A view of the Security Council Chamber as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (on screen) of Ukraine, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation in Ukraine. April 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine began 24 February 2022. Credit: UN Photo/Loey Felipe

By Arul Louis
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 20 2023 (IPS)

Paralysed by its own Charter and structure, the world organisation that is charged with preventing wars confronts an existential challenge from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

When Security Council Permanent member Russia sent its troops into a smaller neighbour defying the UN Charter and all norms of international relations a year ago next Friday, Antonio Guterres, “This is the saddest moment in my tenure as Secretary-General of the United Nations”.

Beyond sadness from the betrayal and the pain inflicted on nations around the world, especially the poorest, the war drives into the very foundation of the UN built nearly 78 years ago.

Guterres warned this month, “I fear the world is not sleepwalking into a wider war, I fear it is doing so with its eyes wide open”.

And the invasion has raised questions about the UN’s resolve “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” as the first sentence of its Charter declares.

Yet the Charter itself has paralysed the UN by conferring veto powers for permanent members at the Security Council, which alone can act,.Russia’s vetoes have mired the Council in the morass of inaction renewing calls for its reform.

Describing the situation, General Assembly President Csaba Korosi said, “The Security Council — the main guarantor of international peace and security – has remained blocked, unable to fully carry out its mandate”.

“Growing numbers are now demanding its reform,” he said noting that at the Assembly’s High-Level Week in September, “one-third of world leaders underscored the urgent need to reform the Council — more than double the number in 2021.”

While the reform process — in which India has a special interest as an aspirant for a permanent seat –that has itself been stymied for nearly two decades has come to the fore, it is not likely to happen any time soon.

But the General Assembly, which does not have the enforcement powers of the Council, has used the imbroglio to set a precedent forcing permanent members when they wield their veto to face it and explain their action.

Russia appeared before the Assembly to answer for its vetoes while facing a barrage of criticism.

The Assembly also revived a seldom-used action under the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution of calling for an emergency special session when the Council fails in its primary duty of maintaining peace and security.

It passed a resolution in March demanding that Russia “immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders”.

It received 141 votes – getting more than two-thirds of the votes 193 required for it – while India was among the 35 countries that abstained. This, as well as the subsequent three passed last year ultimately were but an exercise in moral authority with no means to enforce it.

A proposal made by Mexico and France in 2015 calling on permanent members to refrain from using their vetoes on issues involving them also has been getting a re-airing– but to no avail.

India, which was a member of the Council last year was caught in the middle of the polarisation at the UN, both at the Council and the Assembly, because of its dependence on Russian arms and the support it had received at crucial times in the Security Council from its predecessor the Soviet Union.

India abstained at least 11 times on substantive resolutions relating to Ukraine in both chambers of the UN, including resolutions at the Council sponsored by Moscow.

India faced tremendous pressure from the West to join in voting on resolutions against Russia and openly take a definitive stand condemning Moscow.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar told the Security Council in September, “As the Ukraine conflict continues to rage, we are often asked whose side we are on. And our answer, each time, is straight and honest. India is on the side of peace and will remain firmly there”.

And while keeping the semblance of neutrality while voting, India came closest to taking a stand in support of Ukraine — and by inference against Russia — when he said, “We are on the side that respects the UN Charter and its founding principles”.

Now out of the Council, New Delhi’s profile has been lowered and it also does not have to publicly display its tight-rope walk as often, although it may yet have to do it again this week when the Assembly is likely to have a resolution around the invasion’s anniversary.

The pain of the invasion is felt far beyond the borders of Ukraine.

Guterres said, “The Russian invasion of Ukraine is inflicting untold suffering on the Ukrainian people, with profound global implications”.

The fallout of the war has set back the UN’s omnibus development goals.

More immediately, several countries came to the brink of famine and the spectre of hunger still stalks the world because of shortages of agricultural input, while many countries, including many developed nations, face severe energy and financial problems.

The war shut off exports of food grains from Ukraine and limited exports from Russia, the two countries that have become the world’s food baskets.

Besides depriving many countries of food grains, the shortages raised global prices.

The one victory for the UN has been the Black Sea agreement forged with Russia, Ukraine and Turkey in July to allow safe passage for ships carrying foodgrains from Ukrainian ports.

Guteress’ Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said that in about 1,500 trips by ships so far, “more than 21.3 million tonnes of grain and food products have been moved so far during the initiative, helping to bring down global food prices and stabilising markets”.

