India's aggressive tsunami diplomacy has puzzled major world capitals. Even as the United States is trying to acclimatise to the "stunning" realisation that India is capable of handling its own 
disasters, and competently so, the international media is a picture of absolute disbelief.
It is all very well to refuse foreign (read American) aid.
Stung by such patronising editorial comments in the international media, India has shot back, asserting it was perfectly capable not only of addressing the crisis on its own shores but also of lending a helping hand to its tsunami-ravaged neighbours.
"India had refused aid but was unable to take care of the consequences, are "completely misplaced."
Wondering how many actually knew that India has a full-fledged National Institute of Disaster Management, India's that time foreign secretary , Saran said, "Right from the beginning we had the capability and the resources to successfully deal with this disaster."
In what was obviously intended for an incredulous world media, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the well-oiled disaster management machinery India has in place and which has been put to effective use during the current crisis.
As for the foreign aid issue which has clearly rattled Western capitals, Saran said, "We do not have a dogmatic position on this. As of now we have the capability and the resources."
He, however, mentioned that at any time India feels it requires assistance from "friendly" countries "we would not hesitate to review our approach."
Saran said the rationale behind India's refusal to accept aid was that whatever international effort was being launched, of which India itself is a part, should be directed towards those affected countries unable to manage the crisis.
"Not only have we had the confidence that we can take care of the disaster that struck our own shores, we have also been confident of assisting others affected," Saran said.
Admittedly, the United States goofed up its tsunami diplomacy even as India registered a major plus. US President George Bush's early pledge of a meagre $15 million did little to flatter America's image in Asia post-Iraq.
In fact, the US raised its contribution to $350 million only after accusations of being stingy were thrown at its face.
Consequently, it committed its armed forces for relief work and initiated a charity drive to assist what clearly is one of the biggest aid efforts in history.
In contrast, India rose above the occasion, rushing aid to Sri Lanka as early as the evening of December 26 even as it was coping with the crisis on its own territory.
Determined not to stand around as a hapless victim, India swiftly became part of the core group of four countries along side big powers like the US, Japan and Australia to coordinate aid efforts in the Sri Lanka, Thailand, Maldives and Indonesia.
India's inclusion in this group, Saran said, "was a recognition that India had the capability and the resources."
Although the core group stands disbanded now that the United Nations is coordinating the crisis management, India has registered its presence in the tsunami-affected region as a compassionate power capable of helping its neighbours even when its own shores are troubled.
Saran said, "Once the UN and its disaster relief organisation, the European Union and Canada came into the picture, the focus shifted to the operational side at the ground level. There was a consensus among the four members of the core group that the UN and its organisations were well-placed to carry out relief operations at the ground level."
In the strategic context, not many missed the implication of India first rushing aid to Sri Lanka where the US had decided to send 1500 marines and an assault ship.
India's move signalled the fact that New Delhi is fully capable of maintaining its arc of influence in the subcontinent.
At a time when the United Nations is debating the expansion of the Security Council in which India envisions a permanent seat for itself, the signal New Delhi has sent the international community's way through its tsunami relief operations is unmistakable.
disasters, and competently so, the international media is a picture of absolute disbelief.It is all very well to refuse foreign (read American) aid.
Stung by such patronising editorial comments in the international media, India has shot back, asserting it was perfectly capable not only of addressing the crisis on its own shores but also of lending a helping hand to its tsunami-ravaged neighbours.
"India had refused aid but was unable to take care of the consequences, are "completely misplaced."
Wondering how many actually knew that India has a full-fledged National Institute of Disaster Management, India's that time foreign secretary , Saran said, "Right from the beginning we had the capability and the resources to successfully deal with this disaster."
In what was obviously intended for an incredulous world media, the Foreign Secretary spoke at length about the well-oiled disaster management machinery India has in place and which has been put to effective use during the current crisis.
As for the foreign aid issue which has clearly rattled Western capitals, Saran said, "We do not have a dogmatic position on this. As of now we have the capability and the resources."
He, however, mentioned that at any time India feels it requires assistance from "friendly" countries "we would not hesitate to review our approach."
Saran said the rationale behind India's refusal to accept aid was that whatever international effort was being launched, of which India itself is a part, should be directed towards those affected countries unable to manage the crisis.
"Not only have we had the confidence that we can take care of the disaster that struck our own shores, we have also been confident of assisting others affected," Saran said.
Admittedly, the United States goofed up its tsunami diplomacy even as India registered a major plus. US President George Bush's early pledge of a meagre $15 million did little to flatter America's image in Asia post-Iraq.
In fact, the US raised its contribution to $350 million only after accusations of being stingy were thrown at its face.
Consequently, it committed its armed forces for relief work and initiated a charity drive to assist what clearly is one of the biggest aid efforts in history.
In contrast, India rose above the occasion, rushing aid to Sri Lanka as early as the evening of December 26 even as it was coping with the crisis on its own territory.
Determined not to stand around as a hapless victim, India swiftly became part of the core group of four countries along side big powers like the US, Japan and Australia to coordinate aid efforts in the Sri Lanka, Thailand, Maldives and Indonesia.
India's inclusion in this group, Saran said, "was a recognition that India had the capability and the resources."
Although the core group stands disbanded now that the United Nations is coordinating the crisis management, India has registered its presence in the tsunami-affected region as a compassionate power capable of helping its neighbours even when its own shores are troubled.
Saran said, "Once the UN and its disaster relief organisation, the European Union and Canada came into the picture, the focus shifted to the operational side at the ground level. There was a consensus among the four members of the core group that the UN and its organisations were well-placed to carry out relief operations at the ground level."
In the strategic context, not many missed the implication of India first rushing aid to Sri Lanka where the US had decided to send 1500 marines and an assault ship.
India's move signalled the fact that New Delhi is fully capable of maintaining its arc of influence in the subcontinent.
At a time when the United Nations is debating the expansion of the Security Council in which India envisions a permanent seat for itself, the signal New Delhi has sent the international community's way through its tsunami relief operations is unmistakable.
No comments:
Post a Comment