.png)
.jpg)
The Indian government, badly buffeted by an economic slowdown, is extremely concerned at the imminent possibility of a military conflagration in West Asia.
Not only has this volatility in the region sent crude oil prices rocketing, any conflict in the region is likely to affect the millions of Indians living in West Asia and the Persian Gulf.
India, while expressing "grave concern" at the likelihood of chemical weapons having been used, has urged caution and sought the outcome of the UN weapons inspectors' report, before arriving at any conclusions.
Responding to media reports regarding the alleged use of chemical weapons in areas near Damascus ten days ago, the Spokesman of the Indian Ministry of External Affairs said, "there have been media reports regarding alleged use of chemical weapons in areas near Damascus in Syria, resulting in a large number of casualties. If the use of chemical weapons is confirmed, it is a matter of grave concern."
"India," the spokesman said, "has consistently supported the complete destruction and elimination of chemical weapons world-wide. Pending their elimination, it is vitally important to ensure safe and secure custody of chemical stockpiles and prevent their access to terrorists and non-state actors. We stress that the international legal norm against the use of chemical weapons anywhere and by anyone must not be breached.”
As it became clear that a US strike on Syria was imminent, the spokesman sought to allay concern about the fate of Indians in Syria, saying on Saturday that an advisory has been issued urging all Indians to immediately leave that country. "Our Mission in Damascus is in contact with the approximately 25-30 Indian citizens in Syria. All Indian citizens are safe," the spokesman said. However, anticipating an escalation in hostilities, "we have advised all Indian citizens in Syria to return to India." An earlier "advisory for Indian nationals not to travel to Syria also remains in effect."
US President Barack Obama's precise statement from the White House left little scope for doubt that a military conflict was inevitable in Syria, even as his government acknowledges "war fatigue" and is in the process of winding up its military campaign in Afghanistan. It remains to be seen exactly what form the US military intervention in Syria would assume, given President Obama's assertion that there would be "no boots on the ground."
How the Bashar al- Assad regime will react, whether Russia will choose to get involved, given that it has moved some of its warships to the region, and how Iran will react are major areas of concern for not just India and the region, but for the entire global economy and community.
STRATFOR adds :
In a public address Aug. 31, U.S. President Barack Obama made two critical points: First, he will authorize the use of military force to respond to the Syrian regime's alleged chemical weapons attack (while maintaining that the military response would be a limited, punitive strike). Second, he will engage with the U.S. lawmakers on the matter, allowing time for a vote to take place once Congress returns Sept. 9.
Obama is trying to sustain momentum for a military action against Syria, emphasizing that the U.S. intelligence community has evidence that legitimizes an attack while downplaying the timetable for the release of the pending U.N. inspection report. While demonstrating that his administration has not wavered in its position, Obama is also subtly and strategically creating room for a possible exit from this decision if Congress votes against U.S. action in Syria.
Obama did not have to put the decision for a military operation to a congressional vote. However, by working with senior lawmakers, the administration could justify a strike by arguing that that it had engaged with the country's representatives. But Obama has found himself in a very tight corner after the British leg of the coalition collapsed this week.
Even though the United States is operationally ready to carry out a limited strike on Syria, it does not necessarily want to be seen as taking unilateral action. The United States' best bet in creating the appearance of a coalition is currently on France, which is holding a parliamentary debate on Syria on Sept. 4, though the vote could still turn out the way of the British.
By declaring his intent to authorize U.S. military action at this stage, the United States can maintain an element of operational surprise and try to use the threat of an attack to force a negotiated settlement, but prospects toward that end remain low. The president's need to reassure the American public about a limited strike contradicts his need to apply enough pressure on the Syrian regime to bend in a negotiation. An ultimatum at this point would amount to an empty gesture, and so far Obama has avoided making one for that reason.
Obama has deliberately injected more time into this process for good reason: He has cornered the United States into making a transparent, symbolic gesture on its own. This is not necessarily the path that the United States wants to take, and so he will place the onus of the decision on the U.S. Congress, while giving time to possible coalition partners (namely, the French) to define their position. Obama will be leaving for Sweden and the G-20 summit on Sept. 4 and be back in time for Congress' return from summer recess. This subtle softening of the U.S. position does not necessarily preclude a U.S. military strike on Syria, but it does drag out the timeline for at least 10 more days.