|
|||||
|
AFTER three days of discussions, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board finally voted to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council on its nuclear programme. Twenty-seven out of the 35 countries on the board voted for the resolution. Not surprisingly, India was among them. Cuba, Venezuela and Syria voted against the resolution and Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa abstained.
The vote was taken after Washington reluctantly agreed to put in a clause in the resolution to make West Asia "a nuclear weapons-free zone". The resolution expressed "serious" concern about Iran's nuclear programme and said that it may not be "exclusively for peaceful purposes". The resolution requested IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to "report to the Security Council" steps Iran needed to take to dispel suspicions about its nuclear programme.
The Indian government had bargained for a quick vote in the February 2 meeting on the question of referring Iran to the Security Council. The disinformation campaign launched by the Bush administration in the world media gave the impression that the overwhelming majority in the IAEA Board was in favour of the move. Russia and China, which had abstained in the vote against Iran in October, had signalled that this time around they would vote with the United States, France, Britain and Germany.
The Indian government, which had come under considerable criticism domestically for voting against Iran the last time around, was ostensibly sitting on the fence this time. Prime Minster Manmohan Singh had expressed the hope that the dispute would be resolved without the matter being taken to the Security Council. He, however, went on to add that India's vote would depend on the text of the draft resolution. He again denied at a press conference that his government was under pressure from the West: "There is no question of bending... But we are also very keen to have strategic nuclear cooperation so that our energy security can get an added edge." Prior to the vote, senior Indian Foreign Office officials had, however, indicated that the country's vote would once again be with the West.
The majority of the countries representing the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) at the IAEA Board did not blindly offer their support to Washington's position. Interestingly, India, which is a founder member of NAM, seems to be more keen on distancing itself from the organisation. It was Malaysia that chaired the meeting of NAM member-countries on the sidelines of the IAEA meeting at Vienna. The majority of NAM members either sided with Iran or abstained in the vote.
Egypt, with the support of NAM, had spearheaded the move to link Iran's referral to the Security Council to the long-standing demand that the whole of West Asia be declared a "nuclear weapons-free zone". This was an implicit demand that the West should ask its ally in the region, Israel, to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. NAM countries as well as independent observers of the international scene have all been pointing at the double standards involved in the current exercise to blackmail Teheran into giving up its right to engage in peaceful nuclear activities.
Washington, despite the majority of IAEA Board members being in favour of such a resolution, refused to be flexible. Even the European states on the IAEA Board are not averse to this move. France had played a key role in helping Israel develop its nuclear weapons at the Dimona nuclear facility. Arab countries as well as Iran fear nuclear blackmail from the West and Israel. French President Jacques Chirac recently stated that using nuclear weapons to combat terrorism is justified. Every other day, senior Israeli officials threaten to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
Javed Veaidi, the deputy head of Iran's National Security Council, said in the first week of February when the IAEA meet was on that if his country were referred to the Security Council, the proposal to move Iran's uranium enrichment programme to Russia would stand cancelled. Senior Iranian officials have once again said that they are willing to negotiate directly with Washington on the nuclear issue. Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator in Vienna, sent a written communication stating that any referral of Iran to the Security Council "would be the final blow to the confidence of Iran" in the IAEA.
Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said that referring Iran to the Security Council would be an "act of injustice and cruelty" that would undermine the credibility of organisations such as the U.N. Russian and Chinese officials have once again reiterated that they are against economic sanctions being imposed on Iran by the Security Council on the nuclear issue. Russia and China continue to insist that reporting Teheran to the Security Council does not automatically mean the imposition of sanctions.
After the latest turn of events, the Security Council will have to wait first for ElBaradei's comprehensive report on Iran's nuclear programme. The report will be presented in the first week of March. ElBaradei said in the first week of February that he had been told by the major powers that sanctions on Iran were not on the cards. "All of them are saying that this is simply a continuation of diplomacy," he added. ElBaradei told the IAEA Board that Iran had one more month to extend full cooperation to the international community. He told the media in Vienna that "we are reaching a critical phase, but it is not a crisis".
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had vowed to resist pressure from the West. At a rally in the town of Bushehr on February 1, he stressed that on the nuclear issue, his country would resist until it fully achieved its rights. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had warned the IAEA that if Iran were hauled to the Security Council, the country would immediately stop cooperating with the U.N. inspectors and "eject" them from the country. Teheran has also indicated that it will consider seriously the option of walking out from the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and accelerating work on its nuclear projects. The Iranians have reasons to be angry. President George W. Bush had, in his State of the Union address in February, virtually called on the Iranian people for help in effecting a "regime change" in Teheran.
The way India voted in Vienna will have serious repercussions in domestic politics. The U.S. Ambassador to India, David Mulford, is known for his blunt manner of speaking. He seems to have forgotten basic diplomatic norms in the course of an interview he gave to the Press Trust of India (PTI) in the last week of January. The interview was given at a time when there was a national debate on the "Iran" issue and the India-U.S. nuclear deal. The Left parties as well as many of the other leading Opposition parties have been openly critical of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government's handling of the two issues. Many of the parties supporting the UPA government had even threatened to consider withdrawing support to the Congress-led government on the issue.
Mulford, in his interview, "made an observation" that if India did not vote with the West on Iran at the IAEA Board meeting, then "the effect on members of Congress with regard to this civil nuclear initiative will be devastating". Mulford was referring to the opposition in the U.S. Congress to the nuclear cooperation deal signed between India and the U.S. He emphasised that if India did not vote with Washington and the European Union-3 countries (Germany, Britain and France), Congress "will simply stop considering the matter" and the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal "will die in the Congress".
In the course of the interview, Mulford also said that India's plans to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities were in fact "inadequate". He said that Washington wanted more of India's facilities to be classified as civilian so that they were subject to inspection. As recent events have shown, the Indian government has given the "deal" its highest priority. It is only the criticism from the Left parties and the debate that it triggered that has made the government a little cautious in its headlong rush to embrace the Bush administration.
In the face of the protests from almost all major political parties, the government had no other option but to summon the American Ambassador and officially convey the government's displeasure. Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told Mulford that his remarks were inappropriate. The U.S. State Department claimed that the American Ambassador's statement had been taken "out of context". The American reaction came in the wake of the domestic uproar. Mulford had in the same week demanded that India open up unconditionally to foreign direct investment.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) as well as the Bharatiya Janata Party has demanded the recall of the Ambassador. The CPI(M) Polit Bureau, in a statement, termed Mulford's comments as "a serious affront to India and its sovereignty". The CPI(M) said that the government should issue a categorical statement that India would not countenance a reference to the Security Council on the Iran nuclear issue. The party also demanded that the UPA government make public all details about the proposal regarding the separation of civilian and military nuclear facilities. Surprisingly, the BJP, which is known for its pro-American orientation, has called for an all-party meeting to discuss Indo-U.S. relations.
Another illustration of the American imperial overreach was the U.S. State Department's "aide memoire" to the Indian government to protest against the decision to allow Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh to purchase a stake in a Syrian oilfield along with a Chinese company. The Bush administration has included Syria, along with Iran, in its black list. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had earlier advised New Delhi publicly to desist from going ahead with the gas pipeline project with Iran. It may not be a coincidence hence that India's outspoken Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar was shifted out of the high-profile Ministry recently. Murli Deora, who is known for his pro-business and pro-American proclivities, has replaced him. From available indications, the Iran gas pipeline has already been put on the back burner. In any case, Iran may not be in a mood to oblige India after the latest vote in Vienna.
Printer friendly
page
|
