Translate

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Coronavirus: China's Failure to Act Quickly Is Now Straining the System

As of  February 12, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has killed 1,369 people and infected nearly 60,000. However, observers have noticed a decline in new cases of infection. According to the National Health Commission (NHC), the number of new cases fell from a peak of 3,887 on February 4 to 2,015 on February 11.
On Thursday, the Communist Party of China finally fired Jiang Chaoliang, a former banker who has been party chief of the Hubei province since 2016. He is being replaced by Shanghai mayor Ying Yong. The head of the party overseeing Wuhan, Ma Guoqiang, was also replaced by Wang Zhonglin, an official from Shandong province. This came in the wake of a significant jump in the numbers of those infected in Hubei as a result of the changed methodology for diagnosing and counting cases of those infected.
Significant outbreaks in Singapore, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea do not portend well, especially since there are no signs that the virus has peaked. Currently, some 60 million people in China are living under lockdown, severely disrupting normal activity. Given this situation, various cities and local governments have taken recourse to their own draconian measures, including travel restrictions, to prevent the spread of the virus.
On February 10, Chinese President Xi Jinping appeared in the national media in the evening news on an inspection tour of Beijing. He was seen wearing a simple surgical mask and accompanied by aides, and sending the message that the government remains in control of the situation and that the Chinese people will overcome the challenge together. Beijing also sought to quell the anger over the death of Dr Li Wenliang, the doctor who first reported on the virus, by sending a National Supervisory Commission team to Wuhan to “thoroughly investigate issues related” to him.
In fact, now two more doctors in Wuhan say that they were reprimanded by police for trying to warn others in the early days of the onset of COVID-19.
On February 12, Xi chaired another meeting of the Politburo Standing Committee (PBSC) where he said that the epidemic situation has shown “positive changes”. However, he emphasised the continuing challenge that China faced, and the meeting emphasised the need to raise hospital admission capacity, reduce the infection rate by prevention and control, improve treatment and provide more medical resources to Hubei province, especially Wuhan.
Equally, the PBSC highlighted measures to stabilise the economy and press on with measures such as tax and fee reduction to help firms and offer discounted loan rates to producers of anti-virus materials.
It called on a resumption of work and production in all enterprises. Foreign trade companies would also get financing support to promote trade, and a number of major projects would be accelerated. In particular, there was need to focus on employment and massive layoffs were to be avoided. Local governments were asked to use unemployment insurance funds to help businesses to keep their payrolls stable.
Very little still known
Meanwhile, doctors working in Wuhan say that they still know very little about the pathogenesis of the virus. Jiang Li, ICU director at a Beijing hospital who is currently in Wuhan, told Caixin that since they are not yet clear as to the actual cause of multiple organ failure, the treatment of severely affected patients remains a challenge. Also, doctors are pointing to the rapidity with which the condition of patients deteriorates. The biggest challenge, the authorities acknowledge, is to protect the doctors and medical workers themselves as it becomes clear that despite upgrading their hardware and research and public sanitation and prevention framework, China’s system has not been able to take the strain.
