By Simi Mehta and Ritika Gupta
NEW DELHI, India, Mar 16 2021 (IPS)

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues that the world is collectively facing at the moment. It is contended that strengthening the global response is pertinent to combat the threat of climate change.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted in 1992 that entered into force on 21 March, 1994, primarily aims to prevent anthropogenic interference in the earth’s climate system and stabilize Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions.

With this aim, the Conference of Parties* meets every year to assess progress and review documents by countries on their plans to combat climate change.

COP and the Paris Agreement

The Conference of Parties (COP) is the core decision making body of the UNFCCC. The Parties are the States that have ratified the Convention. Their task is to review its implementation by reviewing the various documents and emission inventories submitted by Parties.

From the first COP meeting held in Berlin, Germany in March, 1995 there have been 25 meetings so far. The 26th COP meeting, 2020 was scheduled to be held in Glasgow, United Kingdom, but had to be postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and is now scheduled for November 1-12, 2021.

The COP meetings have resulted in several important decisions and agreements. For instance, COP 3 was one of the most important meetings held in Kyoto, Japan that led to the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol. It called upon the developed countries to reduce their GHGs and established legally binding obligations under international law. Similarly, the Paris Agreement was adopted by 196 countries at COP 21 in Paris in 2015.

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change that aims to limit global average temperature to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degree Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, the implementation of this agreement requires comprehensive economic and social transformation. It works on a 5-year cycle of goals and actions carried out by countries.

In 2020, countries were supposed to submit their plans for climate action – known as Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs, which was postponed to 2021 in the COP 26 due to the pandemic. The NDCs are the goals and actions that the countries communicate as their plan to undertake to reduce their GHG emissions to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Means of implementation of India’s NDCs

The Paris Agreement provides a framework for financial, technical and capacity building to the countries that require it. Climate finance is particularly important as it is needed for mitigation and adaptation efforts by the countries.

As such, the agreement reaffirms the need for developed countries to offer financial assistance to those needing it for reducing their GHG emissions and also in their pursuit of climate-resilient development. India’s climate actions have mostly been funded by domestic resources.

However, to achieve the goals set forth, the substantial scaling of the climate action plans should be complemented by financial resources and assistance from developed countries. There would also be additional investments required for strengthening resilience and disaster management.

The Paris Agreement also discusses technological development and transfer for achieving the goals of the Agreement. India has advocated for global collaboration in Research & Development (R&D), with regards to climate change adaptation and mitigation, particularly in clean technologies. It has also advocated for enabling their transfer, and free Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) costs to developing countries.

The Agreement emphasizes upon climate-related capacity building for developing countries and exhorts the developed countries to extend their support for the same. In this area, India aims for a manifold scaling up of the country’s renewable energy targets and India’s climate change goals which are linked to the implementation of policies such as the programme on Smart Cities, Swachh Bharat Mission (Clean India Mission) and the cleaning of rivers.

What are India’s NDCs?

India ratified the Paris Agreement a year after the submission of its Intended National Determined Contribution (INDC). Its NDCs for the period 2021 to 2030 are as follows –

● To put forward and further propagate a healthy and sustainable way of living based on traditions and values of conservation and moderation.
● To adopt a climate-friendly and a cleaner path than the one followed hitherto by others at a corresponding level of economic development.
● To reduce the emissions intensity of GDP by 33%–35% by 2030 below 2005 levels.
● To achieve about 40 percent cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030 with the help of the transfer of technology and low-cost international finance including from Green Climate Fund (GCF).
● To create an additional (cumulative) carbon sink of 2.5–3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030.
● To better adapt to climate change by enhancing investments in development programmes in sectors vulnerable to climate change, particularly agriculture, water resources, Himalayan region, coastal regions, health and disaster management.
● To mobilize domestic and new and additional funds from developed countries to
implement the above mitigation and adaptation actions to bridge the resource gap.
● To build capacities, create a domestic framework and international architecture for quick diffusion of cutting-edge climate technology in India and for collaborative research and development for such future technologies.

Union Budget 2021-22

To achieve the above goals, India has begun to tread on the objectives of promoting a variety of renewable energies, such as by the introduction of newer, more efficient and cleaner technologies in thermal power generation, reduction in emissions from industries, transportation sector, buildings and appliances, waste etc.

The implementation of the Green India Mission remains a priority. This Mission is a comprehensive program towards sustainable environmental development through which the country can protect, restore and enhance forest cover and other afforestation programmes, along with planning and implementation of actions and schemes to enhance climate resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change.

The Union Budget was presented by the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman on February 1, 2021. Some of the key proposals to enhance India’s comprehensive environment protection efforts include: Hydrogen Energy Mission in 2021-22 for generating hydrogen from green power sources; Capital infusion of ₹1,000 crore to the Solar Energy Corporation of India; ₹1,500 crore to the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency; Centre’s clean air programme with a fund of ₹2,217 crore for air pollution control in 42 cities with a million plus population; Voluntary vehicle scrapping policy to phase out old and unfit vehicles; Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0: Allocation of ₹141,678 crore over a period of five years from 2021-2026; Allocation of₹4,000 for Deep Ocean Mission for five years; Launch of Jal Jeevan Mission (Urban), with an outlay of ₹ 2,87,000 crores to be implemented over 5 years for universal water supply in all 4,378 Urban Local Bodies with 2.86 crores household tap connections, as well as liquid waste management in 500 AMRUT cities..

India’s progress so far

Even though India’s GHG emissions have more than doubled between 1990 to 2015, when India entered its liberalisation period, it still remains less than other G20 nations. Among the G20 nations, India has one of the most ambitious targets set for reductions in GHGs.

Experts believe that India has remained on track to achieve its NDC by 2030, which will be catalysed with the adoption of its National Electricity Plan, which aims to achieve 47% capacity from non-fossil sources by 2027.

Any complacency cannot be afforded. A decrease in the budget allocation for the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change from ₹3100 in 2020-21 to ₹2869 is not an encouraging signal.

This is especially true for the renewable energy sector where India needs to stepping up its planning and implementation as we move towards the attaining the Agenda 2030. Since the energy sector contributes massively to the production of GHGs, tackling this area could contribute to fulfilling its NDCs.

India needs a consolidated mitigation plan which should include reducing fossil fuel subsidies, phasing out coal, better coordination between the central and state governments and raising self-sufficiency by domestic manufacturing in the renewable sector.

With regards to the NDC about creating an additional carbon sink, not much is being done in the afforestation/reforestation sector. There is a lack of data pertaining to the Green India Mission and reports show that the Mission has been consistently missing its targets due to a lack of funding at the centre and state level.

There needs to be a dedicated ministry or committee responsible for afforestation, which should be funded adequately and take the recommendations of an expert panel on mapping and planning. The Clean Air Program for air pollution control in 42 cities with a million plus population and the Hydrogen Energy Mission has the potential to reduce India’s carbon footprint are important steps in the right direction.

India is well on its track to achieve its 2030 climate targets. However, it needs to do more in the mitigation and adaptation sector by creating a holistic mitigation plan. The COVID-19 pandemic and extreme environmental events such as Cyclones Fani and Amphan and droughts in several parts of the country highlight significant setbacks in terms of achieving the yearly targets and the overall goals by 2030.

Even though the COVID-19 pandemic induced lockdown temporarily brought down emissions to some extent wherein we witnessed the nature in its pristine form, it will continue to rise unless a green COVID-19 recovery strategy plan is created and followed.

Simi Mehta is CEO and Editorial Director of Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI), New Delhi and Ritika Gupta is Assistant Director of IMPRI.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Indian Army Chief, General M.M. Naravane recently admitted that there is a threat of possible collusion between China and Pakistan against India which could lead to a two-front war. Credit: Indian Defence News

By Simi Mehta
NEW DELHI, Jun 30 2020 (IPS)

Being the sole candidate from the Asia Pacific region for the non-permanent seat of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), India was elected by 184 votes in the 193-member United Nations’ General Assembly. on June 17, 2020.

For its membership during its two-year term- 2021-22, the priorities for India had been announced much in advance. India has called for a “New Orientation for A Reformed Multilateral System’ (NORMS)”- based United Nations.

The major characteristics for achieving norms include: new opportunities for progress; an effective response to international terrorism; reforming the multilateral system; a comprehensive approach to international peace and security, and; promoting technology with a human touch as a driver of solutions.

Chinese Incursions into the Indian Territory

With India’s non-permanent membership bid confirmed, its tenure begins with major skirmish in its border with the permanent member of the UNSC- People’s Republic of China (PRC), in the Ladakh side at the Galwan valley.

There has been a total of 20 confirmed casualties of the Army from the Indian side, and with indications of several personnel (jawans) held hostage by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Physical confrontation using nailed-rods have been inflicted as a means to torture the Indian jawans.

It needs to be mentioned here that this conflict draws resemblance to the 1962 war with China at the site of the Galwan river in the Ladakh region near the Line of Actual Control between India and China, began when China attacked India’s posts along the Indian border.

Suffering a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Chinese, this war was described as a blatant Chinese communist aggression against India. It must be noted that after 1975, no Indian soldier was killed at the hands of the Chinese troops. This 45-year record of mutual trust witnessed a bloody jolt where 20 Indian soldiers were martyred on June 15-16, 2020.

As India seeks to place NORMS at the UNSC table, any complacency in its approach towards China would only embolden the latter. As it clearly is, India is surrounded by expansionist and terror-harbouring states who are also nuclear powers.

According to the Yearbook 2020 of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India (150) has lesser nuclear warheads than Pakistan (160) and Pakistan and China (320) combined.

With nationalist sentiments raging high in India, the Prime Minister of India has sent a stern message that while India wants peace, it would respond appropriately to any provocation.

With complete resolve, it would do to protect its sovereignty and integrity and would not compromise it in anyway. Certainly, the stakes are high because when Pakistan intruded into India and challenged India’s sovereignty, India launched a ‘surgical strike’ against it as a befitting reply to such attack against it.

Amid the ongoing combat, a virtual meeting between India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Foreign Minister of India Wang Yi, was held. India warned China that the unprecedented development and killing of Indian soldiers would have a ‘serious’ impact on the bilateral relations.

While India and PRC have border management agreements, India must realize that such arrangements have not stopped China into making aggressive overtures towards it. The sooner its thuggishness around international rules of law is exposed, the faster it would ensure safety for the heroes in the armed forces.

Non-Permanent Membership of the UNSC: India’s Test to Hold PRC Accountable

As India assumes its Non-Permanent Membership of the UNSC from January 1, 2021, India must seek to avenge the wrongs of China keeping all its options of tour de force open. It would also hold the UNSC presidency for a month in August 2021.

India’s objective to establish a NORMS-based architecture must stand the test of time and prove its mettle to the world that it is fully capable of wielding a veto-powered permanent membership to the UNSC.

While this is the eighth time that India would sit as a non-permanent member in the most powerful agency of the UN, this election has been regarded as being the result of Indian PM’s “vision, and his inspiring global leadership, particularly in the time of COVID-19”, and that the international community would be a testament to the Indian ethos of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (the world is one family).

Into its 75th year, the UNSC does not represent the changed geopolitical realities. In 1945 when the UN was established, the UN General Assembly had 51 members, and in 2020 the it stands at 193.

However, the permanent membership to the UNSC remains unchanged- it was 5 then, it is 5 now. In other words, it remains unreformed and underrepresented.

India has been a vocal advocate of reforming the composition of the UNSC for over three decades, and being the largest democracy of the world, with formidable economic and military might as well as a responsible nuclear power, following a comprehensive approach to peace and security guided by dialogue and negotiations, mutual respect and commitment to international law, it has continued to demand a non-discriminatory permanent seat in the UNSC.

The UNSC is the pivot of the mechanism of international collective security and international peace. Therefore, it is high time that it should be reformed and expanded in order to enable it to perform its duties enshrined in the UN Charter more proactively.

For this it is imperative that the representation of emerging economies, most prominently India, be the top of the list, which would give the developing and lesser developed countries greater say in the decision-making process of the UNSC.

India’s objectives, mission and vision to promote responsible and inclusive solutions to international peace and security must put the need to reform multilateralism on top of the agenda.

With the commitment towards multilateralism, rule of law and a fair and equitable international system, India would adopt a ‘Five S’ approach to the world from the UNSC seat — samman (respect), samvad (dialogue), sahayog (cooperation), shanti (peace) and samriddhi (prosperity).

Basing all its arguments under these principles, India must call an urgent meeting of the UNSC comprising of all permanent and non-permanent members and collectively hold China accountable for its misadventures (including intrusions into its territory and threatening its sovereignty by induction of Chinese troops, artillery and defence equipment into the areas along the Line of Actual Control around Pangong Lake and the Galwan valley), and also for its attempts to unilaterally change the status quo on the border.

Having the international community of nations support India’s stand would be the first test as it sets to establish the NORMS architecture in the Council.

Excerpt:

Handover ceremony at UN compound in Beijing for donation of critical medical supplies to the Chinese government. Credit: UNDP China

By Simi Mehta
NEW DELHI, May 20 2020 (IPS)

Coronavirus outbreaks in China and later across the globe have been unprecedented in both its scale and impacts. In the era of changing world order, this pandemic has drawn the global attention towards the threats posed by the non-traditional security challenges.

All military prowess and records of economic progress have been rendered impotent vis-à-vis the coronavirus disease. With a total of around 5 million cases worldwide (and only about 83,000 in China), the wheels of power display of major powers like the US, China, Russia, Spain, France, Germany, Italy have come to a grinding halt.

The objectives of national health policy, health security of the countries, including the concept of collective health security of the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations have raised questions on their seriousness, claimed efficacy and efficiency.

Regarding the origins of the virus, there have been different narratives. This article analyses the discourse claiming that research and development programmes for medicine, vaccines, and treatment for health risks and planning and investment for intensive research on bioweapons by major powers led to the creation of the dangerous strand of contagion called the novel coronavirus.

Allegations on China

There is no denying that the place where it all originated was in Wuhan, China. Thousands of people began to suffer with a respiratory illness that could not be cured. The WHO has described coronavirus as part of the family of viruses, which ranges from the common cold to Middle East Respiratory Syndromes (MERS) and SARS.

It has the capability to transmit between animals and humans. Very soon, a school of thought contrary to the claims of the Chinese government that it was in the wet market selling exotic and wild animals- including bats, that was the cause of this pandemic, began to emerge.

However, counter-claims posit that The Wuhan Institute of Virology National Biosafety Laboratory in the vicinity of the wet market had deliberately created this virus. What raises arguments in favour of the counter-claims include: China did not raise an alarm globally about the existence, leave aside spread of the virus until major outbreaks were reported from late January 2020 onwards.

Various conspiracy theories have been circulating that this virus was made to escape the laboratory as bio-weapons either by accident or design. Some reports have also claimed that this virus was originally stolen by Chinese agents from Canadian laboratory in July 2019, which has level 4 of biosafety- dealing with the most dangerous pathogens for which there are few available vaccines or treatments, similar to that possessed by the Wuhan laboratory.

Further, it has rejected international fact-finding mission into its country. Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times and the Washington Post have suffered collateral damage and some of their employees have been asked to wind up their operations in the country.

Even academic research papers on coronavirus has borne the brunt by the gag-order of the Chinese authorities to intervene in the independence of the scientific process. Those research articles focusing on the COVID-19 have to now undergo extra vetting before they are submitted for publication.

