POLITICS: India Loses Political Credibility in Anti-Iran Vote

By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print |

Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, Sep 30 2005 (IPS) - India, a country that aspires to be a superpower in Asia, lost its political credibility among the world’s developing nations last week when it voted against Iran at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

India, a country that aspires to be a superpower in Asia, lost its political credibility among the world’s developing nations last week when it voted against Iran at a meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

The headline in a leading Indian national newspaper said it all: “India’s shameful vote against Iran.”

The criticism kept snowballing, as the media, academics and mainstream and left-wing politicians in New Delhi crucified the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for abandoning one of its longtime political and economic allies in Asia.

The disputed IAEA resolution, backed aggressively by the United States and the 25-member European Union, threatened to penalise Iran even though it has still not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the Iranians are in the process of building a nuclear weapon.

The tragedy of it is that while the Western world stood firm in its flawed conviction, the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement split ranks.

Still, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa, Tunisia, Vietnam and Yemen were among the non-Western countries that abstained on the vote. So did the two big powers, China and Russia.

The vote was 22 in favour, one against (Venezuela, whose president, Hugo Chavez, is following in the footsteps of the virulently anti-U.S. Fidel Castro), with 12 abstentions.

But India’s negative vote was a betrayal of all that it has stood for defending the cause of developing countries at the United Nations – and more importantly, standing up to the bullying tactics of the Western world.

In one single vote, India lost the trust placed on it as a respected and founder member of the 114-nation Non-Aligned Movement, the biggest single political grouping at the United Nations.

Although six non-Western countries voted with the United States – Argentina, Ghana, Ecuador, Peru, Singapore and South Korea – their inclination to suck up to the West is an established fact. But certainly not India.

The United States and the European Union were elated by the vote. “Both the fact of the resolution and the scale of the vote in its favour are very important if we are to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons capability,” said Jack Straw, foreign secretary of Britain, a country that chairs the EU.

The resolution criticised Iran’s “many failures and breaches of its obligations…”, arguing that they “constitute non-compliance” with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

But the resolution did provide Iran with an opportunity to “implement transparency measures”, including access to its uranium enrichment process.

A second IAEA resolution, which will take the more drastic step of “referring” Iran to the U.N. Security Council, is due to come up in Vienna in November this year.

The developing world will be watching how India will cast its vote on this resolution since there is speculation that it may go along with Iran – the second time around.

The political pressure on New Delhi last month obviously came from the United States, which has pledged to provide civilian nuclear reactors and nuclear technology to India.

The landmark nuclear cooperation deal between India and the United States was signed last July with much political fanfare. When it was erroneously rumoured that India was going to back Iran on the IAEA resolution, members of the U.S. Congress launched a blistering attack on New Delhi.

The International Relations Committee of the House of Representatives put out the word that India’s nuclear deal with the United States was in jeopardy.

Surprisingly, the strongest attack on India came from Congressman Tom Lantos of California, who also happens to be a leading member of the Congressional Caucus on India, a veritable lobbying group for New Delhi.

“When the (Bush) administration called me asking for my support (for the nuclear deal with India), I gave it and continue to do so,” he said. “But there is a degree of reciprocity we expect from India, which is not been forthcoming.” Lantos said the policy of India towards Iran “is a matter of grave concern to many of us”.

“There is a quid pro quo in international relations and if our Indian friends are interested in receiving all of the benefits of U.S. support, we have every right to expect that India will reciprocate in taking into account our concerns,” he warned.

The U.S. threat, which was also probably reinforced by the White House through back channels, was not against a banana republic in Latin America, but against a country with aspirations to becoming a superpower.

So the question remains: how can you entertain visions of becoming a superpower when you do not have the guts to stand up to the world’s only other superpower (the United States) – particularly when your own national interests are at stake in Iran?

The negative vote was a surprise for other reasons too: India and Iran have a vibrant economic relationship, with an impending six-billion-dollar gas pipeline that is expected to meet most of the energy needs of the Indians.

The vote also jeopardises India’s longstanding national ambition to find a permanent seat in the Security Council: a move supported by most developing countries at the United Nations.

If India is seen as a political lackey – or a potential political lackey – of the United States and Western powers, why should the developing world back New Delhi’s claims for a seat in the Security Council?

Perhaps India should also recognise that the United States has so far not made any public proclamation backing New Delhi’s drive for a permanent seat in the Security Council.

Addressing the General Assembly last month, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice admitted that Washington was in favour of expanding the Security Council.

But she only singled out Japan, by saying that the U.S. had “long supported” a permanent seat for that country. However, she mentioned, in passing, that “we believe that developing countries deserve greater representation”.

Perhaps she deliberately refused to openly back any of the developing countries by name – including India, Brazil, Nigeria and South Africa – which have been unsuccessfully knocking at the Council door for nearly a decade.