Sunday, November 13, 2005

economist: on natwar singh

nov 12th

simon long of the economist calls him a 'nehruvian', tom lantos of the us congress calls him a 'stalinist'. i should tell them both they are infringing on my copyrighted term 'nehruvian stalinist' which describes natwar singh quite well. yes, more catholic than the pope, is old natwar singh. this is what is expected of old nehru dynasty retainers.

but the dynasty is only interested in that great idea: self-preservation. natwar singh is expendable, clearly.

again, truncated to protect the economist's copyright (although they don't respect mine :-))

well, simon long has caught on to the truth that it the communists support something or someone in india, it is by definition bad for india.

India, Iraq and Iran

Over a barrel

Nov 10th 2005 | DELHI
From The Economist print edition

The Iraqi oil-for-food scandal brings down India's foreign minister

AFP Singh exits

THE name of Natwar Singh, India's foreign minister until forced to stand down on November 7th, does not even appear in the 630 pages of the report by the committee, chaired by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of America's Federal Reserve, into the manipulation of the United Nations' oil-for-food programme by Saddam Hussein. .... (deleted) What made his position untenable was his response to the accusations: a tirade against America.

Mr Singh denies all involvement in the oil scandal... (deleted). The evidence against him is circumstantial: his listing in the records of Iraq's state oil-marketing organisation; his vehement criticism of the sanctions regime that the oil-for-food programme was designed to mitigate; his visits and those of his son to Iraq; and his son's friendship with the owner of a company accused of having paid oil "surcharges"—ie, kickbacks—to Iraq.

The political opposition scented blood. Mr Singh's self-defence went beyond mere denial. He questioned Mr Volcker's independence, and portrayed the report as an attempt to discredit critics of American policy in Iraq. He derided the credibility of the present Iraqi government. He also suggested that when the International Atomic Energy Agency considers a resolution on November 24th on Iran's nuclear programme, he would advise the government to reverse its support for the American-led drive to refer it to the UN Security Council. From the foreign minister of a government whose chief geopolitical achievement is improved relations with America, all of this was very poor diplomacy

It succeeded, however, in rallying political support for Mr Singh from the many politicians both in Congress and its coalition partners who are uneasy about the government's pro-American tilt. The Communist parties the coalition needs for its parliamentary majority also approved. Their leaders, who have thwarted radical economic reform, now say their "highest priority" is to hold the government to an "independent" foreign policy. The Iran vote is to be their litmus test.

The prime minister is standing by his "strategic partnership" with America. Natwar Singh, calling himself a "Nehruvian", a reference to the "non-aligned" foreign policy of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first prime minister, seems to have relied on his closeness to the Congress leader, Sonia Gandhi, widow of Nehru' s grandson. He is paying the price for being more Nehruvian than the Nehrus.


Anonymous said...

Circumstantial evidence? Name does not figure in report? Follow the link from the SABHA 4M Report at and check out Table III. It names Natwar Singh.

san said...

Speaking of coming clean, it appears that Afghanistan is now holding a Truth and Reconciliation Commission process, just like South Africa did at the end of Apartheid. And of course, much of the testimony in these hearings revolves around naming the real troublemaker in their affairs -- Pakistan.

I think this is an excellent way to finally have Pakistan's ugly culpability rooted out and paraded for all to see. This should be a wonderfully cathartic exercise for all Afghans to recognize who truly has the blood of their countrymen on its wicked hands.

Now all we need are Nuremburg Trials, to put the guily behind bars. Hopefully, Afghanistan as SAARC's newest member will have ample opportunity to raise the issue -- especially everytime Pak opens its mouth on Kashmir at the forum.

san said...

Looks like Afghanistan is going to recognize Israel:\10\15\story_15-10-2005_pg4_16

Well, if Musharraf can move in this direction, why not Afghanistan? Aww, and look, Karzai wants to meet with Sharon. Haha, I'm sure the jihadis must be turning their favorite shade of green right now.

Now all we need is a little covert Israeli help on the Durand Line. :)

san said...

Speaking of the Durand Line, click this link and scroll down to read a pasted copy of an article by Graeme Smith of the Globe and Mail:

Let's see what happens to Pakistan's territorial ambitions against India when it is forced to worry more about its northern-most borders.

Didn't the Prophet say something about he who rides the tiger shall reap the whirlwind? It's interesting he chose our national animal for the metaphor. Maybe he was a bit prophetic after all.

Payback comes with interest.

DarkStorm said...

this name natwar .. just the name natwar.. doesnt ever fail to bring a smile to my face.


and imagine his dumb face lost in thought, as though thinking deeply about some foreign policy.

Anonymous said...

yep Darkstorm, natwar is a bastard. the most irritating sonofabitch around.

he destroyed all diplomacy. when named by volcker report, he ridiculed iraq govt, ridiculed US govt, and just blabbered without thinking. his son is a quarelling goonda bastard in here, in delhi circles, like grandson of shankar dyal sharma, the former president.