Not just a vote on Iran

India's longer-term interests will not be served if it cannot balance its international affairs

S D Muni Delhi

When India signed the civil nuclear deal with the United States in July 2005, very few suspected that a hidden cost of the deal would be voting along with the US. The question is not of voting in favour of the US and the European Union-3 resolution and voting against Iran per se. "National interests" can explain the decision at one level, that is, necessity to cooperate with the US and the EU to facilitate the implementation of the civil nuclear deal and recognition for India's place on the nuclear high table, including the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). It has also been argued that western support is critical for India's faster economic growth. Some analysts have also referred to Iran's unfriendly vote on Kashmir in many of the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) meetings, its close cooperation with Pakistan and the adversarial impact of Iran's eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. There are equally powerful counter-arguments to underline the harmful consequences of India's heavy dependence on the US and EU as also lack of consideration for civilisational bonds and friendly cooperation with Iran. The government may be entitled to take a view of what it considers as the right foreign policy choice in pursuance of India's "national interests". 

The critical question in the Iran vote is that India's decision is contrary to its own considered assessment of the issues at stake in Vienna on the Iran nuclear question and that this vote has been forced by the US pressure. Accordingly, this decision has breached the broad national consensus generally prevailing on foreign policy. Recall here the assurances given by India to Iran during the visits of Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani to Delhi and the Indian Foreign Minister K. Natwar Singh's visit to Tehran in early September. Natwar Singh also told the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in New York, days before the Vienna vote, that India prefers to deal with the Iran nuclear issue on the basis of consensus and diplomacy. The prime minister had indicated similarly to European leaders including President Chirac of France. The statement made by the Indian representative in Vienna before the vote did not find any fault with Iran. Even the ministry of external affairs (MEA) spokesman said after the vote that, "We have 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." Why then did India vote with those who treated Iran as a violator of commitments and want to shift the issue to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as a matter of international peace and security?  And India so voted in the face of a US Congressman Tom Lantos using abusive epithets for India's foreign minister and subsequently even bragging that his use of strong words had brought India in line with the US position. This amounts to eroding the credibility of India's foreign policy establishment and exposing the breakdown of consensus between the MEA and the prime minister's office (PMO) not only within India but in the world.