|
|||||
|
THE decision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors to opt for continued negotiations with Iran on the nuclear issue is welcome news for the international community. The Manmohan Singh government has reasons to be relieved by the turn of events.
India, in a surprising move at the last IAEA meeting in September, extended its support to the United States and the European Union in their confrontation with Iran on its nuclear programme. The IAEA had threatened to refer the issue to the United Nations Security Council. India's volte-face created a political furore in the country.
This time round, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh gave assurances to the Left parties in the third week of November that India would not support a resolution referring Iran to the Security Council for possible sanctions. Addressing a press conference in Dhaka during the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit in the second week of November, the Prime Minister said India would decide on the issue after ascertaining all the facts. It is evident that the government knew in advance, like other friends of the West, that Iran was on the verge of being given a reprieve.
According to many analysts, the U.S. and the E.U.-3 (Britain, France and Germany) had very little option but to step back from their brinkmanship, given the opposition of Russia and China and other IAEA Board members such as Syria, Cuba and Belarus, against punitive action. Iran has announced that it would go ahead with its uranium enrichment programme now.
Iran, so far, has not rejected the Russian proposal of advanced enrichment of uranium in Russia. The proposal, backed by the U.S. and the E.U., aims at guaranteeing that Iran would not divert material for the production of atomic weapons.
The spokesman for the Iranian delegation to the IAEA has, however, reiterated that before it considers the Russian proposal, the international community should acknowledge the country's right to pursue peaceful nuclear technology. He also demanded guarantees that Iran should have the right to master nuclear fuel cycle activities and seek foreign cooperation and assistance in this field.
The U.S. and the E.U. continue to maintain a tough negotiating posture. Their spokesmen accused Teheran of "concealment". IAEA Director-General Mohammed ElBaradei also said that more transparency was "indispensable" and that clarification from Iran was overdue. He, however, felt that comprehensive IAEA surveillance coupled with an active dialogue process was the best way forward.
Chief Iranian negotiator Ali Larijani told the media in Vienna after the climbdown by the West that he "did not think that the idea of referring Iran to the Security Council was serious. In an atmosphere of dialogue we should not resort to threats because every threat can be reciprocated".
European diplomats are of the opinion that despite the tough stance adopted by Iran, the government in Teheran will be more receptive to Western concerns. They say the last thing Iran wants is a referral to the Security Council.
China and Russia have stuck to their positions that Iran's nuclear programme should be left to the IAEA to handle. The U.S. and the E.U.-3 tried to confuse international opinion by spreading stories that suggested that the two countries were veering towards the Western viewpoint. Russia and China are strong economic interests in Iran.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry, in a statement on November 24, emphasised that China had a "consistent position" on the issue.
AN External Affairs Ministry statement said the IAEA's latest decision vindicated India's position that engaging Iran in a dialogue was the best way to resolve the issue. It conveniently glossed over the fact that India voted with the West in September. The statement also tried to spotlight the nefarious activities of the Pakistan-based A.Q. Khan network in proliferation activities. One of the arguments put forward by the U.S. and the E.U.-3 was that Iran got much of its nuclear know-how including drawings of the core of a nuclear warhead, from the A.Q. Khan network.
Iran admitted that it did receive some documents from the network during the 1980s and said that it handed over all documents relating to bomb-making to the IAEA in 2003. An Iranian statement prepared for the IAEA Board meeting accused the "U.S. and terrorist groups" of fabricating evidence against Iran.
Officials in the Ministry of External Affairs claim that if Iran's case had been referred to the Security Council by the IAEA, Tehran would have walked out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and cut off links with the IAEA.
The Left parties warned the government that its support for the U.S.-E.U. resolution in September had queered the pitch for Iran. The government has still not indicated firmly the way it will vote if the Iran issue crops up again at the IAEA. The next Board meeting is to be held in March 2006.
Meanwhile, Iran has taken its case to the American people directly. In a full-page advertisement in The New York Times on November 18, the Iranian government said that developing nuclear weapons was "counter-productive" for the country.
According to senior Indian officials disillusioned by the sudden shift in foreign policy, the decision to side with the West in September was taken by a handful of people. The External Affairs Ministry was not kept in the loop on this key foreign policy decision. According to an official, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Indian Ambassador to Washington, Ronen Sen, played pivotal roles.
United Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi approved the decision only after she was convinced about it by Ronen Sen, a close associate of the Nehru-Gandhi family. The rationale put forward by those arguing for a close alliance with the U.S. was that it was the "key to India's prosperity". New Delhi hopes that a stronger relationship with Washington will ensure unquestioning support from the West for India in its fight "against cross-border terrorism and Pakistan".
The other scenario being factored in by the pro-U.S. lobby in the PMO is of the looming U.S.-China showdown. U.S. policymakers want India to play a more active role in acting as a "counter weight" to what they see as the emerging superpower, China. The official said that the shift in India's foreign policy priorities has the backing of influential sections of the country's business community, the security establishment and the anti-Muslim sections in Indian politics. The official also blamed the Congress party for the drift. "It is a party with no ideology and no value systems," he said.
According to some Indian officials dealing with foreign policy, there is no need for India to bend over backwards to please Washington. "Investment and technology are politically neutral. They would have come to India even if there were hostility from Washington. Nuclear technology is not going to be shared by the West anyway," an official said. They are of the view that Pakistan will continue to be the U.S.' trusted partner in the "war against terror" for the foreseeable future.
Most foreign policy experts agree that the conflicts of the 21st century will not revolve around politics but on the control of resources and energy. Some Indian officials are of the opinion that the country will be better served if relations with countries such as Iran are strengthened rather than catering to the U.S.' strategic needs in Asia. Supporting U.S. policies in Iraq, Israel and in West Asia in general, will be suicidal for Indian foreign policy. "Iran is our strategic ally. We don't buy the American arguments regarding that country," said a senior official who has dealt extensively with West Asia. He is of the opinion that the present government is giving too much emphasis to the question of civilian nuclear power. The official emphasised that nuclear energy can never be a substitute for fossil fuels in India. "Coal, oil and gas will provide 85 per cent of India's energy mix. At most nuclear power can provide 10 per cent of India's need," said the official.
Even on India's nuclear deal with the U.S., not much progress has been made. The U.S. Congress is taking a tough stance while many members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) remain opposed to the lifting of the sanctions on India. NSG decisions are taken by consensus. The official said that it would be difficult to accede quickly to Washington's demand for the division of India's nuclear facilities into civilian and military ones. "India's nuclear establishment is an integrated one. It is not ready for international inspections," said the official.
The view among many in India's foreign policy establishment is that the gains made by India during the Cold War decades should not be given up for the illusory "pie in the sky" promised by the U.S. "India is too big to be allied with the U.S. We are the best guardians of our security interests. Our interest cannot be handled by a nation thousands of miles away."
Printer friendly
page
|
