India's 'hasty decision' to vote against Iran in Vienna might come back to haunt it.
Indian Vote against Iran Only Strengthens(ed) Western Nuclear Apartheid
On the question of U.S.-led Western accusations that Iran's program of fuel enrichment to 20% was geared to produce nuclear bombs, India's vote at the atomic energy agency in Vienna was a dreadful choice. On a TV channel discussions Mr. Hamid Ansari (now Vice President of India -second term) had described it as "hasty ". The result was that by siding with Washington we added to the problems which have hobbled Tehran since then. Iran will remember it, now that they've come out on top after a 34 year old titanic struggle since 1979 against U.S.-led West who hold almost a monopoly over nuclear enrichment and weapons manufacture.
The recently elected moderate Iranian Pres Hassan Rouhani who offered a hand of trust after exchange of letters with US president Obama and full backing from the Spiritual leader Khamenei 's fatwa against nukes , announced that Teheran wants to sort out this problem with the West in a period of 3 to 6 months ,which could happen. Of course the change is the result of great perseverance, national pride and resilience shown by Iranian leadership and its suffering people since the dispute became acute after the 2003 U.S.-led illegal invasion of Iraq and the lurking danger that the neo-con crazies controlling George Bush could do anything dumb, even bomb Iran's Uranium enrichment program for power generation and medicinal use, which Tehran is allowed to under NPT, which it has signed.
Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, former Envoy to UNO, New York is urging step-by-step compromises between his country and world powers to advance negotiations over its nuclear program. Zarf's remarks on Iran's state TV referred to "phased actions" to revive stalled talks with the six-nation group — the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other envoys are scheduled to meet with Zarif on Thursday in New York to discuss restarting of the talks.
"The only way forward is for a timeline to be inserted into the negotiations that's short," Iranian President Rouhani was quoted telling the Washington Post, through a translator, in New York, where he had addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday. "The shorter it is, the more beneficial it is to everyone. If it's three months that would be Iran's choice, if it's six months that's still good. It's a question of months not years," replied Rouhani when asked for a time frame for resolving Iran's nuclear dispute with the West.
Basically it has been an all options on table and almost no-holds barred aggressive policy by U.S.-led West to browbeat and dominate Iran which has stood its ground after removing the hated Shah of Iran, Washington's gendarme in the region .The American elite still has not digested the siege of the US embassy in Teheran in 1979 until the Syrian crisis, when Pres Assad of Syria along with Hezbollah and Iran with full diplomatic and military support by Russia , made USA blink in the brinkmanship game.
Now that events and changes in strategic calculus have brought Iran and P5+1 to negotiations, Iranian Pres Rouhani has rightly raised the question of Israeli nukes ( hundreds) and the imbalance in the region , more so since Syria's chemical weapons are slated to be destroyed while Tel Aviv, apart from nukes also has chemical WMDs. Watch this space for more!
The decline of US power and influence is a result of illegal brutal bombing and invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and lastly Libya as a result of which as late decorated Marine Col John Murtha said ' the US Army was broken in Iraq and a political solution was necessary.' As I've stated previously the resistance in Iraq to the US Armed Forces is similar to what the Soviet armed forces and people had achieved at great sacrifice in destroying 80% of the Nazi war machine in World War II. US and western allies only mopped up the remnants and hogged all the credit for the victory in Eurasia.
The Economist, London very aptly summed up the change in the international strategic equation; America's place in the world shifted, few Americans noticed it.
There was then a lot of opposition and criticism in India of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, now highly unpopular, to have changed the decision to vote against Iran in Vienna from abstention at the last moment. Even US allies Pakistan and Morocco abstained on the resolution .Facile talk about civilisational links between India and Iran is pointless when Tehran's interest are gravely damaged.
It is understood that the UPAII Chairperson Mrs. Sonia Gandhi called one of India's former envoys to Iran to understand the real position.
Greatly upset at the slavish attitude of Indian PM I had written an article strongly castigating India's vote against Iran which I am reproducing below
K.Gajendra Singh, 26 September, 2013, Mayur Vihar, Delhi-91
Indian Vote Against Iran Only Strengthens Western Nuclear Apartheid
"The West does not seek the elimination of nuclear weapons, but rather the establishment of nuclear monopoly..."
