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

India Defence ^

[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.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Don't give in to U.S. pressure on Iran: Karat - Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat on Friday said India-Iran relations could not be held hostage to the United States. He asked the United Progressive Alliance Government to act in India's interest and pursue an independent foreign policy. "The UPA Government should not be stampeded into taking any stand against Iran which will undo the work done in recent years to establish close ties with Iran."

---

Will India side with Red Jihad against America? I think we already know the answer.

[Tailgunner Joe]

"India can trust us to protect their peace pipe to Iran. Really."

[SlamIslam]

I agree, history has no significance in this context, there is no hidden hostorical/cultural pact.
Even british records (for land and revenue purpose) were kept in Urdu. The system was introduced during Akhbar's (Mughal emperor) reign, the chief architect of the notarial system being Raja Todar Mal a hindu in his court.

[Gengis Khan]

Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

 

That is pretty much the case with all the Muslim countries. Forget Nadir Shah or the Shah of Iran, you seem to forget a more recent events where India and Iran worked together to take out the Pakistan based Taliban. Even today most of our logistical supplies to Afghanistan passes through Iran because of Pakistans refusal to grant India transit. Dont forget that it was Iran that had opposed the Kashmir resolution mooted by Benazir Bhutto who had the backing of the entire OIC. It was Iran that stalled the resolution.

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

 

As far as India is concerned, we do not recognise the NPT and as a result, to us it doesnt matter who violates the rules of NPT. My point was the India cannot act as the NPT police when we ourselves do not recognise or ratify the laws laid down by the regime. When we have neither recognised nor ratified NPT, the question of India censuring Iran for violating NPT does not arise.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

 

Iran is definitely at fault on that count (and many more) but if the world (read America) has no problem with Pakistan already having passed on Nuclear technology to much of the Islamic world, then we (India) should not be complaining too much about Iranian nuclear technology.

 

Iran is definately on the wrong side. I am not justifying the case for Iran. My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region. We have our own interest to look after.

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)

Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? I dont know how exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons. We will still need oil from somewhere......... anywhere. Be it Iran.

Unfortunately Gengis, you are wrong on four critical issues:

1. Iran is not a friend of India. Start with Nadir Shah, through the Shah of Iran (who gave money to Pakistan) to present day Iran (which pressures India every time a Muslim in India, even a terrorist, sneezes)

That is pretty much the case with all the Muslim countries. Forget Nadir Shah or the Shah of Iran, you seem to forget a more recent events where India and Iran worked together to take out the Pakistan based Taliban. Even today most of our logistical supplies to Afghanistan passes through Iran because of Pakistans refusal to grant India transit. Dont forget that it was Iran that had opposed the Kashmir resolution mooted by Benazir Bhutto who had the backing of the entire OIC. It was Iran that stalled the resolution.

2. Iran was and is a signatory to the NPT, India is not. Therefore, India's building the bomb was not breaking the rules of NPT. Iran would be breaking the NPT regulations.

As far as India is concerned, we do not recognise the NPT and as a result, to us it doesnt matter who violates the rules of NPT. My point was the India cannot act as the NPT police when we ourselves do not recognise or ratify the laws laid down by the regime. When we have neither recognised nor ratified NPT, the question of India censuring Iran for violating NPT does not arise.

3. You cannot equate Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons to that of India. Iran has offered nuclear technology to all Muslim countries. How often has India offered to share its nuclear knowhow?

Iran is definitely at fault on that count (and many more) but if the world (read America) has no problem with Pakistan already having passed on Nuclear technology to much of the Islamic world, then we (India) should not be complaining too much about Iranian nuclear technology.

Iran is definately on the wrong side. I am not justifying the case for Iran. My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region. We have our own interest to look after.

4. India is being short sighted about the gas pipeline. How long would gas from Iran take care of India's needs? And how easily would it be held hostage to upheavals in Pakistan and Iran? In contrast, nuclear plants offered by US would help India without having to rely on unstable supply issues. As long as it doesn't piss off Australia (i.e. they can keep winning cricket matches, but with the team we have, that should be no problem)

Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? I dont know how exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons. We will still need oil from somewhere......... anywhere. Be it Iran.

[Gengis Khan]

Post #40 is for you too.

[familyop]

The Iranian leaders shout for the destruction of Israel and the USA. It's up to you and India. Either join us, or join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and its military adjuncts. We in the USA will not continue to feed technology through India to evil regimes, each of which wants to eventually be the prevailing empire.

And contrary to propaganda in some small "elite" British circles (especially some businessmen) that we, as they, entertain desires of "empire," we certainly do not. If India would rather fight it out later with its preferred friends in the east (the mullahs, for example) for a chance at ruling the world, that's her business. We can let that happen, with the exception, of course, that no other nation will antagonistically touch countries like Taiwan, Australia, Japan, New Zealand or other of our Pacific Rim allies without paying a miserable price.

