US-India through the Tehran
prism By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - It is turning out to be the
one major bone of contention between India and the
US, in an otherwise unprecedented improvement in
relations between the two countries. It relates to
Iran, with which India has enjoyed fruitful ties
for a long time. In the past few days, two
developments go to show that the subject of Iran
could become a serious sticking point if not
treated very carefully.
The Tehran visit
of India's Foreign Minister Natwar Singh this
month caught the attention of policy framers in
the US. The usually articulate Natwar, who is
known to sometimes shoot his mouth, tinkered with
subjects that could only catch the eye of the US.
Natwar did little to display any of the
sensitivity that the US might have expected, given
the friendly hand Washington has extended to
India. On the nuclear issue, Singh was quoted on
an official Iranian website as saying, "We support
Iran's pursuit of its
peaceful nuclear energy
program in keeping with its international
obligations and commitments."
Natwar also
ignored repeated US warnings that India should not
entertain any thoughts about the proposed US$7.4
billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline. "There
can be a tripartite meeting of the concerned
ministers to finalize a framework agreement by
December 31," Singh said after talks with Iranian
counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki.
In a
related development, Natwar's Iran utterances were
taken up by Democrat Tom Lantos at the hearing of
the House International Relations Committee, which
is debating the removal of sanctions on the
transfer of civilian nuclear technology to India.
US Congress and other lawmakers have to support
the George W Bush administration's nuclear pact
with India, for final implementation. India sees
tremendous gain in its nuclear power capability
with help from the US, as well as other nations.
The US decision to open nuclear relations with
India has resulted in Britain, and more recently
France, moving in the same direction.
Lantos objected to what he said was Indian
opposition to a key element of US policy toward
Iran. Lantos quoted Natwar as having said,
"India's relations with Iran are not predicated on
positions and views attributed to some
governments." Lantos told the hearing that India
"will pay a very hefty price for their total
disregard of US concerns vis-a-vis Iran, the
single most important international threat we
face." In perhaps a hardening of stance, Bush
administration officials, arguing for the nuclear
pact with India, said the separation of nuclear
facilities meant for civilian and weapons purposes
should meet US approval, apart from the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
India
has quickly clarified that Natwar made no such
statement as referred to by Lantos, with New Delhi
slamming as "unparliamentary, discourteous and
crude", the remarks by the Democrat. Spelling out
the Indian position on Iran's nuclear program,
Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran said: "We are
against proliferation of nuclear weapons. Iran, as
any other country, should adhere to obligations
they have undertaken. Any difference should be
resolved through discussions and not
confrontation."
The US has been shooing
off nations, including Britain, Germany and
France, with any interest in Iran, given its
belief that a secret nuclear weapons program is in
place in the county. The US and the European Union
want the UN Security Council to take up the issue
of Iran's nuclear dossier (like the instance of
Iraq, when former US secretary of state Colin
Powell argued about the existence of weapons of
mass destruction), following Iran's move this
August to renew uranium conversion activities.
It may be recalled that US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice during a visit to New Delhi
earlier this year said, "Our views concerning Iran
are very well known by this time, and we have
communicated to the Indian government our concerns
about gas pipeline cooperation between Iran and
India."
As expected, Bush on Tuesday
evening expressed his concern over Iran's nuclear
program at a meeting with Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New
York. The meeting, which lasted about 30 minutes,
took place on the eve of the United Nations world
summit. In an indication that India values the
nuclear deal, Manmohan said that he hoped the "US
Congress will support the initiative". "We have
often stated that Iran's nuclear program be
pursued within the ambit of its commitments,"
Foreign Secretary Saran later said.
The
events of the past couple of weeks show that the
simultaneous handling of Iran and the US will be a
tricky proposition for New Delhi. Some observers
say that the imbroglio over Iran could even turn
around progress in the transfer of nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes and enhanced
defense dealings that India and US are
negotiating.
Some policymakers argue that
important as Iran might be, it may be prudent for
India to keep in view the higher strategic value
of improved relations with the US. It may sound a
good diplomatic practice to keep relations with
nations independent, but it may not be wise to
treat Iran and the US as two different departments
in foreign policy.
This is easier said
than done. With India having committed to the
pipeline, even an honorable withdrawal, if pulled
off, will not bode well for the Manmohan
government's domestic political image.
The
left parties, a crucial coalition partner, for one
will play the issue of India's pride to the hilt,
making the biggest noise about New Delhi being a
stooge and weak-kneed in front of the US. It may
be recalled that after his visit to the US in
July, Manmohan remarked about the pipeline being
economically unviable - and this was severely
criticized as having been made under US pressure.
But, after selling the immense utility of the
pipeline in terms of energy security and lowering
India's reliance on expensive imported crude, an
honorable exit is equally difficult.
"Indians have to figure out how far they
can push the Iranians on the pipeline without
counteracting their growing strategic relationship
with Washington," Rajan Menon, a professor of
international relations at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has said. "The Indians
have to ask themselves: how far do we want to go
out on a limb?"
A comment in the Indian
Express reads: "It is no one's case in Delhi that
India weighs its certainly important relationship
with Iran higher than the resolution of Delhi's
own long-standing nuclear dispute with the US and
the transformation of bilateral relations with
Washington. Through its posturing for domestic
audiences, the Manmohan government has unwittingly
made Iran a test case for India's 'independent'
foreign policy. India must now find ways to
dismantle this self-made trap and position itself
sensibly in the unfolding Iran crisis."
So
far, both India and Pakistan have been united in
withstanding the pressure from the US to insist
that the gas pipeline is good for both the
economies and the two countries will cooperate to
implement the project. Pakistan stands to earn
sizeable revenues through transit fees.
However, reports emanating from Pakistan
suggest that as Islamabad has for so long used its
strategic usefulness to the US for its benefit, it
may spring another quid pro quo deal. In
exchange for abandoning the pipeline, heeding US
concerns, Pakistan may seek parity in US dealings
on civilian nuclear technology in line with the
deal between India and the US.
A report in
a Pakistani newspaper quoting a senior official
has said that President General Pervez Musharraf
may discuss this matter during his talks with
Bush. Musharraf has reached New York, where he
will hold talks with Bush, besides Manmohan and
other world leaders, on the sidelines of the
United Nations General Assembly.
Nuclear
exchanges between Pakistan and the US remain a
long shot, given the heat that the country faces
due to its record of peddling nuclear technology.
It is perhaps a calculated propaganda leak ahead
of Musharraf's meeting with Bush. A few in New
Delhi, however, may not be averse to this route of
putting a lid on the pipeline, until the US ceases
to eye Iran as a foe.
Siddharth
Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd.
All rights reserved. Please contact us for
information on sales, syndication and republishing
.)
