| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan/South Asia |
| Iran, US: India's Catch 22 |
| 2005-09-19 |
| September 19, 2005 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. Uttam's Take: 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. |
| Posted by:Phuter Angosh3729 |
| #20 If China isn't worried about bringing on about an American nuclear attack over an invasion of Taiwan, it certainly won't get worked up about India's dozen or so nukes. First Indian test was in 1974. It has been producing weapons grade plutonium since then (at one stage continuously refuelling some CANDU reactors, limiting power production but maximizing usable plutonium yield). A dozen weapons in thirty years? Not very likely. China clearly has numerical and technological nuclear superiority against India. It does however worry about an American attack and would hardly be expected to weaken itself over a land dispute with India. Someone driving an old, beaten-up Ford pickup can be reckless in traffic. The guy with the Mercedes is a little more careful. As China becomes richer, its tolerance for nuclear war fighting drops. |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-20 00:02 |
| #19 john: Fact is China refrained from further territorial expansion wars against India when the Indian military was much weaker (and non-nuclear) because it did wish to get involved in a protracted war with India over land. It was simply not worth it. Actually, that was probably due to the Soviet Union getting worked up about China beating up on one of its good buddies. The Soviets got all worked up again when China invaded Vietnam in the 1970's. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 23:49 |
| #18 Never mind that - what will the PLA do? India doesn't want to find out. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 23:46 |
| #17 john: And there is a question as to how many bombs China does have. It may have hundreds of missiles but how many warheads are available for an attack on India? China has to deter much bigger fish. FAS has an estimate of the Chinese nuclear missile inventory here. China doesn't need deter either the US or Japan, because neither country is interested in attacking China. In a war over South Tibet, all it needs to deter is a first strike from India. And its hundreds of missile-mounted and air-delivered nukes will do just that. If China isn't worried about bringing on about an American nuclear attack over an invasion of Taiwan, it certainly won't get worked up about India's dozen or so nukes. Fact is that India is a much smaller country with far more of its industry located in city centers. The PLA was built around fighting a nuclear war, first with the US, then with the Soviet Union. I think it can survive a nuclear war with India. Can the Indian military survive a nuclear war with China? What will the Pakistani military do when Indian cities are a pile of ashes? Payback time... |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 23:44 |
| #16 Stimulating thread. |
| Posted by: jules 2 2005-09-19 23:44 |
| #15 Fact is China refrained from further territorial expansion wars against India when the Indian military was much weaker (and non-nuclear) because it did wish to get involved in a protracted war with India over land. It was simply not worth it. It is not likely to risk severe damage to its economy at this stage in its developmwent. The costs of a war with India now would be quite high. A conventional war would probably escalate. |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 23:26 |
| #14 But India does not need to annihiliate entire Chinese cities. Shanghai is now a modern skyscaper laden metropolis. Hong Kong is, well, Hong Kong. The city centres would be destroyed in an attack. The economic losses would be terrible. They would weaken China in a confrontation with other powers (Japan, USA). And there is a question as to how many bombs China does have. It may have hundreds of missiles but how many warheads are available for an attack on India? China has to deter much bigger fish. |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 23:20 |
| #13 john: China will not sacrifice Beijing, Chongqing and Shanghai for Arunachal Pradesh And India will not sacrifice all of its cities for South Tibet (Arunachal Pradesh). China has hundreds of short and medium range nukes that can annihilate big chunks of India's industry. In this respect (of stockpiling nukes), India is decades behind. Any war between China and India will be a strictly conventional affair. China's cities are conurbations - low population density areas designed for surviving nuclear attacks - a legacy of tension with both Uncle Sam and the Soviet Union. Shanghai's population is 13m people. It rests on an area of 6,700 sq km. Bombay (incl suburbs) has a population of 9.5m people. It rests on an area of 438 sq km. Guess which city is more likely to be completely destroyed by a nuclear attack. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 23:05 |
| #12 Play the India card, eh? Interesting. Can someone please tell me again why this nation wastes so much bandwidth, resources, diplomatic and political capital on irrelevant Europe? |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-09-19 22:51 |