Russia will equip Iranian Submarines with Missiles
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437370/posts

US TOLD TO LEAVE CENTRAL ASIA [Russia & China demand "deadline."]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437369/posts

Defector: China's 'enemy' is U.S. - (very serious predicament we're in with Chicoms)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1435132/posts

CIS military exercise taking place in Russia
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050624/40757551.html

Russia will preserve its positions in Iran under any president
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1430361/posts

Russia, N.Korea, China give Iran missile aid -CIA
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/519198/posts

China, Russia, Iran and our next move (2/10/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/626057/posts

Germany warns Russia over missile sales to Iran (2/19/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/631377/posts

Russia to hold military drills with China:1st time in more than 30 years
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/674268/posts

US accuses Russia and China over North Korea bomb (10/19/02)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/772101/posts

China, Russia and Central Asia unite against US missile shield
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b29ebac7e95.htm

Red China and Russia unite to create New World Order says communist
newspaper (6/18/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2e42bd0629.htm

CIA: Russia, China working on information warfare (6/21/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b32d9f412df.htm

US blasts Russia, China for opposition to Iraq sanctions plan (6/26/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b38e03721e5.htm

Russia, China sign historic friendship treaty (7/16/01)
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b533a696e56.htm

China ‘ready to use N-weapons against US’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1443054/posts

Orthodox Church Says Western Human Rights Don’t Suit Russia
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1437110/posts

[Gengis Khan]

Will India side with Red Jihad against America? I think we already know the answer.

 

Nope, actually you dont. Nobody in India cares what the CPI(M) has to say (at least on foreign affairs). There is and has always been a consensus as far as Indian foreign policy is concerned. What the CPI(M) says does not matter, they dont call the shots.

[Tailgunner Joe]

Maybe so, but you seem to agree with them in this case. Maybe you should ask yourself why these traitors to India are saying the same thing you are.

[Gengis Khan]

I think for some reason you have got me all wrong.

 

India do not support Iran for anything. For us Iran does not matter. My point is that US is asking for too high a price for whatever little it is willing to offer by way of "alliance".

 

The Iranian leaders shout for the destruction of Israel and the USA.

 

Not very different from Mushy threatening to use nuke against India and moreover they do have the means unlike Iran. That however never seems to be much of a concern for the US.

 

India do not support Iran for anything. For us Iran does not matter. My point is that US is asking for too high a price for whatever it is willing to offer by way of "alliance".

 

It's up to you and India. Either join us, or join the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and its military adjuncts. We in the USA will not continue to feed technology through India to evil regimes, each of which wants to eventually be the prevailing empire.

And contrary to propaganda in some small "elite" British circles (especially some businessmen) that we, as they, entertain desires of "empire," we certainly do not. If India would rather fight it out later with its preferred friends in the east (the mullahs, for example) for a chance at ruling the world, that's her business. We can let that happen, with the exception, of course, that no other nation will antagonistically touch countries like Taiwan, Australia, Japan, New Zealand or other of our Pacific Rim allies without paying a miserable price.

 

None of all that you are saying has anything to do with the point I am trying to make. We have been fighting terrorism for far longer than you have been. Its for you to join us after you have abandoned allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

[Gengis Khan]

The right-wing BJP (considered pro-US until now) are also saying the same thing as I am.

[familyop]

"My point is that we (India) refuse to be dragged into the arena, to further what is essentially America's agenda for the region."

There is not much that we in the USA will do about Euro-trash, PLA or other Evil Empire conspiracy stories about "America's agenda." IMO, we in the USA should get out of the region altogether and let the more powerful countries of Asia decide as to which will rule over the others. That is...as long as no country tries to attack our Pacific Rim Allies, in which case, such antagonistic country and its materiel supporters will be stopped.

We are very much against "empire." And IMO, we've been making a great mistake in trading so much with countries like Communist China.

[familyop]

"None of all that you are saying has anything to do with the point I am trying to make. We have been fighting terrorism for far longer than you have been. Its for you to join us after you have abandoned allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia."

Your words also come from Russian parties that send various parts of nuclear weapons to Iran and Syria in cooperation with China. Those parties would like to see a big fight between India and Pakistan. They appeal to understandable emotions and history in India. But Pakistan is very militarily weak in comparison to Iran and China (which country's PLA would like to own more ocean routes in the region). Why tie-up expensive resources in a fight with Pakistan sooner rather than later?

Our leaders have already joined your leaders. See the efforts with Musharraf to prevent war during this time of building for India. At the same time, BTW, I disagree with some of the tactical directions of our US State Department.

Would you rather that Musharraf's internal opposition were in control of Pakistan? Would you rather that King Faad's old internal, radical opposition were in control of Saudi Arabia? Do you really want India to dedicate resources to wars with those countries?

If we were so like the old British Empire, we would want to play countries against one another for our own gains. If we were so like the old British Empire, we would allow India to go to war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. What would countries like Iran do in that case? They would join the fight against India. We in the USA would suddenly have a very loyal ally in India. But we don't do things that way. If we befriend India in a closer way, I do not want to do so to her detriment.

We don't want India to get involved in unnecessary diversionary wars that would cost India defense resources. But if India really makes a choice to do so, we cannot stop it.

I'm not a diplomat. I was once a soldier with low rank and am among the least important of Americans. I'm only a history buff and don't even have a university degree. ...only trying to help.

[razoroccam]

Not a thing you stated has effectively changed my opinion or countered the facts I stated.
1. Iran supported Gulbuddin Hekamatyar. Would you like to see him in power in Afghanistan?
2. Stick to the facts - India has not signed the NPT, Iran has. You cannot equate India's nuclear program with Iran's.
3. India is doing a lousy job pointing out the obvious.
4. Australia, Australia, Australia.

[ulmo3]

Nice post number 40, thanks for correcting some of the errors in my post

[Gengis Khan]

1. Iran supported Gulbuddin Hekamatyar. Would you like to see him in power in Afghanistan?

 

Gulbuddin Hekamatyar in the begining was supported by Pakistan and ISI, that was until Taliban took over. Check your facts ;)

The scumbag rocketted civilian areas of Kabul and killed a large number of innocent civilians. And after that escaped to Iran.

 

Almost all powers in the region including US, India and Russia supported one scumbag or the other. Lets not forget the US at one point of time supported OBL against the Soviets.

2. Stick to the facts - India has not signed the NPT, Iran has. You cannot equate India's nuclear program with Iran's.

 

I am not equating our nuclear program with their's.

My point is: We(India) have no business telling Iran to adhere to NPT when we ourselves have outrightly (and rightly) rejected it. When we ourselves do not recognise or approve of the NPT (our stand being that the NPT is an unfair and discriminatory regime), we are no more in a position to tell others to stick to NPT rules. Its not exactly India thats known for this kind of double standards.

3. India is doing a lousy job pointing out the obvious.

 

It doesnt matter what India says or does. America needs Pakistan for its GWOT (thats how the US has figured out its strategy for the GWOT). No matter what we do or how hard we try to "point out the obvious", US is unlikely to change its strategy (which includes appeaseing the Pakistani dictator) until their WOT strategy completely backfires and big time, and that is going to be inevitable. Sooner or later the world will realise what we have been harping about for so long. India neednt do anything at all, lousy or smart. It wasnt India's hollering that got the world to realise the dangers of terrorism. It was 9/11 that did the job.

4. Australia, Australia, Australia.

 

What about Australia? Where does Australia come into our discussion?

 

 

You havent answered my question.

Would US guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests? How exactly nuclear energy can replace hydrocarbons? 

 

You dont realise do you? The question is not about oil or nuclear. Nobody here is saying that Iran is right. Iran is as bad Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. My point has all along been that, the US cannot dictate to us our foreign policy. Tell me one thing, will the US let go of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on our saying so? Then why should we give a crap about what the US tell us to do vis-à-vis Iran?

[razoroccam]

Australia has Uranium. Tons of it. That's why I keep saying Australia.

[Gengis Khan]

Australia has Uranium. Tons of it. That's why I keep saying Australia.

 

It doesnt matter. The question still remains ......will they guaranty uninterrupted supplies of nuclear fuel in the event of military standoff/conflict with Pakistan or in the event of India carry out another series of nuclear tests?

 

Do you know which is the country with the worlds second largest Thorium deposits?

(Sigh) If only we could process it like Uranium. BTW we built the world's first Thorium processing nulear reactor.

[razoroccam]

No one can guarantee energy supply - neither Iran nor Australia. And yes, I know about Thorium - too bad it isn't as "combustible" as Uranium.

[familyop]

"Iran is as bad Pakistan and Saudi Arabia."

Iran is worse. Its government has been threatening the USA and Israel for some time now. Those threats are strange, though, because Iran is no great threat to the USA. It can only extort from western Europe or other countries closer to it. The effort to keep nukes out of Iran is an effort to help protect our allies.

"My point has all along been that, the US cannot dictate to us our foreign policy."

...agreed. Our US diplomats can only try to persuade, but that's common knowledge.

"Tell me one thing, will the US let go of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia on our saying so?"

Why would those who govern India really want to ask that of the USA? An all-out war between India and those two countries would not seem to be in India's best interest. Does India really want to dedicate huge amounts of time and money to administer two occupied countries? If the USA stopped diplomatic relations with those countries, leaders in those countries might stop trying to round up Al Qaeda members and other problematic faction leaders.

But some would like to use help from Iran and Syria to re-conquer formerly Communist slave countries. And some foreigners would love to get their fingers into Indian military matters again. But India's not going to go with that.