Response to IAEA...post
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am writing this post in order to develop more on the IAEA resolution post after I received the comments for it.
First of all I do appreciate the comments and the divergent views expressed on them. Two things which can be deduced from the comments are
i. India alienated Iran by going against it
ii. Indian action was in response to US pressure.
To the first point where Iran has not taken India’s stand favourably is pretty much on expected lines. Iran had to publicly issue that statement, or it would have been taken as Iran acceptance of the resolution. Iran and India are on two different sides or Pakistan has come closer to Iran than India after supporting Iran is juvenile analysis in my opinion. It is too premature to say that this one thing is going to spoil the whole relationship which is there since last two to three decades. Iran has not been referred to Security Council, if not for Indian demarche it would have been immediately referred to Security Council. Now there is an option for further deliberations on this issue and avoid referral to Security Council.
Now 'AngelzFear' said that India could have abstained from voting and kept Iran in good humour, this I would call as analysing in limited scope. India is aiming to get itself a far more powerful stature in world affair as it is now, India is a nuclear power and it has to prove this with its actions. India could not have shied away from this whole issue by abstaining from vote; India had to show that it is a mature nation to take in its stride controversial issues and also to own up the contingent responsibility of a nuclear power. China and Russia could abstain because they don’t need to prove themselves as nuclear power. Nor Iran was too naïve not to understand this abstinence, it would not be sames as support from India which Iran wished. Give some time to understand what deals have been snapped, let us not be incidental in our views.
India was pioneer of NAM and we all know that it has not helped India in any way; we have to shrug off our legacy to create a new world order. India could no longer abstain from world's happening on the pretext of non alignment. You have to get into the system to change the system; mere lip service is not going to help. The resolution would have gone against Iran anyway and what would have followed ? The immediate referral to Security Council could have led to military action against Iran which clearly has been avoided for now and I am sure India will now not let things go that way, or else it would have been too easy.
Why do we think that it was US policy to refer Iran to Security Council, the resolution was moved by EU-3 countries as well. Why do we need to weigh India’s foreign policy in USA’s scales? 'Intelligent Design' says that for the past 15 years (time period of our economic progress) India has been taking caution in its foreign policy. The answer is both yes and no, I won’t say this as cautious steps but as calculated steps. In today’s world order to create a stature of yourself you need to be both economically and militarily capable. Every action has to pass through the impact analysis on both economic and military front. There is no shame in admitting own interest first in any policy, even if this is for economic reasons. Do you think the bargaining power that China today has over USA is due to military strength or due to economic strength?
How can it be said that India has been cowed by USA? Did we sign the CTBT treaty on US pressure? Did we support invasion on Iraq? Are there any Indian troops in Iraq? Please don’t think that India can have stature only by opposing USA every time, we have to think of practicality and ground reality. Let us not be misguided by rhetorics. Immediate referral of Iran to Security Council was very much what USA wanted, it would have become too easy for it then to come up with some report linking Iran with Al Qaeda and then attack it. India has not played into USA’s game plan if this is what people think.
Here I would totally agree with Veera that India is playing a delicate balancing game here and I have always maintained that don’t see this as something between Tehran and Washington, it has much larger ramifications and much larger design for India.
Thanks once again, I would appreciate further views on this.
I am writing this post in order to develop more on the IAEA resolution post after I received the comments for it.
First of all I do appreciate the comments and the divergent views expressed on them. Two things which can be deduced from the comments are
i. India alienated Iran by going against it
ii. Indian action was in response to US pressure.
To the first point where Iran has not taken India’s stand favourably is pretty much on expected lines. Iran had to publicly issue that statement, or it would have been taken as Iran acceptance of the resolution. Iran and India are on two different sides or Pakistan has come closer to Iran than India after supporting Iran is juvenile analysis in my opinion. It is too premature to say that this one thing is going to spoil the whole relationship which is there since last two to three decades. Iran has not been referred to Security Council, if not for Indian demarche it would have been immediately referred to Security Council. Now there is an option for further deliberations on this issue and avoid referral to Security Council.
Now 'AngelzFear' said that India could have abstained from voting and kept Iran in good humour, this I would call as analysing in limited scope. India is aiming to get itself a far more powerful stature in world affair as it is now, India is a nuclear power and it has to prove this with its actions. India could not have shied away from this whole issue by abstaining from vote; India had to show that it is a mature nation to take in its stride controversial issues and also to own up the contingent responsibility of a nuclear power. China and Russia could abstain because they don’t need to prove themselves as nuclear power. Nor Iran was too naïve not to understand this abstinence, it would not be sames as support from India which Iran wished. Give some time to understand what deals have been snapped, let us not be incidental in our views.
India was pioneer of NAM and we all know that it has not helped India in any way; we have to shrug off our legacy to create a new world order. India could no longer abstain from world's happening on the pretext of non alignment. You have to get into the system to change the system; mere lip service is not going to help. The resolution would have gone against Iran anyway and what would have followed ? The immediate referral to Security Council could have led to military action against Iran which clearly has been avoided for now and I am sure India will now not let things go that way, or else it would have been too easy.
Why do we think that it was US policy to refer Iran to Security Council, the resolution was moved by EU-3 countries as well. Why do we need to weigh India’s foreign policy in USA’s scales? 'Intelligent Design' says that for the past 15 years (time period of our economic progress) India has been taking caution in its foreign policy. The answer is both yes and no, I won’t say this as cautious steps but as calculated steps. In today’s world order to create a stature of yourself you need to be both economically and militarily capable. Every action has to pass through the impact analysis on both economic and military front. There is no shame in admitting own interest first in any policy, even if this is for economic reasons. Do you think the bargaining power that China today has over USA is due to military strength or due to economic strength?
How can it be said that India has been cowed by USA? Did we sign the CTBT treaty on US pressure? Did we support invasion on Iraq? Are there any Indian troops in Iraq? Please don’t think that India can have stature only by opposing USA every time, we have to think of practicality and ground reality. Let us not be misguided by rhetorics. Immediate referral of Iran to Security Council was very much what USA wanted, it would have become too easy for it then to come up with some report linking Iran with Al Qaeda and then attack it. India has not played into USA’s game plan if this is what people think.
Here I would totally agree with Veera that India is playing a delicate balancing game here and I have always maintained that don’t see this as something between Tehran and Washington, it has much larger ramifications and much larger design for India.
Thanks once again, I would appreciate further views on this.
posted by greensatya @ 10:28 PM
2 Comments:
At 6:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
It was not about keeping Iran in good humor but to look into our energy needs. Indian firms are looking to buy oil and natural gas blocks in Iran, plus there is LNG deal ( not to be mixed with the India-Pak-Iran pipeline), then there was a proposal to access petroleum resources in Central Asia via Iran, a "reported deal in a rediff article" with Iran securing access to Iranian Air-fields in event of a conflict with Pakistan. All this could have been in danger with this vote. Nuclear energy ful-fills our long term needs but for immediate requirements we are depended on petroleum resources. If Iran decides to blacklist the nations who voted against it from any furthur deals, it would be a win for the Chinese firms in this race for petroleum supplies.And I don't feel we need to assert our nuclear identity by voting for or against a resolution which could endanger our present needs. One thing more..China and Russia would have certainly vetoed any Security Council resolution seeking to invade Iran...so there was nothing for Iran to lose in SC.
I still feel abstaining would have been best in Indian Interests. Thx for addressing my comments in ur post.
At 7:39 PM,
greensatya said…
AngelzFear, thanks for the comment.
My take is that you are keeping in view only the Oil economy of India, the only reason you wanted India to abstain from voting was the energy deal from Iran. The energy deals were not one sided benefit deals, they were mutually beneficial so it is not that easy for Iran to get out of those deals. Secondly the LNG deal with Iran, that is natural gas contract, don’t confuse natural gas market with crude oil market, the dynamics are totally different. There is no cartel in natural gas market; here the bargaining power rests with buyers. Notwithstanding any of these but please think of non-oil economy of India as well, it brings those dollars needed to buy oil from Iran.
The thing about Chinese companies getting the oil and gas blocks from Iran, you may know that there are only two or three blocks in Iran, rest are in countries like Oman, Malaysia, Australia, Qatar and Abu Dhabi . The prospects in Iran are only few like Zufeyr oil field and Yadavaran field. Will Iran like that there are only Chinese companies in the bidding process, this will hurt Iran more. You know all these have been factored in the decision to vote against the resolution. Strategies are not made on the fly!
Now your assessment that China and Russia were going to veto the security council resolution against Iran is highly hypothetical, there is nothing to back this rationale.
And , yes we need to assert ourselves as nuclear identities, no one is going to hand this on platter, we have to get this on our own.
I went through your blog, nice blog and good points you have mentioned about other issues as well.
Good day
Post a Comment
<< Home