India's vote against Iran in Vienna supporting another US orchestrated Western crusade , now against Iran, surprised most observers as it would further buttress Western nuclear apartheid against developing nations, thus undermining India's own stated long term policy , its future hydrocarbon energy and raw material security and overall strategic interests in and around the region. It unwittingly encourages Israel with its reported arsenal of over 100 nuclear bombs whose irresponsible, immoral and illegal unilateral policies have injected instability and chaos into the Middle East, the store house of world's energy resources for the foreseeable future.
India has diminished its standing as an upholder of international law, opponent of unjust treaties and its image in the third world .It needs support from African and other developing nations, as also their representative for its legitimate place in UNSC. Without India, Security Council would become a standing joke, if a third rate power UK retained its member ship, an obedient poodle of US, which alone can represent Anglo-Saxon theology and ideology. France does represent a different facet of western world and philosophy. India could have bent itself by abstaining like many others, including USA's non-Nato ally Pakistan did, but instead it came out crawling.
It was a sad spectacle for all and sundry to see, the result of bullying and blackmail with an abusive tirade against India, led by the likes of Tom Lantos, who attacked Indian relations with Iran at the hearing on the US-India nuclear cooperation agreement in early September. Ridiculing Indian External Affairs Minister Natwar Singh as "dense" he " warned that if India doesn't change its policy towards Iran in sync with US policy, the relationship would 'go down the tubes' "My concern does not relate to the Administration. My concern relates to the insensitive thinking that I see coming out of New Delhi."
Lantos found it incomprehensible [ naturally] "that people as sophisticated and as knowledgeable as our Indian counterparts should not be aware of how significant their position, vis-a-vis Iran is to this Congress, and, I hope that this hearing will make them aware at least tangentially that this may be destroying far more significant relationships than they are having with Tehran unless they become sensitive to our view on that subject." It was an orchestrated show by the White House.
Lantos, a Jew, perhaps joined the Indo-US Caucus only to promote Israeli interests by leveraging Non-Resident Indian's financial clout .He would be granted immediate Israeli citizenship under the Law of the Return, if he so wished, while millions of Palestinians rot in refugee camps in occupied Palestine and neighbouring Arab states, and when they protest, are bombed by US supplied bombers, gunships, tanks and other heavy arms. Lantos and his kind support verily a military ruled Israel, where military officers become prime ministers and political leaders, as soon as they relinquish their military uniform .Many including its Prime minister are wanted as war criminals in the world. A retired general just escaped arrest on arrival in England. But Israelis and pro-Israeli Jews have the US men lawmakers by the boots and the women lawmakers by their bracelets.
Western powers or IAEA have not said a word against Israel's nuclear arsenal. On the contrary, since 1952 these very countries have reportedly, clandestinely, aided and abetted Tel Aviv in developing its nuclear muscle. It was on October 5, 1986, the Sunday Times of London sensationally reported that Israel was a nuclear power. A disaffected Israeli nuclear technician, Mordechai Vanunu, who worked at Dimona for ten years, gave compelling and incontrovertible evidence that Israel had "at least 100 and as many as 200 nuclear weapons." He was jailed and still remains confined to his house.
In a letter submitted to the IAEA on behalf of Arab member states, Oman asked that member states consider a statement strongly criticizing Israel at the agency's General Conference. Arab countries have submitted similar statements to the IAEA's general conference every year, but have failed to win any action since 1991. The statement adjoined to the Arab letter said: "Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is likely to lead to a destructive nuclear arms race in the region, especially if Israel's nuclear installations remain outside any international control."
While rejecting the letter Israel said, "There is no basis for this agenda item, whose sponsors are motivated by extraneous considerations which are also evident in their efforts to challenge Israel's credentials," the head of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, said in a statement to the General Conference." Both actions are politically and cynically motivated and have little to do with the IAEA's objective or mandate. They inevitably cast a serious doubt on the sincerity of its sponsors," he added.
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), Washington's pro-Israel lobby, has made sanctions on Iran its number-one priority in recent months. "Iran is rapidly approaching the point of no return, and in order to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, concerted diplomatic and economic pressure must be imposed," Aipac spokesman Josh Block said. "Stopping Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon should be a priority for anyone who is concerned about stability in the Middle East."
Pro-Israel activists in Washington are pressing Congress to tighten American sanctions on Iran. On the margins of the United Nations General Assembly, Jewish community leaders in New York urged world leaders, including Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and Russian Foreign Minister to act against Tehran. Reportedly U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice who met Manmohan Singh at the behest of Israeli supporters expressed frustration with India's refusal to support American and European policy on Iran.
The appeal to Singh — to support American and European efforts to bring the issue of anti-Iran sanctions before the United Nations Security Council — came after a meeting earlier this month between Jewish community leaders and Condoleezza Rice. At the meeting, Rice expressed frustration with India's refusal to support American and European policy on Iran. The assistant national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Kenneth Jacobson, who attended the meeting, reported that the result of the meeting with the Indian leader was disappointing. Singh "expressed a reluctance to rush towards the Security Council," Jacobson told the media. So what happened, when and how!
India's cave in was hailed by Lantos and other Lawmakers who had insulted India. Crowed Lantos ,"India's support this past weekend and next November, when Iran should finally be referred to the UN Security Council for action, will go a long way to cementing our new partnership." "These actions will certainly promote positive consideration in Congress of the new US-India agreement to expand peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries," he added. Watch out, India would be under scrutiny.
The US Congressmen were shown up what they are by the British labour MP, George Galloway, who was falsely accused by the US subcommittee of benefiting from UNSC controlled Food for Oil Program in Iraq, in which USA and UK played a decisive role .Galloway blasted his accusers to their face in the" lion's den ", from where most, instead of questioning him, escaped like jackals. Then also, because UN Secretary General Kofi Annan had described the US led invasion of Iraq as illegal, a set of US lawmakers and corporate media hounds were let lose against him. If anything an investigation should be made against death of half a million Iraqi children as estimated by UN agency's own reports , making its administrators resign in disgust , because of inhuman implementation of the UN sanctions against Iraq under US and UK's behest .USA had even declared that whatever Iraq did it would not relent on sanctions .
And now one after another reports have leaked out as, not all Americans have lost sense of justice and legality about open loot of billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenues, property of the Iraqi people. There has been little sense of justice and fair play left in recent US administrations. Some cheek they have to lecture India and others.
But then equality and equity for Black and other non- WASP ( white Anglo-Saxon Protestants ) folks is not US polity's strong suit as is being exposed daily in New Orleans, Mississippi and Louisiana, where things have changed little over centuries. Much before English buccaneers across the seas helped evolve a colonial mentality (which still rules Tony Blair's psyche) or Jews had extended their stranglehold over the Anglo-Saxons, as has been made painfully evident since a century, the greatest English dramatist and poet William Shakespeare had laid bare Shylock's demand for his pound of flesh in the play "Merchant of Venice."
And what about non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the United States, a highly educated ,wealthy, influential and well organized community by now. There was a deafening silence when USA announced supply of F-16s and other military aid to Pakistan or Lantos tore into India to forsake its dignity and national interests. Do not expect much from the NRIs, although majority of them have left India only a generation or two ago, unlike the Jews who left Palestine many millennium ago but remain loyal. The Hindu mind believes in self salvation and not in the salvation of the community as a whole, unlike the Buddhists, Muslims and Sikhs. The education of most of the NRIs was subsidized by poor Indian taxpayers, as it is almost free in its top rate educational institutes .It would have cost USA hundreds of billions of dollars to educate the same number of Americans, provided they could find such high-quality brains in science and technology .The majority belong to India's middle-class families, who saved and endured privations so that the select few could be educated in India's elite institutions.
Such an investment in US jargon would be called seed money or venture capitalism and normally bring back to the investor returns hundreds of time of investment. The author remembers petty and other businessmen of Indian origin in Middle East and Africa, during 1960s and 1970s, who when approached for any symbolic contribution to India's cause after a war or other calamity, on seeing an Indian embassy personal, would close their shops and vanish. Mostly with two or three nationality passports, they would badger the Indian missions to get them out from some patently illegal transactions. Higher level of education is not likely to change self interest Hindu syndrome.
The Vote against Iran;
While Venezuela expectedly opposed , even Brazil, Mexico and others like Algeria, , Nigeria, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Vietnam, and Yemen, and even Pakistan refused to side with US led campaign against Iran like another carried out against Iraq earlier, mostly concocted .They showed some spine and joined Russia and China and abstained.
India wants vote for its SC membership from Africa and the third world including Muslim countries and has its own Muslim population of 130 million , whose Shia numbers form the second largest community in the world after Iran's Shias , more than that of Iraq. It was the Shia community of Luck now, which has issued almost a fatwa against Americans being unwelcome in the wake of illegal invasion of Iraq.
Throughout the existence of Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), India rightly claimed that its terms for nuclear haves and have nots were like the apartheid policy of South Africa, both in support of its decision for not signing the NPT and then embarking on its weaponisation program , as the haves did not keep either to the spirit or the language of the Treaty .India has thus undermined its own key legal argument to justify its own nuclear program — that countries can only be held accountable for international agreements they sign.
The NPT gives Iran the right to pursue the nuclear fuel cycle as well as the right to build a heavy water reactor, subject to safeguards. The Additional Protocol which Iran signed specified the intrusive inspections. But the new resolution India voted for goes far beyond Iran's legal obligations ,thus India has agreed and a dangerous precedent which could be set up against it ," since this means the safeguards agreement and additional protocol India has committed to sign with the IAEA also one day need not be the final word on its legal obligations."
Sidharat Vardarajan underlined this in Hindu ,"The vote India cast in the IAEA Board of Governors (BoG) was in favour of a resolution finding Iran in "non-compliance" with its safeguards obligations under the NPT and expressing "the absence of confidence that Iran's nuclear program is entirely for peaceful purposes. The finding is under two Articles, XII and III, of the IAEA Statute, both of which mandate referral of the matter to the Security Council. Unlike the referral under Article XII.C, which is more of a procedural nature, the referral under III B. 4 invokes the Security Council 's responsibilities for maintaining international peace and security and holds out a thinly veiled threat of sanctions and other punitive measures. "
Indian claims that it is a compromise to delay further action till November and provides the time and space needed for dialogue and diplomacy to work is " a claim of extraordinary naivety and even double-speak. First, Saturday's resolution is more likely to close the door on dialogue than re-open it since it demands Iran to surrender even more of its rights under the NPT than ever before. Secondly, the U.S. itself did not necessarily want an immediate referral because there is little practical significance to dragging Iran before the UNSC where China and Russia would exercise their veto. What it really wanted was for the international community to recognise Iran's civilian nuclear energy programme as a threat to international peace and security requiring potentially endless "special verification" inspections, which go far beyond that required under the normal safeguards agreement and Additional Protocol. Armed with this broad endorsement, Washington can now choose the time and place for the political — and even military — escalation that is surely in the offing." Has not Bush said time and again, all options ,including force , are on the table.
In essence" Iran must implement "transparency measures ... which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol." Calling Iran a "special verification case," the BoG said this requires an expansion in the "limited" legal authority of the IAEA to conduct inspections. Specifically, this must include "access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military owned workshops and research and development locations." Would it become "an Inspection Raj of the UNSCOM/UNMOVIC type, which, even after physically checking every possible location in Iraq several times over, never had the ability to say Baghdad possessed no weapons of mass destruction . The resolution's demand for access to individuals is also a bit rich, considering that the source of the technology Iran is suspected of possessing — A.Q. Khan — is sitting pretty in Pakistan," ( And would continue , because if he is ever investigated it will only bring out Western world's and China's complicity in his proliferations)
This resolution also makes Iran's voluntary, non-legally binding undertaking into a legally binding commitment. Thirdly, the resolution says Iran must "reconsider the construction of a research reactor moderated by heavy water." This is a new and illegal demand that did not figure in the last August 11 , 2005 , resolution." It represents as in case of Iraq a further shifting of the goalpost.
The US approach, with countries like Ecuador, Peru, Ghana, and Singapore apart from poodle Tony Blair's UK and somewhat reluctant France and Germany has been a colonial, neo imperial attitude. Yes, NPT is our law .The natives and the colonized or the blacks at home must accept it as we interpret it. In one stroke, India has lost the prestige and standing in the world. Indian policy makers do not realize how to utilize the power of democratically elected representatives of over one billion people .This moral and political power is being frittered away, as in the past too. If India says boo, then it is a voice of one billion people.
The more you give in the more US will demand .If you bend they will ask you to crawl. US can see how India can be shouted and frightened into submission, it will see how much more it can bully and blackmail India. No wonder USA was delighted. U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns called India's surrender to bullying as "a blow to Iran's attempt to turn this into a developed world versus developing world debate."
Indian Government's tame defense of its decision;
Foreign Secretary Shyam Sharan was reduced to stutter that the compromise on the vote was, "On balance, in terms of the major preoccupations that we had, we felt that the resolution took care of those preoccupations." (What so ever that might mean) The Foreign Ministry's statement added, "In our explanation of the vote we had clearly expressed our opposition to Iran being declared as non-compliant with its safeguards agreements. Nor do we agree that the current situation could constitute a threat to international peace and security."
In Washington Indian Ambassador Ronen Sen put up a brave front "Just for a moment take geo-politics out of the equation.[ Really Ronnie!] Oil and gas are finite resources. Nuclear energy is not," explained Ronen Sen, "Cutting edge research in nuclear sciences and non-conventional energy like fuel cell and bio-fuels is not taking place in Iran or Saudi Arabia."
"Every major hydrocarbon resource is some distance from India and poses great challenges and difficulties in bringing it home," argued Sen, suggesting that the nuclear energy route was an urgent calling. India produces a measly 3400 MW of nuclear power, which is 3 per cent of its overall production, embarrassingly short of the 10 ,000 MW set by DAE, and cruelly bereft of the 20 , 000 to 44 , 000 MW, its nuclear founding fathers Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai envisaged. Not very convincing! Especially with a whimsical and unreliable US establishment. Heard of Tarapore!
India currently imports 70 per cent of its energy needs mainly in the form of hydrocarbons, and the figure is expected to go up to 85 per cent in the coming decade. With the doubling of oil prices over the past year and no sign of a come-down, India is feeling the oil price squeeze and a decision was made at the highest level to diversify energy sourcing, What is urgent is security of availability of hydrocarbons for energy and as raw material ?
India's leftist parties, with over 60 members of Parliament, almost half as many as the Congress deputies in the Parliament naturally howled at the Iran volte face. 'Can the Manmohan Singh government justify the demand in the resolution that Iran not proceed with enrichment of uranium or the demand to stop the construction of a heavy water research reactor? This goes against India's declared stand that Iran has the right to nuclear technology under international safeguards as an NPT signatory,' an angry Community Party of India-Marxist said in a statement.
Stung by the criticism from its ally, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met with the Left leaders for 75 minutes on Wednesday morning to explain the rationale behind the vote. But the Left leaders were not satisfied.
BJP leader Yeshwant Sinha and former foreign Minister accused India of becoming a client state of USA. But his predecessor Jaswant Singh, who had long discussions with American diplomat Strobe Talbott, after India's 1998 nuclear weaponisation and brought about normalization in the relations said 'It is unbecoming of the government to hide behind officials when the decision is fundamentally political.'
The ruling Congress party's retort that Bharatiya Janata party led coalition did not consult or brief the nation before nuclear tests or embarking on India Pakistan peace process is absurd. In fact the statement by the spokesman of the Congress party after the May 1998 nuclear tests that what was the hurry was certainly "dense".
During Bill Clinton era , BJP was selling the US line that what India needed was US investment , signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was only to satisfy some lobbies in the establishment .Fortunately the Republican party killed the CTBT .
India's vote is unlikely to go in vain, asserts an aging strategic expert K. Subrahmanyam. "India's vote will be billed to America." He is confident the US Congress will approve Bush's demand for a change in US laws to facilitate the nuclear deal with India. But there are many senior diplomats asking the Singh government what the guarantee is that the US will not come asking for more after tasting blood once. They are quite right.
Another expert , hanging by US coat tails for becoming a big power, said "Dismiss such arguments and ask instead, does India want to become a big power? Do you want to go up? Then, you can't vote for a country (Iran) which intends to make bombs in your neighbourhood," says an official in the national security apparatus.
Another well-known Pakistan expert argues, "How can India afford to have two Islamic countries with nuclear bombs in its neighbourhood?" In the British imparted theory that all Muslims are against Hindus, such dense experts cannot comprehend that since long Shia Iran and Sunni Pakistan have been at logger heads i.e. in Afghanistan. Iran can be India's economic and strategic ally against Pakistan. Tell it to Hindustan types.
Iran's mature Response;
Tehran response has been measured and well structured, with its newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad , with little exposure to foreign audience and media earlier coming out very well in spite of the usual Western cacophony to demonize any one , who is not with them ( during the Cold war India was not with them ) . The emphasis was primarily to tell Iran's domestic audience that everything was firmly under control of President Ahmedinejad.
President Ahmadinejad told a cabinet meeting that the resolution was 'politically motivated' and was at the behest of 'certain big powers.' He also rejected any demands on Iran's nuclear program beyond the obligations and commitments undertaken by Iran under existing international treaties and agreements.
He added that Iran's reaction would be based on 'reason, patience and perseverance.' This "should assure the international community that Tehran would not resort to any knee-jerk, theatrical moves but would remain logical and conciliatory even while firmly asserting its legitimate rights as a sovereign country and its national dignity and national interests. "It was also a pointer directed at Iran's domestic audience that this was an issue that was not of the stuff of polemics but of extreme gravity demanding patient professional handling which should not lend itself to public grandstanding. "
He reposed his faith in Iranian diplomacy as the best instrument of handling this issue. This was a signal to the international community that Iran would focus on diplomatic means– " lest there be confusing signals as to the authoritative voices to be heeded in Tehran. It was aimed at dispelling any misconceptions in domestic public opinion that the resolution signified any professional failure or inadequacies on the part of the Iranian foreign ministry or the National Security Council. "
Then came statements by the chief of the Iranian judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Ali Larjani, and the official spokesman of the Iranian foreign ministry, Hamid-Reza Asefi.
In a press conference in Tehran on Tuesday Ali Larijani ruled out any likelihood of Iran shutting down the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan as demanded by the resolution, while reaffirming Iran's continued adherence to the NPT and the Additional Protocol (despite some radical demands by members of Majlis that Iran should jettison such commitments).
'We will not make any hasty decision. Majlis will examine the MPs' proposal to suspend the Additional Protocol. For the present, nothing has been decided. Of course, our reaction will depend on what the Europeans do next,' he said.
Larijani added that the resolution did not mean that Iran's nuclear issue was being referred to the UN Security Council, but expressed unease that an 'atmosphere of ambiguity' had been created. Iran, he warned, could not be expected to give in to 'extortion.'
He felt that the European powers or the US would not take the extreme step of referring the matter to the UN Security Council as it would have serious consequences for regional stability. Instability in the region will hurt Western countries, because of Iran's capability to influence the situation in Iraq, West Asia, the oil market, and on other issues.
Iran would now carefully watch how individual countries behave and take appropriate measures. Tehran would not hesitate to 'revise its relations with any country which may adopt a harsh stance toward Iran or try to impose arbitrary conditions on Iran' over the nuclear issue, warned Larijani.
He regretted the UK position (although demonstrations have been allowed in front of British Embassy in Tehran) adding that 'what the UK did in the IAEA Board was contrary to the outcome of our talks with them.' Basically Larijani said that Iran was ready to go back to the negotiating table with the EU- 3(Britain, Germany and France). The Iranians have survived Arabs, Turks, Mongols, British and Americans and know how to handle them all.
Iran on India's Vote;
Larijani expressed disappointment and a sense of hurt rather than anger at India's vote with USA. He said: 'India was our friend. We did not expect India to do so. (But) I believe that friends should not be judged by a single action. Iran enjoys friendly relations with India. Of course, we have complaints about their behavior.' The Iranian embassy in New Delhi denied reports in the Indian media that Indian- Iranian cooperation in the energy sector would be affected following the Indian vote.
US Allies Pakistan and Turkey;
After 911 , when afraid of Pakistan's nukes falling into Jihadi hands , USA gave Hobson's choice to Pakistani strong man Gen Pervez Musharraf , who became an ally against terror .But before that when the Pakistanis were treated with disdain , like a short tough lecture visit by US President Bill Clinton to Islamabad ,after 4 days stay in India , Pakistanis complained that after using Pakistan as French letter to enter Afghanistan, USA had thrown it away .However , with a more focused and planned policy , with a better understanding of strategic changes , Pakistan has now USA running in circles and on a wild goose chase for Osama bin Laden , Taleban leadership and its members .
The relationship between Nato allies USA and Turkey erupted into a full blown crisis on March 1 , 2003 when the Turkish parliament rejected a government resolution to allow the US to use Turkish territory as a base to open a second front in north Iraq. In any case, the parliament vote was simply a reflection of strong public opposition to the war in Turkey. Polls showed that 90 percent of Turks were opposed to a war against Muslim Iraq, perhaps the only traditional friend among neighbors.
Matters were made worse by what the Turks felt was American bullying during negotiations over the terms of the proposed deal and its patronizing and sometimes scurrilous coverage in the US media. Washington had offered an aid package of US$ 15 billion, which could have been leveraged into loans worth $ 26 billion. But the terms and conditions of the proposed agreement were unclear and the US attitude was brash.
Soon after the sudden collapse of Iraqi resistance at the gates of Baghdad on April 9 , neo-conservatives embedded in the Pentagon and elsewhere came down heavily on Turkey for its March refusal. The first tongue lashing after "Mission accomplished " came from Deputy Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz, ( now President of the World Bank) who asked Turkey to admit to its mistake and take remedial measures. He was harsh on the Turkish armed forces, berating them for not pressurizing parliament harder to vote for the resolution and not "playing the strong leadership role that we would expect". Others in Washington conveyed the same insulting message, albeit a bit more politely.
Turkish leaders rebuffed Wolfowitz's criticism. "Turkey, from the very beginning, never made any mistakes, and has taken all the necessary steps in all sincerity," said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayep Erdogan. Government spokesman Cemil Cicek said that the US should have admitted its mistakes because Washington had not fully kept its promises to Turkey, which cost it tens of billions in US dollars, in return for its cooperation in the 1991 Gulf War. Deniz Baykal, leader of the opposition Republican People's Party (RPP) in parliament, said, "Turkey is a democratic country and everybody who appreciates the functioning of true democracy should respect this." Barring some, the Turkish media gave hell to USA.
The guerillas of Marxist Kurdish Workers party (PKK), in USA's banned list remain free in north Iraq under US control. In spite of written and oral promises to Turkey they have not been eliminated or brought under control .They now openly carry out terrorist acts inside Turkey .Something like terror groups in Pakistan , which carry out attacks in Kashmir and India.
To some extent one can blame Indian media, which remains as introverted as its polity, little noticing the geopolitical changes taking place in the world. An Indian minister after the end of the 1975 – 77 emergency rule said that the Indian media, when asked to bend, crawled. Many are swayed and almost brainwashed by temptations offered by US and other countries .They just repeat and reiterate the position of US media which is nothing but the propaganda arm of corporate interests, whose nominees carry out instructions in Washington.
To a large extent the fault lies with the Indian political system which is getting more and more fractured and reduced to a system where leaders with 10 or 15 members of Parliament, without even a concept of national policy, forget about international affairs, decide on formation of governments and its policies... Commentators like Prem Shankar Jha bemoaned during Indian Prime Minister's visit to Washington , how the Indian media took little notice of the coming Iran vote, something which would not only affect the international strategic equations but India too. Little notice has been taken of Russia and China combining together with the Central Asian states and stopping rampaging US led West in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. USA has agreed to dismantle its base K 2 in Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan is creating obstacles for US base and Russia is moving in. In these days of long range missiles, their capitals Tashkent and Bishkek by air are closer to Delhi then is Chennai, still not the southernmost extremity of India. Instead the media and country is fully absorbed in the stand-off between Indian cricket captain and the Australian coach. This is no way India is going to ever become "Mera Bharat Mahan aka "My Great India "
(K Gajendra Singh, served as Indian Ambassador to Turkey and Azerbaijan in 1992-96. Prior to that, he served as ambassador to Jordan (during the 1990-91 Gulf war), Romania and Senegal. He is currently chairman of the Foundation for Indo-Turkic Studies, in Bucharest.
