Bye Bye NAM, Hello Realpolitik!

You are not clear what was India`s relationship with Iran during the Cold War. That would have made, at least me, understand India`s most recent policyache.

Didn`t the purported raison d`etre for NAM come to an end when the Soviet Union ceased to exist?

Israel `must be wiped from map`

Thursday, October 27, 2005 Posted: 0410 GMT (1210 HKT)


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.RELATED
Full story: Iran pursuing nuclear program
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

Iran
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
United Nations
or Create Your Own
Manage Alerts | What Is This? TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran`s new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be ``wiped out from the map,`` insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called ``World without Zionism`` and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

World without Zionism is a nationwide event the planners intend to hold annually, and Ahmadinejad made the remarks during a meeting with protesting students at the Interior Ministry.

Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran`s Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran`s Islamic revolution, who said that Israel ``must be wiped out from the map of the world.``

The president then said: ``And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism,`` according to a quote published by IRNA.

The Jewish state has diplomatic relations with major Muslim countries such as Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, and the Gaza disengagement has improved ties between Israel and some other Muslim nations and leaders.

But Ahmadinejad said the ``new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away,`` according to paraphrased statements in the IRNA report.

He also described Israel`s disengagement from Gaza as a ``trick`` meant to make ``Islamic states acknowledge the Zionist regime of Israel,`` according to the report.

The United States and Israel are sowing ``discord among warring forces in Palestine and other parts of the Islamic world,`` the report paraphrased Ahmadinejad as saying.

In the process, such attempts were forcing Muslim nations to normalize relations with Israel, he said.

Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, ``Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation`s fury.``

Ahmadinejad`s comments prompted the French foreign minister to summon the Iranian ambassador to Paris for an explanation. France is one of the European countries that has been involved in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said he learned about Ahmadinejad`s comments from news reports that indicate the Iranian president called for Israel`s destruction and said the conflict in the Middle East would result in a fight between Jews and Muslims.

``If these comments are correct, they are unacceptable. I greatly condemn them and have asked for the Iranian ambassador in Paris to be summoned to the Foreign Ministry to demand explanations,`` Douste-Blazy said.

``For France, the right for Israel to exist should not be contested. This state was created by a decision of the U.N. General Assembly. International law applies to all. The question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be used as a pretext to put into question the fundamental right for Israel to exist.``

One top Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Nori Hamadani, said in a written statement it is incumbent upon Muslims to wrest Palestine from the Israelis.

He urged Iranians to protest on Friday -- which is Jerusalem Day, commemorated by Iranians to honor Jerusalem, where Israel has established its capital, and renew their support for an establishment of a Palestinian state.

Journalist Shirzad Bozorghmehr contributed to this report

Absolutely, India did the right thing by jettisoning the values and principles that guided NAM. We would be fools if we continued to harp on the virtues of non-alignment in a blatantly unipolar world. Just look at Pakistan. The country stills swears by the Ummah even as the most vocal proponents of that mythical construct like Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries go about their business silently, leaving Pakistan to look like a fool.

As kaal rightly put it, there is just no reason why the NAM should continue to exist given the fact that the USSR ceased to exist more than a decade and a half ago.

India should continue to be guided by its national interests alone. Only those countries that have put their national interest above everything else have thrived. And by national interest, I don’t mean the term that Paki dictators use to justify their rule ;-)

We have to keep two things in mind while talking about the Iranian Vote. Do we stand for Nuclear proliferation or not. That is first. Secondly, how long will we cling to the supposed high ground of Non-alignment when the world knows that Non-alignment actually meant ``alignment`` with the former USSR.

We should stand for nuclear non-proliferation in the world. If that sounds somewhat hypocritical as we are ourselves nuclear (capable) power, so be it. We have good relations with Iran, no doubt, but there may be some issues where friendly countries may differ with each other. Particularly, when it comes to the weapons of mass destruction. Iran may, tommorrow-if need arises- may not support India if we try to acquire/develop some deadly arsenal.

Now coming to high moral ground of NAM, the non-alignment was actually on paper rather than on the ground. Because of the geo-politics of the region, we were compelled to align the the ex-USSR. With the end of cold war, we are in a better position to arrive at our best national interests.

A better way to write such articles is to first inform the reader about India’s nuclear energy, Natural Gas, and Petroleum (gas) needs. All three have separate implications. As I understand it, India currently heavily depends on Iranian Gas (petroleum). It has no reliance on Iran for natural Gas. Nuclear energy is for producing Power (electricity) and has no bearing whatsoever on Natural Gas or Gas supplies for transportation and home consumption. India’s power plants are coal fired. So the decision must be between Gas fired plants or nuke energy. Now what are the plans in India for developing new power plants? If a decision was made to abandon planning for Gas fired plants then it does not matter whether India gets LPG or Gas thru pipeline from Iran.

Political decisions of this nature are not made on whims. A whole thought process goes in to these decisions. It is alright to write articles after reading some newspaper clippings but if someone wants to write an intelligent article on such an important issue they should research it a little bit more before making conclusions about the fundamentals of the Indian foreign policy.

How far India was in its planning to have to natural Gas fired power plants? What are the cost differentials between Gas fired power plants and nuke energy? What costs Indian Industry can support? Nuke is definately going to cost more than the Gas. Author should have at least provided an overview of the plans for readers to understand the importance of the decision.

One thing people should understand that making a decision about LPG is becoming harder every day. A ship carrying LPG in the high seas is like having an unprotected nuke plant floating in the sea. Any mishap would be 10-20 times more environmentally disastrous than the Valdez. The Ship can never be terrorism proof and that is a major concern in today’s shipping industry.

Many things go into consideration before making a decision and the decision is easy or difficult diplomatically is entirely based on the timing and the urgency of the issue. For Iran, it may be a diplomatic blow but if they can see Indian rationale for making the decision, they will not hold this against India for a long time. Nations like people don`t have long memories. They make alliances based on the situation. Irani help in OIC may have already been reciprocated by India some where else. Relying on an unreliable piece of information does not make this assertion credible.

This is a half baked article and little research would have allowed the author to make some credible analysis instead of patching some newspaper clipping together and presenting that as analysis.

Can someone shed some light on this point:
India has inked a deal with the US for supply of nuclear technology? (or material?) to meet its domestic energy needs. The deal still needs to be approved by the US Congress, and is still not a done deal. Can India get the same or similar nuclear technology from other sources - such as Russia or France? Surely, the US cannot object since the US President himself has inked such a deal with India.

I think as a matter of precaution, in case the US Congress does not approve the deal, India should engage in talks with Russia/France for a similar deal. This will also give India more leeway in the Iran case, where India is stuck between the devil and the deep sea. It cannot afford to antagonize either Iran or the US since it needs energy from both, and runs the risk of getting neither. OTOH, if Russia were to supply nuclear tech to India, we would have the best of both worlds.

Why would Russia need permission from the NSG to supply nuke tech to India, if the US does not require such permission?

Any comments?

Research and development in nuclear technologies is far more important for India than relations with Iran. It has to still mature its fast breeder reactors, the thorium route and miniturisation of warheads for the delivery systems.

The cost of downgrading her realtions with Iran, a neighbour of Pakistan is far too less when compared with unprecedented cooperation with USA. It also relieves India of an un neccesary burden. The equation itself circumvents Pakistan. So that divide of Pacific Command and CENTCOM is now complete.

Cherios

Re: # 6 you have hit the nail right through the head. It went in and came out.

That along with #8 indicates the raison detre for the decision.

Plus add kyoto requirements. Add energy reuirements of future. Add the chinese experience of increasing power through coal (low grade) and the pollution there.

I agree with HP mittar has let the ball slip through his fingers. The article is lame, and doesnot have the required detail to come to a valid judgement. Superficial to say the least.

Relations among countries should not be based on single issues – and seldom are.

You continue to show a great affinity for what the diplomatic-types occasionally spurt out for press coverage – usually niceties! Action is always more important – and must be constantly re-tuned to current realities!

Lets face it. India has become to America what Pakistan has been accused of by the very Indians: a well-lubricated condom.

RE- #11 by godot

It seems like you would like this to happen. History of US influencing Indian foreign policy(or any policy for that matter) is not as much as US influencing the Pakistani foreign policy and every other policy including Musharraf’s “enlightened moderation”.

On a scale of 1 – 100 in a being a “Well lubricated condom” to be used and thrown away by US, if Pakistan scores a grand 100, for India it will be something like 2.

hohoho Godot!, highly unlikely that Indians will do Uncle Sam`s bidding like Pakistan did in Afghan war. On the contrary US will be called upon to do the dirty work for Indians; Eg: Pakis Kargil withdrawal

Re: # 12 & 13

Yeah, okay. Whatever makes you happy. For Uncle, both condoms cost the same, only the brand is different.

I was recently at the Indian Consulate in NY for some program around Economic development in certain states. There were parliamentary reps akin to the India Caucus in the US congress that focus on increasing cross border understanding and trade. One gentleman form Uttar Pradesh, spoke in length about how important a decision it was for India to call a spade a spade, i.e. Iran..all rolled-up in the ``national interest`` paradigm. He spoke about how he led the effort and deliberations wiithin the external affairs organization within the gov`t and built consensus to adopt this watershed position. He was a muslim. He spoke also about democracy and the importance of that in the Indian polyglotic society.

Incidentally, they had a wharton educated 27 yr old MP from Rajasthan who has been in th eparliament for 2 yrs and he said that ``when I was elected, I was the youngest...now I am the third youngest`` It brought a chuckle from a crowd but is a great testament to the process of democracy and the involvement of the young people that is on the rise..in a country where people under 30 will make up more than 70% of the population.

DMji,
The decision to vote against iran is a good one for india if
1. nuclear power generation is a sure thing, and
2. there are stopgap arrangements to meet the energy requirements between now and when adequate nuclear power production is achieved.

I am sure there were detailed policy deliberations that went into this decision but that in itself doesn`t guarantee that the decision was a good one. One possible reason may also be to offset pakistan`s closeness to the Bush administration and another could be to protect india`s growing exports to the US.
I agree with you that realpolitik is more important than moralizing. However, morality or an apparent adherence to it could also be a matter of strategy and a bargaining chip.
I don`t understand how Iran is in violation of NPT so long as it is not sharing its technology with anyone else.