Why did India vote against Iran?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Will it affect relations between India and Iran which are pretty good before this issue?

Iran surprised at India’s vote on nuclear issue

www.chinaview.cn 2005-09-26 23:24:25

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-09/26/content_3548387.htm

NEW DELHI, Sept. 26 (Xinhuanet) -- Iran is "surprised and disappointed" by India's "unexpected" vote for a resolution that could refer Tehran's nuclear program to the UN Security Council but hopes that it will not affect the growing ties between the two countries, Indo-Asian News Service reported Monday, quoting an unnamed Iranian diplomat here. 

"We were surprised at India's vote in favor of the European Union resolution as we didn't expect it at all," IANS quoted the diplomat as saying. 

On the voting on the resolution sponsored by the European troika -- Britain, France and Germany -- in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the diplomat said, "We would have been happy if India had opposed the resolution, but we would have been satisfied if India had abstained." 

The resolution paves the way for referring Iran to the UN Security Council. However, a decision would be taken at its next board meeting in November. 

However, on the question to what extent India's open support to resolution would affect the Indo-Iran ties, the diplomat replied, "We sincerely hope that it won't affect our ties." 

"But it all depends on the next steps by India. Iran will be keenly watching how India votes at the next board meeting in November," he added. 

Saying that Tehran expected a more "refined" response from New Delhi, the diplomat went on to speak about the relentless vigilance by the inspectors of the IAEA. 

"Iran's is a unique case in the history of the IAEA. There have been countless inspections by the IAEA, but no evidence has been found to support the charge that Iran's nuclear program is aimed at developing nuclear weapons," he said. 

On the other hand, India Monday expressed confidence that its action will not affect the ongoing energy cooperation with Iran. 

"As long as the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline is economically viable, there should be no problem with it." 

Iran had expected stronger backing at the IAEA, especially from India. 

India has however justified its vote in favor of the resolution, saying that its behind-the-scenes diplomacy prevented an immediate referral of Iran's case to the Security Council and provided yet another opportunity for a negotiated settlement of the issue.
2

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=9/27/2005&Cat=2&Num=003

India dumps old friend Iran for U.S. nuclear carrot

By Y.P. Rajesh
India’s unexpected vote against old friend Iran over its nuclear program stemmed from eagerness to project itself as a responsible nuclear power and safeguard a landmark atomic energy deal with Washington.

Although this will strain traditional ties with Iran, a key supplier of India’s oil and gas, the damage could be offset by the emergence of other energy sources, officials and analysts said.

“India decided that a bird in hand is worth two in the bush,” Manoj Joshi, editor at the New Delhi-based Hindustan Times newspaper, wrote on Monday.

“While the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline remains to be negotiated, the Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement is poised delicately in the U.S. Congress,” he said.

“Any Indian waffling on the Iran vote would have cost India the agreement crafted with so much difficulty and upon whom India’s future energy requirements rest.”

In a dramatic diplomatic turnaround over the weekend, India voted for reporting Iran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear plans which the United States and European Union claim is aimed at developing nuclear weapons.

Until Saturday’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) vote, India had walked a tightrope between its traditional ties with Iran and a blossoming relationship with the United States.

But with U.S. Congress due to vote on President George W. Bush’s decision to help India’s nuclear energy program and Congressmen threatening that the India-U.S. deal would be in danger if New Delhi did not oppose Iran, India had few options.

“This became a test case for our credentials as a responsible nuclear power,” a senior Indian government official told Reuters.

"How could we tell the world that we are opposed to proliferation, so give us atomic energy, and then support Iran, especially when we knew the IAEA vote would go through even without us.

“We had to be realistic,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

But wary of domestic political criticism, New Delhi denies the vote had anything to do with the India-U.S. nuclear deal.

India and the United States, once on opposite sides during the Cold War, grew closer in the last years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and ties were further strengthened after New Delhi quickly backed Bush’s war on terror.

Growing cooperation between the two countries has seen them explore huge arms deals and boost diplomatic and economic ties.

The relationship hit a new high in July when they signed a sweeping nuclear pact to help New Delhi with ambitious civilian nuclear plans after India – a non-signatory to the global Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty – made strong commitments to prevent proliferation.

