Axing the axis

Indo-Israeli sweet-somethings, timed to rhyme with 9/11 commemorations, were abruptly cut off by the suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel A...

Indo-Israeli sweet-somethings, timed to rhyme with 9/11 commemorations, were abruptly cut off by the suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. But the US and British media had drawn their conclusions.

The WASHINGTON POST kept its tone carefully neutral. It noted the controversy in India over Vajpayee8217;s warm embrace of the right-wing Israeli leader and the protests mounted against Sharon in New Delhi. But, it said, 8216;8216;in general the visit appears to have gone smoothly8217;8217;. On the loud whispers of an 8216;8216;Indo-US-Israel security axis8217;8217;, the paper was venturing nothing. Except to suggest that it has sparked concern among India8217;s traditional Arab allies and other Muslim countries, including Pakistan.

In Britain, on the other hand,the GUARDIAN was sure of it and extremely scathing too. Sharon8217;s visit, it said, threatens not only to hasten the arms race between India and Pakistan, but also marks the emergence of a 8216;8216;new US-backed coalition of the willing8217;8217; in a region whose influence spans the Bay of the Bengal to the Dead Sea. It8217;s a triumph, it said, for the Bush administration and for 8216;8216;India8217;s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party8230;8217;8217; India had finally given up pretence, the world8217;s biggest democracy now 8216;8216;8230; acts much like any other nation: as a selfish state pursuing its own interests above all others8217;8217;. And it wasn8217;t incidental that Sharon came by at a time when 8216;8216;India8217;s political conversation has become dominated by the perceived threat of Islamist terrorism8217;8217;.

Meanwhile in Israel, the HAARETZ had more practical concerns. The main problem faced by Israeli arms exporters in India is not a lack of demand or a shortage of cash, it explained, but an excess of bureaucracy. For this, it blamed British rule and a 8216;8216;series of affairs8217;8217; involving corruption. Which have taught Indians to demand a great number of permits and signatures. And that requires 8216;8216;a great deal of patience from the Israelis8217;8217;, it sighed.

Where will it end?

Ariel Sharon didn8217;t waste any time after the homecoming. Reportedly, the Israeli government has decided 8216;8216;in principle8217;8217; to 8216;8216;remove8217;8217; Yasir Arafat. That could mean expulsion, jail, or possibly death 8212; the official statement left the options vague.

But earlier in the week, conservative Israeli paper JERUSALEM POST was more unequivocal, far more chilling. Under the headline 8216;8216;Enough8217;8217;, it editorialised: 8216;8216;We must kill as many of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders as possible, while minimising collateral damage, but not letting that damage stop us. And we must kill Yasir Arafat, because the world leaves us no alternative8217;8217;.

20-20 vision

Whatever the final outcomes of the trade talks at Cancun, one thing8217;s for sure: In influential sections of the world media, the developing nations have made an impression. The NEW YORK TIMES was admiring as it described them 8216;8216;flexing their collective muscle8217;8217; in a setting normally dominated by the US and Europe. The WASHINGTON POST homed in on the 8216;8216;Gang of 208217;8217; 8212; countries such as Brazil, India, China, Korea and Mexico. It8217;s the 8216;8216;group to watch8217;8217; 8212; middle-income countries that may like to lump themselves with the poorer countries of Africa and Asia, but which are really countries with competitive export industries and a growing middle class. The FINANCIAL TIMES could even see history being made at Cancun: The most powerful display, perhaps, of Third World solidarity since the creation of the WTO.

Story continues below this ad

The GUARDIAN was also marveling at the 8216;8216;militant mood8217;8217; of the developing countries. But Cancun, it suggested, would be judged not only by what was said at Cancun. It would be deemed a success if it established a framework for talks back at the WTO8217;s Geneva headquarters over the next 15 months. And here, the paper foresaw a complication: Elections next year in the US and India that will 8216;8216;almost certainly8217;8217; limit the room for concessions by both the world8217;s biggest economy and 8216;8216;one of the leading countries in the developing world8217;8217;.

Even in America

Disheartening tidings may be in the offing for Sonia-baiters in India who are ever ready with a list of countries in which foreign-born citizens are not allowed to hold the nation8217;s highest office. Even the US doesn8217;t let it happen, they always point out.

Well, this week in the NEW YORK TIMES, a passionate editorial argued for doing away with the provision that bars naturalised American citizens from becoming president: 8216;8216;The provision has long since outlived its usefulness, if it had any in the first place8217;8217;. The editorial took its cue from a proposal that is already doing the rounds: Orrin Hatch, a Senate Republican, and Vic Snyder, a House Democrat, are pushing amendments to rid the American Constitution of this restriction.

The NYT recognised that amending the Constitution is a cumbersome process and that Hatch and Snyder8217;s initiative is sure to come up against that 8216;8216;greatest of legislative enemies8217;8217;: Inertia. But the paper hoped the two would carry it through. Because 8216;8216;8230; the constitution creates, at least in regard to eligibility for the nation8217;s highest office, a level of second-class citizenship wholly inconsistent with American values8217;8217;. Because 8216;8216;This is a lingering wrong that needs to be set right.8217;8217;