Opinion: Trump’s Peace Board raises old questions

THE Board of Peace established by US President Donald Trump has so far found few takers. Invitations have reportedly gone out to 60 countries, asking them to join "an international organisation that seeks to promote stability, restore dependable and lawful governance, and secure enduring peace in areas affected or threatened by conflict." Quite clearly, it is not the same Board of Peace that was envisaged in Trump's facile 20-point Gaza peace plan. That one was to be a transitional body, headed by Trump, to supervise a proposed interim, technocratic Palestinian committee for the day-to-day running of Gaza. The UNSC endorsed the idea and gave the Board a two-year mandate.This one is entirely different. Trump sees it as a free-range body, unrestricted by national boundaries or questions of sovereignty, to intervene in situations of conflict around the world, all under his leadership. With his offer of "permanent seats" to countries that will pay a membership fee of $1 billion, Trump does not see the body as bound by any UN rules, much less the UNSC's two-year mandate that is due to end in November 2027.France has let on that it does not intend to join this latest of Trump's many unilateral moves to reshape the world in his image. Canada's PM Mark Carney has said he was prepared to consider it "on principle", but he will not pay for membership.India has received the invitation, too, and is reported to be weighing its options, like most other nations facing this googly. It is worth remembering that this is not the first time that India has been invited to join a US-led coalition to carry out the agenda of the president-in-office at the time.The pressure the US brought to to send soldiers to Iraq in 2003 is no secret. Admittedly, today's US under its current President is unrecognisable from the one 22 years ago, and the geopolitics is far more complex today. But then, so was India not half the country it is today, nor did its leadership flaunt itself as Vishwaguru. The story of how Delhi held its nerve during those tense months serves as a useful reminder of a time when Raisina Hill was able to stiffen its back and hold its own in tough circumstances.When George W Bush invaded Iraq on the double lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that he was in cahoots with Osama bin Laden, the US-India romance was in its early stages.On March 19, 2003, without explicit authorisation from the Security Council, the US and the UK carried out what they called a "pre-emptive" attack on Iraq. Earlier, in an effort to build an international "coalition of the willing" for the war, the US had asked 50 countries — India was not in this list — to assist it in the endeavour, hoping in this way to build international legitimacy.Only 30 responded, and apparently 15 others wanted their names to not be listed publicly. Britain sent 45,000 troops, while Australia and Poland also sent small numbers of ground forces. Others gave assistance in a non-combat capacity.It was only weeks after Bush declared in May 2003 that the US mission in Iraq had been accomplished that the US approached India for a division of troops (around 18,000 soldiers) to work under the overall command of the two occupying powers, the US and the UK, and help "stabilise" the situation.The Indian Parliament had "deplored" (rather than the stronger "condemned') the invasion of Iraq and called the US military action "unacceptable". The Vajpayee government's response to the US request for assistance — that it had good relations with both the US and Iraq, and therefore would take the "middle path" — saw US diplomacy swing into action.The US envoy in India, Robert Blackwill, who enjoyed enormous goodwill and access in Delhi, and other especially dispatched Bush emissaries worked on the government. In an interview to The Hindu, Blackwill spoke of a "major role" for India on the "inner board of directors" that would be in charge of security in Iraq during its transition to democracy. Blackwill projected that India's role on the security side would also give it influence on the political and diplomatic aspects of the transition.When Home Minister LK Advani visited the US in early June, President Bush and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld spoke to him on the subject of India sending soldiers to Iraq. Advani made no commitment. His visit was followed by the arrival of Pentagon officials in India. The strategic community was divided. Those who supported sending troops said it would help India break out of its "South Asia box" and increase its standing in the world.The late B Raman, who retired as head of the counter-terrorism division of the Research and Analysis Wing, warned of dire consequences. "Indian troops will get sucked into a bloody counter-insurgency operation as the surrogates of the U.S., losing whatever goodwill India had earned in Iraq and the rest of the Arab world in the past," Raman wrote warning that "a new breed of jehadi terrorists born out of the Iraq war" would start targeting India, making the domestic counter-terrorism challenge even tougher.Finally, on July 14, 2003, India announced it would not send troops to Iraq without a UN mandate. "The Government of India has given careful thought to the question of sending Indian troops to Iraq. Our longer term national interest, our concern for the people of Iraq, our long-standing ties with the Gulf region as a whole, as well as our growing dialogue and strengthened ties with the US have been key elements in this consideration.India remains ready to respond to the urgent needs of the Iraqi people for stability, security, political progress and economic reconstruction. Were there to be an explicit UN mandate for the purpose, the Government of India could consider the deployment of our troops in Iraq."India refused to send troops even after the October 2003 UNSC Resolution 1511, "authorising a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq." Delhi said it could not send troops due to the situation in Kashmir, but pledged $10 million for Iraqi reconstruction.Trump is far more ambitious than Bush, a different creature altogether. Diplomacy has no place in his narcissistic schemes. It is not too late for India to find its voice, just as the Vajpayee government did two decades ago, to stand up to Trump and say no to his new plan to reshape the world in his image. In doing so, India may even inspire others to call out the plan for what it is and decline the invitation categorically.

Opinion: Trump’s Peace Board raises old questions

As India ponders Trump's invite to join the Board of Peace, here's a recall of Vajpayee's refusal to send troops in support of Iraq invasion.

Nirupama Subramanian

Opinion: Trump’s Peace Board raises old questions

As India ponders Trump's invite to join the Board of Peace, here's a recall of Vajpayee's refusal to send troops in support of Iraq invasion.

Nirupama Subramanian

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article