As a result, the initial global empathy for the Chinese suffering from the wrath of this virus steadily turned into suspicion and panic. This culminated into pent up anger seeking reparations from China for being culpable for the origin and spread of COVID-19.

Unfazed by Chinese criticism, US President Donald Trump eloquently named the coronavirus as the Chinese virus. He has also accused the WHO of siding with China in hiding the facts and suspended its contribution to the multi-lateral body and said that the WHO “should be ashamed of themselves because they are like the public-relations agency for China.”.

Calls for an international investigation to know the ‘truth’ behind the origin and spread of the virus have become intense. With its one-party authoritarian system, China was initially on the defensive and flagrantly refused all such calls; which, in effect added to the case in point that there is ‘something’ that it wanted to hide from the rest of the world.

However, with growing international pressures and the most recent draft resolution led by Australia and the EU and supported by 122 countries at the World Health Assembly of WHO, China finally relented and agreed to the call for a “comprehensive review” of COVID-19 pandemic in an “objective and impartial manner”.

It is even pointing to the proactive help it is providing to several countries, in terms of sending protective gears, face masks, gloves, etc. However, complaints have been raised as several of these have malfunctioned and/or were defective.

Conclusion

In 1919 George A. Soper¹ wrote that the deadly Spanish Flu pandemic that swept around the earth was without any precedents, and that there had been no such catastrophe ‘so sudden, so devastating and so universal’. He remarked that, “The most astonishing thing about the pandemic was the complete mystery which surrounded it. Nobody seemed to know what the disease was, where it came from or how to stop it. Anxious minds are inquiring today whether another wave of it will come again”.

With close to 3 million positive cases and around 0.2 million deaths worldwide, the coronavirus has compelled people to draw parallels with the history of lethal viruses like the 1918 Spanish flu.

This great human tragedy created by COVID-19 is compounded because of the absence of a definitive cure and/or a vaccine. Experts opine that it would be possible only by the first quarter of 2021. The prevailing obscurity in China with respect to the causes of origin and global spread of the virus has led to conspiracy theories to emanate from various parts of the international community. Demands have begun to be made to hold China accountable for the health crisis and that it should pay the countries of the world for their health and economic hardships.

Trump has indicated that the US has begun its investigations to claim ‘substantial’ damages from China as the ‘whole situation could have been stopped at the source’. The champion of having China included in the world system- Henry Kissinger warned that COVID-19 was a danger to the liberal international order.

Even a veteran Cabinet Minister of Government of India, Nitin Gadkari stated in an interview to a private news channel that the coronavirus is ‘not a natural virus, rather it emerged from a lab’.

This, perhaps explains India’s cautious next steps of charging its northern neighbour China as the country responsible for the manufacture of the virus that has brought incredible and unprecedented mayhem in the lives, livelihoods and economies around the world.

Therefore, it would be in the best interests of China to ensure transparency and allow international investigations into the disease, as it is totally unbecoming of permanent member of the UN Security Council wielding veto powers.

The worldwide panic created by the prevailing health insecurity would redefine the meaning, definition and practical implications for programmes and policy of all countries of the world. Putting it into perspective, the global health management body- the WHO needs to be reformed, and so should the UN Security Council.

It remains to be seen how the world navigates through the crisis and whether comprehensive public health would figure in their national security agendas in the post-COVID-19 world order. Nonetheless, it is time that the multilateral agencies take suo moto cognizance of the havoc created by China and act as per the norms of international law for ensuring collective security.

¹ Major George A. Soper was Sanitation Engineer with Department of Health, USA. His area of specialty included study of typhoid fever epidemics. He was also the managing director of American Cancer Society from 1923 to 1928.

Excerpt:

By Simi Mehta
NEW DELHI, Jan 27 2020 (IPS)

The unease in the relations between the US and Iran have been in the international news for around a month now. Both sides have not shied away from using outright methods of warfare like the use of ballistic missiles and assassinations, along with attempts at economic and diplomatic sanctions.

There have been voices that have mentioned a possibility of a full-blown war in the Middle-East accentuated by US-Iran tensions. Given this background, this article attempts to connect the dots of the prevailing wariness with the historical antagonism between the two countries. It also reflects on the possible implications this might have on India.

Background
It all began in August 1953, when by the covert actions of the Secret Information Service (SIS) of the United Kingdom (UK) and the Central Investigation Agency (CIA) of the United States (US) connived a military coup- Operation Ajax, to topple the then Iran’s elected Prime Minister (PM) Mohammed Mossadegh, an ardent nationalist- who had plans to nationalize Iran’s oil industry and turn oil profits into investments for the Iranian people. The reasons for this coup d’état was that the US feared disruption in the global oil supply and worried about Iran joining the Soviet sphere of influence and the UK feared the loss of cheap Iranian oil.

In January 1963, the last Shah of Iran-Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi- who had close ties with the West, introduced the ‘White Revolution’ and was the harbinger of a series of reforms- for example: allowing women to vote, urban and rural modernization, reduction of religious estates in the name of land redistribution and free and compulsory education among others.

Iran’s Islamic fundamentalists, Shi’ite clergy and the landlords led by Ayatollah Khomeini, were enraged with Shah’s initiatives based on liberal ideals of western thought. They were successful in toppling the latter’s rule in 1979 after years of protests and bloodshed. This came to be known as the Iranian Revolution.

The Iranian revolutionaries took to hostage 52 staff of the US embassy in Tehran for 444 days, following which the US severed all diplomatic relations with Iran, banned American exports to the country and expelled Iranian diplomats. Iran was added to the list of state sponsors of terrorism after an attack by the Iran-backed militant group Hezbollah in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 US Marines in Beirut.

On July 3, 1988, the American cruiser USS Vincennes fired a surface-to-air missile and shot down an Iran Air Flight 655- a passenger flight scheduled from Tehran to Dubai, over the Persian Gulf and killed all 290 aboard. The cruiser commander displayed an ‘error in identification’ and termed the commercial aircraft as a fighter aircraft.

The 9/11 attacks on the US soil led the then George W. Bush administration to designate Iran as part of the “Axis of Evil” for supporting terrorism and pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This was fueled by a 2002 controversy that erupted over Iran’s clandestine nuclear program, when the National Council of Resistance on Iran (NCRI), an Iranian exile group, revealed information that Iran had built nuclear-related facilities at Natanz and Arak that it had not revealed to the IAEA. The US government then began pushing for UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

Obama’s election as the US President saw a rise of optimism from the Ahmadinejad’s government for developing understanding with the US. This continued with the election of Hassan Rouhani as the Iranian President in 2013.

Obama-Rouhani administrations witnessed attempts at rapprochements between the US and Iran. The historic Iran nuclear deal between P5+1 (US, China, France, Russia and UK + Germany) and Iran was signed and was known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which freed over 100 billion dollars in frozen assets overseas for Iran and increased foreign access to the Iranian economy.

It severely limited Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium and mandated that international inspectors monitor and enforce Iran’s compliance with the agreement. In return, Iran was granted relief from international and US economic sanctions.

Trump and Escalation of Tensions with Iran

Though the inspectors regularly certified that Iran was abiding by the agreement’s terms, in May 2018 President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the agreement and by November all the sanctions against Iran were reinstated. Iran’s economy began to be strangled to pressure it from stopping the ballistic missiles program and to force it to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

Incidentally, this move by the US was regretted by the EU, UK, France, China and Germany. Iran rejected US’ unilateral decision and vowed to defy the sanctions against it. Trump continued with his sanctions-strategy and imposed them on Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and other top officials of Iran including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IGRC) of Iran. IGRC was designated as a terrorist organization.

Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah attacked an air base in Iraq on December 27, 2019 where American and Iraqi forces were stationed. It killed a US civilian contractor and wounded several US and Iraqi service members. Airstrikes against the Kataib Hezbollah fighters in Iraq and Syria were ordered within two days.

Revenge and retaliation did not stop as the Iranian-backed militia groups chanting ‘death to America’ stormed the US Embassy in Baghdad on December 31, 2019, and burnt and defaced property.

On January 3, 2020, Iran received a massive jolt of the new decade when on the orders of President Trump, an American drone fired a missile that killed Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of Iran’s elite Quds Force, as he prepared to leave the Baghdad airport. Soleimani was considered to be second most powerful man in Iran after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.

The situation became further heated up when Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing American military personnel. While no casualties were reported, Trump announced new harsher economic sanctions on Tehran¹ .

As Iran entered a heightened state of alert, preparing for a possible US retaliation, out of “human error”, it accidentally shot down a commercial Ukrainian airliner departing Tehran for Kyiv, killing all 176 people aboard. With the Iranian forces demonstrating “highest level of readiness” at the time, the aircraft was mistaken for a “hostile target”.

Implications for India

India has a veteran diplomat S. Jaishankar as its Minister of External Affairs, and hence the position taken by India amid the US-Iran tussle is likely to avoid taking sides, either of the US or of Iran, in favour or against, since, it shares exceptionally good relations with both. India would continue to expand its economic and cultural ties with Iran and its Global Strategic Partnership with the US.

The US has understood the significance of Iran-India relations, imminent from the waivers provided to India in the recently legislated Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), allowing it to continue importing Iranian oil. Further, Iran’s strategic location provides the route through which India, blockaded by Pakistan, can fulfill its Eurasian ambitions.

The balanced, mature and status-quoist approach of India towards Iran was echoed by the Iranian Deputy Minister for Culture and Guidance of Iran Mohsin Jawadi, when he remarked that India-Iran relations were independent of the ongoing crisis Iran was facing back home. Javad Zarif acknowledged India as a dear friend, which also has good relations with the US. He exhorted the Indian leadership to encourage the US to come back to the negotiating table on the nuclear deal. The Chabahar project provides a route to Afghanistan and Central Asia. Because India and Iran are ‘complementary economies’, Iran has highlighted the need to ‘remove the dollar’ from their bilateral trade and instead concentrate on a ‘rupee-rial’ mechanism, which could ease the difficulties faced by them in bilateral trade due to financial sanctions posed on Iran by the US.

Jaishankar seems to have handled the US-Iran standoff over the last one year quite professionally, and accorded Prime Minister Narendra Modi the diplomatic agility to make calculated and successful visits to oil-rich kingdoms of United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. In fact, Iran has been responsive in negotiating with these countries without any preconditions, and that it ‘would welcome India’s positive role’.

Analysis:

The US has been seeking to contain Iran’s nuclear program, had in the first place, itself helped create in 1957 under the Atoms for Peace Program. It provided Iran its first nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel, and after 1967 by providing Iran with weapons grade enriched uranium and continued it until the 1979 Iranian Revolution.

The downing of the Ukrainian airliner has an eerie similarity with the downing of the Iran Air in 1988 by the US. The reasons cited for both incidents were ‘human error’, and ‘miscalculation’. The fact that Iran used the 1988 incident as an instance for a revenge cannot be overruled.

Further, the US may advise Ukraine to file a case for compensation with the ICJ soon, alike the Iranian claims in 1989. While an all-out war between the US and Iran has been averted as of now, the crisis has important consequences for longer-term regional stability.

¹ Blake, A. 2020. Transcript of Trump’s Iran speech, annotated, The Washington Post, January 8, 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/08/transcript-trumps-iran-speech/

*Simi Mehta also serves as the CEO and Editorial Director of Impact and Policy Research Institute (IMPRI), New Delhi., and can be reached at simi@impriindia.org.

Excerpt: