The Hindu Business Line : IAEA meeting on Iran on Nov 24

The question before India is whether it should act as a responsible member of the IAEA Board in the light of overwhelming evidence of disregard of its obligations by Iran or whether it should isolate itself from the main body of opinion and demonstrate that it can thumb its nose at the US. Iran being hardly a litmus test of India's independent foreign policy, the Government should be allowed sufficient leeway to vote as it thinks best in the ensuing meeting in Vienna, says B. S. Raghavan.

THE Left parties have warned the UPA Government of dire consequences if, at the November 24 meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at Vienna, India votes against Iran for violation of the UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions on observance of the safeguards and conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and becomes a party to that country being hauled up before the UNSC for being subjected to sanctions. The Samajwadi Party, too, has, on its part, served notice to the same effect.

This time, the threat to the Government on this account seems real. The General-Secretary of the CPI, Mr A. B. Bardhan, has said ominously that the Government would "repent" its failure to heed the warning, implying that the Left Parties would not hesitate to withdraw their support and pull down the Government.

I have normally had no problem appreciating the viewpoint of Left parties on most matters of national importance.

I also hold the view that, by and large, they have been champions of national honour and interest. I also consider the clout of numbers they have in Parliament good for democracy as it makes the Government pause and reflect on courses of action on vital issues.

For instance, they are justified in taking a cautionary stance on the uncritical hoorays for globalisation, foreign direct investment, privatisation and other elements of what is projected as economic reforms.

But on the question of the position India has taken and should take on Iran's stand-off with the IAEA and the UNSC, I feel they have allowed their anti-US fixation to cloud their judgment.

IAEA's charter

First, a word about the IAEA and how it functions. It is a professional-cum-technical organisation set up in 1957 to ensure safe, secure and peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology. Its charter requires it to undertake the inspection and verification of nuclear facilities so that they operate in conformity with international conventions, standards and expert guidance, with particular attention to protecting people and the environment from harmful radiation exposure.

To this end, it helps countries to upgrade nuclear safety and security, and to prepare for, and respond to, emergencies. The overriding emphasis is on the use of safeguarded nuclear material and activities solely for peaceful purposes, and for meeting the critical needs of developing countries

IAEA's secretariat consists of about 2,200 multi-disciplinary professional and support staff from more than 90 countries, drawn from scientific, technical, managerial, and professional disciplines. Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the IAEA from 1997, is a person of impeccable credentials, belonging originally to the diplomatic service of Egypt, who has held a number of high-level policy positions in the organisation, including those of the Legal Adviser and Assistant Director General for External Relations.

For his impressive contribution towards making the IAEA an effective instrument to prevent nuclear proliferation and to channel nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without compromising on safety, he and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Prize this year.

He, incidentally, hails from a developing country which was a member of the non-aligned movement, and takes care to maintain the professional-cum-technical inspectorate above political pulls and pressures and its quality and calibre of at very high levels.

Findings against Iran

It will be unfair to impute any extraneous motives to such a person whose specific findings contained in his report to the Board of Governors are going to form the basis of the discussion and decision on November 24. His report has found that:

Iran has failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time to meet its obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, its processing and its use, as well as the declaration of facilities where such material had been processed and stored;

Iran's policy of concealment has resulted in many breaches of its obligation to comply with its Safeguards Agreement, with the result that the IAEA was unable to clarify some important outstanding issues after two-and-a-half years of intensive inspections and investigation, leaving many gaps in the IAEA's understanding of proliferation related aspects of Iran's nuclear programme;

Iran has not complied with the directive of the IAEA Board to re-establish full suspension of all enrichment-related activities including the production of feed material, including through tests or production at the Uranium Conversion Facility;

Iran has, to date, failed to heed repeated calls of the Board to ratify the Additional Protocol (laying down a comprehensive framework for furnishing of full and complete information on measures against nuclear non-proliferation and installation and operation of nuclear facilities);

Iran has refused to reconsider its decision to construct a research reactor moderated by heavy water.

Iran has produced polonium, an element that has few uses other than in nuclear explosions.

In this background, India cannot be faulted for voting in the IAEA on September 24 for the resolution taking note of "the history of concealment of Iran's nuclear activities referred to in the Director-General's report, the nature of these activities, issues brought to light in the course of the Agency's verification of declarations made by Iran since September 2002 and the resulting absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes" and declaring that these developments "have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".

Far from taking the needed steps to convince the IAEA of its willingness to be responsive to the well-documented findings of a non-partisan, expert agency, Iran, according to latest media reports, is going ahead with the conversion of a new batch of uranium at a key nuclear facility at Isfahan, rejecting international pleas to suspend such work and dismissing a new offer — sponsored by Russia and backed by the US — that was designed to ease tensions over the country's nuclear ambitions. (Under the proposal, as reported in the Financial Times, Russia would take uranium that Iran had converted into gas in its own facilities, enrich it in a Russian plant that would be under part-Iranian management, then deliver it back to Iran to be used as fuel in its civilian reactors.)

Question before India

What can the IAEA do to ward off a contingency in nuclear experts fear that Iran will "end up with a larger stock" of converted uranium that can be stored away for the day when its own enrichment facility is completed and this will place at Iran's disposal enough bomb-grade uranium for as many as eight weapons?

Remember, other than acting as the world community's eyes and ears and reporting to its Board of Governors, it has no powers to enforce compliance by the countries concerned with its resolutions or to discipline them in any manner. Only the UNSC has such powers.

The question before India is whether it should act as a responsible member of the Board in the light of overwhelming evidence of disregard of its obligations by Iran or whether it should isolate itself from the main body of opinion just in order to play politics as political parties do on domestic issues, and demonstrate that it can thumb its nose at the US.

It is both futile and myopic for any country to conduct its affairs or visualise its role as if it is an island unto itself. Being an effective and credible player in the international arena is possible only by casting off ideological blinkers, overcoming the hang-ups of a bygone era and forging synergistic, strategic alliances on as broad a front as feasible.

Of course, a country like India, suddenly pitchforked into prominence and unversed in the stratagems and ruses of realpolitik, may have to pass through a hit-and-miss and trial-and-error phase, as an ineluctable part of the learning curve. But if those responsible for formulating the country's policies are skilled enough to carry forward its geo-political, economic and security goals through such alliances, the gains can be enormous.

India can be proud of the fact that there is no dearth of such leaders in political parties, academia, civil society, business and industry and public life with impressive capabilities equal, if not superior, to those elsewhere.

There is no reason why such a country should suffer from lack of confidence in itself or keep seeing ghosts of the East India Company at every turn. It is entirely possible for India's interests to coincide with those of other countries, including the US, but this congruence or convergence, by itself alone, should not be construed as subservience.

Iran not a litmus test

It is wrong to make Iran a litmus test of India's independent foreign policy. It is no more than a case for the dispassionate examination and the considered decision of the Board of Governors, of which India happens to be one of the 35 members.

The Government should, therefore, be allowed sufficient leeway to come to its own best judgment, instead of second-guessing and back-seat driving without being in possession of the full facts and background of what essentially is a non-political issue.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

More Stories on : Foreign Relations | Politics

Stories in this Section
IAEA meeting on Iran on Nov 24 — Let Govt act in its best judgment

Growth and equity

France's burning economic issues

Volcker probe: The big picture

How politicians can make monkeys of the media

Domestic container traffic in a jam

The divestment debate: China's example

Extra large weekends alone won't balance work and life

KRCL project spend on track