According to Global Times, nearly 17,000 personnel belonging to the Communist Party, employees of state-owned enterprises and institutions as well as faculty from universities have been sent to the most heavily affected communities to deal with the “four type personnel”: patients with confirmed cases; suspect cases; patients with fever; and those who have had close contact with the patients involved. All four types are supposed to be taken into centralised quarantine and treatment.
The authorities are still struggling to admit all possible patients given the upsurge. Caixin has reported that even the new hospitals – the Huoshenshan and the Leishenshan, which came up earlier in February – do not yet have their full quota of beds. In fact as of Tuesday, the former touted to have 1,000 beds is using just 286 currently, while the latter which opened later only has 30 beds in use out of the 1,500 promised.
A cover story in China News Weekly on February 5 had published a detailed timeline focusing on the discovery of the early cases and the local government’s response between December 1 and January 20. The item has been taken down but it has survived in various websites around the world. A Google translation notes that information on the virus may have been around since early December. At the end of the month, Dr Li Wenliang, who as at the Wuhan Central Hospital, messaged a WeChat group of his college alumni that it was not SARS but a new coronavirus.
When this leaked, Dr Li was summoned to the Wuhan Municipal Commission and told not to spread misinformation. A public statement was issued saying that there had been 27 cases of “a pneumonia of unknown cause” but that no human-to-human transmission had been detected. On the same day, the first teams from the National Health Commission arrived.
Customers wearing face masks queue for food outside a store, as the country is hit by an outbreak of the novel coronavirus, in Beijing, China February 12, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins
First cases in early December 
The first cases had been pointed out as early as December 8, but no effort had been made to close the Wuhan Seafood Wholesale Market, which was only disinfected several times. It was only 22 days later, on January 1, that the market, where the human infection is thought to have begun, was finally closed down.
The Wuhan CDC had commissioned a team of specialists headed by Shi Zhengli to test samples and by January 2, they had sequenced the entire genome of the virus and, after isolating it on January 5, made their findings available to the WHO under the instructions of the NHC. Another team in Shanghai also sequenced the entire genome using another technique and announced the findings on January 10.
By January 9, the coronavirus had been confirmed by a team comprising Xu Jianguo, of the Chinese Academy of Engineering and Li Xingwang who chairs the department of infectious disease at Beijing Ditan hospital and Cao Bin, a respiratory disease expert from Beijing. A paper in the journal The Lancet says that China was late in releasing key genetic data on the COVID-19. But it says that this was not a cover-up as much as the lack of effective procedures in providing outbreak information.
On January 13, Thailand announced a patient infected with the virus and that the person, a Chinese citizen, had not been to the Huanan market. Thailand announced the second case of a Chinese national on January 17 and the US CDC announced screenings at three major airports for passengers arriving on flights from Wuhan.
As per procedure, the Chinese authorities had shared COVID-19 data with WHO, but the first team from the organisation was only permitted to visit the infection area on February 10. The US, too, offered help, but as of now, they have not been given permission.
The Wire February 14, 2020

Signs of decay around pillars of democracy

Delivering the first Zorawar Singh Memorial Lecture at Jammu University in April 2004, the then Governor of Jammu and Kashmir, Lieutenant-General SK Sinha (retd) concluded by identifying the four pillars supporting the edifice of democracy in India — free elections, free press, independent judiciary and an apolitical army. “None of these pillars,” the General said, “should be allowed to be corroded or unhinged for that will spell the doom of democracy.”
Sixteen long years later, signs of decay and deterioration around the pillars are evident. The irony is that the General was principally addressing the role of the military in a democracy, but today, of the four, it is the military pillar that shows the least signs of corrosion.
Signs of decay around pillars of democracy
There was a time till the 1980s when rigging in elections was not uncommon, especially in the badlands of the Hindi-speaking belt, West Bengal or Jammu and Kashmir. The man who cleaned up things, Chief Election Commissioner TN Seshan (1990-96) was able to do it because the authority of the dominant ruling part of the time, the Congress, had visibly declined. Massive security and multi-phase elections became the norm as did a massive crackdown on visible election expenditure.
With a new dominant party in control, the story of today can perhaps be simply summed up by the efforts of the government, returned to power with a clear majority last year, to harass Ashok Lavasa, one of the three election commissioners. His stance, sometimes at variance with those of his two other colleagues, has irked. But his real ‘crime’ was to refuse the clean chit to the BJP’s top leaders in relation to some of their controversial election speeches. Income tax investigations were initiated within months of the new government taking power against five members of his family, including his wife. As per the norms, Lavasa is on track to be the Chief Election Commissioner when the current incumbent retires.
There is, of course, another story to be told about the electoral bonds scheme. Created to deal with black money, it has proved to be the legal channel ostensibly through which the ruling BJP has received massive funds from individuals and corporates.
The decline in the quality of journalism has been most manifest in these years. But the ruling BJP is only partly responsible for it. The blame must fall on the media itself, which, to paraphrase LK Advani’s memorable description of the press during the Emergency, is crawling, when it has been merely asked to bend.
It is not as if there is no good journalism or scoops today. The problem is that the social media, along with a number of noisy TV channels, drown out the impact of a major revelation, sometimes simply by using fake news. Media entities close to the ruling party are known to generate fake news on an industrial scale to swamp readers and viewers. They work along their own version of Gresham’s Law where shoddy news drives out the good.
The third pillar is the Indian judiciary. There was a time when the common belief was that the higher judiciary in the country made up for the infirmities of the lower one. Today, there are signs that like fish, the judiciary may be rotting from the head.
The signs of this were evident in the unprecedented press conference of four Supreme Court sitting judges held two years ago, raising questions about the integrity of the institution.
Since then, things have gone from bad to worse. The apex court has adopted a seemingly casual approach to the burning issues of the day, such as that of Kashmir or the anti-CAA violence and some of its judgments border on the bizarre.
In the case of Kashmir, a state of the Union has been bifurcated, demoted, and an Article of the Constitution relating to its autonomy removed through legal sleight of hand. Yet, the court is still in the process of hearing the petitions five months later while the new UT remains in a state of lockdown.
Speaking at a university function in Nagpur recently, Chief Justice of India SA Bobde echoed Prime Minister Modi’s call that citizenship is not just about rights, but also about ‘duties towards society.’ What the citizens are looking for from the court is a sharp attention to the protection of their rights, rather than homilies on their duties.
Of all the four pillars, the one that remains the least eroded till now is the armed forces, but not for the want of trying. Some military officers have not hesitated to be part of the process through which the military has been used to burnish the political credentials of the ruling party.
There could be more trouble ahead. Over the years, the country had developed a system where politicians and the military men stayed confined to their respective spheres. The politicians, with the help of bureaucrats, gave broad policy directions, approved promotions and sanctioned expenditure, while the military focused on its operational role. An important element of this compact was that promotion at the seniormost level was by seniority. All this went out with the appointment of General Bipin Rawat as the Army Chief, where two senior and highly regarded officers were superseded.
That the Indian democracy is under severe stress is now widely accepted around the world. Things do not look good as the ruling party pushes a majoritarian agenda with a view to polarise the electorate. Every country’s fate eventually rests in the hands of its citizens. It remains to be seen how the good people of India deal with what is most certainly an existential challenge.
Tribune February 4, 2020

Tuesday, April 14, 2020

A balance of forces: The very meaning of ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’ in a war has changed. Ask the Americans

Perhaps we should discount as electoral posturing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s claim, made earlier this week, that India’s military can defeat Pakistan in 7-10 days. Even so, it is difficult not to be alarmed. He’s not only the prime minister of the country, he is also the head of the Nuclear Command Authority. The so-called surgical strike of 2016 and the Balakot attack in early 2019 may not by themselves have been a winning factor, but they were an important element in the heady hyper-nationalistic brew that helped BJP prevail in the UP state assembly and the general election subsequently. But both were clearly limited events linked to specific Pakistan-backed terror strikes, and this was acknowledged by the government itself.
Now without any immediate provocation, the PM is talking about a general war. If so, he should know that in our era, the very meaning of “defeat” and “victory” has changed. Ask the Americans who “won” the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And when it comes to war with nuclear weapons, things are even more topsy-turvy. Before accepting “defeat” the losing party has the ability to unleash weapons that will make the winning party’s “victory” look like defeat. The scale of destruction – whether the winner loses “just” five cities, to the loser’s 20 – would be epochal. The devastation would make it difficult for the winner and the loser to survive as functioning societies. Some argue that India can push the Pakistani red lines without inviting a nuclear response. But pushing red lines is hazardous business. It can trigger escalating responses that are out of anyone’s control.
Actually, even short of nuclear war, it is open to debate if India, the preponderant South Asian military power, has the capacity to best Pakistan at this juncture. This goes as far back as 1971 when, despite the splendid military victory in the eastern front, superior Indian forces fumbled in the west. None of their offensives – in Kargil, northern Kashmir, Shakargarh, or the desert, went anywhere. Indeed, the net result was the loss of Chamb. Nothing has changed since, and we should not be taken in by the hype surrounding the small and carefully managed “surgical strikes” and the Balakot attack. Pakistan has long maintained “effective parity” and it continues to maintain it, even without counting its nuclear weapons. Islamabad may lack the forces to launch a conventional attack on India, but it has rugged and prepared defences along its borders that would make any but the shallowest ingress very expensive. The option often mooted is to confine the fight to Jammu & Kashmir. This is an illusion, any major action there will spill over to the plains.
There is nothing currently in the Indian armed forces’ organisation, equipment or doctrine, to suggest that they can overwhelm Pakistan in quick time. The military has been seriously underfunded, curbing its effectiveness. Even if with its numerically superior forces, India gains an upper hand, it will be unable to exploit this because the big powers will not let two nuclear armed adversaries slug it out till mushroom clouds rise. Actually, even a limited conventional war this time around will be hugely destructive given the arsenal of ballistic missiles and bombs that both sides possess.
And then, there is China. Will it stand by and allow its only real ally to be defeated even in a limited sense? Unlikely. Indeed, the prime beneficiary of an India-Pakistan war could well be Beijing since it will weaken both South Asian parties regardless of who “wins” or “loses”. Truth be told, the government’s Pakistan strategy has painted it into a corner. Using hostility towards Islamabad for electoral gains has left it with a one dimensional policy and with just one instrument in hand – a hammer – that can be used only in limited ways.
Times of India February 1, 2020

US, China Support Helps Pakistan Escape FATF Blacklist

India has once again learnt the oldest lesson of foreign policy— “There are no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” It is these that have persuaded a clutch of countries who India has been cosying up to, to stand aside as Pakistan once again escapes more stringent sanctions by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).
Reports say that in the FATF’s Asia Pacific Joint Group meeting that concluded in Beijing on Thursday, Pakistan was deemed ‘largely compliant’ on the 22 commitments it had made to improve its performance for combating money laundering and terror financing.
Among the countries that gave Pakistan the pass, howsoever temporary they may claim it is, were the US, UK, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Islamabad, of course, had the strong support of host China, as well as Malaysia and Turkey.
The Modi government, which has made the cornering of Pakistan its main foreign policy goal, is chagrined, to say the least. While many Indian commentators have squarely blamed the China-Malaysia-Turkey troika for helping Islamabad stay out of the blacklist, the fact is that a significant role has been played by the US in helping Pakistan.
Things came together for Islamabad in just the week that the Beijing meeting was scheduled, and you can be sure it was no coincidence

US Offers to Mediate on Kashmir Again

Earlier in the week, the top US official dealing with South Asia, Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells, was in Islamabad where, according to Pakistani officials, at a meeting where she was briefed on the FATF issue, she praised Pakistan’s efforts to implement the FATF’s 27-point action plan.
Then, two days before the meeting, President Donald Trump met Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan in Davos. He told the media “We have never been closer with Pakistan than we are right now.” 
And to add insult to the Indian injury, he had once again raised the issue of mediating on the Kashmir issue. “We’re talking about Kashmir… if we can help, we certainly will be helping,” he added.
The subtext to this turnaround was revealed by Imran Khan when he said that “Both of us are interested in peace… and an orderly transition in Afghanistan with talks with Taliban and the government.” Reports say that Islamabad is proving instrumental in brokering a ceasefire deal in Afghanistan that is currently being worked out in Doha with an official US team led by US Special Envoy Zalmay Khalilzad.
According to reports, Khan personally lobbied with Trump on the FATF issue and also spoke to leaders of countries like UK, Germany, France, Australia and New Zealand prior to the FATF regional meeting.
When he had assumed office, Trump had attacked Pakistan and its support for terrorists. He had criticized the US $ 33 billion in aid that the US had given to the country over the past 15 years. Now that the US has resumed dialogue with the Taliban with a view to exiting Afghanistan, the US has once again discovered the value of Pakistan.
As a result of the Beijing decision, Pakistan could even be removed from the grey list and placed in the ‘white list’ at the upcoming plenary meeting of the FATF in Paris in mid-February. 
The more likely outcome, however, is that it will continue to remain in the grey list till June or September 2020, but in any event it is unlikely to slide into the blacklist, something that India has been fervently hoping for. Such a development would have been disastrous for the already fragile Pakistani economy.

