Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA
India Defence ^

Posted on 09/17/2005 7:35:01 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/377 Date: 17/9/2005 Agency: The Hindu

India will vote with the United States, France, Britain and Germany in the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board of governors if forced to make a choice on referring the question of Iran's nuclear intentions to the United Nations' Security Council.

Highly-placed South Block sources told The Hindu that such a decision to vote with the U.S. in a crunch situation was taken even before Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went into a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush in New York.

At this bilateral meeting Iran is said to have come up for discussion.

Backing off

According to reports from New York, it appears that the U.S. and the European Union "three" are backing off from asking the IAEA's board to refer Iran to the Security Council on September 19 itself.

The board is meeting in Vienna on Monday,

In such a scenario, where the E.U. "three" Foreign Ministers have had diplomatic contacts with the new Iranian leadership in New York, it appears that India will not immediately be called upon to vote one way or another in the IAEA board.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Germany; News/Current Events; Russia; United Kingdom; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allyindia; france; germany; india; iran; irannukes; nuclear; russia; unitedkingdom; unitednations; usa; waronterror
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
Coincidently, this news report was released along with this very interesting intel report:

Indo-US nuclear deal off if India backs Iran in UN URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/379 Date: 17/9/2005 Source: NewsInsight

The US has privately conveyed to the Indian leadership that were India to support Iran in Monday’s IAEA board meeting so its case of NPT violation is not referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions, then America would withdraw from the ongoing New Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP), which would prominently and immediately hit the 18-July civilian nuclear agreement between the two countries.

Diplomatic sources said that while this was not directly stated to the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh, in the US, it was indirectly conveyed to the foreign minister, Natwar Singh, to the Indian delegation, and to the ruling and opposition leadership within the country, but foreign office officials here are not wont to take the warning seriously, saying that America is posturing.

The NSSP that took off in January 2004 expands civilian nuclear, civilian space and high technology cooperation between India and the US, its first phase was completed with ISRO headquarters’ removal from the US commerce department’s entity list and enabling its subordinate entities to import low level dual use items without a license, and in between, Boeing Satellite Systems was permitted to jointly develop and market communications satellites with ISRO.

Significantly, the US also granted “presumption of approval” status to all dual use items not controlled by the Nuclear Suppliers Group for use in the “balance of plant” activities at nuclear facilities subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.

As part of the NSSP protocol, prime minister Manmohan Singh and president George W.Bush signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement up for congressional ratification, and diplomats said the Congress would reject the accord in case India supports Iran’s clandestine weaponisation activity by supporting its position in the IAEA board meeting on 19 September.

While Indian voting won’t affect the almost certain outcome against Iran in the IAEA meeting, US policymakers fear that the presumed UN Security Council sanctions won’t be effective if India maintains good relations with Iran, because Iran can survive regionally, and the US continuance in Pakistan would become untenable.

With Russia and China backing Iran, it cannot survive the sanctions, diplomats said, but India is closer, and Indian support would certainly crumble Pakistani resistance to the Iranian regime, and General Parvez Musharraf would have to capitulate to domestic pressure to come to that country’s aid and assistance.

1 posted on 09/17/2005 7:35:02 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan

Links to the original articles:

India likely to vote with U.S. on Iran in IAEA
URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/377

Indo-US nuclear deal off if India backs Iran in UN
URL: http://www.india-defence.com/reports/379


2 posted on 09/17/2005 7:37:09 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan
I don't believe it. India needs the pipeline, it wants to assert an "independent foreign policy," and it needs Shia Iran's moral support to counterbalance Sunni jihadis in Kashmir. Not to mention the cultural links between the two. The Indian elites spoke Farsi until the rise of the British Raj. While India may back us up if we apply the screws tight enough, I think it's unlikely, and it's one reason why we've delayed the referral issue.
3 posted on 09/17/2005 7:42:00 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan

Let's make sure the U.N. passes alot of resolutions that won't be enforced so that the Iranians have plenty of time to acquire nukes in the interim. The stupidity of international diplomacy continues to amaze me. Foggy Bottom is a prime example of the difference between intelligence and common sense. The latter is a scarce commodity.


4 posted on 09/17/2005 7:47:19 PM PDT by peyton randolph (Warning! It is illegal to fatwah a camel in all 50 states)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

No Indian 'elites' ever spoke Farsi..They speak HINDU.


5 posted on 09/17/2005 7:49:31 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

You need to get an education.


6 posted on 09/17/2005 7:50:36 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

perhaps..tell me the difference between Sanskrit and Farsi..


7 posted on 09/17/2005 7:52:59 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

India can deal with a Shia Iran even after the proposed regime change, can't we?


8 posted on 09/17/2005 7:57:02 PM PDT by Abbas Razza Khan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

One is the ancient language of the Aryans who conquered the subcontinent, and one is the ancient language of the Aryans who conquered its adjacent plateau. Now, go read up on the Moghul Empire and Farsi before you play with the big kids.


9 posted on 09/17/2005 7:57:24 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Abbas Razza Khan
Lol true enough, but if we decide to go that route, we aren't going to need (or get) U.N. Security Council approval, so it's a moot point anyway.
10 posted on 09/17/2005 7:58:36 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Go brush off your hubris before u 'play' with real women. U sound foolish and proud, not to mention ignorant. Care to provided a link for my 'research' into your ignorance?


11 posted on 09/17/2005 8:05:25 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

It's not hubris, it's just disdain for people who assert "facts" that are blatantly wrong. You want a link? Google Moghul and Farsi, and learn.


12 posted on 09/17/2005 8:12:33 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Disdain? LOL..and u r not full of hubris? U r the one that is claiming to be a know it all and u don't. Simple really. Go 'google' Farsi and Sanskrit...LOL


13 posted on 09/17/2005 8:19:52 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire

I never claimed to know it all, I simply said that Indian elites spoke Farsi. And they did. You claimed otherwise. And you're wrong. End of matter, good day, hope you learned something from the experience. Please don't reply with some insipid ad hominem until you can prove that Indian elites didn't speak Farsi.


14 posted on 09/17/2005 8:23:35 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Those Elites who spoke farsi have long died . India understands that its future as a power lies with America .They will do the right thing.


15 posted on 09/17/2005 8:29:32 PM PDT by Milwaukeeprophet (Neo and proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

Indian 'elites' r Hindu my friend. U seem confused, so let me spell it out to u.
83% of the 800 million people of India are Hindus. Around 11% Muslims, over 2% Christians, just under 2% Sikhs, Buddhists surprisingly less than 1%, Jains 0.5% and the rest (Parsees, Jews etc) less than 1%.

Hinduism

Hindu religious literature was produced in successive periods of history, the earliest of which was the Vedic period between 2500, BC to 600 BC. It was during this time when the Sanskrit speaking, blond hair and blue eyed people the Aryans, wrote the four VEDAS or books of knowledge. u seem confused.. Farsi is a Persian language from Iran, Afghanistan and other stans...Sanskrit is the language of Hindus and the derivative of the Aryans.


16 posted on 09/17/2005 8:32:16 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Do you know anything at all about Indian history? Indian elites for several centuries were Muslim and spoke Farsi. But their religion is irrelevant. Even educated Hindus spoke Farsi during the Moghul era. Please, please get an education before you talk about things you don't know. A little knowledge really is a dangerous thing in your case.
17 posted on 09/17/2005 8:43:48 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

still no links where i can study your stupidity or review mine? LOL...


18 posted on 09/17/2005 8:47:28 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: penelopesire
Like I said, Google it. If you really are so ignorant of Indian history that you don't know practically anything about the Moghul era, a few internet links aren't going to help you, and you have no business posting in this thread. I don't want to sound cruel, but that's the truth.
19 posted on 09/17/2005 8:49:45 PM PDT by Lejes Rimul (Paleo and Proud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lejes Rimul

No problem..your bad, not mine..lol:

The first group to invade India were the Aryans, who came out of the north in about 1500 BC. The Aryans brought with them strong cultural traditions that, miraculously, still remain in force today. They spoke and wrote in a language called Sanskrit, which was later used in the first documentation of the Vedas. Though warriors and conquerors, the Aryans lived alongside Indus, introducing them to the caste system and establishing the basis of the Indian religions. The Aryans inhabited the northern regions for about 700 years, then moved further south and east when they developed iron tools and weapons. They eventually settled the Ganges valley and built large kingdoms throughout much of northern India.

The second great invasion into India occurred around 500 BC, when the Persian kings Cyrus and Darius, pushing their empire eastward, conquered the ever-prized Indus Valley. Compared to the Aryans, the Persian influence was marginal, perhaps because they were only able to occupy the region for a relatively brief period of about 150 years. The Persians were in turn conquered by the Greeks under Alexander the Great, who swept through the country as far as the Beas River, where he defeated king Porus and an army of 200 elephants in 326 BC. The tireless, charismatic conqueror wanted to extend his empire even further eastward, but his own troops (undoubtedly exhausted) refused to continue. Alexander returned home, leaving behind garrisons to keep the trade routes open."

What r we arguing about again?


20 posted on 09/17/2005 9:01:38 PM PDT by penelopesire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson