People's Democracy

India-Iran Relations Cannot Be Hostage To US

Prakash Karat

THE United States is demanding that India line up with it against Iran on the nuclear issue. The US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, has said on September 9 that India, China and Russia should join the United States in referring the case against Iran on the nuclear issue to the UN Security Council.

Earlier, the visit of India’s external affairs minister, Natwar Singh, to Iran was criticised in the House International Relations Committee of the US Congress. The tone and tenor during the hearings in the House Committee on the India-US nuclear cooperation agreement was to demand that India conform to the United States’ stand on Iran. In the words of Tom Lantos, a senior democrat in the House Committee, "India must decide where it will stand …..with the ayatollahs of terror in Iran or with the United States". After Iraq, Iran and the DPRK have become the targets for the Bush administration. In the case of Iran, the United States is demanding that Iran stop its uranium enrichment programme. Having called Iran a "terrorist state" and a "destabilising force in international relations", the United States does not want Iran to develop its nuclear technology even for peaceful purposes.

Some of the vituperative remarks directed against India’s external affairs minister during the congressional hearing has been rightly refuted by the external affairs ministry spokesperson.

Iran has the right, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes under international safeguards. Last year, it had announced its decision to proceed with enrichment of uranium at the Eshafan nuclear reactor. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) had called for halting the enrichment programme till it could inspect all the facilities and come to a conclusion. Iran had complied. The three European countries – France, Italy and Germany – had begun negotiations with Iran. The EU-3 has made certain proposals which were not acceptable to Iran. After nine months, Iran decided to resume conversion work.

The United States is insisting that Iran’s case be referred to the UN Security Council which could then lead to sanctions being imposed. The IAEA board has to take the decision to refer the matter to the UN. The United States would like India to support its proposal in the IAEA for referring Iran’s case to the Security Council. Pressure is being exercised on India by indicating that the US agreement to supply nuclear fuel to India would be imperilled if India does not line up against Iran.

The stand taken by India during Natwar Singh’s visit needs to be maintained steadfastly. It was as follows: India will support Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy programme in keeping with Iran’s international obligations and commitments. All sides should facilitate a dialogue and settle the nuclear issue under the IAEA framework.

The UPA government has so far maintained that India’s bilateral relations with Iran are in its national interests. The gas pipeline project from Iran to India via Pakistan was decided by the government keeping in mind India’s energy needs. The United States has already expressed its displeasure at the pipeline project and hinted that countries which enter into such projects with Iran can be subject to sanctions.

During the foreign minister’s visit to Teharan on September 2-3, the Iranian side confirmed the agreement to supply five million tonnes of liquefied natural gas (LNG) which is to be shipped to India at the price fixed by the earlier government in Iran. India has asked for 2.5 million tonnes more. This LNG purchase agreement and the gas pipeline agreement which is to be firmed up by end 2005 are crucial for India’s energy needs.

But there are already the usual pro-American strategic experts who are advising the government to forgo such bilateral agreements in the name of "national interests". They argue that the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement should be accorded priority and displeasing the US will be tantamount to harming national interests. These are the same voices which advocated India joining the US in the Iraqi misadventure. They are also the ardent supporters of Bush’s crazy ideas of spreading democracy around the world with the help of the US military.

While such advice should be ignored, any decision not to go alongwith the US on issues which are the current obsession of the neo-conservative circles, will not be easy to take. Having bound itself to agreements to partner the US in its "global democracy initiative" and to uncritically extend its anti-terrorism crusade, the UPA government can consider it inexpedient to be seen as a recalcitrant partner.

However, such considerations should not guide the stand on Iran. The UPA government’s commitment to an independent foreign policy and national interest requires that India not yield to the narrow hegemonistic outlook of the Bush administration. India’s relations with Iran cannot be hostage to the US proclivity to target countries it does not like.

The UPA government has to act in a manner which conforms to India’s vital interests and its commitment to pursue an independent foreign policy. The UPA government should not be stampeded into taking any stand against Iran which will undo the work done in recent years to establish close ties with Iran. Many of the things the Islamic regime is doing within the country cannot be condoned or accepted by the Left and democratic circles in India. But, developing State-to-State relations and coming to agreements for mutual benefit between the third world countries has to be pursued by the government of India. It is important not to give in to the US pressure on Iran. The UPA government should adhere to the stand that the nuclear issue must be resolved through talks. Contrary to the intent of Ms. Rice’s demand, India, China and Russia should consult amongst themselves to take a common stand. Such a common approach would, naturally, take into account the dubious motives of the United States to initiate a confrontation with Iran.