Pol. int.le, India, Iran, USA Wsws 05-11-30
L’India in imbarazzo sul conflitto USA-Iran
Vilani Peiris e Keith Jones
-
USA,
GB, Germania e Francia prendono tempo sul deferimento della questione
iraniana al C.d.S ONU, nella speranza di assicurarsi la cooperazione di
Russia e Cina; - Gli USA stanno considerando la possibilità di ottenere l’appoggio di Teheran per la pacificazione in Irak;
-
l’ambasciatore
USA in Irak, Khalilzad, che contrattò nel 2003 l’impegno iraniano in
Afghanistan, ha il mandato di Bush per avviare colloqui diretti
USA-Iran sull’Irak; - Si inasprisce in India il dibattito sull’opportunità di legarsi politicamente e militarmente agli USA;
- L’offerta americana all’India mira ad utilizzarla in Asia come contrappeso strategico alla Cina.
- Il governo indiano a guida UPA (United Progressive Alliance) vede
nell’offerta americana l’opportunità di entrare nel gruppo dei 5 grandi
paesi nucleari, con l’accesso alla tecnologia nucleare civile americana
e degli altri firmatari del TNP. Calcola di ottenere vantaggi
geo-politici evitando coinvolgimenti pericolosi. -
L’opposizione teme il condizionamento americano della politica estera
indiana; l’India può meglio perseguire i propri interessi nazionali
continuando la sua tradizionale politica di non-allineamento,
ricercando solo gli investimenti americani e scambi commerciali. -
L’appoggio dato dall’India a USA e ai tre UE sulla questione iraniana
(riunione IAEA, settembre 2005) è stato per gli USA un test sulla
volontà del governo indiano di avviare un nuovo corso nelle alleanze
strategiche. I maggiori gruppi dei media indiani l’hanno definito
“segno di maturità”. - La CIA ha definisce l’India “l’ago della bilancia dell’ordine geo-politico internazionale.
-
“troppo condiscendente” l’accordo con gli USA per il secondo maggior
partito indiano, il BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party), tradizionalmente il
più filo-americano; - “condizioni onerose” le condizioni richieste dagli USA secondo il noto analista strategico indiano Matin Zuberi;
L’UPA,
il partito al governo in India, ha proseguito le riforme neo-liberali
avviate dalla precedente coalizione a guida BJP, e come pure le linee
di politica geo-strategica ed estera (con forte aumento della spesa
militare, ricerca di più stretti legami con gli USA, sforzi per
mantenere o sviluppare al contempo l’alleanza strategica con Russia, UE
e Cina).
India in quandary over US-Iran conflict
By Vilani Peiris and Keith Jones
The
Stalinist-led Left Front was quick to hail the government decision,
which contradicted press reports, including in the well-connected Times
of India, that the UPA government had decided that if the issue were to
come to a vote India would cast its lot with the US and EU-3 (Britain,
Germany and France) and against Iran as it had done at the September 24
IAEA meeting.
Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury told reporters November 21 at the
conclusion of a meeting of the UPA-Left Front coordination committee.
“We are satisfied with the manner in which the government is trying to
avoid such a situation.”
However, it soon
emerged that the US and EU powers had already decided that they were
not going to push for immediate referral of Iran’s alleged breaches of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to the UN Security Council.
Seen in this light, the UPA announcement to oppose referral at the November 24 IAEA was a transparent ruse, made so as to fend off criticisms that it has buckled to US pressure in regards to Iran,
a country that India has invested considerable energy in courting in
recent years as a market for its military equipment and, more
importantly, a major source of oil and natural gas.
they want to give time for further negotiations on a Russian proposal
that would see Russia enrich Iranian-supplied uranium hexafluoride gas
at Russian facilities and then return it to Iran.(While touted as a compromise, this proposal would place Iran in a unique category of inferior power denied the right accorded all other NPT signatories to develop all facets of a civilian nuclear energy program.)
The
real reasons for the US-EU climbdown at last week’s meeting are
complex: The US and EU powers still hope to secure the full cooperation
of Russia and China, both of which have important economic relations
with Iran; the US, sinking ever deeper into a military and political
quagmire in Iraq, wants to explore the possibility of securing
Teheran’s assistance in pacifying the country. Only a few days after the IAEA meeting, the US
Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told Newsweek that President Bush
has authorized him to hold the first direct US-Iranian talks since the
spring of 2003. Said Khalilzad, who played a significant role in
preparing the political and geo-political terrain for the US invasion
of Afghanistan, “I’ve been authorized by the president to engage the
Iranians as I engaged them in Afghanistan directly.”
western imperialist powers remain intent on using the nuclear issue to
bully Teheran, threatening it with diplomatic isolation, economic
sanctions, even war. The British Ambassador to the IAEA, Peter Jenkins,
was particularly provocative, declaring at the November 24 meeting that
Iran has documents whose only purpose could be to assist a nuclear
weapons program. He added that Britain retains the right to press for
an emergency meeting of the board of governors before the next IAEA
meeting, scheduled for March, to deal with the Iran issue. US
Ambassador Gregory Schulte was only slightly more restrained. He said,
“Iran must understand that the report to the [Security] Council is
required and will be made at a time of the board’s choosing.”
a major conflict that has erupted within India’s political and economic
elite over the extent of India’s geo-political and military ties with
the US, a country which during the Cold War was firmly aligned with
its traditional arch-rival, Pakistan, and which repeatedly tried to
bully India into serving US geo-political interests.
is disagreement over whether India should accept the Bush
administration’s offer of help in transforming India into a world
power—an offer which is clearly motivated by Washington’s calculation
it can use India as a strategic counterweight to China in Asia.
around the US’s offer to press for India to be accorded a special,
indeed unique, status within the world nuclear regulatory regime.
government views this agreement, which was sealed during Indian Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh’s July visit to the US, as a major coup, since
it makes India a de facto member of the Big Five nuclear-weapon states
and would give it access to the civilian nuclear technology of the US
and other NPT signatories.
however, have warned that the US is seeking to ensnare India in a
complex of military and technology agreements, so as to gain leverage
over India’s foreign policy. This faction of India’s elite, for whom
the Left Front is an articulate spokesmen, advocates that India
aggressively pursue US investment and trade, but otherwise remain true
to India’s traditional policy of “non-alignment.” India,
this faction argues, can best pursue its own “national interests”—that
is its predatory, great-power ambitions—if it keeps its distance from
the US.
UPA government voted in favor with the US and EU-3, while Russia, China
and prominent member-states of the Non-Aligned Movement abstained,
on a motion that accused Iran of “non-compliance” with the NPT and
threatened to refer the issue to the UN Security Council for punitive
action.
determine whether India merited US support in becoming a great power.
In other words, the US’s continued support for the nuclear deal
hammered out in July was contingent on India doing Washington’s bidding
against Iran.
denied that US pressure had any influence over its IAEA vote. “Our
positions in international forum are invariably determined by our
independent assessments which are consistent with our policy
pronouncements and anchored in our larger national interest,” declared
India’s Ambassador to the UN, Ronen Sen.
the government’s claims have been repeatedly undermined by the
statements of US politicians and Bush administration officials.
US Ambassador to India, David C. Mulford, spoke out in protest earlier
this month when the soon-to be ex-foreign minister of India, Natwar
Singh, said he would counsel the government to vote at the coming IAEA
meeting against referring the Iran issue to the Security Council.
India, said Mulford, “had expressed its assessment of its national
interest” at the September 24 meeting and “we expect India to assess
its national interest and vote accordingly” at the coming meeting.
and large India’s corporate media was supportive of India’s vote at the
September 24 meeting. Typical was an editorial in the Indian Express
titled “Sign of Maturity.” It began, “In deciding to
vote in favour of the European resolution at the International Atomic
Energy Agency on Saturday and demanding that Iran comply with its
nuclear obligations, the government has signaled a new maturity in
India’s foreign policy. In one stroke, India has told the world that it
will follow its own interests in deciding on global issues. India is
saying it is not a mere protestor in the international debates on
non-proliferation; that it means what it says when claiming to be a
responsible nuclear weapon power. On the multilateral front, India’s
vote will now have to be earned. It cannot be expected to come
automatically as part of third world ‘groupthink’. All to the good.”
the voices questioning or outright opposing India’s position at the
IAEA and the US-India nuclear deal have grown in number and alacrity in
recent weeks, as the US has attached further demands to its nuclear
offer. These include that New Delhi place much of its civilian nuclear
program under international supervision before the US Congress will make the legislative changes needed to permit civilian nuclear-power technology transfers to India.
recently authored a paper arguing that India should allow the civilian
nuclear deal it has reached with the US to lapse, because of “the onerous conditions” Washington is now trying to impose.
second largest party, the Hindu supremacist Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), has traditionally been the most pro-US of all India’s myriad
political parties. But, no doubt in part out of calculations of electoral advantage, it has joined in the criticisms
of the government for being too accommodating to Washington. In the
run-up to last week’s IAEA meeting it refused to take a position,
saying it wanted to see what the government would do first.
Just
as the UPA has pressed forward with the neo-liberal reforms of the
BJP-led coalition that preceded it, it has pursued essentially the same
geo-political and foreign policy path as the previous
government—massively increasing India’s military spending, and pursuing
ever-closer ties with the US, while simultaneously seeking to maintain
or develop strategic partnerships with Russia, the EU, and China.
UPA and Indian states’ geo-political strategists are acutely aware that
Washington is courting India because it views India, along with Japan,
as the linchpins of its strategy for containing China. But India’s
current regime is gambling that it can finesse its status as what the CIA has termed the key “swing state in the world geo-political order” to gain significant geo-political advantages from closer relations with Washington, while avoiding dangerous entanglements.
the outcome of the conflict between Washington and Teheran over Iran’s
nuclear program—and many surprises could yet been in store—the events
since July have shown that this is a most dangerous game.
offer to assist India in becoming a world power is conditional on New
Delhi accepting the role of a junior partner of an ever-more bellicose
and crisis-ridden US imperialism.