New Delhi
4 October 2005
By voting for the Iran resolution moved by the EU-3
in the September 24 meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in Vienna,
India may have squandered an opportunity to reciprocate Iran's gesture of
stopping a resolution on Jammu and Kashmir from being passed by the
Organisation of Islamic Conference and prevent it from being tabled in the
United Nations Human Rights Commission annual meeting in Geneva.
In a parallel laced with irony, the Manmohan Singh Government has
undone what his party, the Congress, under the premiership of the late PV
Narasimha Rao, had sought to achieve when the late External Affairs
Minister Dinesh Singh carried Rao's letter addressed to the Iranian
leadership to seek Tehran's help only weeks ahead of the OIC and UN
meetings, according to a former ambasador of India to Iran, Mr MK Bhadra
Kumar.
The diplomat went on to assert that the Iran issue was not about nuclear
programme but of controlling energy reserves and India might have
effected a radical departure from its position without adequate consensus
at home. Ciring Tehran's gesture in 1994, he questioned the claims by the
Congress "core group" that Iran had not been a helpful neighbour and was
prone to take a pro-Pakistan stance in international fora, especially at the
OIC.
"Iran insured that no harm was done to India and that India did not have to
come to the witness-box," the former Indian envoy recalled. "There are
many parallels that can be drawn between 1994 and now; both IAEA and
the OIC work on the basis of consensus but after Iran's objection,
consensus was lost and the resolution on Jammu and Kashmir could not
be tabled. India could have made a reciprocal gesture when the IAEA vote
came up."
Questioning the logic of this unprincipled and cowardly decision to vote
against Iran, Mr Bhadra Kumar observed that Iran's gesture had come at
a time when India was going through a difficult period. "There was an
economic crisis and communal tension, India was vulnerable to American
pressure and Kashmir was witnessing perhaps the bloodiest phase
coupled with the Clinton administration's unhelpful attitude. The collapse
of USSR was another factor."
He felt that the September 24 vote reinforced the belief that "India has
notorious difficulty with friendships" and that she is not a "good team
player". The diplomat also felt India's vote diminished her standing and
also undercut her eligibility for a permanent seat on the United Nations
Security Council. A similar vote in the November meeting of the IAEA, he
cautioned, could cause irreparable damage and affect India's credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment