Sanctions won't help, a combative Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad warns US allies; Damascus banks on IBSA support in UNSC

Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad

New Delhi

2 August 2011

Dismissing the latest tranche of sanctions as futile, Syria has said that the European Union (EU) is mistaken if it believes it can extract "political concessions" from the government headed by President Bashar al-Assad.

The EU on Tuesday added Syrian defence minister Ali Habib Mahmud and four others to its sanctions blacklist.

In an exclusive interview to this newspaper in New Delhi, a combative Syrian vice foreign minister Faisal Mekdad accused the US, EU and Israel of "provoking" violence in his country and attempting to do a Libya in Syria.

"It is very clear they want to repeat the same aggression committed by the NATO against Libya on Syria," Mr Mekdad said, alluding to moves by the US and its European allies to revive a draft United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution condemning Syria for its crackdown on protesters.

He is reasonably sanguine that the IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa), all three of whom currently are non-permanent UNSC members, along with Russia and China, would not encourage adoption of the resolution.

"What prevented the Security Council for the last three months from adopting a resolution is the understanding shown by the friends of Syria. I think this time their [the US and its European allies] attempts will fail again," he said.

The only time Mr Mekdad struck an apparently conciliatory note was when he said that Syria was "ready to cooperate with Europe" provided the terms of engagement were "on equal basis with mutual respect and understanding".

However, he was categorical that "if the objective of the US and its European allies was to help Israel preserve its hegemony and exercise its hegemony on the entire region then they are wrong."

"... what we are looking for is just and comprehensive peace where Israel withdraws from the occupied Arab territories from West Bank and Gaza, from the Syrian Golan and from southern Lebanon, and establishment of an independent Palestine state. This is the way we can establish [peace] but their support of Israel and their attempts to give Israel the peace and the land will lead nowhere."

Mr Mekdad noted that Syria was paying a price for being "the last post of resistance against European, American and Israeli pressures."

He added: "Any meeting between post-Hosni Mubarak Egypt and Syria is very dangerous for American and Israeli and Western interests in the region. That is why they have to destroy Syria before it establishes good, normal relations with new Egypt."

Mr Mekdad, who called on external affairs minister SM Krishna on Monday, said the "help and support received from India at international fora is very important."

India on Monday assumed the rotating presidency of the UNSC for the month of August.

Calling for "strategic" ties between India and West Asia generally and Syria in particular, Mr Mekdad said, "Syria and developing countries should now look to the east rather than to the west [and we] need to develop South-South cooperation."

Clippings from The Asian Age (top), Deccan Chronicle's Bengaluru edition (bottom left), and from Deccan Chronicle's Hyderabad edition (bottom right)

*******

'India has tried to deal with the BNP and Begum Zia in the past but it takes two to tango'

New Delhi
7 July 2011

India’s obsession with Pakistan is hurting its ties with Bangladesh and

other neighbours, says Deb Mukharji, a former Indian high commissioner
to Bangladesh, in an interview to Ramesh Ramachandran. Excerpts:

Q: The January 2010 visit to India by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of
Bangladesh generated hopes of a big shift in the bilateral ties. Two
years on, where are we?
A: I think the joint statement issued at the conclusion of Prime
Minister Hasina's visit is extremely significant. There are many
aspects to the elements in the joint statement; some are long term;
others, short term. There is a general feeling that progress has not
been quite as rapid as may have been. Projects such as power
transmission take time, but on other issues such as the one-billion-
dollar credit, some of us don't see adequate, rapid movement in seeing
that the projects are identified. I don't believe any disbursement as
such has taken place. Obviously, this requires negotiations with regard
to details, because Bangladesh can accept only that which is useful and
good for it. But at the same time there should have been a greater
sense of urgency in seeing that the projects are identified and the
disbursement does take place. There are other areas which continue to
be awkward, like non-tariff barriers in trade. If there are problems,
they need to be resolved by the ministries of commerce, finance, etc,
but it should not be allowed to drag on. The main border transit point
at Petrapole is in an abysmal state. It has very poor connectivity to
Kolkata. Now, there is no point in somebody saying this is the
responsibility of the state and the state says no, we don't have
money... this is something that we as a State and a Government have to
sort out, instead of passing the buck. The shelters for people affected
by the Cyclone Sidr of 2007 have not been completed. Several lakh
tonnes of rice were offered at another point in time but it has not yet
materialised. There are these petty things, in a sense, but which also
become important in the mind of Bangladesh. There are always excuses
for not doing things but I don’t believe in excuses. When a government
makes a commitment, that commitment has to be fulfilled. I think we
frankly need to be a little more forthcoming on concessions in trade.
At the end of the day I don't believe that Bangladeshi exports to India
could threaten our industry. So this is something on which our commerce
ministry really ought to take an energetic look.