A UN outfit, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has also made an impact during the war, working to protect nuclear facilities in Ukraine that were occupied by Russia’s forces while shelling around them.

It said that it has managed to station teams of safety and security experts at Ukraine’s nuclear power plants and at Chernobyl, the site of the 1986 disaster “to help reduce the risk of a severe nuclear accident during the ongoing conflict in the country”.

Arul Louis is a New York-based nonresident senior fellow with the New Delhi-based think tank, Society for Policy Studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Arul Louis
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 8 2019 (IPS)

While the UN grapples with weighty global matters, can an Indian gift solve an unlikely matter of great concern to journalists and staffers – a partial shutdown of an escalator as part of the world body’s austerity measures?

After repeated complaints over several days by reporters interspersing questions on issues like Syria, Iran, the Paris Agreement and Iraq at the daily briefing of Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’s spokespersons, a suggestion was made to use the free electricity generated by the Gandhi Solar Park to power the escalator shutdown as a part of the austerity measures adopted by the cash-strapped UN.

UN Spokesperson Stephane Dujarric replied light-heartedly, “I’m barely a spokesman. I don’t think I’m an electrical engineer, but I will see where that electricity goes.”

He added, “People often ask me what is the biggest issue that concerns the UN press corps. Now I can answer with facility” that it is the escalator.

Escalator access to two floors used by the media and staffers has been shut and they can now be reached only by lifts or the emergency escape staircases.

But service to a floor used by diplomats going to the Security Council was restored after complaints by envoys.

Arul Louis

The UN is facing a cash crunch because its biggest contributor, the United States, has not sent its annual contribution of $676 million, according to Chandramouli Ramanathan, the Controller and Assistant Secretary-General.

The US, which is committed to paying up, is holding up the payment – as it does every year – on the excuse its financial year is from October to September.

The UN ordered the shutdown of the escalators and the fountain in front of the Secretariat on October 14 as part of its austerity package.

While those two were symbolic and meant to send a direct message to the defaulters, other serious measures have also been taken like curtailing translation and interpretation services and travel, and limiting the time some UN facilities are open.

According to Dujarric, the UN spends $14,000 annually on the escalator. It was suggested that since the $1-million, 50-kilowatt solar park inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September provides free electricity while the sun shines and is, therefore, outside the budget allocation for the escalator’s electricity, power from it could be used for the escalator.

Another suggestion was to take donations from reporters to pay for the electricity. A solution offered by a reporter to deal with the cash crunch was to use sheep to mow the lawn like it is being done at the Palais des Nations UN offices in Geneva.

Dujarric said, “Well, we could talk to our friends at the Permanent Mission of New Zealand to see if they have anything to offer.”

When the austerity measures were enforced in October, 65 countries were in arrears and some have paid up since, but not Washington. India paid up its $23.25 million dues for the regular budget on January 30 itself, one of the few countries to pay up on time.

Ramanathan said the austerity measures are only temporary and will last only as long as the cash flow problem persists.

By Arul Louis
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2019 (IPS)

A reexamination of the role of the United Nations and a tallying of its successes and failure get underway as it prepares for the 75th anniversary next year in the world of the 21st century while its core entity, the Security Council, is trapped in the time warp of 1945, its founding year.

Being both a critique and analysis of the Council’s role as well as a work of encyclopedic proportions about its history, the political philosophies girding it and its evolution, former Indian diplomat Dilip Sinha’s book is a valuable resource for these debates that are gaining urgency from the milestone anniversary.

The title may give the impression that it is about the legitimacy of the Council’s power, but it actually questions the Council’s legitimacy in the exercise of power as seen from the perspective of a diplomat with an insider’s view of its working, both when its members gather in its chamber around the circular desk under the painting of Phoenix rising, and when the real business takes place in negotiations far from public view.

Sinha handled United Nations affairs for India from New Delhi as a special secretary during its 2011-12 tenure on the Council and he has also served as New Delhi’s Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva.

The main mission of the UN is maintaining international peace and security and UN Charter assigns that role to the Council, but in public perceptions its failures reflect on the entire UN.

While most of the other parts of the UN and other international organisations have been “developing processes of inclusive decision-making and modified their mandates,” he writes, “the Security Council remains mired in its archaic politics of power.”

When the UN Charter was adopted with 51 members in a world emerging from the trauma of World War II, its victors assumed the veto-wielding permanent seats on the Council as spoils of war and the veto powers of the five permanent members – the P-5 made up of Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States – is at the core of the Council’s functioning — and its consequent dysfunction.

In his critique of the veto powers, Sinha says that it either reduces the Council to “a dictatorship of the hegemons” or it functions as a “safety valve,” but concedes that “it is at best an unpleasant necessity.”

While the veto powers have made it impossible to take decisive action to end the multi-dimensional civil war in Syria or Yemen – as it has failed numerous times in its history – where vital interests of the P-5 clash, the Council is expanding its reach beyond the Charter-mandated primary role of maintaining international peace and security in a mission creep that now includes, among other things, human rights, women’s empowerment, climate change and terrorism, Sinha points out.

But beyond the dysfunction, “the permanent membership of the five violates a basic principle of democracy,” he says.

The non-representation of the developing counties, which make up more that two-thirds of the UN membership (unless one adds the economic superpower China to their number) in the ranks of the permanent members is at the heart of the imbalance in the power equations.

Meanwhile, the 28-member Group of Western European and Other States has two permanent members, Britain and France, (or three, if the group’s observer, the United States, is included). But Latin American, African and the Middle Eastern nations have none.

While there is near consensus that African countries – the largest group in the UN with 54 members or 28% of the 193 membership, and from the continent home to most peace operations mandated by the Security Council – deserve representation, the demands of other countries – notably Brazil, Germany, India and Japan that make up the Group of 4 or G-4 – are more controversial.

While these glaring inequalities may cry out for reform that changes the composition of the permanent membership, Sinha is not optimistic it can happen.

For the US and the European Union, “UN reform means giving more powers to the organisation to regulate the internal affairs of member states” on issues like human rights and good governance, he writes.

And on the other side, among the developing countries and others, there are differing interests and clashing opinions, as he points out.

As an illustration of the difficulties before G-4 and others in finding their way to a permanent membership, Sinha writes, “The permanent seat aspirants face the impossible challenge of satisfying the larger membership of the General Assembly without displeasing the permanent five.”

Sinha instead introduces the idea of weighted voting as a starting point for the reforms. The concepts of the equality of member states in the General Assembly and their inequality in the Council “are outdated,” he points out because “all countries are not equal” given the disparities in population and economic and military powers, among other things.

The P-5’s permanent veto power, moreover, “violates the principles of constitutionalism” and “has crippled it.”

As a remedy, he suggests, “Weighted voting can partially address the concerns of the permanent five and introducing the requirement of a super-majority for resolutions under Chapter VII (for taking military action) will allay the concerns of others.”

“A moderate increase in the size of the Council will improve regional representation,” he adds.

(Arul Louis can be contacted at arullouis@spsindia.in and followed on Twitter at @arulouis)

*Legitimacy of Power: The Permanence of Five in the Security Council;
Author: Dilip Sinha; Publishers: Vij Books India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, and Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi; Price: On Amazon: Hardcover $65; Paperback $39.95; Rs.940

Excerpt:

Diego Garcia island, which hosts a United States military base in the Indian Ocean. (Photo: NASA)

By Arul Louis
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 28 2019 (IPS)

Mauritius has scored a victory over Britain at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in a case involving the decolonisation of the strategically important island of Diego Garcia that is home to a United States military base.

The ICJ said on Monday that Britain must give up to Mauritius control of the Chagos Archipelago where the Indian Ocean military base is located on the Diego Garcia island.

The opinion issued in The Hague by the court’s majority that included Judge Dalveer Bhandari of India said that the decolonisation of Mauritius “was not lawfully completed” when it attained independence because Britain carved away the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and retained control of it.

The opinion handed down by the majority of 13 judges said Britain “is under an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago as rapidly as possible.”

The sole dissenter was American Judge Joan E. Donoghue. Britain is not represented on the bench after it withdrew the nomination of Judge Christopher Greenwood for re-election in 2017 when he could not get a majority of the votes in the General Assembly against Bhandari.

The court gave the opinion, which is non-binding, at the request the United Nations General Assembly made in a 2017 resolution.

Vehemently opposed by the US and Britain, the resolution received the vote of 94 countries while 15 voted against it and 65 abstained.

Britain has opposed the referral to the court saying it was a bilateral matter with Mauritius and indicated it would reject it.

There is unlikely to be any challenges to the US Diego Garcia base from Mauritius, either.

“We are not asking for the dismantling of the base”, Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth Mauritian said after the ICJ opinion, according the Mauritian newspaper L’Express.

It reported that he did not want to reveal the next step that his country was going to take but said he wanted Britain “to recognise the unity of Mauritius”.

Britain cut off the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 before granting it independence in 1968.

The people living on Diego Garcia were forcibly removed from there by the colonial administration and it was leased to the US, which set up its strategic Indian Ocean military base on the island.

About 50 countries gave the court written statements, some against Britain and other in support of it.

Vishnu Dutt Sharma, the Legal Adviser of the External Affairs Ministry submitted India’s statement that said that the process of decolonisation was not completed because Britain had not complied with UN resolutions for it.

In the 1970s and 1980s India had vehemently opposed the US base in Diego Garcia.

Then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi called the base 2,000 kilometres from India as a threat to India.

Since then the strategic environment and India’s interests have changed due the rise of China and the threats to navigation from piracy. India is now developing close defence ties with the US and toned down its rhetoric.

When the resolution to refer matter to the court was taken up at the UN in 2017, India’s Permanent Representative Syed Akbaruddin said that while supporting the position of Mauritius as “a matter of principle” to uphold the process of decolonisation and the respect for sovereignty of nations, “India shares with the international community, security concerns relating to the Indian Ocean”.

Maldives Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid has reiterated his nation’s commitment to a “free and open” Indo-Pacific region and to democracy.

During his meeting with Secretary of State Michael Pompeo in Washington Feb 20, Shahid “underscored the importance of his government’s reform efforts to (ensure) the vitality of Maldives’ democracy,” the department’s Deputy Spokesperson Robert Palladino said.

Maldivian Foreign Minister Abdulla Shahid

Pompeo appreciated the Maldives’ commitment to judicial reform, transparency, and rule of law, Palladino said.

Their statements on democracy and rule of law were a boost to the Indian Ocean nation’s fragile democracy.

Maldives had fought back a challenge to its democracy in September when the opposition candidate Ibrahim Mohamed Solih assumed the presidency after defeating President Abdulla Yameen, who had declared a state of emergency and arrested Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Justice Ali Hameed when the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of nine opposition leaders, including former president Mohamed Nasheed.

The US-Maldives declaration of commitment to free and open Indo-Pacific region has added significance because of the China factor

Yameen, who had moved closer to China and Pakistan, sent emissaries seeking support from them after the emergency declaration that India and the US criticised.

China sent warships to the Indian Ocean region near the Maldives after the emergency was proclaimed in February last year. Beijing is also major investor and aid-giver to the Maldives.

Palladino said that Pompeo undertook to work with Congress to provide $9.75 million in additional aid to Maldives.

David J. Ranz, the deputy assistant secretary for Central and South Asian affairs, announced in December an aid package for Maldives comprising $7 million in military aid for maritime security and $3 million for supporting civil society and environmental programmes.

According to Maldives Finance Minister Ibrahim Ameer, the country owes $1.4 billion to China.

The State Department said that the Treasury Department would help the Maldives government with developing a debt strategy and with domestic debt management.

Arul Louis can be reached at arul.l@ians.in and followed on Twitter @arulouis

A view of the ravaged village of Vilufushi, on the southeastern Kolhumadulu Atoll, where 17 have died and 28 are still missing after the tsunami swept across their island. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Arul Louis
UNITED NATIONS, Oct 3 2018 (IPS)

Maldives is currently going through a peaceful transfer of power to opposition leader Ibrahim Mohamed Solih, who was elected president last month, the nation’s Permanent Representative Ali Naseer Mohamed assured the UN General Assembly (UNGA).

Speaking at the high-level General Debate of the UNGA Oct 1, he said that September 23, the day the presidential election took place, was an “extraordinary day for the country and it “was a moment that makes every Maldivian proud of how far we have come and the excellent progress the country has achieved.”

“Following the election, the Maldives is currently going through the process of transfer of power from one elected government to the other,” he said.

On Saturday, September 29, the country’s Election Commission declared Maldivian Democratic Party candidate Solih the winner of the presidential election, overruling the defeated President Abdulla Yameen’s efforts to delay the announcement of the results.

“The accelerated process of democracy in the Maldives is going in tandem with faster growth in social and economic development,” Mohamed said.

The elections came after a tumultuous period during which Yameen had imposed a state of emergency earlier this year and had arrested former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, as well as Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdulla Saeed and Judge Ali Hameed and charged them with treason.

Solih was also arrested along with scores of opposition leaders.

