It’s not about Uttar Pradesh

The government’s anodyne reaction over the weekend to the United Nations Security Council’s unanimous imposition of sanctions against Iran’s nuclear weapons programme reflects a poor attempt at fudging the big issues at hand. It is based on the false hope that saying inconsequential things might help avoid confronting the unreasonable and motivated domestic critique of the government’s Iran policy. All indications are that the Iranian question is going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

Iran’s contemptuous response to the UNSC sanctions is bound to have profound consequences for international and regional security and impinge upon many of India’s vital national interests. Yet New Delhi has chosen to posture in front of the domestic audiences.

When it was first faced with the Iran question at the United Nations General Assembly in September 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the then external affairs minister, Natwar Singh, laid down the essence of India’s two-fold position. First, Iran’s nuclear weapon proliferation is not in India’s national interest. Second, as a responsible nuclear weapon state, India cannot and will not turn a blind eye to Iranian proliferation. These determinations led, in turn, to India voting twice against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency, in September 2005 and February 2006.

As it came under attack from the communist parties and other coalition partners, the Government began to wobble. Sections of the Congress party too began to point to the dangers of losing electoral support of Muslims. As a result we have a number of non sequiturs from the Foreign Office.

The government says Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear programme. But no one, not even the United States, is questioning this basic right of Iran. Much of recent international diplomacy has been about offering Iran a range of incentives on civilian nuclear energy cooperation, including on the controversial uranium enrichment programme.

The world is now asking a more important question: is Iran prepared to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it is a party to? On this the Foreign Office simply states that Iran “has undertaken certain obligations that its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes”. It stops short of publicly asking Iran to implement its legal commitments.

The real issue, which has brought the UNSC into the picture is the one which the Foreign Office ducks. What happens if Iran does not abide by its obligations? The UNSC sanctions reflect the new unanimity within the international community that the time has come to apply pressure against Iran. India’s response to this significant change in the Iranian situation over the weekend is a prayer: address the problem through “peaceful means”.

... contd.

Ads By Google

Message*	Maximum characters allowed

Name*		Email ID*
Subject*		Country*

TERMS OF USE:
The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).

I agree to the terms of use.