India backs IAEA resolution : - New change in Foriegn Policy...

Status
Not open for further replies.
How friendly Iran is to India ?

Dear Friends,

Here are some more facts which point out to how friendly Iran has been to India. If Iran has been supporting or opposing India on case to case basis, why should India feel shy in opposing Iran when it comes to our national interest. Unfortunately most people don't know of all these issues and they know only what media makes them to know..
.........................................................................................

• Blanket Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): After the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, Iran demanded all countries abide by NPT. When New Delhi pointed to Indian sensitivities, Tehran said this was aimed at Israel. India got together with the US—opposed to disarmament clause—to ensure the two issues did not figure in the final document.



• Security Council reform: Iran is strongly opposed to expansion of the UN Security Council and virtually toes the Pak line. It says it does not want new ‘‘centres of privilege’’ in the form of more than five permanent members. Means India’s bid gets a Tehran no.

• OIC resolution on Kashmir: Indonesia, Algeria delinked themselves from the Kashmir part of the joint statement at the previous Organisation of Islamic Conference summit, not Iran. On September 25, 2005, OIC stressed the Indo-Pak peace process should lead to resolving the ‘‘core dispute’’ of Jammu and Kashmir, and raised the UN resolutions in this regard.

• Right to self-determination: In November 2004, Iran joined a number of Islamic nations, including Pakistan, to move a draft resolution on universal realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination. When Indian officials pointed out Kashmir, the Iranians said this was for Palestinians and, therefore, a signal to Israel.

• PokhAran II: Iran did not support India’s Shakti series of nuclear tests in May 1998. Though its reaction was more towards dialogue between India and Pakistan, it backed UNSC resolution 1172 that virtually asked India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT and NPT and cap their nuclear capabilities.

• Dec 13 attack on Parliament: Iran did not condemn the terrorist attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The only West Asian country to come out openly against the attack was Syria, besides Israel. New Delhi requested Tehran and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for support. Iran did not oblige. Arafat called for restraint by both India and Pakistan.
..........................................................................................

Hope we Indians will learn how to put our national interests above our ill-founded and ill-informed emotions.

Rajendra
 
Thanks

Dear Rajendra Ji,

Thanks a lot for the detailed historical perspective of Iran's stand on issues sensitive to India.
 
History Quoted

Rajindra ji, issues with dates brought out by you [even though a few are not entirely true] even if taken true...it does not make Iran a hostile state towards India. Should not you also be touching upon the other side of the story as to how many timesa India twisted it's tail while taking a stand on many sensitive international issues.....do i need to remind you of so many of them, where India took many selfish stands to adress its internal and external audiance. State policy statements can not be covered in single statements as these have to be interpreted keeping the followings in mind:

a] Internal situation of that nation at that time
b] International opinion on the issue
c] Compulsions of states
d] Own interest[may be short/long term]
e] Position of the States in question
f ] Likely fall outs
g] Future diplomacy and geo-political consequences
f] Past relations
g] Economical impacts
h] Own security concerns.

And hence all the points given out in your last post need to be tested on those parameters and then seen with a microscope.
 
Dahiyaji,

How will you differentiate between 'selfish stands' and taking stands in the 'national interest' when we are dicussing international relations at the forums like IAEA?
 
When i say

spdeshwal said:
Dahiyaji,

How will you differentiate between 'selfish stands' and taking stands in the 'national interest' when we are dicussing international relations at the forums like IAEA?
Click to expand...


Bhai steypal ji, both are same.But i could not get your querry's direction? will you be a little more specific please.These one liners seem more like a taunt.Kindly be more eleborate and direct. I know that we are discussing international relations out here. I am surprised at your question really.
 
Last edited:
rkumar said:
• Blanket Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): After the 60th session of the UN General Assembly, Iran demanded all countries abide by NPT. When New Delhi pointed to Indian sensitivities, Tehran said this was aimed at Israel. India got together with the US—opposed to disarmament clause—to ensure the two issues did not figure in the final document.

• Security Council reform: Iran is strongly opposed to expansion of the UN Security Council and virtually toes the Pak line. It says it does not want new ‘‘centres of privilege’’ in the form of more than five permanent members. Means India’s bid gets a Tehran no.

• OIC resolution on Kashmir: Indonesia, Algeria delinked themselves from the Kashmir part of the joint statement at the previous Organisation of Islamic Conference summit, not Iran. On September 25, 2005, OIC stressed the Indo-Pak peace process should lead to resolving the ‘‘core dispute’’ of Jammu and Kashmir, and raised the UN resolutions in this regard.

• Right to self-determination: In November 2004, Iran joined a number of Islamic nations, including Pakistan, to move a draft resolution on universal realisation of the right of peoples to self-determination. When Indian officials pointed out Kashmir, the Iranians said this was for Palestinians and, therefore, a signal to Israel.

• PokhAran II: Iran did not support India’s Shakti series of nuclear tests in May 1998. Though its reaction was more towards dialogue between India and Pakistan, it backed UNSC resolution 1172 that virtually asked India and Pakistan to sign the CTBT and NPT and cap their nuclear capabilities.

• Dec 13 attack on Parliament: Iran did not condemn the terrorist attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001. The only West Asian country to come out openly against the attack was Syria, besides Israel. New Delhi requested Tehran and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for support. Iran did not oblige. Arafat called for restraint by both India and Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Thanks Sir for these inputs. I think these points are enough to justify India's decision to support IAEA resolution.
 
devdahiya said:
..........do i need to remind you of so many of them, where India took many selfish stands to adress its internal and external audiance. ....
Click to expand...

Yes Dahiya Ji, that will certainly help me to understand Indian actions better if you can give the details of all such votes by India at international fora like UN or otherwise.

RK^2
 
Dahiyaji,

Please please.. don't misunderstand me. I never intended a taunt on you but was trying to invite your kind attention to your own narration:

"how many timesa India twisted it's tail while taking a stand on many sensitive international issues.....do i need to remind you of so many of them, where India took many selfish stands to adress its internal and external audiance"

I thought you never intended to substitute the words selfish stands for national interests and would have liked to know that what was going on in your mind when you were writing these words. I mean, what particular instances you had in mind when India acted selfishly. I should clarify that to me word selfish is not in good spirit if you take both inter-changeable. That is my view and no intention to offend you.
 
Dear Friends,

Please refer to my post dated 29th Septemebr 2005 on the subject and compare with the following which appeared in Hindustan Times on 2nd October 2005;

http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1507403,00120001.htm

Whan I talked of Nadir Shah and now the HT reporter also talks of the same, one would imagine as if reporter and me are hand in gloves. Fact of the matter is that truth remains same irreseptive of who tells it. High time Indian pesudo-intellectuals wake up to the hard realities and support Indian government on issues of national importance. Extending arguments without any supportive facts does not do any good to the nation.

RK^2
 
Last edited:
Just Bare Facts...

Iran, US: India's Catch 22

India's relations with Iran -- accused by Washington of attempting to build nuclear weapons -- is possibly the first major hiccup in the New Delhi-Washington honeymoon.

'We are telling our Indian friends that they can't have it both ways,' a senior US administration official was quoted as saying by the International Herald Tribune.

He was obviously referring to India's recent nuclear pact with the US, which would give India access to nuclear material and technology earlier prohibited under US law, and Delhi's close relationship with Tehran.

Last month, soon after the June elections saw Tehran Mayor Mahmud Ahmadinejad elected president, Iran rejected economic and other incentives offered by France, Germany and the UK and restarted uranium conversion, sparking further fears about its nuclear weapons programme.

India commits support to Iran's N-programme

Yet when push comes to shove at the weeklong meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency which begins September 19, India, (along with Russia and China, permanent members of the UN Security Council) is unlikely to endorse the call led by the US and Europe (France Germany and Britain) to refer Iran to the Security Council for violating the provisions of the NPT.

Why is the US worried?

Washington is certain that Iran -- labeled as one of the three axis of evil nations by President George W Bush way back in January 2002 -- has been secretly developing nuclear weapons, which could radically destabilize the already tense region.

Iran admits fudging N-claims

Bush has recently assured India -- subject to Congressional approval -- of nuclear co-operation in the civilian sector provided New Delhi agreed to international inspections and separated its civilian and military nuclear facilities.

India's rapidly growing relations with Iran, whose chief nuclear negotiator visited Delhi days before the Prime Minister left for the UN summit (PM at UN: complete coverage) in New York, has obviously raised eyebrows in Washington.

Earlier this month, External Affairs Minister K Natwar Singh visited Tehran and is reported to have pledged support for Iran's 'peaceful nuclear energy program.'

This led to questions being raised in the US about the possibility of American nuclear technology proposed to be shared with India finding its way to Tehran.

Despite Washington's reservations on the subject, Natwar Singh also declared that the 'concerned ministers' of India, Pakistan and Iran were close to an agreement on the Iran India gas pipeline over Pakistan, and could 'finalize a framework agreement by December 31.'

Bush expresses concern

The Bush administration has not-so-subtly warned India that unless it supported a US-sponsored demand to refer Iran to the UN Security Council for breaching its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Pact, the India US nuclear agreement would become that much harder to push through Congress.

What are the ties that bind Iran with India?

It was Afghanistan which brought India and Iran together in the early 1990s.

Prior to that, the two nations had viewed each other with suspicion and mistrust left over from the Cold War, in which Tehran sided with Washington and Islamabad against New Delhi's ally Moscow.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 brought about a radical revision in Iran's ties with the US and Pakistan. But that did not really lead to a rapprochement with India, either, until the Sunni Taliban overran Afghanistan, which borders Shia Iran.

Both India and Iran found themselves supporting Ahmed Shah Masood's Northern Alliance against the Taliban.

Iran's hand in the Afghan mess

The relationship blossomed, and in January 2003, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami was invited as the chief guest for India's Republic Day celebrations, during which he signed not huge energy deals, but also put in place a strategic partnership which involved joint military exercises and the training of Iran's military forces.

Reports that the two nations had signed a pact giving India access to Iranian airfields in the event of a war with Pakistan rattled Islamabad and the West.

Since then, the relationship has grown in leaps in bounds, with Indian oil majors setting up shop in Iran. Iran is also seen as a gateway to the resource rich Central Asian republics, which energy-starved India is keen to gain access to.

Rashtrapati Bhavan cooks up a surprise for Khatami

And finally, as the peace process with Pakistan unfolded, India agreed to a proposal for a gas pipeline from Iran to India over Pakistani soil.

Soon afterwards, Washington, which had earlier stayed non-committal on the deal while privately encouraging it as a tool for peace, voiced objections to Iran being the source of the pipeline.

Privately, Washington also expressed fears that the nuclear technology it proposes to give India could find its way to Iran.

At the recent UN summit in New York, Iran insisted that its nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes, and dared the US to refer it to the UN Security Council, (which could impose sanctions). Tehran also warned that if the situation so warranted, it could not only start processing weapons grade material but sell its nuclear technology to other states.

What are Iran's interests in India?

One, India is the largest market for the natural gas in its southern oilfields.

Two, by cosying up with India, it hopes to negate some of its international isolation.

Three, Iran hopes to benefit from India's expertise in information technology, science and medicine.

Four, Iran hopes a strategic agreement with India will help modernize its defence forces.

The Iran Web

What are the main areas of cooperation between India and Iran?

According to India's Ministry of External Affairs web site updated in July 2005, India-Iran commercial relations are dominated by Indian import of Iranian crude oil (US$ 1.67 billion (41%) in 2003-2004). The total volume of annual bilateral trade was US$2.8 billion in 2003-2004 registering 24% growth over the previous year.

Iran: Tough nut for US to crack

Other interesting remarks on the MEA web site:

Air links with India/convenient travel routes: There are no Indian national carriers flying to Iran. Mahan Air, a private airline in Iran, operates three flights per week to Delhi and Iran Air flies twice weekly to Mumbai.

Indian Banks: No Indian banks are currently operating. A representative of State Bank of India is stationed at Tehran.

Links to local organizations dealing with India: There is no such organization in Iran.

Estimated NRI/PIO population: About 500 families, mainly located at Tehran.

Important NRI/PIO Associations and their contact details : No such organization exists.

Major Indian ethnic papers/television channels with contact details: There are no Indian ethnic papers or television channels in Iran.

What is India's position on Iran at the moment?

After a meeting with US President George W Bush in New York, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh clarified that India was against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, but that diplomacy, not force, was likely to yield results on this issue.

''We are not holding any brief for Iran. Another nuclear state in our neighbourhood is not desirable. But diplomacy must be given scope. The IAEA should be given a chance to work out a consensus,'' Prime Minister Singh told a press conference before winding up his visit.

Iran downplays PM's comments

India also urged Iran to honor its commitment to the NPT, of which it is a signatory -- unlike India, which is not an treaty signatory and hence did not violate any treaty obligations when it conducted nuclear tests in May 1974 and May 1998.

However, 'You have to allow a certain learning process to take place in Tehran rather than banging them on the head,' the Herald Tribune quoted an un-named Indian official as saying.

Iran threatens to use oil as weapon

In Delhi, analysts believe that India, which now has robust ties with Iran and its opponents Israel and the US, can use its influence and become a major power broker in the region.

Defending Delhi's ties with Iran, a senior Indian official noted that the US has an relationship with Pakistan which is independent of its ties with India, and hence there was no reason why India could not maintain independent relations with both the US and Iran.
 
Thanks Colnel Jagmohan for such detail and informative post on the topic!
It gives good insight in the recent level of relatioship between two countries. So, India has not commited any any sin in siding US on the resolution.
 
Last edited:
Voting at International fora is a very strange phenomenon. There are numrous examples when even India and Pakistan have sided together. Let us not get carried away by these votes. National interest is supreme and nothing else matters. As of now, many power blocks are evolving and India has to re-adjust its position.

RK^2
 
Rajendraji,

I am not here to wage a war of words to justify my belief that what India has done must be condemned from rooftops. But, the question here is was it at all necessary ? I am of the view that India could wriggle out of this unpleasant situation as this one action has reduced the reliability of India in third world. If we try to justify this action, it is nothing but US-like arrogance; nothing more, nothing less. After all Indian mediamen are not fool !!! They may be biased in domestic political issues but in international sphere they have hardly any reason to be biased. I am of the view that one, at least a jat of pure blood, should be bold enough to call the spade a spade.
 
And What is the Spade????????

ramksehrawat said:
Rajendraji,

I am not here to wage a war of words to justify my belief that what India has done must be condemned from rooftops. But, the question here is was it at all necessary ? I am of the view that India could wriggle out of this unpleasant situation as this one action has reduced the reliability of India in third world. If we try to justify this action, it is nothing but US-like arrogance; nothing more, nothing less. After all Indian mediamen are not fool !!! They may be biased in domestic political issues but in international sphere they have hardly any reason to be biased. I am of the view that one, at least a jat of pure blood, should be bold enough to call the spade a spade.
Click to expand...

Dear Sehrawat Ji,
These are your views on the subject. If you agree what some of the media person's views are then it does not become "SPADE". I find your post a little disturbing in the context that it conveys a message that if we don't agree with what you are saying or section of media is saying, then we are not bold enough. I don't think that is a right conclusion. In my opinion it is the first time, that the Indian Government has been bold enough to ignore the dependency on oil to affect our foreign policy.

Probably this could be the reason of the government now trying to do some thing for the muslim community to do damage control to their vote bank, while ignoring the national interests. That is unfortunate but that does not take away the credit from their foreign policy decision on Iran issue.
 
Yup

ramksehrawat said:
Rajendraji,

I am not here to wage a war of words to justify my belief that what India has done must be condemned from rooftops. But, the question here is was it at all necessary ? I am of the view that India could wriggle out of this unpleasant situation as this one action has reduced the reliability of India in third world. If we try to justify this action, it is nothing but US-like arrogance; nothing more, nothing less. After all Indian mediamen are not fool !!! They may be biased in domestic political issues but in international sphere they have hardly any reason to be biased. I am of the view that one, at least a jat of pure blood, should be bold enough to call the spade a spade.
Click to expand...



How true! India has suffered a blow and a loss of face without any doubt. Repercussions will be long term and hence i will request the members to wait and watch rather to sit on judgement as what the future has in store can not be predicted for certainity. Horses have to be held till then.
 
We need to be Ready

devdahiya said:
How true! India has suffered a blow and a loss of face without any doubt. Repercussions will be long term and hence i will request the members to wait and watch rather to sit on judgement as what the future has in store can not be predicted for certainity. Horses have to be held till then.
Click to expand...
The government has taken a decision and now we all have to stand by it. I personally feel, that no decision is a bad decision when taken, if it does not turn out to give desired results, that could be because of error of judgement while making the decision. We all have our views on the subject. While wait and watch may be the most satisfying thing to keep ourselves comfortable, we need to actively monitor the international situation and keep our counter moves ready to deal with any unpleasant situation or any contingency. Every one is talking about the serious repeucussions? What are those Reprcussions? Let us mention these and then try and discuss the ways and means to counter those if they in fact do occur.
 
When we come to that bridge

No point in discussing every thing about future with if and buts attached. Everybody can guess the repercussions and i find no logic in discussing future,which has it's own uncertain course and as such needs to be left at that. Let us not prolong the issue to illogical destinations. We are no authority and final solution providers for all ills and goods. Chill-pill seems to be a better course here on.
 
Every One May not be good At Guessing?

devdahiya said:
No point in discussing every thing about future with if and buts attached. Everybody can guess the repercussions and i find no logic in discussing future,which has it's own uncertain course and as such needs to be left at that. Let us not prolong the issue to illogical destinations. We are no authority and final solution providers for all ills and goods. Chill-pill seems to be a better course here on.
Click to expand...

Dear Dahiya Ji,
Every one may not be good at guessing. To be honest, I am at least not at it. I am sure the Media that is rediculing the government's stand on the issue would have also given those repercussions. Let us try and find out. I guess, in a democratic system, the people are the authority to influence the government decisons and we are all those people. We may not be directly able to do that, but certainly if the government has done some thing that needs to be corrected, then best we can do is to educate public about this, so that the same government does not come to power again or atleast pays for its mistakes.
Let us first find out what the repercussions are? We can only come to any solution once we know the problem.
 
Just to update those members who thought India will loose LNG supply from Iran because of our vote. Here is the bitter truth;

http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2005/oct/25gas.htm

As I had mentioned in one of the post under this thread, India could never receive even LNG from Iran without USA and Europe's technical support. Iran might have gas, but that alone is not enough to produce LNG.

RK^2
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top