Hyderabad
18 March 2012
As India negotiates the diplomatic minefield that is West Asia, questions are being asked of the government as to whether and how it could engage differently with Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, without having to taking sides or pick and choose one over the other.
New Delhi would have you believe that the overlapping tensions in West Asia, manifested in the Israel-Iran stand-off over the latter's nuclear ambitions, the proxy war being played out in Syria between a Shiite Iran and the Sunni-bloc led by Saudi Arabia, or more generally the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy, constrict India's options.
In an example of some nimble Indian diplomacy, the government despatched external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia in order to offset any adverse fallout from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposed visit to Iran later this year. However, the same government chose in its wisdom to support a UNSC resolution against Syria.
While there is merit in New Delhi's argument, an influential section of the Indian diplomatic community contends that the ongoing investigation into the attack on an Israeli envoy in New Delhi or the threat of US sanctions on Indian entities post-June 28 for not reducing oil imports from Iran should not deter the government from pursuing what it deems is in its enlightened national interest.
"The US not only does not choose between India and Pakistan but actually assists our adversary in many ways, so why should we forego our limited relationship with Iran for the sake of the US?" wondered Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary.
"Do Iran and Saudi Arabia choose between us and Pakistan? If at all they have been historically closer to Pakistan than to us. If Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust are objectionable, the Wahabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia is objectionable too. We should safeguard our energy relationship with Iran as best as we can despite US and EU sanctions and the Arab position," Mr Sibal told this newspaper.
Increasingly, diplomats who have observed or served in the region insist that India's relationship with Iran should stand on its own feet and not linked to its relations with Saudi Arabia. They maintain that whatever the differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Sunni conflict that is building up, India does not need to take sides or feel compelled to choose.
They cautioned against a repeat of 2005 when New Delhi jettisoned its ties with Tehran in its narrow pursuit of the India-US nuclear deal. While some claim that Iran's rise as a regional power is inevitable, others cite the significance of Iran as land bridge to Afghanistan and beyond as a case in point.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to visit Iran despite regional tensions
Hyderabad
12 March 2012
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-anticipated visit to Iran this year can be expected to serve the dual purpose of maintaining India's ties with Iran on an even keel and kickstarting peace talks with Pakistan.
Tehran will host the 16th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in September.
His visit to the Iranian capital will, literally, be couched in nonalignment, coming as it will in the midst of a brewing crisis in West Asia, between Iran and Israel, and between the Shiite and Sunni blocs represented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively.
It will follow the visits by external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel, and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia. Also, it will be the first visit by an Indian premier to Iran in over a decade, after Atal Bihari Vajpayee's in 2001.
Prime Minister Singh's proposed visit to Tehran is being described as a manifestation of India's balanced and equitable relationships with various protagonists in the region. A broad-based relationship with the region is a welcome shift in policy, particularly after the narrow-minded pursuit of interests in the run-up to the signing of the India-US nuclear deal.
India and Pakistan are among the 120 members of the NAM. Besides interacting with the host, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prime Minister Singh is likely to re-engage his Pakistan counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the margins of the summit.
The prime ministers of India and Pakistan last met in November 2011 on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in the Maldives. Incidentally, it was on the margins of the last NAM summit, hosted by Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009, that prime ministers Singh and Gilani agreed to insulate the peace talks from "action on terrorism".
Prime Minister Singh will be hoping that peace with Pakistan will be his legacy, as India heads for elections in 2014. The Singh-Gilani talks will be preceded by Mr Krishna's visit to Islamabad.
CPM rips PM's 123 speech, reminds him not to proceed with N-deal
New Delhi
14 August 2007
An unrelenting CPI(M) on Tuesday reiterated that the UPA
Government should not proceed with operationalising the 123 Agreement. The terse
reminder came within hours of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's breakfast meeting with
CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat.
The CPI(M) Politburo said: "The Prime Minister's statement in Parliament does not shed
any new light on the India-US nuclear agreement that calls for a reassessment on our
part. He has reiterated his position on the agreement and has not addressed the issues
that we have raised."
In a point-by-point rebuttal of the Prime Minister Singh's statement on the proposed
India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, the Politburo listed certain issues of
divergence between the Left and the UPA and also sought to explain the reasons for the
CPI(M)'s opposition to the nuclear deal.
"One of the more important issues raised by the Left right from the beginning," the party
said, "is the link that the agreement has had on India's foreign policy. Here, the issue is
not what the Prime Minister is saying but what his government is doing."
It referred to joint naval exercises and Iran to state: "It is difficult to agree with the Prime
Minister that this agreement has no impact on our independent foreign policy, especially
when the US officials are busy selling the agreement to the US Congress on the strategic
value of India aligning with the US as a consequence of the agreement."
The party questioned the Prime Minister for saying that the US cooperation with India will
not be subject to an annual certification process. It said: "A simple reading of
Constitutional practice of the US would clarify that this annual certification is an
obligation of the US President, which he is bound to fulfil. That it does not find a place in
the 123 Agreement is not relevant."
It explained: "The issue that we have raised is if a "good conduct certificate" is not
forthcoming or if the US Congress does not accept the good conduct certificate given (on
issues ranging from Iran to anything that may come up in the future) what would be the
implications for the 123 Agreement. In our understanding, the US could terminate the
agreement with all its consequences for our civilian nuclear energy programme."
The CPI(M) disagreed with the Prime Minister that life term security for nuclear fuel has
been achieved in the 123 Agreement. It said that full access to technology for the fuel
cycle will not be available to India either. "The Prime Minister has essentially confirmed
this; the only concession finally secured is forward-looking language," the Politburo
said. It went on to point out that the right to reprocess is only a notional right at present
and subject to conditions that might emerge in the future.
The CPI(M) also saw no basis for the Prime Minister's "continued optimism" of the NSG
changing its guidelines without conditions and dismantling the restrictions on the
transfer of dual use technologies to India. "This is the same belief he had expressed in
Parliament when he had stated that the US would give full access to civilian nuclear
technology, an expectation, which he has now conceded has been belied," it added.
The leader of the CPI(M) in the Rajya Sabha, Mr Sitaram Yechury, said that all
outstanding issues, including a reappraisal of the CPI(M)'s ties with the UPA, would be
discussed threadbare in the Politburo on August 17 and 18. The meeting is also likely to
decide whether to persist with the UPA-Left coordination committee.
PM to skip SCO Summit next week
New Delhi
8 Augut 2007
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will not represent India at the
Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit for the third year in a row. The 2007
SCO Summit will be held at Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan next week.
Sources told this newspaper that Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee can be
expected to stand in for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh at the August 16 summit. New
Delhi has not made an official announcement yet.
The SCO was founded in 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan. India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan have observer status in the SCO. The US
applied for observer status but its request was turned down.
Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Murli Deora travelled to Shanghai for the
2006 Summit. The then minister of external affairs Natwar Singh represented India at the
2005 Summit at Astana in Kazakhstan.
India's low-key representation continued when Union Minister of State in the Prime
Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan was deputed to attend the SCO Heads of Government
(Prime Minister-level) Meeting held at Dushanbe, Tajikistan, in September last year.
New Delhi has been advancing the logic that there was no need for the Prime Minister to
attend the Summit because India was only an observer. Certain analysts, however, have
pointed out that all the other observer states were represented by their heads of state
and/or government at the Summit last year. The analysts said that New Delhi's thinking
was dictated by a desire to be seen as close to the US, especially at a time when both
sides were negotiating the proposed bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation agreement.
According to reports, the presidents of Iran and Mongolia are expected to attend the
Bishkek Summit. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attended the last Summit at
Shanghai. Pakistan is likely to be represented by its Foreign Minister Khurshid
Mehmood Kasuri. President of Turkmenistan Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedov will be a
special guest.
Incidentally, Japan, an ally of the US, has realised the importance of Central Asia and
begun engaging the counties of the region, bilaterally and multilaterally. It formed the
Central Asia Plus Japan initiative in August 2004. All the five Central Asian countries are
involved in this dialogue. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will visit India later this
month. He is expected to address both Houses of Parliament on August 22. Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh addressed the Japanese Diet (Parliament) in December last
year.
Left says 123 pact falls short of PM promises
New Delhi
7 August 2007
The Left parties on Tuesday conveyed to Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh that his assurance to Parliament, that the proposed India-United States civilian
nuclear cooperation agreement will cover the entire nuclear fuel cycle, will be violated
under the terms set by the Hyde Act. They also said that a careful study of the 123
Agreement suggested that the Prime Minister's other assurances on India getting full
civilian nuclear cooperation including, but not limited to, sensitive nuclear technology,
dual-use items or uninterrupted fuel supply, were not likely to be met either.
The statement issued on Tuesday by the Left parties read: "While the 123 Agreement is
being presented as a victory for India's positions and conforming to the Prime Minister's
assurances in Parliament, we find that there are a number of issues on which it falls
short of what the Prime Minister had assured Parliament. While the Indian commitments
are binding and in perpetuity, some of the commitments that the US has made are either
quite ambiguous or are ones that can be terminated at a future date."
CPI(M) General Secretary Prakash Karat, who was joined by D Raja (CPI), Abani Roy
(RSP) and Devarajan (AIFB) for the news conference, said that under the terms set by the
Hyde Act, it was clear that one of the key assurances given by Prime Minister to
Parliament on August 17, 2006 -- that India-US nuclear cooperation would cover the entire
nuclear fuel cycle -- would be violated.
He said: "The proposed 123 Agreement while superficially using the original wording of
the joint statement of 2005, full civilian nuclear cooperation, denies cooperation or
access in any form whatsoever to fuel enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water
production technologies. The statement of intent in the agreement that a suitable
amendment to enable this access may be considered in the future has little or no
operative value."
Mr Karat said that despite some "skillful drafting" of the 123 Agreement, its text did not
reflect the Prime Minister's assurances. He said that it was certain that successive
presidents of the US and the US Congress will be bound by the Hyde Act and this had
implications for future.
The Left parties were categorical that the direction in the Hyde Act with regard to the
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) was unacceptable. They went on to reiterate that
the denial of technology extended to transfers of dual-use items that could be used in
enrichment, reprocessing or heavy water production facilities, which are again a
stipulation of the Hyde Act.
Their statement said: "Under these terms, a wide range of sanctions on a host of
technologies would continue, falling well short of full civilian nuclear cooperation. Even
in the new facilities built for reprocessing the spent fuel under safeguards, the onerous
technological sanctions implied by the dual-use label will apply. This is certainly a major
departure from what the Prime Minister had assured the House that this deal recognises
India as an advanced nuclear power and will allow access to full civilian technologies".
Mr Karat said that a number of conditions inserted into the Hyde Act pertained to areas
outside nuclear cooperation and are attempts to coerce India to accept the strategic
goals of the US. He listed three specific issues:
* One, annual certification and reporting to the US Congress by the American President
on a variety of issues such as India's foreign policy being "congruent to that of the US"
and more specifically India joining US efforts in isolating and even sanctioning Iran,
which is dealt with under Section 104 g (2) E (i) rpt 104 g (2) E (i) of the Hyde Act.
* Two, Indian participation and formal declaration of support for the US's highly
controversial Proliferation Security Initiative including the "illegal" policy of interdiction
of vessels in international waters, as per Section 104 g (2) K rpt 104 g (2) K.
* Three, India conforming to various bilateral and/or multilateral agreements to which
India is not currently a signatory such as the US's Missile Technology Control Regime
(MTCR), the Australia Group, etc, as suggested under Section 104 c E, F, G rpt 104 c E, F,
G.
Mr Karat added: "All of these are a part of the Hyde Act [and the] termination clause is
wide-ranging and does not limit itself to only violation of the agreement as a basis for
cessation or termination of the contract."
Washington imposes sanctions for supplying chemicals to Iran; 'we didn't break any law', Indian companies tell US
New Delhi
29 December 2005
The two Indian companies sanctioned by the United
States Government for supplying chemicals to Iran say the shipments
were as per Indian law and the guidelines under the Chemical Weapons
Convention were complied with.
The vice chairman of Mumbai-based Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited, Mr
Mohit Chuganee, said the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of
Chemicals and Fertilisers had found no discrepancy in the business
transaction.
Mr Smit repeat Smit Patel of Sandhya Organic Chemical Private Limited,
in turn, said he was surprised to learn about the imposition of the
sanctions despite adhering to all India laws and the relevant international
guidelines.
Mr Patel would not take more questions and chose to conclude his
remarks by stating that the supply of chemicals were not without the
approval of the government agencies concerned. However, Mr Chuganee
was more forthcoming.
"There had been extensive contacts with the Ministry of External Affairs
and the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers before and after the one-
time shipment of 90 tons of trimethyl phosphite two years ago," Mr
Chuganee told this newspaper.
Mr Chuganee, however, acknowledged that the government did suggest
sometime ago that while the shipment was as per rules, politically it
would better if the business transaction was terminated and further
shipment discontinued with.