Q: How do you see the progress on issues such as demarcation of borders and sharing of river waters?
A: From what I understand we are moving forward rapidly on the border
issue. I think we should be able to put this to rest by the time Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh visits Dhaka. River waters are a much more
difficult subject because you have to look after the interests of your
own people. Now, obviously, India cannot utilise waters to such an
extent that Bangladesh is grievously hurt. Yet, at the same time, I
don't think Bangladesh can expect that the same flows will continue
forever. There are 300 million Indians upstream on the Ganga and the
Brahmaputra. Their interests also need to be looked after. As I have
said in the past, I think the only real, long-term, answer is a
regional approach to water resources development because a great deal
of the water that comes into India and then to Bangladesh comes from
Nepal. Similarly you have the Brahmaputra coming in from Tibet. So
there has to be a regional approach both on development of water
resources and management of water resources so that we don't waste
water. So that has to be looked at in the long term, but in the short
term I think that India and Bangladesh have to have a system of
transparent exchange of information so that Bangladesh knows that what
whatever is happening will not be harmful to it. I think Tipaimukh dam
is a case in point. There has been a lot of opposition to it in
Bangladesh but to the best of my understanding Tipaimukh would be good
for Bangladesh and not hurt its interests. But sometimes politics gets
involved.

Q: Have Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s unguarded remarks on Bangladesh
damaged India’s ties with the government and people of that country?
Would it hurt Prime Minister Hasina politically?
A: I think this is something that really has to be put behind us. We
must not continue to churn this on a permanent basis. Obviously what
the Prime Minister said was unfortunate and in some cases not based on
facts. I do believe that Bangladesh is mature enough to put this behind
them. I don’t think this would hurt our long-term relationship. I don't
think it will hurt Hasina but unfortunately these remarks give the
Jamaat-e-Islami far greater importance than they deserve; I think that
is an unfortunate part of it. On the positive side, what these remarks
do tell us is the need for a greater understanding of the state of
affairs in our neighbourhood so that we do not arrive at conclusions
without sufficient facts.

Q: What could be some of the deliverables from Prime Minister Singh's

visit to Dhaka in September?
A: I expect some kind of an agreement on the Teesta. I expect the
border issues of demarcation, exchange of enclaves, and adverse
possessions, to be finally resolved by then. And I hope that we will
have greater clarity on how the Indian credit is being utilised and I
hope the Prime Minister would be able to carry a trade package with him

to Dhaka.

Q: Is a section of the Indian establishment doing Ms Hasina a disfavour
by branding her or viewing her as being pro-India?
A: Firstly I don't think Hasina is pro-India. I don't think Sheikh
Mujib was pro-India. And I think when we say that, we are indeed doing
her a disservice. I think whatever Sheikh Hasina is doing is in the
enlightened self interest of Bangladesh. Let's be clear on that. So I
think it is a very valid question you are making. But just as her
father had done in the past, positive relationship with India is in the
interest of Bangladesh. As far as BNP and Khaleda Zia are concerned, we
have seen what happened in the past when the BNP was in power.
Insurgency in India and terrorism was actively promoted if not by the
BNP but by its partner in government, the Jamaat. All this is well
established. Obviously India does not choose who’s going to be in
government in Bangladesh. India has tried to deal with the BNP and
Begum Zia as positively as possible in the past but it takes two to
tango and in the past there has simple been no positive reaction
towards India from the BNP. Certainly, both in principle and in
practice, we should retain an open dialogue with the BNP. I mean, that
is unquestionable. But it takes two to come to a positive relationship.

Q: Does India have a neighbourhood policy and where does Bangladesh
figure in it? In the past India has spoken about engaging its
neighbours without expecting reciprocity in return.
A: Well, each of our neighbours has a different kind of equation with
us. Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan ... our relationship with each
is very distinct, so I really cannot talk of a general neighbourhood
policy. There was something called the Gujral doctrine. I think that
was also somewhat misunderstood. We have to understand that if our
neighbourhood does not prosper then it has an adverse impact on us. And
that is I think really the bottom-line and I frankly don't think we
have done enough. And I'll tell you the reason for this is we have been
so totally preoccupied, perhaps obsessed, with one neighbour that we
just do not give adequate attention or employ adequate stamina in
dealing with the other neighbours. Let me add that it is not only the
politicians; the media also has a great responsibility. I think
Bangladesh is in many ways India's most important neighbour, not least
because of its location. And I think that we should do whatever we can
to enhance our relationship to a level of partnership.

‘Security of India, Sri Lanka and Maldives is interconnected’

Ahmed Naseem, foreign minister of Maldives

New Delhi

29 April 2011

What happens in the Indian Ocean has lot of implications for Africa, Australia, Far East, Indian sub-continent and Gulf as well, and, therefore, India, Sri Lanka and Maldives are working closely to secure the ocean from terrorists and pirates, foreign minister Ahmed Naseem of Maldives tells Ramesh Ramachandran in an interview on the occasion of
his first visit to India after assuming the office. Excerpts:

Q: What did you discuss in your meetings with the Indian ministers of
environment, external affairs, and commerce and industry?
A: We discussed bilateral relations and political developments in Maldives

and progress in strengthening the pillars of democracy, which is the
biggest challenge, because we never had a democratic government in
Maldives. So after a long period of dictatorship it takes a while for
people to begin to absorb what democracy is all about. Every election
platform is also enhancing and strengthening democracy. So I explained
the democratic-building processes to the Indian ministers. I discussed
environmental issues with Mr Jairam Ramesh. I believe that there has to
be a little bit of a push from all like-minded countries in order to
get the pledged money for adaptation measures for small island states
and others. It should be coming fast to these countries without much
bureaucracy. We are confident that our close working relationship with
India will pave the way for early measures to be taken by European
Union and others to find the right mechanisms to disburse the funds
that are available while taking care to prevent abuse of use of funds.

Q: Is there scope for improving maritime security cooperation
between India and Maldives, particularly in the context of piracy in
the Indian Ocean?
A: Security of India, Sri Lanka and Maldives is interconnected and we
work closely to monitor the situation in the Indian Ocean. What happens in
the Indian Ocean has lot of implications to Africa, Australia, Far
East, Indian sub-continent and Gulf as well. We share India’s concerns
about Indian Ocean security but we have concerns of our own, too,
insofar as piracy is concerned. I think this season again we have, at
the moment, 27 Somali pirates in the Maldivian jails and we are working
on a method to repatriate them to Somalia. I sought the Government of
India’s advice. The problem is that the Somali pirates are getting
closer and closer to Maldives. We are dependent on tourism and any such
incidents are detrimental to our industry and economy. These are very
worrying issues but Maldivian and Indian coast guards are working
closely to prevent incidents of piracy. There are courts in Kenya and
Seychelles to deal with piracy issues but we in Maldives do not intend
to do anything like that. We don’t want to get into that kind of
situation because neither do we have the capacity nor the means to
handle these issues.

Q: What will be some of the key focus areas at the 17th Saarc

summit to be held in Maldives later this year?

A: We will concentrate a lot on trade and transport. That is what we
lack within the region. It is easy for a Maldivian to come to Delhi but
difficult to go to Dhaka or to Karachi or Nepal. The key issue for
development is a proper transport network. Unless there are cross-
border transport links, trade won’t improve. We have only three per
cent trade within the Saarc region out of the total trade that we do,
so this is not a strategy for development of the region. With the
growth of India, the countries around it can benefit from its economic
growth. Other counties can be a cluster of development with India in
the centre. We should make full use of, and derive maximum benefit
from, the development taking place in India.

Q: Maldives is only one of three countries (besides France
and Qatar) to recognise the Transitional National Council of
Libya, which is fighting against Muammar Gaddafi’s government.
What prompted that decision?
A: The Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) started as a human rights
organisation. The government today has human rights at its core. So
wherever human rights abuses take place, after proper analysis we take
issue with it and we will be proactive in this. We won the election to
the UN human rights council with the highest vote in the history of the
UN. So we feel there is an obligation on our part to protect the rights
of people who are deprived. We feel that democratic values are what
will bring peace and security to the world, especially west Asia. With
the emergence of democracy, stability will eventually come.

Q: Does Maldives intend to normalise its relations with Israel?
A: It all depends on the behaviour of Israel, isn’t it? (smiles) It
will be very difficult for us, a 100 per cent Muslim country to be so when
acts of aggression are carried out against brotherly Muslim states. We
have relations with Israel and it started improving after 1994. We feel
that without having the ability to talk to the government of Israel,
we, as a small nation, would not be able to make any contribution. So
we have to have relations with every country whether we like it or not.
At the same time we take stands on any issues where human rights is
involved. So these are all issues we have to seriously consider. I
believe we need to be in a position to talk to the government of
Israel. It’s a reality that State of Israel exists and it will continue
to exist and we have to deal with it accordingly. Being hostile to any
country is not productive.

Q: Maldives has hosted talks between the government of
Afghanistan and the Taliban. How did that come about?
A: They were not invited, they just came. Maldives is a good
environment to come and have a chat you know (smiles). I think there were
two or three meetings but they were not sponsored by the government.
They came on a holiday, sat down, discussed issues, and went back. None
of the people who came to Maldives were on terrorist lists so we need not
have issue with that.