| #11 That's why the Indians have nukes China will not sacrifice Beijing, Chongqing and Shanghai for Arunachal Pradesh |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 22:48 |
| #10 lex: The fact of the matter is that we are constrained in multiple ways in Asia and will have to cut all kinds of deals-- with India and Russia especially. Actually, we're constrained only because we have these mutual defense treaties all over the place, which means that India can piggyback on the security that we provide. If we pull back on all fronts, India's the one that will come begging. Note that China continues to have claims on substantial chunks of Indian real estate - territory that used to be part of China's tributary state structure before the British East India Company came along. There is nothing I would love more than to see the Chinese put the screws to the Indians. It would be like the Soviets fighting the Nazis all over again. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 22:42 |
| #9 India's position in the contemporary near and far east is analogous to Russia's position prior to WWII: the ultimate power broker, a cynical as opposed to an honest broker. Kissinger called Molotov-Ribbentrop the outcome of "Stalin's bazaar", in which Soviet support was sold to the higher bidder. We can expect the Indians to act the same way. They are not our enemies, but they'll not likely be our friends for at least another generation. |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-09-19 22:39 |
| #8 Backstabber or otherwise, any nation in India's position-- courted by all, friend to none-- would act as India is acting now. They hold all the cards, and will of course up the ante to the maximum possible with anyone: Iran, the US, China, Japan, Israel, France, Britain. The fact of the matter is that we are constrained in multiple ways in Asia and will have to cut all kinds of deals-- with India and Russia especially. We'd better get used to it. |
| Posted by: thibaud (aka lex) 2005-09-19 22:36 |
| #7 I would hardly call the Indian positions "backstabbing". Its position was well known. It was neither an ally nor an enemy of the USA. Because of its location and economy, it was rather irrelevant to the USA for decades and American policymakers could tolerate this position. You should read some of US Ambassador Dennis Kux's articles (or his book on India-US relations). He points out (1) how the US grossly underestimated the ill effect that transfers of US weaponry (in the early 1960s) to Pakistan would have on relations with India. (2) The tilt towards Pakistan by Nixon and the dispatch of the Enterprise battle group to the Bay of Bengal poisoned relations for thirty years. (3) Ambassador Robin Raphael practically ran South Asia policy in the late 1980s. Her unauthorized statements on Kashmir caused much distrust. The Fabian socialist idiots who ran India were quite distrustful of the USA. One could hardly expect them to support US policy. Note that the current Indian cabinet still has a few of these morons - the senile Foreign minister Natwar Singh and the strongly anti-US petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyer. They can be counted on to sabotage moves made by the Prime Minister or Defence Minister. |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 20:48 |
| #6 Korea, Afghanistan (Soviet invasion), Iraq, Iraq. And this is just a sample of the anti-American Indian positions on international conflicts. India votes against Uncle Sam's position at the UN 81% of the time. Our romance with India today is reminiscent of Clinton's clinch with China even as he stomped on Indonesia - kissing up to our enemies while ditching long-time friends. A big part of our problem with Pakistan is that we've sided persistently with India, after all the support Pakistan offered us throughout the Cold War. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 20:19 |
| #5 From the American perspective, john, the whole Non-Aligned Nations thingy India organized was a way to pretend not to be on the other side. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-09-19 19:26 |
| #4 Or any other country? |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 18:58 |
| #3 I'm curious .. when did India backstab the USA ? |
| Posted by: john 2005-09-19 16:45 |
| #2 Word. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-09-19 14:56 |
| #1 Article: 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. Actually, there are a lot of reasons - primary among which are the sale of US military technology to India and the upcoming provision of nuclear technology to its power industry. The fact is that we are providing India with goodies traditionally reserved for good friends of Uncle Sam. If India will not reciprocate by standing with Uncle Sam against Iran, then maybe we should rethink our relations with India. There are good reasons as to why relations with India have been cool for close to 60 years - the Indians are backstabbers of the first order and have a boulder-sized chip on their shoulder about the West. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-09-19 14:52 |