Pakistan Still in FATF Grey List

It may be recalled that in June 2018 the FATF had found serious deficiencies in Pakistan’s anti-money laundering measures and plans to combat financing of terrorism, and gave Pakistan a 27-point action plan to work on if it wanted to be removed from the grey list.
In its last plenary meeting in October 2019, the FATF had expressed satisfaction over just 5 points of the 27-point action plan, and kept Pakistan on the grey list till February 2020.
To avoid the blacklist, Pakistan needs the support of 3 countries which it has always had, but to come out of the grey list it needs 12 more votes out of a total of 39 in the plenary meeting.
Speaking on Thursday, the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said that “Pakistan has made great efforts to strengthen its domestic counter-terrorism financing system with visible progress.” But the country that really matters here is the US.
According to Pakistani newspapers, a large delegation led by the Minister for Economic Affairs Hammad Azhar had told the joint group of the FATF that 500 terror financing related cases had been registered in Pakistan, and some 55 convictions achieved. Not only had defaulting banks been penalized, but mandatory currency declaration processes had been implemented in all the airports of the country. 
Prior to this, a 120-page reply along with a 500-page annexure had been sent to the joint group detailing the progress on the 22 points.
Among the visible steps taken by Islamabad was the arrest and trial of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. Earlier this month, he pleaded “not guilty” at an in-camera hearing in two terror financing cases against him. The counter-terrorism department of the Pakistan government had registered 23 FIRs against him and his accomplices and arrested him in July 2019.
This is an indicator of the potential power of the FATF process. Saeed is a UN-designated terrorist with a US $ 10 million American bounty on him. But what the bounty and the UN designation did not achieve, the FATF seemed to have achieved. Pakistan can, and has played around with its domestic law when it comes to dealing with terrorists like Saeed.
Likewise, the international community and India have shown that they are toothless in dealing with a terrorist like Saeed. But when the country that hosts him is threatened with larger economic pain, it is reacting.
But the Beijing meeting has also brought out clearly the limit of the legal processes and the salience of geopolitics in the situation. When it comes to interests, states don’t care whether they are molly-coddling terrorists, or environmentalists.
For India, which put an unconscionable amount of faith in the US and its friends in corralling Pakistan, the developments are a bitter lesson. But, as the philosopher George Santayana said, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The bottom line, as Sanjaya Baru noted in an article last month, is that Modi’s policy of not engaging Pakistan, may have run its course.
The Quint January 25, 2020

What Tsai win means to China

THE re-election victory of President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan has many complex messages. In an important way, it reflects an impact of the Hong Kong agitation. On the one hand, it reflects a massive victory for the Democratic Progressive Party, which flirts with the notion of independence, but on the other, it also reveals the strength of the forces that support a reunification with China.
What Tsai win means to China 
Tsai campaign focused on the issues of sovereignty and identity and was able to prevail against the China-leaning Kuomintang (KMT) which adopted a populist approach that had brought it handsome dividends in the local elections of 2018. Looked at any way, the election outcome was a rebuke to China. The voter turnout of 75% was 10% higher than the one in 2016. There is little doubt that the developments in Hong Kong propelled the younger voters to cast their votes in larger numbers. But one should not over-interpret the outcome.
Tsai won with 8.17 million votes, representing 57.13% of the electorate. In that sense, her victory was decisive. Her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) also retained its majority in the 113 seat legislature. On the other hand, the losing KMT candidate Han Kuo-yu got 5.5 million votes (39%) as compared to the 3.8 million won by Eric Chu, the losing KMT candidate in 2016. However, the KMT gained three seats in the legislature while the DPP lost seven. A third candidate, James Soong of the People’s First Party (PFP), got 6.08 lakh or 4% of the votes.
The DPP now holds 61 seats in the legislature while the KMT has 38 seats. The DPP lost seven seats as compared to 2016, while the KMT gained three. The Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) won five seats, the New Power Party (NPP) three and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party (TSP) one seat. Neither the New Party nor the PFP won any seats since the remaining five seats were won by the independents.
Clearly then, despite the clear mandate for Tsai, the KMT retains its relevance to the country’s politics. In addition, the emergence of newer political parties and independents signals a growing sophistication of the Taiwanese democracyIn an ideal situation, China should gracefully accept the verdict and look for a Xi-Tsai meeting. But that’s not the way Beijing sees things and we are likely to see more tension in the cross-Straits relationship.
In the commentary following the election, Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, charged that Tsai and her party had used all kinds of dirty tactics and intimidation to win. Besides, it alleged that anti-China politically forces in the West openly intervened in the elections ‘to prevent the two sides of the Taiwan Strait from getting closer’. Its pithy analysis of the outcome was that it was a ‘temporary countercurrent’ which was ‘just a bubble under the tide of times’. In other words, the election outcome will not alter the trend of history that would lead to reunification.
In her victory statement, President Tsai said the bottom line of her administration had been Taiwan’s sovereignty, even while maintaining ‘healthy exchanges with China’. She said Taiwan had maintained a ‘non-provocative, non-adventurist’ approach towards China.
She made it clear that the increasing pressure on the one country, two systems model China has been seeking to impose were conditions that were entirely unacceptable to Taiwan. If China intended to unilaterally change the ‘cross strait status quo’, Taiwan would have to continue strengthening ‘our democratic defence mechanisms’ as well as ‘establish national defence capabilities’ that can secure Taiwan.
In recent years, ties between Taipei and New Delhi have shown steady improvement. India’s Act East Policy has coincided with Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy and the years since 2016 have seen greater contact between the two governments. Taiwan has opened four trade offices in India in recent years and the two-way trade stands at around $8 billion while its investment in India is around $1.5 billion, mainly in electronics and manufacturing. Despite the failure of the Foxconn investment, India cannot be unaware that Taiwan is a powerhouse of manufacturing, especially computer chips. It is also an important destination for Indian students wanting to study Chinese languageIndia needs to navigate the complex politics of the region carefully. As it is, Beijing is chary of India’s participation in the Quad and the US-led Indo-Pacific strategy. And there is no denying that this is linked to moderating Chinese behaviour in the western Pacific region.
Overall, the lessons of the elections should be obvious. Taiwan is not willing to be assimilated, at least politically, into the Chinese motherland. Beijing needs to reflect on the manner in which it has been relentlessly reducing the independent political space in Hong Kong and seeking the same process for Taiwan.
In the recent elections, despite tough talk, it could not do anything more against Taiwan because it was also on the verge of signing the Phase I trade deal with the US. Further, by now, it should know that heavy-handed tactics would only recoil as they did against the KMT in the election.
President Tsai cannot but be aware of the sensitive situation Taiwan confronts with a China whose economy is under stress and where the ruling CPC is doubling down on its authoritarian rule and adopting a hyper-nationalistic posture. Her style will be to continue on a low-key gradualist political approach which will expand Taiwan’s international space, despite countermeasures by Beijing, taking advantage of the geopolitical currents that are swirling around the region.
Tribune January 21, 2020

फारस की खाड़ी के संकट में भारत का दांव

यह हमारी विदेश नीति पर एक दुखद टिप्पणी है कि अमेरिका ने जनरल कासिम सुलेमानी की हत्या के अपने फैसले के बारे में भारत को सूचना देने की जहमत भी नहीं उठाई। अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति डोनाल्ड ट्रंप ने दावा किया कि ईरानी नेता जनरल सुलेमानी नई दिल्ली में एक आतंकवादी हमले में शामिल थे। वह संभवतः वर्ष 2012 में इस्राइली राजनयिकों पर हुए हमले का जिक्र कर रहे थे। उनके विदेश मंत्री माइक पोम्पियो ने संयुक्त राष्ट्र सुरक्षा परिषद के सभी स्थायी सदस्यों के साथ-साथ जर्मनी और अफगानिस्तान तक से बात की, लेकिन भारत को छोड़ दिया। इसलिए विदेश मंत्री एस जयशंकर ने रविवार को पोम्पियो और ईरान के विदेश मंत्री जावेद जरीफ को फोन करके दोनों पक्षों से संयम बरतने की अपील की। और उसके बाद प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ने भी ट्रंप को फोन किया।
हमलोगों के विपरीत अमेरिका अब खाड़ी के तेल पर निर्भर नहीं है। वह अपने सहयोगियों-इस्राइल, सऊदी अरब, और खाड़ी के शेखशाही की सुरक्षा के लिए ज्यादा चिंतित है। अमेरिकी नीति इस क्षेत्र की राजनीति को संचालित कर रही है, जो इस क्षेत्र के लिए आपदा हो सकती है। याद कीजिए उस अमेरिकी युद्ध को, जिसने इराक को तबाह करके हमें इस्लामिक स्टेट जैसा आतंकी संगठन दिया। और वह युद्ध इस झूठ पर शुरू किया गया था कि सद्दाम हुसैन के पास परमाणु हथियार थे। ईरान के खिलाफ अमेरिकी युद्ध का ईरान और उस क्षेत्र के लिए, जिसमें भारत भी शामिल है, और भी विनाशकारी परिणाम हो सकता है।
सुलेमानी की हत्या के विरोध में प्रदर्शन

हम अपनी जरूरत का 80 फीसदी तेल आयात करते हैं और इसमें से दो तिहाई तेल ईरान के वर्चस्व वाले होर्मुज जलडमरूमध्य के माध्यम से आता है। इसमें किसी भी तरह के व्यवधान से भारत में अराजकता पैदा होगी, क्योंकि हम अब तक एक महत्वपूर्ण तेल भंडार का निर्माण नहीं कर सके हैं। भारत का रणनीतिक तेल भंडार कर्नाटक एवं आंध्र प्रदेश में तीन भूमिगत स्थानों पर है, जिसमें दस दिनों तक खपत के लायक कच्चा तेल है। अतिरिक्त क्षमता के लिए योजना बनी है, पर अब तक निर्माण नहीं हुआ है।

खाड़ी क्षेत्र में अस्थिरता की वजह से तेल की कीमतें मौजूदा 60 डॉलर प्रति बैरल से 70 डॉलर प्रति बैरल तक हो सकती हैं और कहने की जरूरत नहीं कि युद्ध की स्थिति में तेल की कीमतें कितनी बढ़ सकती हैं। ग्लोबल ब्रोकरेज फर्म नोमुरा के अनुसार, कीमतों में हर 10 डॉलर प्रति बैरल की बढ़ोतरी से हमारी जीडीपी में 0.2 प्रतिशत की कमी आ सकती है और मुद्रास्फीति में 30 बेसिस पॉइंट की बढ़ोतरी हो सकती है। इसके अलावा, अगर रुपये में एक साथ मूल्यह्रास होता है, तो प्रति पांच फीसदी मूल्यह्रास से मुद्रास्फीति में 20 बेसिस पॉइंट की बढ़ोतरी होगी। संक्षेप में, यह हमारी अर्थव्यवस्था के लिए एक बुरी खबर होगी।

भारत को अपने सबसे निकटस्थ स्रोत ईरान से तेल आयात करने से रोकने के बाद अमेरिका अब इराक के साथ भी ऐसा करने की राह पर बढ़ सकता है, जो पिछले दो वर्षों में हमारे तेल आयात (20 फीसदी) का सबसे बड़ा स्रोत था। ट्रंप ने इराक को धमकी दी है कि अगर उसने इराक स्थित 5,000 से ज्यादा अमेरिकी सैनिकों को वापस जाने के लिए बाध्य किया, तो अमेरिका इराक पर कठोर प्रतिबंध लगा देगा। बेशक सऊदी अरब, संयुक्त अरब अमीरात और कुवैत जैसे अन्य तेल आपूर्तिकर्ता हैं, लेकिन फारस की खाड़ी की अनिश्चित स्थिति में उन तक पहुंचना एक समस्या हो सकती है।

इसके अलावा एक और कारक है, जिसे भुलाया नहीं जा सकता। सऊदी प्रायद्वीप में 70 लाख से ज्यादा भारतीय नागरिक काम करते हैं और सालाना 40 अरब डॉलर अपने देश में भेजते हैं। भारत को यहां दो तरह की समस्याओं का सामना करना पड़ सकता है। उस क्षेत्र में युद्ध होने से वहां की अर्थव्यवस्था तबाह हो सकती है, जिसके चलते भारतीय नागरिकों को अपने आकर्षक रोजगार को छोड़कर देश लौटना पड़ सकता है। इसके अलावा भारत को उन्हें जल्दबाजी में वहां से निकालने के लिए भी मजबूर होना पड़ सकता है, जैसा कि उसे 1990 में कुवैत के इराकी हमले के दौरान दो लाख और 2015 में यमन से छह हजार नागरिकों को निकालना पड़ा था।

प्रधानमंत्री मोदी ने सऊदी अरब और संयुक्त अरब अमीरात तक पहुंच बनाने के लिए इस क्षेत्र में बहुत सारे व्यक्तिगत प्रयास किए हैं। वह उनके विशाल संप्रभु धन का लाभ उठाना चाहते हैं, जो भारत में बुनियादी ढांचे के निर्माण के लिए बड़े पैमाने पर धन का स्रोत हो सकता है। ये दोनों देश भी अपने तेल से इतर भविष्य के हिस्से के रूप में भारत को देखते हैं और भारत को अपने स्वाभाविक भागीदार के रूप में विकसित होते देखना चाहते हैं। हालांकि युद्ध और संघर्ष उन सपनों की राह में रोड़ा बन सकते हैं।

लंबे समय से पश्चिमी प्रतिबंध झेलने के कारण ईरान के पास उस तरह की अतिरिक्त संपत्ति नहीं है और न ही वहां प्रवासी भारतीय हैं। पर उसके पास विशाल तेल एवं गैस भंडार, एक महत्वपूर्ण भूराजनीतिक क्षेत्र, प्रतिभाशाली व शिक्षित आबादी और विशाल बाजार है। वह लंबे समय से भारत को एक प्रमुख भागीदार के रूप में देखता है और उसने अफगानिस्तान और मध्य एशिया तक पहुंच बनाने के लिए पाकिस्तान की नाकाबंदी को दरकिनार करने के लिए चाबहार बंदरगाह को विकसित करने के लिए भारत को आमंत्रित किया। एक ऐसा समय था, जब ईरानी और भारतीय नीति की समानता ने हमें 1990 के दशक में अफगानिस्तान में तालिबान विरोधी ताकतों के समर्थन में सहयोग करने की अनुमति दी थी।

लेकिन भारत के लिए ईरान के साथ संबंध बनाए रखने के लिए एक अनुकूल नीति तैयार करना मुश्किल हो गया है, यहां तक कि अमेरिका भारत पर 'अधिकतम दबाव' भी बनाए हुए है। अब चिंता इस बात की है कि अगर अमेरिका और ईरान के बीच युद्ध होता है, तो भारत को बिना कुछ हासिल किए कोई पक्ष लेने के लिए मजबूर होना पड़ सकता है, जिसके बदले में भारत को केवल दर्द ही मिलेगा।

Amar Ujala January 7, 2020