India’s Middle East shuffle

Suddenly someone had woken up to the reality: if India was silent on such a major development in the Middle East, it would not only be a glaring omission but would also generate diplomatic controversies during the PM’s engagements in New York. The whole incident highlights how India squandered its diplomatic opportunities in the Middle East. When it moved away from the past and opted to normalise ties with the Jewish state it promised that diplomat ties would enable New Delhi to play an useful role in the peace process.

Ever since the UPA government came to power in the summer of 2004, India’s Israel policy has been in a state of flux. Initially there were genuine apprehensions that driven by the Nehruvian legacy and coalition compulsions, New Delhi would slow down if not reverse some of the gains made during the past few years. The NDA government could have been faulted for not presenting Indo-Israeli relations as a BJP-Congress consensus. But the Congress-led UPA government has made matters worse by not taking cognisance of rapidly shifting Middle Eastern realities.

This has been in contrast to the diplomatic manoeuvres of Pakistan. Partly in response to the Gaza pullout, Pakistan Foreign Minister Kursheed Kasuri publicly met with his Israeli counterpart Silvan Shalom in Istanbul on September 1. It was more than a symbolic handshake but was followed by public disclosures that both countries were secretly interacting during the past few years. The process culminated in an acclaimed address by Musharraf before an influential Jewish gathering in New York. A few weeks later, a large Pakistani delegation visited Israel. In the wake of the October 8 earthquake, Pakistan was even prepared to accept Israeli assistance, sent through third parties. Formal diplomatic ties may still be some time away but there are enough signs that both countries are cozying up to one another. Was Pakistan not apprehensive of the consequences? In fact, it has a better reading of the Middle East and was able to pursue its moves with Israel without antagonising any of its allies and friends in this region.

While President Mahmoud Abbas might lack the authority and charisma of Yasser Arafat, he has shown a greater degree of pragmatism. Moreover a number of countries friendly to Islamabad have shown signs of upgrading ties with Israel. In recent months both Egypt and Jordan had returned their ambassadors to Tel Aviv. Other Gulf countries have initiated numerous low level contacts with Israel. While Qatar has donated US$ 6 million for the construction of a football stadium in the Arab town of Sakhnin in northern Israel, Omani and Israeli leaders have been meeting. Afghanistan has shown a willingness to deal with Israel and so was a section of the Iraqi elite. Even a country like Saudi Arabia has indicated an interest in relaxing the trade embargo against Israel. Egypt has signed a massive gas deal with Israel and of late Syria wanted to revive peace negotiations with Israel.

Pakistan apparently recognises that the Arab-Israeli conflict is not a zero-sum game. It is both possible and necessary for Islamabad to establish some sort of relations with both parties and thereby enhance its interests. It was this strategic calculation that enabled Narasimha Rao, when he was prime minister, to normalise ties with Israel. The BJP government merely worked on the foundation laid by Rao.

Musharraf recognised the new diplomatic opportunities offered by the Gaza disengagement. In contrast, India, despite having made a strategic move in ’92, squandered its initial edge. Writing in the early ’50s, one Israeli diplomat described Pakistan as India’s ‘centre of gravity’. Apparently this is no longer the case. If Pakistan’s diplomatic manoeuvres in the Middle East do not wake up our mandarins, what will?

The writer teaches Israeli politics at JNU, New Delhi