![]() ![]() Quite asides the fact that it is a mistake to interchange the phrase ‘permanent interests’ (a rigid concept) with ‘interests that are perpetual and eternal’ (a more flexible and dynamic concept), in the fast moving and globalised world of the 21st Century the very notions of permanency are becoming a bit of an anachronism. What is compounding the problem for India is a certain lack of clarity on what constitutes India’s interests that are ‘permanent or eternal’. Taking sides between Iran and Israel is not an easy thing for India to do because it has important, perhaps even vital, interests attached with both of them. The other, and in some ways more important, dimension of the problem is that it raises bigger questions about how India will manage its foreign policy in a world where power equations and international relations are changing bewilderingly fast. These options are however only one dimension of the problem confronting India in the aftermath of the bombing of the Israeli embassy car in New Delhi which has caught India in the middle of mutual recriminations between Iran on the one side and Israel and the US on the other. stick to your position of neutrality but demonstrate your commitment to not becoming the battleground for other people’s wars by cracking down hard on whichever side stepped out of line in your country without subscribing to any of the specious arguments of moral equivalence or do you simply close your eyes, act as though nothing serious happened and hope things return to normal? This then becomes a decision point: do you start taking sides or at least ‘tilt’ in favour of one over the other or do you establish a ‘new normal’ i.e. The real problem starts when their conflict starts to play itself out in your country. While this policy (some will call it non-policy) requires deft diplomatic manoeuvring to maintain a relationship with two mutually hostile countries without antagonising either of them, it is a balancing act that becomes more and more difficult as the relations between the two antagonists deteriorate. It is generally also a safe policy to adopt especially if you don’t have a tradition of taking tough decisions and prefer to ride in as many boats as possible at the same time. Not taking sides in a conflict between two countries with which you share reasonably good and mutually beneficial relations, is more often than not justified on the grounds of national interests. AFRICA, LATIN AMERICA, CARIBBEAN AND UN. ![]() ![]() Memorandum of Association: Rules and Regulations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |