The Hindu Business Line : Iran issue: India's stand is crucial

Now that it is clear that the Iran nuclear issue will be referred to the UN Security Council, India's stance at the IAEA Board meeting on Thursday assumes importance. If, as seems likely, India toes the US line and sticks to the anti-Iran stand it took in September, it would not only be a sad reflection of New Delhi's helplessness against American pressure, but also alienate a long-term friend and ally, particularly in the background of the India-Iran gas pipeline that we certainly need, says Rasheeda Bhagat.

THE resounding victory of the hardline Hamas in the Palestine Parliament elections held last week is bad news for the western world, particularly the US. The Palestinian Government is set to change hands, after Mr Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party put up a lacklustre performance in the elections. With the extremist organisation set to take over power in a few months, the West Asian region is surely headed for more turbulent times.

Add to this the obdurate President of Iran, Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, vowing to wipe Israel off the map of the world through a nuclear missile and stepping up defiance by restarting its uranium enrichment programme. Iran's nuclear issue is speeding towards the United Nations Security Council, with the looming threat of sanctions against the Islamic nation.

Till recently, both Russia and China had been prevaricating on referring the Iran nuclear issue to the Security Council but, on Monday night, the Big Five — the permanent five members of the Council with veto powers: the US, the UK, Russia, France and China — along with Germany, met in London and decided on a common stand on the Iran nuclear programme.

At an emergency board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to be held in Vienna on Thursday, it will be decided to hand over the `Iran nuclear file' to the Security Council.

But, as some kind of a soft tactic, which reflects the hope that Iran will fall in line and not force the UN's hand on slapping sanctions, the British Foreign Secretary, Mr Jack Straw, who hosted the meet in London, said the foreign ministers of the six countries had decided that the Council would take no action until March, after it has received a formal report on Iran from the IAEA.

A BBC report said this was some kind of a "compromise" as the US and the Europeans had wanted the matter referred to the Council immediately, but Russia and China wanted to give Iran a breather.

How Iran's firebrand President reacts to this issue remains to be seen, but what is worrying is his cosying up to the Palestinian militants. On January 20, he had held a meeting in Damascus, Syria, with leaders from the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They expressed support for Iran's right to nuclear power and came out with the usual rhetoric against American and European opposition to Iran's uranium enrichment programme.

Recently, the IAEA's highly respected chief, Mr Mohamed El Baradei, said: "If they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponisation programme along the way, they are really not very far — a few months — from a weapon".

Of course, all along, Teheran has been insisting that its nuclear programme is only for energy generation and that it has the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian programmes, like any other western nation. But what has lent credence to the western powers' chorus on its ultimate aim being nuclear weapons is Mr Ahmedinejad's statements on wiping Israel off the map of the region.

With doubts over the Iran nuclear issue's reference to the UN Security Council now cleared, the call that India takes at the IAEA Board meeting on Thursday assumes importance. Unfortunately, it appears that India is likely to stick to the anti-Iran stand it took at the IAEA's governing board meet in September.

If this really happens, it would again bring to the fore the US Ambassador to India, Mr David Mulford's highly controversial comments on the issue. He had gone on record saying that if India wanted to keep its deal with the US on access to American nuclear technology for civilian purposes, it had better vote against Iran in the UN motion.

This, of course, miffed New Delhi, and created a furore in the country, particularly among the Left parties and the BJP, and resulted in Mr Mulford being summoned and given a dressing down for his "inappropriate comments".

Even ordinary Indians are still seething at what they clearly see as an American attempt to bully India into steering its foreign policy along the lines desired by Uncle Sam. Of course, Mr Mulford further angered the Left parties by criticising their opposition to FDI in retail and the opening up of the banking and insurance sectors.

Demanding his recall by his bosses in Washington, Left leaders have fretted and fumed about India not being a "banana republic" that could be expected to kow-tow to "any Roman or American empire"!

But while this is only an aside in the whole drama, at the heart of it lies the issue of India ditching a long-term friend and ally like Iran.

One has to only travel in the Western Asian region, particularly the Arab world, to discover the kind of respect and love ordinary people have for India and Indians. This was very much evident in Iraq where, during a visit in October 2003, one was repeatedly told by Iraqis what a great nation India was, and how much they appreciated India not joining the "bloody Americans" by sending its troops to man post-occupation Iraq.

One saw the same kind of respect for India even in battered and bruised Afghanistan, which of course is looking up to India for help in reconstruction, training its manpower and, above all, co-operation in the field of education.

When this is the state of affairs, and when India can warm up to Saudi Arabia — a great friend of the US, by the way — to such an extent that our Prime Minister can break protocol and go to both receive and send off its King, who visited India last week, would it be wise to antagonise an ally such as Iran, particularly in the background of the India-Iran gas pipeline that we certainly need?

Sure, India harbours just aspirations to become an economic entity that can command respect not only in this region but the whole world. But cannot we get there on our own steam? Do we need to piggyback on some other nation to achieve this goal?

Take, for example, China. Till Monday, when it agreed to come on board with the other four permanent members of the Security Council to play along on the issue of taking the Iran nuclear file to the Council, China had given enough indications that it might use its veto power on this issue, and is solely responsible for the stipulated delay before the Security Council can even take a decision on slapping sanctions.

And the reason is clear enough. Iran produces nearly 4 million barrels of oil per day, and China is greatly dependent on the Persian Gulf for its oil and gas needs.

In an essay in Time magazine titled: "The new power in the Persian Gulf', Bill Powell argues that ultimately "whether the world stands any chance of eventually imposing sanctions that might get the mullahs' attention will be decided" not in Washington but in Beijing. Not only does China need Iran's oil and gas, "Beijing wouldn't directly be affected if Iran got the bomb."

He adds something that we in India need to read carefully: "Few major powers practise a more coldly realistic foreign policy than China. Beijing's external affairs are closely intertwined with its domestic policy, and the watchword that drives both is stability."

So, what about India's foreign and domestic policy? In a financially bankrupt country like Pakistan, its people derisively and openly talk about how Islamabad dances to America's tunes all the time, and point to India as a contrast.

Till now, of course, one proudly lapped up such respect and praise, and one can only hope this is not going to change.

As for China, one can argue that it has already come on board on the question of referring the Iran file to the Council. But the devil may lie in the detail. As Mr Jack Straw pointed out: "There are plenty of examples where a matter is referred to the Security Council and the Security Council takes action, and that action is followed without sanction."

If the powerful nations of the world, including China, are only coming together to give the Iranian President a fright and talk him out of ploughing a dangerous course, it would be a pity if India, cowed down by the threat of denial of American civilian nuclear technology, were to vote against Iran yet again.

Not only would it be hurting and alienating an old friend and ally, it would also be sending the rest of the world the wrong signal that India's foreign policy can be dictated from thousands of miles away. Of course it is good to have a superpower as your friend, but not at the risk of an assault on your spine, and of losing other friends.

(Response may be sent to rasheeda@thehindu.co.in)