CSS Forums - Will India again go against Iran?

Assalam Alaikum,

__________________________________________
[B]Will India again go against Iran?[/B]

By S.G. Jilanee

THE furore caused by India’s vote at the IAEA in support of US-EU sponsored resolution against Iran seems to have subsided. But the issue is alive with its ramifications. On November 24, the IAEA board of governors will meet again to review the progress on its September 24 Resolution. Will India again side with the West to punish Iran?

Interestingly, even though the last resolution mentioned “recognising the right of states to the development and practical application of atomic energy for peaceful purposes, including the production of electric power, consistent with their Treaty obligations, with due consideration for the needs of the developing countries,” yet the US and EU would not allow Iran to exercise that right.

Instead, the resolution says that “The Board of Governors considers it necessary, to promote confidence, that Iran immediately suspend all enrichment-related activities.” Whose confidence? Why lack of confidence against Iran, in the first place? And why the US, a non-signatory to the NPT should dictate a country that has signed the NPT? To these questions the only answer is, “the might of the US-EU.”

Decisions at the IAEA are traditionally taken by consensus. But the sponsors found that a consensus in this case was impossible, yet the urge to punish Iran was overpowering. So they decided to push the resolution through with a vote rather than allow time to work out a consensus.

Out of 35 members on the board, 22 voted “yes,” 12, all members of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), abstained. The only bold “no” came from George Bush’s bete noir, Venezuela.

They did not need India’s vote to bolster numbers; they already had a majority. It was needed to lend the resolution a representative character and send a message to Iran. So the US arm-twisted India into supporting the resolution. In contrast Pakistan, which is beholden to the US practically for everything, abstained along with Russia, China, Malaysia, South Africa and others.

Keeping in view that India is one of NAM’s founder-members, its defection surprised many observers. It also signalled a wide crack in the movement. Most shocked was Iran. But even inside India, its vote jolted public conscience. In a press statement the CPI (M) Politbureau strongly condemned the stand taken by the Indian government in the IAEA and said it has caused immense damage to India’s standing in the non-aligned and developing countries. A general wave of indignation also brought the BJP and the liberals in the opposition camp closer which some political analysts think can pose a threat to Manmohan Singh government if New Delhi continued to support the US move to punish Iran.

Till the eve of the vote, the Indian government, like Russia, China and the rest of NAM members, had maintained that the Iran issue should be dealt with within the framework of the IAEA and that the decisions should be taken by consensus. Iran’s right to develop its nuclear technology under international safeguards as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, later, when the Associated Press reporter put this question pointedly to India’s foreign secretary Shyam Saran at an interview, the latter admitted that it (India) still holds the same view. But his explanation that India had secured more time to explore ‘all possible avenues to reach a satisfactory resolution of the issues’ failed to click.

Prem Shankar Jha, an Indian analyst, argues that India disagreed with the draft resolution’s ‘finding’ that Iran was ‘non-compliant in the context of Article X11-C of the Agency’s Statute’ and also with the characterization (of) the current situation as a ‘threat to international peace and security.’ And India’s views were accommodated by softening the language of the text. Therefore, says Jha, “India has, by voting for the resolution, earned the right to stay in the game and influence the final outcome. A ‘no’ vote, or an abstention, would have made its views irrelevant.”

But this explanation does not hold water water. What is the worth of India’s “relevance” anyway? And what will two months’ respite achieve? America is hell bent to either force Iran to dismantle its nuclear programme or drag it before the Security Council. Even if the Council is unable to punish it due to Russian and Chinese opposition, America would use the debate for a future resort to military means against Iran as it did against Iraq.

India also knows the possible adverse consequences of the strain in its relations with Iran. For example, Iran has informed it that the five million tonne LNG export deal signed in June is now off. Though Iran has not yet mentioned the 2,135 km, $8 billion Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline, and India’s petroleum minister Mani Shanker Ayer also exudes hope, yet there are speculations that the fate of this project may also be sealed. And even India’s participation in the development of the Chahbahar port in Iran may also be in jeopardy.

Policymakers in New Delhi must have weighed these “minuses” against the “pluses” before ditching Iran to please the US. For example, India is not very keen to go ahead with the pipeline project. It harbours security and economic concerns, such as the fear of sabotage in Pakistan and high price. Economic commentator Chandra Mohan says “India wants this gas as low as $2 mmbtu, but it is being offered at higher than $3 mmbtu.” That is why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in an interview to The Washington Post in July, said that the Iranian pipeline deal was fraught with “many risks” and that “We are in a state of preliminary negotiations.” So from India’s viewpoint the nuclear deal with the US was far more lucrative.

The plain truth is that the US had given the blunt message that the nuclear cooperation agreement would not be ratified by the US Congress if India took an independent stand. It must choose its friends between Iran and the US. And it chose the latter with eyes wide open.

Nor can India be unaware of America’s designs against Iran and the history of their hostile relations which dates back to about fifty years? In 1953 the CIA mounted a coup in which Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq was ousted and the Shah was restored to his throne. Mossadeq was put under house arrest, but some of his close associates, including the foreign minister, were executed.

The Iranians retaliated later with the ransacking of the US embassy in Tehran and taking hostages, after the Shah was finally toppled. In 1980 America prodded Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, leading to war that lasted for about eight years. On July 3, 1988, USS Vincennes shot down an Iran Air commercial plane on a regular flight on Tehran-Bandar Abbas-Dubai route, without any provocation, killing all the 290 people on board. And, finally, for George Bush, Iran is one-third of his axis of evil. He is determined to attack Iran.

[B]More chilling is a report in “The Telegraph” of Calcutta which appeared on September 26. In the fifth paragraph of the article, “Gulf factor key to PM’s Iran vote decision,” it says: “Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush’s term ends.” Those who know Bush’s mindset would understand that a new war is the only way he can easily sail through to a third term.[/B]

What kind of forces an invasion of Iran will unleash is difficult to predict. But the recent clash between the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during the latter’s visit to Moscow provides some indications. Speaking to reporters after their meeting, with regard to Iran’s right to enrich uranium, Lavrov said: “All members of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have this right.” Rice retorted: “It is not a question of rights... the NPT doesn’t come only with rights but also with obligations. This is not an issue of rights but of whether or not the fuel cycle can be trusted in Iran.”

By signing up for a role in America’s ‘grand design’, India has obviously decided to play for very high stakes. But Indians have traditionally been great gamblers. During the Kurukshetra days, the Pandavas staked even the common spouse, Draupadi, in a game of dice with their rival Kauravas. An lost! Will history repeat itself?

_____________________________________________________________

[B]Note: Read that BOLD LETTERS PARA, and leave your comments, that is something really worth commenting on.

Because the only President who was able to serve more that twice was FDR, who was elected four times, due to the WWII. George W. Bush, on the other hand worked relentlessly to connect the war on Terrorism to that of his logic of AXIS OF EVIL states, may be able to pull the option to run again.[/B]