IAEA:
India falls flat in face of West’s bullying tactics
NEW YORK-- India, a country that aspires to be a superpower in Asia,
lost its political credibility among the world's developing nations
when it voted against Iran at a meeting of the Board of Governors
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna last
week.
The
disputed IAEA resolution, backed aggressively by the United States
and the 25-member European Union, threatened to penalise Iran even
though it has still not been proven beyond any reasonable doubt
that the Iranians are in the process of building a nuclear weapon.
The
tragedy of it is that while the Western world stood firm in its
flawed conviction, the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement split
ranks. India was the worst offender because it cast a negative vote,
instead of taking the path of least resistance by abstaining.
Still,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, South Africa,
Tunisia, Vietnam and Yemen were among the non-Western countries
that abstained on the vote. So did the two big powers, China and
Russia. The vote was 22 in favour, one against (Venezuela, whose
president, Hugo Chavez, is following in the footsteps of the virulently
anti-US Fidel Castro), with 12 abstentions.
But
India's negative vote was a betrayal of all what it had stood for,
defending the cause of developing countries at the United Nations
-- and more importantly, standing up to the bullying tactics of
the Western world.
In one single vote, India lost the trust placed on it as a respected
and founder member of the Non-Aligned Movement. Although six non-Western
countries voted with the US -- Argentina, Ghana, Ecuador, Peru,
Singapore and South Korea -- their inclination to suck up to the
West is an established fact. But not so India's.
A
second IAEA resolution -- which will take the more drastic step
of "referring" Iran to the UN Security Council -- is due
to come up in Vienna in November this year. The developing world
will be watching how India will cast its vote on this resolution.
The
political pressure on New Delhi last month obviously came from the
US which has pledged to provide civilian nuclear reactors and nuclear
technology to India. The landmark nuclear cooperation deal between
India and the US was signed in July with much political fanfare.
When
it was erroneously rumoured that India was going to back Iran on
the IAEA resolution, members of the US Congress launched a blistering
attack on New Delhi. The International Relations Committee of the
House of Representatives put out the word that India's nuclear deal
with the US was in jeopardy.
Surprisingly,
the strongest attack on India came from Congressman Tom Lantos of
California, who also happens to be a leading member of the Congressional
Caucus on India, a veritable lobbying group for New Delhi.
"When the (Bush) administration called me asking for my support
(for the nuclear deal with India), I gave it and continue to do
so," he said. But there is a degree of reciprocity we expect
from India, which is not been forthcoming". Lantos said the
policy of India towards Iran "is a matter of grave concern
to many of us."
"There
is a quid pro quo in international relations and if our Indian friends
are interested in receiving all of the benefits of US support we
have every right to expect that India will reciprocate in taking
into account our concerns", he warned.
The
US threat, which was also probably reinforced by the White House
through back channels, was not against a banana republic in Latin
America, but against a country with aspirations to becoming a superpower.
So the question remains; how can you entertain visions of becoming
a superpower when you do not have the guts to stand up to the world's
only other superpower (the US) -- particularly when your own national
interests are at stake in Iran?
The
negative vote was a surprise for other reasons too: India and Iran
have a vibrant economic relationship, with an impending $6 billion
gas pipeline which is expected to meet most of the energy needs
of the Indians.
The vote also jeopardises India's longstanding national ambition
to find a permanent seat in the Security Council: a move supported
by most developing countries at the UN.
If
India is seen as a political lackey -- or a potential political
lackey -- of the US and Western powers, why should the developing
world back New Delhi's claims for a seat in the Security Council?
Perhaps
India should also realise that the US has so far not made any public
proclamation backing New Delhi's drive for a permanent seat in the
Security Council.
Addressing
the General Assembly last month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice admitted that Washington was in favour of expanding the Security
Council.
But
she only singled out Japan, by saying that the US had "long
supported" a permanent seat for that country. However, she
mentioned, in passing, that "we believe that developing countries
deserve greater representation".
Perhaps she deliberately refused to openly back any of the developing
countries by name -- including India, Brazil, Nigeria and South
Africa -- which have been unsuccessfully knocking at the Council
door for nearly a decade.
|