‘We have made it clear that dallying with Iran puts civil nuclear deal at risk.’
One month after India voted against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna for the first time, a diplomatic cable of October 20, 2005 (43172: confidential) noted with alarm the fact that the barrage of criticism of the Manmohan Singh government's controversial decision “is increasing rather than dying down.”
The cable said that Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran had recently summoned Ambassadors from the EU3 (the U.K., France and Germany) to push to resolve the Iran issue without referral to the UN Security Council (UNSC), where he “urged [them] to encourage Tehran to compromise by presenting a ‘face-saving' way to return to the negotiating table.” “Public interest in the debate is continuing, spurring speculation that the GOI [Government of India] is under growing pressure to backtrack from its earlier stance.”
The Embassy lamented that “only a minority of strategic analysts supported India's decision.” The cable said: “In a recent London School of Economics speech, [The] Hindu Editor-in-Chief N. Ram described India's vote as a massive foreign policy ‘blunder,' contrived to convince the US that it was an ally… Ram was not alone in this assessment — a variety of pundits and politicians have painted India's decision in the same harsh light, increasing the pressure on Manmohan Singh's government to abstain in any future IAEA vote.”
The cable ended on a pessimistic note: “Although India voted with the U.S. in September, the GOI may not have the required domestic support to sustain that position. The GOI faces intense domestic criticism and pressure to back down from its stance, and is hoping to avoid further controversy by resolving the Iran issue through behind the scenes diplomatic negotiations that would avoid a November IAEA vote. Our German colleague told us that Saran mentioned an ‘exit in honor' for Iran. As New Delhi pursues this course, we will need to be very clear about our own red lines, especially if those diverge from the EU3.”
The November board meeting of the IAEA passed without any further action being taken against Iran, but a December 12, 2005 cable (47275: secret) lamented the fact that India “has not shown the capability to formulate its Middle East policy in a comprehensive way” and was overly preoccupied with “individual issues like energy security or citizen protection.” It said the last “major breakthrough in Indian policy” towards the region was the expansion of its relations with Israel, in the 1990s. “A new breakthrough came in 2003, with the NDA's [National Democratic Alliance] serious consideration of a major troop deployment to Iraq, but that move was scuttled by domestic considerations and looming national elections, proving again the Muslim overlay in India's approach to the Gulf.”
The same cable spoke positively of India's Iran vote at the IAEA in September and said: “New Delhi's decision in that case to advance its broader strategic interests with America, instead of simply following the path of least resistance for energy supplies, is a signal of more far-sighted thinking regarding the region. Whether the GOI continues to develop its thinking on broad and long-term interests in the Middle East may hinge in part on the interests and capabilities of the next Foreign Minister.”
The fact that senior MEA officials continued to harbour doubts about the correctness of India's IAEA vote on Iran is revealed by a December15, 2005 cable (47728: secret) in which K.C. Singh, an Additional Secretary in the MEA who was the Indian Ambassador in Tehran in September 2005, suggested that India no longer had the requisite leverage to influence the Iranians as the Americans assumed. “Clarifying that he spoke personally and not in his official capacity, Singh responded that India's role in resolving the nuclear issue would have been greater had New Delhi abstained in the September 24 IAEA vote. The Iranian reaction has been emotional, he emphasized, with ordinary Iranians asking visiting Indians why they let Iran down. As a result, India's influence has been weakened,” he noted.
India would like to vote against Iran when the matter came up in the IAEA again, U.S. Ambassador David Mulford quoted National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan as telling him (in a January 12, 2006 cable, 49618: secret) but was worried about its “domestic political constituency.”
“The Ambassador noted that the US would likely seek an affirmative vote from India on referring Iran to the UNSC. Abstaining at this stage is not enough, he said, highlighting the importance of India's September 24 BOG vote and the fact that an abstention now would be seen as walking back the GOI's non-proliferation commitments.”
Despite this blunt talk, the U.S. was unsure of India's intention till the very end. On the eve of the crucial February 2006 IAEA meeting — when Iran's file was finally referred to the UN Security Council — a February 2, 2006 cable (51571: confidential) acknowledged the government's dilemma. “When pressed [Shyam] Saran asked if we knew how other states — he mentioned Egypt and South Africa in particular — would vote. When told it seemed we had a solid number of votes, including those of the P-5, but did not have a country-by-country breakdown of likely supporters, Saran asked if he could receive that information… The PM told the media February 1 India would vote in its ‘enlightened national interest' as an emerging global power, but intense domestic political controversy around this issue is leading the GOI to look for as much political cover as possible — including flimsy fig leaves like Egypt and South Africa.”
Even after India's second vote, the leaked cables suggest there was no lessening of the pressure to tow the American line on Iran. And the fate of the civil nuclear agreement was the bait. “India is clearly rattled by Iran's refusal (after the IAEA votes) to confirm the preferential price for the sale of five million tonnes of LNG per year, and perceives that some conciliatory motions would help salvage its important energy relationship,” a March 27, 2006 cable (58266: confidential) noted. “However, we have made clear to the GOI that dallying with Iran is not only dangerous for regional stability but also puts at risk Congressional support for the civil nuclear deal.”
Keywords: Cable43172, cable47275, cable47728, cable49618, cable51571, cable58266, The Indian Cables, WikiLeaks, Cablegate, Iran nuclear vote, India-Iran ties, IAEA
No surprises from Wikileaks! Ofcourse we do have a dependency on Arab countries particularly Iranon our energy needs. That's why we need to find innovative ways to meet our needs. Nuclear energy is probably the best option at this time for our nation. Our leaders like any other national leaders know that they cannot say everything to the illitrate masses. As Ahluwalia rightly said, left opposed the nuclear deal, simply because they do not like US and democracy. BJP simply fooled the public for political gains without any regard to the common man. We must find a way to get out of this oil slavery to keep our dignity and improve the quality of life.
From these cables it's obvious that what ordinary people know is very very less. The powerful people are playing their games. Everybody tries to protect their own interests. It's just waste of time to discuss what is good or what is bad. Because what we know is not enough to support or oppose a view point.
Worse things have happened in India Iran relations than the reporter cares to talk about: 1. India stopped IRAN from using to RBI finance oil trade payments. Who suffered? In a month's time global oil prices shot up in. India's case, the woes escalated because of lack of visibility into trade from Iran. Who gained? Congress's punters and commodity traders. 2. Iran is no cute little baby. During the 1965 and 1971 wars, Pakistan's airforce used Iran's air force bases to park their vital assets. When our Air force would raid Pak air bases, they would be surprised by the lack of parked aircrafts. In only air force terms, IAF suffered because of Iran's access to PAF. 3. Throughout our 2000 plus years of histroy, we have been done in by corrution. We have corrupt rulers now. History will repeat itself.
NSA Menon visited Iran only a week back. He carried a letter from PM MMS to the Iranian President. MMS may make an Iranian sojourn this year. India continues to cooperate with Iran on a range of issues. Dont be too cynical. We may be practitioners of crony capitalism, corruption and despotism. Yet its too much to argue that vote against Iran puts us in the zionist camp. The Nuclear deal was in our national interest;even this newspaper agrees. Iran is ruled by an oligarchy,even as it is none of our business to decide on who should. Average Indian knows more about USA than about Iran or China or Russia (to press the point). India had to improve its relationship with USA ,it did albeit with some costs involved.
Well said Shankar. Naveed might have made an emotional reading of the issue. But to toe the US line might lead to a situation where we brush our teeth and bathe after receiving specific instructions on which part of the teeth to brush, maybe. Shame shame on the current GOI headed by the 'ultra straight' MM Singh.
I feel that our mother land is ruled by hidden western people. Within next 5-10 years they will loot everything from india with the help of Congress leaders.
Who benefited if India voted against Iran. Obviously India which wanted to do business with the US. And who suffered. Obviously, Bharat which had its LNG supply hampered. So why should India have cared for Bharat. I think this explains India's vote against Iran and Bharats opposition to it.
There are many of us, my friends colleagues and general circle of acquaintances (the below thirties) who feel that Iran was betrayed by the self subservient interests of the powers that be at the time. Why I mentioned the age thing is because when power comes into our hands, there is a definite possibility of our generation reaching out to Iran again to re-establish the ties that our parents used to speak about. Why in the world should we show animosity to Iran when we share common interests, vis a vis extremism, Pakistan, trade and most importantly our requirement of oil is not something to be trifled with. The old netas have done what they wanted. We can turn things around. Lets see what the future brings.
Congratulations to Wikileaks and The Hindu for helping to uncover and disseminate vital information that people should know. Our country is not being run as a democracy... Unfortunately we are being deceived by all the talk of 'realpolitik', 'geopolitical interests', national interests, etc. I thought that when the Republic of India was proclaimed in 1950, our leaders envisaged a nation that would stand for justice and equality for all oppressed and Third World countries. Shame on the present government! What has our government turned our nation into! We are becoming like an aide of an imperialist power, ready to assist the mafia state in its extortion campaigns, and hoping for some benefit by betraying our fellow NAM countries...
To Naveed Khan's point : How different is your stand than US's 'if you are not with us, you are against us' ? So if anyone does something against Iran, they're part of the Zionist camp - great logic.That said, India doesn't have a nuclear driven strategy. Well not just for nuclear power, but we don't have any strategy at all. Our politician's strategy are only money driven and personal profit 'period'. On that 'day' India had to impress US, they did. Who cares about the long term benefits to the Indians who suffer (and going to suffer more on power resources).It's a shame and true that we still are slaves after all these decades.
This is no surprise. India has always been short sighted in its foreign policies. India has to take its own decisions based on its national interests and expectations of its people. How far can we go for the Security Council seat carrot.
When the nuclear deal was in fray, PM Singh threatened the parliament with his resignation if the vote didn't get through. This makes one wonder and question his credentials on integrity and uprightness. When Mr. Mani shankar iyer was relieved of his duty as the Petroleum minister, an article in Rediff claimed that is was an act done to favor US. From all this, one could only conclude that Mr. Singh (apparently the most honest person in the congress clique) and Ms.Gandhi, the power house of Congress and the most powerful woman in India had only led their Government act as an proxy to US undermining the national interests of India to that of US. As usual, US gives a damn to its democratic credentials if the regime is serving it right. Wish Indian could have the right of recall.
God, wonders will never cease. Trust Indian politicians to make the right decision sometimes for all the wrong reasons. Just imagine the situation if Vajpayee and Co. had got us embroiled in Bush's Iraqi misadventure. What were they planning to do, set up India as a franchisee of Blackwater? Pray, what was the pressing need for that? And they have the gumption to accuse Manmohan Singh and Co. of selling the country down the river to get nuclear co-operation from the USA, a game in which the USA held all the cards and could dictate all the moves.
There is increasing evidence that under the UPA government at the Centre, India is selling its soul to the USA. Principles being the standpoint, India should have no problem with Iran wanting nuclear power. Strategically, India has no real need to side with the USA other than having signed some deals for obtaining nuclear fuel. Now, after the events in Japan, perhaps we will have a new realization?
It is very obvious from the start when Dr. Rice talked about inviting India for energy dialogue that this initiative from US is to co-opt India against Iran. We never had nuclear driven energy as our vision. But, under blessings from US our leader started talking about nuclear energy without even thinking through the issues properly. So much so for our Independent foreign policy. 'Enlightened national interest' - doesn't it sound familiar to 'Enlightened moderation' of Pakistan president Musharraf. Well no surprise there it is all tutored by US. Looks like foreign policy establishment is the most undemocratic structure in India. It is highly influenced external factors. It is high time its activity are more transparent.
India betrayed Iran. It is clear India is in the Zionist camp seeking destruction of Iran. India has forgotten the historic ties that exist between India and Iran. This is how India is known, always going with power lacking integrity and morality.
Please Email the Editor