The deal, however, hit a roadblock over Iran.

Not only do India and Iran share historic links, the Islamic country accounts for more than 5 percent of India’s crude oil imports. Iran is also one spot where New Delhi – a late starter in the global race for petroleum assets – has met with success in its search for energy security.

India’s plans for a $7 billion gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan did not go down well in Washington, which has pressured New Delhi to abandon it, some analysts say, in return for U.S. help for India’s civilian nuclear program.

Saturday’s vote clearly threatens any special treatment India received from Iran.

“Iran has the largest gas reserves in the world. We should have kept a clear corridor with Iran. Now there will be certain goodwill lost,” said Vishvjeet Kanwarpal, chief executive of New Delhi-based Asia Consulting Group.

But others point to India’s potential nuclear energy output – which now generates just 3 percent of its total energy – as well as the discovery of new gas reserves in India and possible supplies from Iraq once the war-torn country stabilizes.

“Like the energy seller has a choice to sell to one or the other country, even a buyer can have a choice to buy from one or the other,” said Shashank, a former Indian foreign secretary, who uses only one name.

“Just because Iran is giving us assured, long-term supply of oil, but at market prices, it cannot say: ‘Let us do what we want on the nuclear front.’ That is somewhat disingenuous.”

3

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

its called politics

how long have you driven alone...
4

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Diplomacy

In Pakistan we call it

Jo jittey odey naal

or in another way

"Lota"

Another way

"Thaali ka baingan"

Indians know they cannot support Iran the way they claim because in that case they will have to face the wreath of America and that is what they don;t want. Where Iran and where America.......

Hum to udhay jaey ga jahan par rokra miley ga, Paisa, Apun paisa mangta, Aslaha maangta, Power mangta...........

I think Iran should immediately cancel the "gas pipe line agreement with India", these "Maal wari/ baniya" people will start licking the feet of Irani people immediately

5

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

they are going to have sanctions china ,pakistan and russia going join anyway
at later stage. pakistan so quite waiting what indians are doing.
do you have any position now?

6

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Politics no!
CYA (Cover you Ar$e) Yes!

Bharatis have been in cahoots with Iranian MAToos for a while now. This is the time to either pay up or $hut up. Well Bharatis simply $hut up under pressure from the West and voted against their long term “friend”.

At the end of the day, it is not an issue about Bharat or Pakistan. It is rather dire issue for Iranians leadership (or lack thereof). Seems like they are Saddamizing (sounds like $odomizing) Iran for few seconds of fun. In the end Iranian people will suffer as if they aren’t already suffering at the hands of Mullahs, Mehangai (inflation), and Munday bazi (no jobs for youth).

Best wishes for our Iranian neighbors. They have got the wrong man (as their prez) at the wrong time.

Mosquito, anyone?
7

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Pakistan abstained from voting

8

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Just for a change in taste...India wanted to lick USA's A$$,after licking Russkies for decades....

9

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

tell us, which leaves the worse aftertaste in your opinion?

10

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

^Ask your Indian Beloveds....

11

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Namaste & Salaam!

For all those who have insulted India in this thread - you're nothing but brainless twits, much like the monkey that sat on the log and pulled the wedge out. It's obvious what happened to you when you did that from your screaming invectives.

Now, why wouldn't you guys give India the due credit - they do not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons under current conditions. So in spite of friendly relationship and risking significant source of energy suppy, they did the right thing.

As opposed to abstaining wimps, our country took a principled stand.

Bye

12

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

^ Your country has no principle at all....You wag your tail where ever you find people throwing you bones...You opposed Iran as US promised you a Nuclear deal...

13

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Namaste & Salaam!

You are plain wrong. What do you base your conclusion on?

Bye

14

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

All those-who-insulted-those-who-insulted-indians are “brainless twits”…and we can go on…I think being one yourself, you have a very good idea what this “brainless twit” is. And I thought only kids read Roald Dahl…ah well…

15

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

What are you talking about? Which principled stand are you talking about? I thought you are a wise man but your current email has forced me to change my mind about you. It is good to be patriotic but one should not act as a fool. Almost whole India is stunned at Manmohan’s government decision and you are calling it a principled stand? Here is a link for you to show how an extremely influential American Jewish congressman Tom Lantos literally bullied India on this issue. He made fun and a mockery of Indian Foreign Minister and warned India for serious consequences if she chooses to abstain from voting on this issue. Bhai Sahib, Americans have granted a solid Bheeek to India by signing a nuclear agreement with Indians and mind you, beggars have no choice. Yes, we Pakistanis have been American beggars too but now it is India’s turn. Come on dude….just enjoy this new world.

http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/09aziz.htm

Cute Masoom Muskaan kay Naam Aik Cute Se Nazm.........
16

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

India will take three nuclear reactors from Canada to meet its energy needs but it does not want Iran to do it. Talk about principled stand!

http://us.rediff.com/news/2005/sep/27canada.htm?q=tp&file=.htm?headline=Canada~to~supply~N-reactors~to~India

17

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

And here is an editorial from a hardcore Indian newspaper Hindu. Booz Allen bhai sahib, please read it carefully. I would like to copy a paragraph form this editorial:

***It’s a bit rich that India — which has refused to join the NPT, has turned its back on accepting full-scope IAEA safeguards, has conducted six nuclear explosions (in 1974 and 1998), and is a declared nuclear weapons state — is able to join in a `proliferation’ indictment of Iran. This means embracing the worst kind of double standards. At stake is not the danger of proliferation — nobody has produced any evidence that Iran is pursuing, or has ever pursued, a nuclear weapons programme — but the right of a sovereign country to develop peaceful nuclear power as a source of energy and engage in the nuclear fuel cycle. The NPT allows all parties to the international nuclear bargain to develop uranium enrichment facilities of the kind being built at Natanz, provided they are safeguarded. The U.S. and its allies want to rewrite the rules so that they will be able to control both the nuclear fuel cycle and the commerce around nuclear fuel and reactors. That is why the non-aligned group of countries has tended to stand with Iran on this issue.

***Talk about a principled stand ! ! huh

http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/26/stories/2005092606071000.htm

** India’s shameful vote against Iran **

The decision to vote adversarially against Iran at Saturday’s crucial meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency is evidence of the Manmohan Singh Government’s shameful willingness to abandon the independence of Indian foreign policy for the sake of strengthening its “strategic partnership” with the United States. Made in stealth without any broad-based discussion within the Government or with allies and national political parties, the top-level political decision (which was reported in The Hindu of September 17) conflicts with proclaimed Indian policy. It bears emphasis that the resolution adopted by the IAEA Board 22-1 with 12 abstentions has grave international implications. Specifically, it recalls Iran’s alleged “failures in a number of instances,” as a party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to meet its obligations under its NPT Safeguards Agreement, and its alleged “policy of concealment.” Adopting a menacing tone, the resolution finds Iran in “non- compliance in the context of Article XII.C of the Agency’s Statute”; among other things, this Article allows the Board “to report the non-compliance to …the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations.” Further, the resolution finds that Iran’s nuclear activities and “the resulting absence of confidence” that its nuclear programme is “exclusively for peaceful purposes” have given rise to “questions that are within the competence of the Security Council, as the organ bearing the main responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Finally, it threatens that the Board “will address the timing and content of the report” to be submitted to the U.N. Security Council for possible punitive action.

This Bush-led resolution is unjust as well as provocative — if the idea is to find a solution through intelligent negotiation. Iran and the IAEA have resolved most of the issues in dispute; in fact, the IAEA Director General reported to the Board as recently as September 2 that “good progress has been made in Iran’s correction of the breaches and in the Agency’s ability to confirm certain aspects of Iran’s current declarations.” The only major outstanding question is the extent of the Iranian centrifuge research programme. At the very least, the resolution steps up the pressure on Iran in infringement of its sovereign rights. It is possible that it is designed to short-circuit the prospect of a negotiated solution, and to push the world towards another major confrontation. Anticipating public criticism of its volte face, the Manmohan Singh Government claims it voted the way it did because the “door for dialogue” was being kept open. It also insists that the decision to abandon its earlier insistence on consensus and break ranks with Russia, China, the non-aligned bloc, and even Pakistan has nothing to do with the July 18 U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement. These arguments are disingenuous. The craven vote of September 24 underlines the fact that Indian foreign policy suffers from insecurity, a poor understanding of the realities of the international situation, a lack of confidence in the nation’s strategic weight, and an absence of belief in, or commitment to, genuine independence and non-alignment. The downward trajectory initiated by the National Democratic Alliance Government in dealings with the United States, signalled by support, of all things, to `Star Wars,’ has hit a new low. It seems that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s negative remarks on the Iran-India pipeline in July were not happenstance but the opening lines of a script rewritten in Washington.

In the run-up to the crucial vote, New Delhi was told in no uncertain terms that the fate of the civilian nuclear agreement would hinge on changing its line on Teheran. When Congressional hearings on the agreement began in Washington earlier this month, the Bush administration joined individual Congressmen in orchestrating exaggerated concern about India’s relationship with Iran. Until then, New Delhi had been correctly insisting that the IAEA was the proper forum to resolve lingering questions about Iran’s civilian nuclear programme and that equal weight needed to be given to Iranian obligations (not to produce nuclear weapons) and rights (to the full nuclear fuel cycle) under the NPT. The IAEA Director General’s latest report did observe that Iran’s full cooperation was overdue and indispensable but also confirmed that nine issues out of ten had been resolved. As a three-part analysis published last week in this newspaper showed, such a situation can hardly be considered “non-compliance” of a magnitude threatening international peace and security.

It’s a bit rich that India — which has refused to join the NPT, has turned its back on accepting full-scope IAEA safeguards, has conducted six nuclear explosions (in 1974 and 1998), and is a declared nuclear weapons state — is able to join in a `proliferation’ indictment of Iran. This means embracing the worst kind of double standards. At stake is not the danger of proliferation — nobody has produced any evidence that Iran is pursuing, or has ever pursued, a nuclear weapons programme — but the right of a sovereign country to develop peaceful nuclear power as a source of energy and engage in the nuclear fuel cycle. The NPT allows all parties to the international nuclear bargain to develop uranium enrichment facilities of the kind being built at Natanz, provided they are safeguarded. The U.S. and its allies want to rewrite the rules so that they will be able to control both the nuclear fuel cycle and the commerce around nuclear fuel and reactors. That is why the non-aligned group of countries has tended to stand with Iran on this issue. Teheran has made several positive proposals aimed at reassuring the international community that its civilian facilities will not be misused for military purposes. Washington, however, is not interested in any such proposal. Iran shall not be allowed to enrich uranium, it has decided imperiously. Beyond that, it wants to strangulate Iran’s oil and gas sector, and bring about “regime change” in that country. Instead of recognising this truth, and also the fact that American demands on Iran will be unending, the United Progressive Alliance Government has compromised the national interest by helping to prepare the ground for another possible conflict in India’s own region. Even at this eleventh hour, the Government must change course. When the subject of Iran comes up for discussion in the Board of Governors meeting in November, it must not support any European or U.S. move to take the matter to the Security Council.

18

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

To say that India acted like pakistan (remember one phone call from Powell) is just plain foolish. India has analysed all the possible options available and chose to support US in this matter as it suited its national interest the best.
As on today, Iran is headed by fundamentalists who would have no qualms in the proliferation of nuclear technology to islamic countries. With such a scenario, it is imperative that India acts with caution and oppose Iran.

19

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Iranians like Saddam, are about to learn the hard way that allies like India and Russia will not stand by them at the end of the day. The same goes for other Muslim states, but still the politicians of Muslim states are relustant to learn from Saddam's fate.

The King of all Burps---Burp 008
20

Re: Why did India vote against Iran?

Iranians like Saddam, are about to learn the hard way that allies like India and Russia will not stand by them at the end of the day. The same goes for other Muslim states, but still the politicians of Muslim states are reluctant to learn from Saddam's fate.

mama k haath ka khana....