Opinion - News Analysis   

India's IAEA vote was decided in advance

Amit Baruah

In deciding to vote against Iran, India showed its foreign policy was not immune to outside pressure.

INDIA'S DECISION to vote against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board meeting on Saturday was not taken overnight. As reported by The Hindu on September 17, India had already decided to vote with the European Union "three" and the United States at the IAEA in a crunch situation.

Whatever the justification extended by the Ministry of External Affairs on Saturday night about the Indian vote, the fact is that the India-U.S. civil nuclear deal has altered New Delhi's perception about Iran, with which it has cooperated significantly on Afghanistan. India, which has championed the non-aligned cause for long, did not find itself in the company of South Africa and Malaysia at the IAEA governing board meeting in Vienna. Nor did it find itself in the company of China and Russia, which, like South Africa and Malaysia, abstained from voting against the resolution sponsored by the EU-three.

According to the Malaysian representative on the IAEA board, the head of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) group, Ryma Jama' Hussein: "Due to the serious nature of the issues contained in the draft resolution, NAM had suggested that time and diplomacy be allowed for the matter to be deliberated at the November board meeting and for negotiations to proceed with a view to reaching a consensus decision. However, NAM's major concerns and those of other like-minded states were not taken on board."

India itself cast a gravely qualified vote at the IAEA, revealing what a rhetorical tightrope it has had to walk in recent weeks on the issue of Iran's nuclear programme.

"In our explanation of [the] vote, we have clearly expressed our opposition to Iran being declared as non-compliant with its safeguards agreements. Nor do we agree that the current situation could constitute a threat to international peace and security.

"Nevertheless, the resolution does not refer the matter to the Security Council and has agreed that outstanding issues be dealt with under the aegis of the IAEA itself. This is in line with our position and therefore, we have extended our support to it," the External Affairs Ministry spokesman said on Saturday night.

One can only wonder why India did not abstain from the vote at the meeting, like so many others did, when it had problems with the resolution. That would have been the honourable course to adopt.

What the IAEA resolution does now is to set the stage for referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council in future. It said it: "... finds also that 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 have given rise to questions that are within the competence of the Security Council ... "

The External Affairs Ministry on Saturday also revealed for the first time that India was fully embroiled in the Iranian nuclear issue and its role was not confined to carrying messages. In such a situation, India and Indian diplomacy will be directly culpable for what the EU-3 and the U.S. might do with Iran in the future.

"It should also be borne in mind that India has all along been supportive of the EU-3 initiative to negotiate a fair and reasonable understanding with Iran on this issue. Our support to the resolution should also be seen against this background. We have been in close touch with the EU-3, and External Affairs Minister has himself been meeting with and talking to his French, German, and British counterparts regularly in the past couple of weeks, to try and encourage a consensus approach. Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had discussed the matter with President Chirac in Paris ... " the Ministry spokesman said on record.

The advice tendered by the Prime Minister to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, during the course of a telephonic conversation on Friday, that Teheran should be flexible and make concessions also revealed the Indian Government's mind.

There seems little doubt that the civilian nuclear deal between India and the U.S. has begun taking a toll of New Delhi's "independent" foreign policy. While it is still in the form of a promise for Washington, India has already begun delivering its side of the deal.

After all, a "responsible" state such as India, which has dealings with the U.S. on civil nuclear issues, cannot take a different position on what still are only suspicions about Iran's nuclear programme.

U.S. Congressman Tom Lantos, in recent remarks before the House International Relations Committee, said India had to choose between the "ayatollahs" of terror in Teheran and the U.S. India's choice, in fact, was a different one: it was between an independent foreign policy and taking the line strongly suggested by the U.S. and its three European allies on Iran's nuclear programme.

On Saturday, in the IAEA board in Vienna, India failed to demonstrate that its foreign policy remained immune to outside pressure.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

India's shameful vote against Iran
Social security for unorganised workers
India's IAEA vote was decided in advance
China's second manned space mission
A question of lifestyles
Why equality is the best policy
Despair is still not an option in Iraq
Of Governors
Extend reservation
Create more brands
Chappell-Ganguly spat

Copyright © 2005, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu