Betrayal On Iran: Costs of India-US Partnership

 Prakash Karat

INDIA voted with the US and the European sponsors of the resolution to arraign Iran in the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This paves the way for its nuclear issue being referred to the UN Security Council. India did not abstain on the resolution which other developing and non-aligned countries such as Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Nigeria and Algeria did. Even its South Asian neighbours, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, refused to line up with the US.

The Manmohan Singh government has been thoroughly shown up in this episode. Till the eve of the vote in the IAEA, India proclaimed that Iran should adhere to international obligations while affirming its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. During Natwar Singh’s visit to Teheran three weeks ago, it was declared that the Iran nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of the IAEA. Further it was stated that within the IAEA, the issue should be decided on the basis of consensus.

All this has been proved to be just empty posturing.  Just a few days of sustained American pressure has led the Manmohan Singh government to cave in. Condoleeza Rice’s demand that India, China and Russia rally to the US position has been acceded to, at least by India. The trend towards capitulation was helped along by the raucous denunciation of India’s position in the US Congressional hearings. The final act of surrender took place during Manmohan Singh’s visit to New York and in the run up to his meeting with president Bush.

There is another disturbing aspect. The foreign minister reiterates India’s stand on the issue. The last was before his meeting with Condoleeza Rice in New York on September 20. Three days later, in his phone conversation with the Iranian president, the prime minister resiled from these positions. According to the official statement, the prime minister advised the president to take “a flexible position to avoid a confrontation” and “ to make concessions to this end.”

All the three components of the position formulated were abandoned by voting for the resolution. Iran has been asked to stop enrichment of uranium and to halt construction of a research reactor using heavy water. This puts paid to India’s original stand that Iran as a signatory of NPT has the right to develop nuclear technology under safeguards. Second, the assertion that the questions arising about the Iran nuclear issue are “within the competence” of the UN Security Council, goes against the declared stance that it should be dealt with, within the IAEA framework. Third, the adherence to consensus was given up when India lined up with the US and the EU-3 to vote against Iran.

There is no doubt whatsoever, that the Manmohan Singh government gave up its stand in order to appease the United States. The sustained barrage that India cannot expect to be a beneficiary of the nuclear agreement unless it meets the US concerns about Iran has borne results.  The underlying theme of the Joint Statement signed in Washington in July is now being played out. India is expected to conform to its role as a strategic ally; it cannot baulk at US plans to target countries like Iran, Syria or DPRK.

The Manmohan Singh government seems to have calculated that this vote will send a message that India is a  reliable ally and a responsible nuclear power.  It has deliberately ignored the immoral and illegal position of the US and the Western powers. These same powers allow Israel to have nuclear weapons and has helped its nuclear development despite the fact that it is not a NPT signatory. On the other hand, they will do everything to prevent any other country in the Middle-East from acquiring nuclear technology which will make them capable of producing nuclear weapons. The Indian government seems to follow the “railway compartment analogy” of the BJP leader Jaswant Singh. When you are trying to get into a crowded railway compartment, you have one view, having gained entry into the compartment, you join the rest of the inmates to keep others from entering.  Being a responsible “nuclear power” means not only keeping others out, but accepting the terms for entry set out by the nuclear haves.

The logic of the Pokharan blasts is now playing out. For keeping the mess of nuclear pottage, India has to accede to the rules of the game that the US and its allies have set out to gain de facto nuclear weapons power status. 

It is the height of hypocrisy, to tell the US privately that India does not want another nuclear weapon state in the region, while India has maintained that it has the right to conduct nuclear tests and go for weaponisation. Unlike India, Iran is a signatory of the NPT and there is nothing substantial in the charges of violation and concealment levelled against it as revealed in the reports submitted by the IAEA inspections.  This has been lucidly brought out in the three part series published in The Hindu by Siddharth Varadarajan.

What happened when the false case of “weapons of mass destruction” was built up against Iraq is now being repeated with Iran. By voting with the US, India is becoming party to another infamous exercise in intimidation and coercion against a country with which it has friendly relations and vital energy stakes.

The explanation given by the government for voting for the resolution is laboured and riddled with contradictions.  After conceding that India does not agree with finding Iran “non-compliant” in the context of Article XII C of the IAEA’s statute and that the characterisation of the “current situation as a threat to international peace and security” is unwarranted, there was no reason for India to vote for the resolution.  But it did so.

It claims that two concerns of India were met by the draft resolution. First, that more time should be given for exploring all avenues for a satisfactory resolution of the issues that have  arisen. By stating that the next Board meeting would take a decision, that time has been provided for.  Second, India was opposed to the matter being referred to the UN Security Council “at this stage”, as it was not justified by the  circumstances. The draft has kept the matter within the purview of the IAEA.

Both these grounds are specious.  The time given is a few weeks before the next Board meeting in November.  Further, the resolution has already found Iran “non-compliant” and declared it is a fit case for reference to the UN Security Council.  The resolution is in the nature of an  ultimatum to Iran that it give up its right to develop nuclear technology or face action through the Security Council.  As for the claim that our stand was to help Iran, the strong reaction of the Iranian government has exposed the double-talk.

The stark truth is that India, in an unconscionable step, has ranged itself with the US and the Western powers and broken ranks with the non-aligned countries. That is why Nicholas Burns, US Under Secretary of State and the man who negotiated the deal with India, especially thanked India. India’s vote, he said, had foiled Iran’s attempt to pose it as an issue between the developed countries and developing countries. 

It is pathetic that the government seeks to justify its stand by citing that it is in the company of countries like Singapore, Ghana, Ecuador and Peru who have shown no sign of any independence in their foreign policy.

The major non-aligned countries on the Board of the IAEA, South Africa, Brazil, Nigeria, Algeria and so on, refused to line up with the US.  They adhered to what the Malaysian representative and Chair of the NAM, Ryma Jama  Hussein, stated after a meeting of the NAM countries that “all countries have the basic and inalienable right to develop atomic energy for peaceful purposes.”  India has amended this stand to mean that all countries have the right subject to US approval. The defection of India from the NAM stand has damaged India’s image among the non-aligned countries. Countries like Brazil and South Africa which are partners in the G-20 group in the WTO, can legitimately wonder at India’s reliability. The obvious course was to coordinate with Russia and China and adopt a common approach. 

What is the explanation for this about turn?  The India-US joint statement signed in July during the prime minister’s visit and  the India-US Defence Agreement, preceding it, were a turning point. The Manmohan Singh government has entered into a compact with the US which makes it a strategic ally. The nuclear cooperation pact is part of the overall agreement which has political and strategic aspects. The United States was quick to demand that India, as a strategic partner, take on board the United States’ concerns about Iran. Failure to do so would not only imperil the nuclear cooperation agreement but also affect the US attitude to India. By acceding to the American pressure, despite protestations to the contrary, the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline project is also endangered. The UPA government has taken a major step which adversely affects India’s independent foreign policy and its status in the non-alignment movement.  The prime minister is directly responsible for this state of affairs. The CPI(M) and the Left parties cannot countenance this new direction of foreign policy.

By the next Board meeting of the IAEA in November, the Indian government will have to undo the damage done. India should state clearly that the Iranian nuclear issue is not a fit case for referring to the UN Security Council. Iran has the right to develop its nuclear technology within the framework of the NPT and IAEA safeguards. To make the Indian government adopt such a position, it is necessary for all the Left and democratic forces to mobilise the people in defence of an independent foreign policy.