Satarupa Sen Bhattacharya

News Round up

Catch 22

Indias apparent volte-face against

Iran in the global forum

ndias vote at the forum came as a

surprise and attracted severe
criticism from Allies and Opposition
within the country on grounds that it
signified a cheap sell-out to the
American camp and one which seriously
damaged Indias reputation as a nonaligned power.

The Background
The USA has long accused Iran of
seeking nuclear arms, though the latter
has consistently maintained that all its
nuclear activities, including resumption
of uranium conversion, are directed
towards peaceful production of
energy. However, the chief allegation
made by the West against Iran is that it
carried out this programme for 18 long
years without the knowledge of the
IAEA an act of secrecy that
constitutes a serious violation of the
Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. The
three European states of the UK,

Germany and France have held several

discussions with Tehran, trying to
dissuade it from continuing its uranium
enrichment programme and its efforts
at building a heavy-water reactor that
could provide plutonium, an alternative
source of fuel for a nuclear explosion.
But discussions came to nought as Iran
steadfastly defended its activities
saying that it has an inalienable right
to nuclear fuel production.
The Vote
The IAEA resolution was approved by
a 22-1 vote. 12 members abstained from
voting, the most notable among them
being China and Russia. Venezuela was
the only member to vote against the
resolution. While the vote does put
pressure on Iran, it also indicates the
USA and EUs failure to forge a world
consensus on the issue.
Indias Vote
While India does not have any nuclear

At a crucial meeting of the

Board of Governors of the
International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) in
Vienna in the latter half of
September, India voted in
favour of a resolution that
could lead to Irans referral
to the United Nations
Security Council (UNSC)
unless Tehran took
concrete steps to ease
suspicions over its nuclear
activities. Upon referral,
Iran could either have to
stop their uranium
processing activities or
face sanctions.
relationships with Iran, that hasnt
stopped her from getting embroiled in
the diplomatic crossfire. Despite the US
State Departments fervent attempts to
make the world see Iran in the same light
that it does, India was long perceived
as a non- aligned power that might not
support proliferation by Iran, but would
surely abstain from openly aligning itself
with the West against Iranian nuclear
ambitions. The vote at IAEA therefore
spelt a perceptible reorientation of
Indias foreign policy.
Experts have cited several factors
that could have led to such rethinking.
Of course, the most obvious and
immediate reason has been thought to
be the recently concluded nuclear deal
with the USA that is expected to come
up for approval before the US Congress
shortly. India has enjoyed considerable
tangible benefits in terms of nuclear
supplies following the aforementioned

News Round up

pact with the USA, which is known to

have been openly using its clout within
the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) to
lobby for India. With a vote against the
West at the IAEA, India could well lose
its hard-earned ground in the
international nuclear market.
However, it may not perhaps be
entirely correct to view Indias stance
as a direct outcome of American
pressure tactics. In the UN, Iran has
been working actively towards drafting
the Outcome Document that requires
all countries to abide by the NPT. This
has long been a sensitive issue for
Indians, but Iran does not seem to be
bothered about Indian concerns in this
matter. What further aggravates
matters is the fact that Pakistan has
had a significant role to play in Irans
nuclear programme.
Indian MEA (Ministry of External
Affairs) officials, meanwhile, maintain
that one should simply consider Indias
position as one that is in the best
strategic and economic interests of the
country. It also genuinely believes that
Irans nuclear ambitions might
undermine stability in the region. At the
same time, the Indian vote should in no
circumstances be seen as anti-Iran since
it was decided only after the Western
Bloc decided to dilute the resolution and
defer Irans referral to the UNSC. In that
sense, India is only trying to avert an
immediate confrontation between Iran
and the West and pave the way for
international diplomacy to come up with
an amicable solution for the crisis.
What happens to the LNG
deal?
That was the first question on the
national mind following the IAEA meet.
The $22 billion LNG (Liquefied Natural
Gas) supply agreement with Iran, which

awaits approval from the National

Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and which
is crucial to Indias energy security, was
reported to be the first casualty of
Indias unexpected support for the IAEA
resolution. The speculation was fuelled
by statements from the Iranian foreign
ministry spokesman that Iran would
review its commercial and economic
relations with countries who voted
agsinst Iran. Some news reports even
indicated that a decision to cancel the
deal had already been communicated to

Indias permanent representative at the

IAEA immediately after the vote.
However, Tehran soon refuted such
reports saying that the deal was on. The
NIOC President revealed that while they
would have to abide by restrictions
imposed by the government, if any, they
had no such intimation as yet and were
hopeful of concluding the deal which
was in its normal stage of processing.
How effectively New Delhi conducts
its damage control exercise and takes
the deal forward from here is something
we have to wait and watch.

History in the Making

Iraq decides on Constitution

fter months of failed

negotiations, violence and
general apprehension and
uncertainty over the
direction in which the Iraqi nation was
headed, the draft constitution prepared
by the government was
placed before a referendum
on October 15. In the days
leading up to the historic
vote, it was becoming
increasingly clear that
members of the Sunni
community, who have been
strongly protesting the
Federal structure envisaged
for Iraq, were themselves
divided on how to oppose the USbacked document. While one group
advocated a mass boycott of the
Constitutional vote, another held that
a massive Sunni turnout with a No
verdict was the only way to defeat it.
In the end, a fairly large turnout was
reported with almost two-thirds of

those registered coming out to vote.

Election day was not without its share
of sporadic incidents of violence, but
it was mostly peaceful, thus raising
hopes of a democratic new beginning
for the war-ravaged nation. While
official results would be
announced only after
October 20, initial counts
seemed to suggest that the
referendum had passed the
Constitution. However, the
Iraqi Independent Electoral
Commission mentioned that
it would audit the results,
as the voting in most
provinces was unusually
high by international standards.
The Constitution will be defeated
only if two-thirds of voters in at least
three of Iraqs 18 provinces reject it.
Upon approval of the Charter, Iraqis
will have to go to polls again by
December 15 for parliamentary
elections.