalu Prasad Yadav and his wife. What a mess! I long for the days of clarity in foreign policy that Indira represented

Anonymous said...

Indian patriot:

Thanks for the feedback. But what did Pokhran 2 achieve? What was the strategic vision? What was the goal? Does it stand the test of time? Pokhran 1 announced the arrival of India on the world nuclear stage. It sent an unmistakable message to China: "Do not mess with India". Pokhran
1 was followed by the indigenous development of a nuclear delivery system. Indira's clarity of vision
propelled India forward. Vajpayee and the BJP are just about big talk. India's Parliament was desecrated and Dec 16th is another day that will live on in infamy in India's history. And what did the BJP government do? Nothing: they just massed troops on the border. It is unfortunate that India has a choice of leaders who can be bought by foreign governments like Natwar Singh, or those who allow India's Foreign Minister accompany terrorists to Kandhar and who flinch at exercising India's military might to protect India's Parliament and destroy the Jihadists. Sad but true.

libertarian said...

Natwar's going down! Waiting for the knockout.

Anonymous said...

A lot of India's policy vis-a-vis Pakistan is screwed beacuse its either a) peaceniks or b) people from erstwhile undivided India
who dream of utopia/bhaichara and formulate there policies in that fashion.

It was very apparent when the so-called hawk, Mr. Advani did nothing of the kind he promised vis-a-vis terrorists - hot pursuit, targetted strikes on terror camps etc.,

I dont think Indira Gandhi's regime was any better than most other regimes in foreign policy. She staked the whole of Kashmir on the words of a man who initiated a war on India.

India's policy vis-a-vis Pakistan has invariably been muddled. And very short-termish



PS: Anil Ambani is from the Samajwadi Party. He's almost a blood-brother to SP's Gen Sec'y. Amar Singh.

Followers

Blog Archive