NEW DELHI: The Manmohan Singh Government was sharply criticised for abandoning the country's independent foreign policy and succumbing to American pressure on the Iran issue at the Governing Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

Academics, editors and former diplomats came together at a seminar organised on Friday by the Left-supported Committee for an Independent Foreign Policy, which is leading a campaign to correct the "pro-American tilt" in New Delhi's policy approach.

M.K. Bhadrakumar, former Ambassador, said the Iran vote was not simply a foreign policy issue, but a question related to the direction the country was adopting while entering a new world order.

Viewing India's vote through the nuclear non-proliferation prism displayed a very limited vision, he said, arguing that the goal of Western nations was to corner Iran and force it into joining their camp.

According to him, the September 24 IAEA resolution against Iran lacked justification and the entire issue had been "politicised" by the United States. Given the fact that Iran was a friend of India, he wanted to know why Teheran had not been taken into confidence by New Delhi before the vote.

Mr. Bhadrakumar said that India, which had tampered with its Iranian relationship, would be a "big loser" if measures were not taken to repair the relationship.

Iran vote cannot be viewed in isolation

The Editor-in-Chief of The Hindu , N. Ram, said India's vote in Vienna was both craven and disquieting. This, he argued, could not be seen in isolation from the foreign policy being pursued since 1998 and referred to the June 2005 defence agreement with the United States.

Pointing out that the National Common Minimum Programme (NCMP) promised an independent foreign policy, Mr. Ram said he did not see any significant difference between the foreign policy approaches taken by the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance.

Bringing out the parallel between the NDA's intention of sending Indian troops to Iraq in 2003 and India's anti-Iran vote in Vienna, he remarked that the Manmohan Singh Government should comply with the NCMP.

Joining issue with Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran's recent speech on nuclear non-proliferation, Mr. Ram pointed out there was no reference to Israel's proliferation activities in the address delivered by Mr. Saran at the India Habitat Centre.

Mr. Ram said there had been no consultations on the September 24 vote in Vienna within the Government or with the allied parties. He raised doubts about the assurances coming from the Government of India that it wanted the Iran issue to remain within the IAEA purview at the next Governing Board meeting on November 24.

Stating that the Manmohan Singh Government must be put to test, Mr. Ram said that it should be made to return to the NCMP framework. The Government must learn lessons and pull back from the steps it had taken.

India's former High Commissioner to Pakistan, Satish Chandra, said that, New Delhi's September 24 vote was unfair to Iran and should not have been cast. He saw American pressure behind India's vote. The Government's claim that India had voted in Iran's favour carried no credibility. "Our long-standing reputation for being impartial and professional has taken a severe blow," he maintained.

India's anti-Iran vote would also show to the world that the Government was susceptible to pressure while New Delhi's relationship with Teheran was bound to suffer. Previous governments had been successful in insulating India's ties with Iran and India's ties with the United States. But now, he felt, these had become linked. Mr. Satish Chandra said possible military action against Iran was not in India's interest as this would lead to a massive increase in oil prices. Arguing that both Russia and China were apprehensive of India's vote, he said this was a further sign of India cosying up to the United States.

The former diplomat felt that India's vote against Iran could dampen the mood in China for improved relations between Beijing and New Delhi, including a settlement of the boundary dispute.

India's former Ambassador in Teheran, Akbar Khaleeli, argued that India would be an accomplice if "something" were to happen to Iran. New Delhi should retain its position and let the U.S. and Iran sort out their problems. Pressure had been brought to bear on Iran after Libya announced its decision to give up its nuclear weapons' programme, he felt.

Multilateral approach favoured

Former Atomic Energy Regulatory Board Chairman, A. Gopalakrishnan, suggested that India come up with an alternative suggestion based on a multilateral approach to resolve the enrichment issue between Iran and the West. A multilateral, multinational solution was the best option.

Referring to the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, he said that an additional 30,000 MWe of nuclear power from imported reactors would roughly cost $45 billion and referred to the halt to nuclear fuel supplies to the Tarapur plant despite the assurance of a lifetime supply of fuel by Washington.

According to Dr. Gopalakrishnan, India might have to vote with the U.S. for the next 40 years to ensure that the Americans met their commitments to India on the nuclear front.

India should go ahead with its own nuclear reactor programme.

Hamid Ansari, former Indian Ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S. did not really "need" India's vote at the IAEA, but wanted to demonstrate that it could make New Delhi do certain things. The objective of the vote was also to put a spanner in Indo-Iran relationship.

On the proposed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project, Mr. Ansari wondered why the U.S. had problems with this when there was no restriction on purchasing crude oil or liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran.

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