He said trimethyl phosphite was a dual-use chemical notified under the
Schedule Three of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Some 150
countries are signatories to the Convention including India, Iran and the
United States.
"We were in touch with both the director general of foreign trade (DGFT)
and the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals under the Ministry
of Chemicals and Fertilisers, which is the nodal agency designated under
the Chemical Weapons Convention," he said.
He said the Iranian company called Raja Shimi wanted to buy more
quanities of the chemical but he chose not to process the request. "The
[decision to exercise the] option was ours," he said, who is business for
the past decade.
Washington, meanwhile, maintained that the sanctions were based on
"credible evidence". State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli
said "[the sanctions are] an important and effective tool in constraining
Iran's efforts to develop missile and weapons of mass destruction
capabilities."
Alleged supply of chemicals to Iran: India tells US that sanctions on Indian firms not justified
New Delhi
28 December 2005
Amid the negotiations with the United States on the
civil nuclear deal, India on Wednesday termed as unjustified the reports
about imposition of sanctions by the Bush administration on two Indian
companies for allegedly selling chemical materials to Iran.
The spokesman of the Ministry of External Affairs, Mr Navtej Sarna, told
reporters that it was New Delhi's view that the two companies named had
not acted in violation of Indian laws or regulations.
A US media report on Tuesday said that the two Indian chemical
companies -- Sabero Organics Gujarat Limited and Sandhya Organics
Limited -- along with Chinese and Austrian firms will soon be sanctioned
by US President George Bush's administration under the US Iran
Proliferation Act, 2000, for allegedly selling missile goods and chemical
arms materials to Iran.
The spokesman said that the "imposition of sanctions by the US on our
firms, which in our view have not acted in violation of our laws or
regulations, is not jusified." "The Government," he said, "also reiterates
that sactions against Dr YSR Prasad should be removed."
He said the sanctions related to the transfer of some chemicals to Iran.
"Our preliminary assessment is that the transfer of such chemicals is not
in violation of our regulations or our international obligations," he said.
The spokesman observed that the government's commitment to prevent
onward proliferation was second to none and that it has instituted a
rigorous system of export controls. "Our track record in this regard is well
known. India is working with international community including with the
US as a partner against proliferation," he said.
The spokesman said the government has also seen the reports about the
removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar by the US Government. "The
removal of sanctions on Dr C Surendar vindicates Government's position
on this matter. Since the imposition of sanctions in September 2004,
Government has maintained that this had no justification. Accordingly, we
had urged the US Government to review the issue and withdraw the
sanctions," he said.
Russia ticks off US on Iran; cautions Washington against provoking Tehran
Moscow
26 December 2005
As the European Union's nuclear negotiations
with Iran remain delicately poised, a top Russian official has cautioned
the United States against precipitating an avoidable crisis and urged
Washington to refrain from making provocative statements.
"If the US [continues its] provocation against Iran, there is no prediction
which way [Iran] will go," a top Russian official told this newspaper. On
Russia's position, he said, "We have told Iran not to go beyond the limits
of energy purposes and the supply of nuclear fuel".
The remarks flow from concerns about the likelihood of a situation
developing in Russia's proximity that was "not in favour of Moscow".
There is also a perception that if Iran goes nuclear, it will pose a "real
threat" to Russia more than the US.
Concerns have also been expressed by certain quarters about a
breakdown in the talks and a showdown early next year when the board of
governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) holds a
regular meeting in Vienna.
The EU and the US are backing the Russian proposal that would allow
Iran to enrich uranium on Russian territory. Doing so would prevent
Tehran from diverting enriched uranium towards its nuclear weapons
programme.
Tehran on Sunday rejected Moscow's offer to process uranium for Iran on
Russian soil. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia had on Saturday
said that its proposal to facilitate "on Russian soil a joint Russo-Iranian
undertaking to enrich uranium still stands".
Iran, which resumed discussions with the EU negotiators -- Britain, France
and Germany -- last week, insisted on its right to produce enriched
uranium while maintaining that it was keen only on meeting its energy
requirements. The next round of talks are expected on January 18.
Russia and China abstained from voting in the September 24 meeting of
the IAEA. Their decision blocked the moves to refer Iran to the United
Nations Security Council. Both Russia and China also have veto powers
as permanent members of the Security Council.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)