© Counter Intuitve

But before we outrage and react to the news there are points that must be reexamined. In its defense Rome argued that not only does it doubts ‘the facts, procedures and processes’ of the case being pursued in India, it on solid grounds if the case is pursued under International Law of the Seas Convention (UNCLOS). Apparently, it had also proposed a setting up a meeting at the diplomatic level to resolve the issue amicably but India reportedly kept mum on that. In a show of perfect Machiavellian craft, it did what it knows will tilt the case in the Marine’s favour–hold the marines back and try them on the home soil. Our government should therefore understand that a mere “send them back, else there will be consequences” will not work when Italy knows that once the Marines were out of India it will be very difficult for India to bring them back. So now even if India were to complain to the EU or its member countries individually, it’s most likely that they will take Italy’s side or at best countries like France, whose companies are vying for in mega-billion dollar contracts from the Indian government will come  up with a ‘we can only do so much’ explanation. Therefore, there is a need for introspection before we pursue the case further internationally. It will reflect greatly on our reputation as a 21-century major power how we move forward with this case.

There is confusion in India when it comes to the jurisdiction of the case. In an article in the Hindu, Observer Research Foundation’s Samir Saran states that it is well recorded that the incident took place about 20.5 nautical miles from the Indian baseline, therefore, beyond the territorial waters of India, but well within India’s contiguous zone. Weather such zone can be treated to the same laws as that of the High Seas is what Italy and India have continuously disagreed on.

Article 33(1) of UNCLOS has this to say about a contiguous zone:

“In a zone contiguous to its territorial sea, described as the contiguous zone, the coastal State may exercise the control necessary to: (a) prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea; (b) punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.”

Going by this definition, if the case finally reaches an international court, India needs to prove that the actions of the two Marines infringed “regulations within its territory or territorial sea” even though for all other purposes a contiguous zone is International Waters. Although, India also has the Suppression of Unlawful Acts of Violence Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988 (SUA) on its side many of its provision may clash with provisions of UNCLOS. It cannot be said then that which ones will prevail in such a situation.

If the case were to reach an international court, say The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague, India would try to impress upon these points to bring back the Marines and let face the trail in India again. If such a route is indeed taken, India should be on a higher ground to punish the two Marines since then it will also have international sanction to proceed with the case.

 Indian Naivety and European Hubris

To my mind, nothing is more reminiscent of the European superiority complex than the case Enrica Lexie. Had the shootings took place anywhere near the Gulf of Aden, known to be infested with Somali pirates, it would have made sense that such an incident, mistakenly or intentionally, occurred. But in relatively piracy-free and calmer waters a trigger-happy duo firing at innocent Indian fishermen without caring to follow even the basic guidelines issued under Alert Embankment Guidelines is simply outrageous. Add to that their government tried every trick in the book, and as we now know even turn back on its own word to make sure that the Marines are not subjected to a due legal process in India just because they tend to be on thinner grounds here. And that even when the Indian Supreme Court allowed Italy to challenge India’s very claim of exclusive jurisdiction over the issue.

But what baffles me more is the naivety of the Indian government at display here. Granted the two Marines were first allowed to leave India by the Kerala High Court to be with their respective families for Christmas on grounds of trust and compassion. However, having known that Italy is doing everything it can to free the Marines from the clutches of Indian authorities, Indian authorities should have been more cautious to let them go the second time. They were, after all, not in jail for some lesser charges but a full-fledged murder trial. It’s not that that if these two Marines had not voted, Italy would have been saved a hung Parliament. 

Feeling Hopeless – Italian Marines in India (© The Indian Express)

For Domestic Consumption

To me the worst byproduct of this contest is the politicisation of the issue, something which has already happened. In an election year Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Monti was repeatedly attacked by the opposition during election campaigns last year for not being able to bring back the Marines, which perhaps partially explains his Foreign Minister’s regular trips to India to free them. Moreover, Italy’s internal economic conditions has given rise to a wave of nationalistic fervour that has put more pressure on its government to act more decisively.

While either country would like to deal with the other from position of power, neither thinks that is can. Italy, in the midst of the financial crisis now sees itself as weak country vis-à-vis India rising stature as a regional heavy-weight and financially far stronger. The view on the Indian side of Italy is that of developed western power that wants to assert its superiority in an international contest. Such attitudes have increasingly diluted the rational arguments in the case that is now increasingly being fought on the pretext of national pride.

In India particularly, any incident in which Italy is involved is automatically bound to become a political issue due to it being Sonia Gandhi’s country of birth. Anticipating that any move which may seem lenient on its face, the Congress-led UPA government has felt a greater need to show more bravado than is necessary. With election only a year away it does not want to give the opposition a reason to pander upon. Had it been any nation other than Italy, it would have passed of like the headlines of any new scam.

Therefore, the domestic political compulsions of government of both the countries will ensure that issue is not resolved amicably or at its earliest. We should not be surprised if even a month or two down the line there no serendipity for India. Expect the impasse to continue. Moreover, as things stand to this day the government is now also stuck between its obligation under Vienna Convention (to grant diplomatic immunity to the Italian Ambassador) and its obligation towards the highest court of the country, which has asked him not to leave the country.

"The majority of the perpetrators of the Gujarat violence walk free, assuming that they will not be punished by the State institutions which have simply failed to ensure justice for the victims. The fact that more than 2,000 people can be murdered and the lives of thousands of others shattered in Gujarat with only a small number of the perpetrators brought to justice is offensive to any notion of justice".

Modi has thus become a polarising figure not only in the domestic political scene in India but also among international politics as protesters line up to protest his presence in foreign capitals. But that has not deterred ambassadors of countries like Canada, Japan or even Germany to flock to Modi's Vibrant Gujarat spectacle. In October last year, after years of diplomatic boycott, Britain opened up to Modi when its High Commissioner to India announced plans to call on Modi in Gujarat. "You have to engage directly, even with governments you do not like" wrote the Indian daily Hindustan Times quoting a former British cabinet minister. Modi had then expressed his happiness about the decision in a gleeful tweet, “better late than never” she said on the micro-blogging site adding, “God is great”.

International recognistion, at a time when civil society is still vigorously fighting for justice for victims of Gujarat riots, has come as a big shot in the arm for Modi, who prolifically boasts of such endorsements. At his speech at SRCC, Modi asked the youth to learn to grab business opportunities to bring the country back on path of progress. It resembled more of a business leader rather than a future prime ministerial candidate looking  to woo young votes. Instead of criticising the present government Modi chose to entice his audience by portraying himself as a visionary leader reminding the audience repeatedly how he has done great things in Gujarat despite the state being devout of any major natural resources.

Modi knows his strength lies not in political arguments where he's repeatedly challenged to provide an answer to what happened under his watch in 2002, but rather under the flag of development that Indian youth so desperately wants after repeated slumping growth figures. He has not shown much allegiance to his party's cause célèbre, the 'Hindutva plot' of which building the Ram Temple at Ayodhya is a major goal. 

Indian historian and Modi’s critics Ramachandra Guha pointed out in his article in The Hindu newspaper that Modi has survived much from those allegations and has been partially successful in changing the popular narrative surrounding him to the development issue because none of the courts have implicated the man himself of any wrong doing. They point out that his bigger crime with regards to his national ambitions today is not his alleged role in the Gujarat riots but his authoritarian way of doing things. They say that Modi doesn't see India as one envisioned by its forefathers-a secular pluralist nation that treats all its citizens equally but as an extension of himself by placing his loyalists at major positions of power. Needless to say resemblance to Hitler's rise are often made. 

On Saturday, Modi updated his blog with a post in which he claimed that he has been invited to attend the European Parliament. It's ironic if not fully understandable that a body such as the EU that has always put human right as one of its top priority in international relations has invited a person so widely accused of human rights abuses. The Hindu newspaper reported earlier that much of this thaw in EU-Modi relationship can be attributed not only to EU seeking a footprint in Gujarat development but because it is concerned of being left behind if Modi wins the 2014 general elections.

"Had they met Mr. Modi a year later, critics would have pulled them up for interference in the country’s internal affairs at a time when general elections were close at hand. And the two arguments that turned doubters among the EU envoys in favour of those who proposed a face-to-face meeting with him were: 10 years were a decent enough waiting period and people were repeatedly electing Mr. Modi and the men close to him in largely free and fair elections."

Going by the current trend Modi's last major should be the United States. Up until now it has repeatedly denied him a visa. However, there are signs that things are changing on that front as well. Even though it does not want to be seen courting Modi directly, the US has been involved in some back track diplomacy that has kept the channel of communications with Modi open. The Hindu report above claims that the US which has been "allocated a site for a multibillion-dollar nuclear park in the State, has been regularly dispatching its political counsellors from the embassy here for meetings in Ahmedabad.". A US endorsement will give Modi the ultimate weapons to fire at his political opponents while also removing a major obstacle in his claim to the top post.

To my mind, the oversimplified narrative of the video bring back memories of Bush's 2002 Axis of Evil speech, in which he labelled Iran, Iraq and North Korea as centres of "evil" (nations and regimes that posed no direct threat to America, but were guilty of undermining America's hegemony is the world and therefore must be destroyed, as we saw in case of Iraq in 2003 and now Iran). The one-sided oversimplification of the perception of threat from the Axis of Evil was blatantly pushed by the Bush administration in order to make a case for an invasion of Iraq. But when they were unable to convince the rest of the world, that probably saw through its bluff, they went alone. I don't think this is the right platform to have a discourse over the Iraq war. A a lot of newsprint has already been wasted to show how the illegal war eventually led to the current global financial deluge. (Though, in case you might be interested, the most comprehensive analysis of the 2003 war's link to the financial crisis comes in economist Joseph Stigliz's and Linda Bilmes' book 'The Three Trillion Dollar War' and then in his subsequent article in The Washington Post in 2010 (and a video).

Moreover, as we have seen in case of both Iraq and Afghanistan, military missions comes with serious humanitarian consequences. In Afghanistan, the fighting between Western forces and fundamentalist militias led by the Taliban has plunged the whole of Afghanistan and Pakistan into virtual militarised zones. Unemployment in both countries is at an all time high and social services crippling, at least in Pakistan (in Afghanistan they never existed under the Taliban to begin with). Add to that a mounting toll of civilian causalities, which according to one estimate is close to 37,000 since 2001, is way more than the Taliban were capable of killing had the US forces never invaded the country after the events of September 11th. 

In hindsight, a majority Americans now think that the war has not been worth fighting. The Bush administration spent trillion of dollars to invade Afghanistan just to get bin-Laden "dead or alive". And in doing so the US plunged an already devastated region into further chaos and commotion. To see through the effects of 'collateral damage' was never a priority for the Bush administration - and al-Qaida still remains a potential threat, even after more than 10 years since the war began.

This, however, cannot be overlooked now that world has suffered so much because of these fruitless wars. Humanitarian consequences must be taken into account when ordering military action in areas where there are large number of civilian pockets. 

With the consequences of two military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq still troubling the world's economic recovery and having created a massive humanitarian crisis, it's hard not to think of what Invisible Children's plan of action may lead to in so far as collateral damage is concerned. Critics of the video have pointed out how the information promulgated through the video is outdated and in at least one instance totally incorrect (Kony doesn't have 30,000 children as soldiers, that's the number of  children LRA has abducted since its inception). The same article points out that Kony after being pushed out of northern Uganda in 2006 has long since left the country for good and may actually be living in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This important fact, has somehow manage to slip from the video's narrative. Analogously thinking, any military intervention in that part of the world will unarguably kill more women, children and abled-body men than it can ever save. Moreover, to have a military operation in a region like central Africa is not without its own pitfalls. The "bad guy" cannot be caught or killed without having massive 'combing operations' in a region that is evidently full of dense forests. Somehow, the video, while calling for inhalation of Kony and the LRA fails to take into account the number of civilians, including the very children it's purporting to save, that may perish in trying to get a single man. As the article, written by a scholar who has lived and worked in Uganda, points out:

One of the biggest issues with a simplistic "Stop Kony" message is that discussions of Navy Seals or drone strikes are inevitable when patience runs out with Ugandan-led efforts . But what about the dozens or hundreds of abducted and brainwashed kids? Should we bomb everyone? Will they actually stop fighting after Kony is gone? What if they shoot back?

But of course, none of this seems to bother the makers of the video who expect the audience to be as forthcoming and enthusiastic as the narrator Jason Russell's son. The Invisible Children co-founder fails to realise that while childish lines like "We know what to do. Here it is, ready?" may get his 5-year old to jump with enthusiasm, it is not likely to go well with people who know anything more about Kony than the video actually bothers to tells them. Enthusiastic 20-something volunteering activists are great to have to raise awareness, but they may not be the best lot when critical issues are at hand, especially ones that put the lives of thousands of people at stake. It's one thing to order the military to get the target "dead or alive" and it's another to actually get it. In between years gets passed, administrations get changed and civilian toll mounts to the thousands. Clearly the devil is in the detail, and no one involved in making the Kony 2012 video seem to have done their homework sincerely. The video shows that good editing skills and superior marketing techniques can surely get you millions of views or sell brackets, but it may not actually transpire into any meaningful action in solving a problem that goes much deeper than the madness of an aging militiaman.

P.S.: While going through numerous blogs and twitter posts, I came across one that had a link to this inspiring speech by Nigerian author Chimamanda Adichie about the dangers of reading a story from only a single perspective. Here is a quote from her speech that is more relevant to today's Africa than it is to anything else.

A case in point is CNN's coverage of the Syrian crisis. Before I analyse how CNN reported from the UN's headquarter from New York, I must convey to the readers that unbiasness in reporting can have many manifestations. It could be giving less weight-age to a fact in the story that do no good to the official position, it could also include inviting guests that have sympathy towards only one aspect of the story or even just repeatedly reiterating what one side is saying. CNN is guilty of the latter. First of all, it's interesting to note how American media seriously starts to pursue a story only when there has been an official statement from the US administration about it. The Syrian killings were nowhere to be seen on American media's websites till the time Obama asked Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down, after which it was front page news. Overall, the changes one notices in American media's attitude after a US president makes a statement are as follows: 

The number of reports about the issue see a massive rise

It starts to appear somewhere on the main page of news websites or captures headlines on TV and newspapers

They usually either reflect the America's foreign policy establishment's known viewpoint or the new tone the president has taken and sometimes it's a mix of both

America is shown as savior of humanity and its background role in instigating the crisis is often either ignored altogether or is not analysed critically

The other side of the story is dismissed as the belligerent administration's propaganda

When the UN voted last Monday on Syrian government's fate, CNN repeatedly focused on US' Ambassador's to UN's Sussan Rice's remark, that she felt "disgusted" that China and Russia had VETOed a resolution which could have saved hundreds of lives (although, she conspicuously failed to mentioned how many would have died had US attacked the country, like in Libya). CNN, like a good daughter, got into the mode of reinforcing US' official position that rebel groups in Syria are the only legitimate political and representative voice and that al-Assad should immediately step down to make way for them to form a democratic government. In other word's CNN seemed to be endorsing US' stance of a regime change even thought it didn't say it explicitly.

CNN's reporting of the Syrian crisis has mainly focused on the rebels killed my Syrian forces and no thought had been spared to focus on the origins of the rebel groups or from where they are getting weapons and support. 

In contrast, the BBC has been pleasantly unbias - reporting things as they are on ground while also frequently reporting what Russian and Chinese views are on the issue. This neutrality is missing in CNN's coverage. It seems to me as if CNN is almost going along with US' demands of a regime change. And in all this diplomacy is nowhere to be seen (which I may also add is India's official position - that diplomacy must take centre-stage. Different Syrian groups should be brought to the negotiating table and negotiations held for a change, not regime change). 

Another channel that needs a mention here and without which this article would seem bias is the Moscow-based Russian state-funded RT, formerly Russia Today. To my mind RT can be summed up in two words - Putin's mouthpiece. RT is purportedly financed by the Russian state and the channel can't stop bragging about how well Russia is doing while only the most gloomy stories from the West, and in particular America, make it on-air on RT.