Maldives Foreign Minister Mohamed Asim was scheduled to address UNGA last Saturday, September 29, but after the president’s defeat he did not show up and Mohamed, who spoke in his stead, was the last speaker at the concluding session of the high-level General Debate.

Without naming any countries, Mohamed said “the principle of international law that governs the friendly relations and cooperation among states are being challenged at a fundamental level.”

“There is therefore a need for countries big and small to return to the right side of law,” he said.

During the country’s turmoil, the tug of war over the Maldives between the Asian giants, India and China came to the fore. As New Delhi insisted on Maldives adhering to democracy, Yameen began a drift towards Beijing and also reached out to Islamabad.

Unlike last year’s speech by Mohamed at the General Debate, Soli’s address this year hardly gave any importance to climate change, which the archipelago nation has presented to the world as a mortal danger to its very existence because of rising sea levels.

He mentioned in the passing that the UN should be the place where the “combined power of many ideas, many solutions, and many voices thrive to address challenges of climate change, ocean degradation, poverty, exclusion, and discrimination.”

Another mention of climate change came when he spoke of the construction of a bridge connecting the capital with its airport and the suburb of Hulhumalé and said it helped “better adaptation to climate change.”

The Maldivian envoy also gave a lot of importance to the value of the UN as “the engine room of multilateralism” and its role in helping the smaller nations.

“For the small islands developing States, such as the Maldives, the United Nations will always remain the indispensable partner in building our national resilience. We see the UN as the key in determining our place, and our voice, in the global discourse,” he said.

“Ensuring the relevance of the UN, must mean ensuring that everyone, from the biggest to the smallest, play their part,” he added. “It must mean, offering everyone a place, in finding shared solutions for our shared future.”

Mohamed spoke proudly of the nation’s strides in development and in ending poverty.

“From the humble beginning, as one of the poorest countries in the world at independence in 1965, to an upper middle-income country today, is a success story by any measure,” he said.

The per capita gross domestic product shot up from $1,470 in 1980 to $19,120 last, the International Monetary Fund data show, putting it firmly in the middle income countries category.

In per capita terms, Maldives is the richest nation in South Asia.

Mohamed gave his country’s scorecard: “The Maldives has one of the highest human development indicators in our region, with nearly universal literacy rates, universal immunization, and the lowest infant-mortality, and maternal-mortality rates. The country has eradicated diseases, such as polio, measles, malaria, and lymphatic filariasis, although various types of non-communicable diseases, are emerging as new challenges.”

He praised Yameen for what he said was the progress recorded by the Indian Ocean archipelago nation during the last five years under his rule.

He made an appeal for support to small island developing states like his for capacity building, through transfer of technology, and access to finance in order to achieve the UN’s sustainable development goals.

“The United Nations can assume a greater level of leadership in fostering such support,” he said.

By Arul Louis
NEW YORK, Jul 20 2015 (IPS)

The Vienna agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council acting in concert with Germany has the potential to remake international relations beyond the immediate goal of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Courtesy of Arul Louis/ICFJ

Its impact could be felt at various levels, from United States engagement in the Middle East to the interaction of the competitive global powers, and from the economics of natural resources to the dynamics of Iranian society and politics.

President Barack Obama has invested an inordinate amount of political capital on the deal, challenging many in the United States political arena and Washington’s key allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia in hopes that a breakthrough on Iran would be his presidency’s international legacy along with his Cuba opening.

Obama is gambling on the nation’s war-weariness after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars that took a total toll of 6,855 casualties and, according to a Harvard researcher, is costing the nation at least $4 trillion. He presented the nation with a stark choice: War or Peace.

“There really are only two alternatives here,” he said, “either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically, through a negotiation, or it’s resolved through force, through war.”Even if Washington and Tehran don't recapture the closeness of the Pahlevi era, the U.S. will increase its options in the Middle East, a region posing a growing to the world threat from the Sunni-based Islamic State or ISIL.

Though the deal has been denounced by Republicans and some Democrats, and, earlier, the opponents had taken the unprecedented step of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make their case before Congress, Obama expects to carry the day. Even if Congress votes against the agreement, Obama reckons the opposition will not be able to able to get the two-thirds majority to override his threatened veto.

Obama’s Iran legacy, if it works according to plan, will not have the impact of Richard Nixon’s opening to China, but it still could mark the end of 36 years of virulent hostilities. Even if Washington and Tehran don’t recapture the closeness of the Pahlevi era, the U.S. will increase its options in the Middle East, a region posing a growing to the world threat from the Sunni-based Islamic State or ISIL. Right now Washington is hamstrung by unsure Sunni allies in the region.

Already in Iraq, the U.S. and Iran have been working with different elements on parallel tracks against ISIL. Obama has been blamed for pulling out U.S. troops from Iraq, although it was largely in keeping with his predecessor George W. Bush’s timetable, and for failing to reach an agreement with Baghdad on stationing some troops beyond the pullout deadline. These have been mentioned as factors leading to the rise of ISIL.

Now, there is a chance for Obama to redeem himself through the cooperation of Iran, even if they will not go to the extent of a formal agreement.

In the other ISIL flashpoint to the west of Iraq, there seems to be implacable differences on Syria. Tehran stands firmly by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whom Washington considers the irreconcilable foe of peace in that civil war ravaged country. Bridging this gap even if by face-saving measures would be the true test of a diplomatic shift.

The Iran nuclear issue takes the inevitable colour of a Shia-Sunni conflict. In the first place, the unspoken impetus for Tehran’s nuclear ambitions was Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and the threat from its Sunni fundamentalists against Shias.

Now Pakistan’s stock will rise in Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations as hedge, a Sunni-dominated nuclear power ranged against Iran, which they mistrust.

Add to this mix Israel, which has developed an unlikely alliance with Saudi Arabia. For Israel, the threat comes from fears of the millenarian trends among some Shia Muslims that could cancel out the insurance that Jerusalem, sacred to the Muslims, provides and Teheran’s venomous, ant-Semitic rhetoric.

But a more immediate issue for Israel is Tehran’s support for the Palestinian Hamas and the Lebanese Shia Hezbollah. The sanctions against Iran limited its potential financial and material backing for these organisations and the flow of funds after sanctions are lifted could boost Tehran’s adventurism, directly and through proxies, Israel fears.

On the global diplomatic front, the Iran deal is a break from the incessant U.N. Security Council squabbles that have hobbled it as issues like Ukraine, Syria, the South China Sea and assorted hotspots in Africa burn. Russia and China showed they could work intensively with the West. Moscow even earned plaudits from Obama for its role in facilitating the deal.

Russia and Iran share some common interests in places like Syria, Central Asia and the caucuses. An unbridled Tehran could more effectively cooperate with Moscow in these areas.

Economically, Russia, like other oil producers, may be hit by falling oil prices, but the diplomatic congruence and future arms sales could compensate.

For the European Union and China, the deal opens up business opportunities in a nation with tremendous economic potential along with lower oil prices.

Iran has the fourth largest known reserves of oil and its current production of 1.1 million barrels could soar to four million within a year. For most of the developing world, further reduction in oil prices will be a great help, even as it increases political and social pressures in some oil-producers.

The picture for India is mixed . It has been paying for Iranian oil imports in rupees while it has been exporting limited amounts of machinery and chemicals. The bilateral trade is in Iran’s favor and is estimated at about 14 billion dollars, with Indian imports at about 10 billion and exports at about 4 billion.

Now India may be able to buy more oil, but it will have to pay in rupees and its exports will have to compete with the rest of the world. With the prospects sanctions going away, India is already facing Tehran’s truculence in oil and gas and railway projects they had agreed on.

The Chabahar port project remains the strategic cornerstone of India’s ambitious engagement with Iran The port on the Gulf of Oman would give India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia bypassing Pakistan.

Chabahar is also a counterweight to Beijing’s Gawadhar project in Pakistan that would provide another sea outlet for China, Afghanistan and Central Asian countries.

On the nuclear nonproliferation front, the Iranian agreement chalks up a small victory after North Korean blatantly developed nuclear weapons. The world has been unable to confront Pyongyang diplomatically or militarily because of its mercurial nature leadership that borders on the insane.

For the Iranians themselves, the deal could ease up their lives and bringing back some normalcy. The bigger question is how it would play in the dynamics of Iranian politics. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei approved the deal, but he has since expressed mistrust of the West in keeping its end of the bargain. That may be rein euphoria and send a message to the moderates.

Would the deal lead to a lessening of the paranoia among the religious and nationalist elements in Iran and in turn strengthen the moderates and push the present day heirs of the ancient Persian civilisation towards a relatively liberal modernity? If that were to happen Iran would have truly emerged from the shadows of international isolation.

Edited by Kitty Stapp

Excerpt: