Lesson on diplomacy, from an Iranian -
A recent Track II discussion on New Delhi-Tehran ties was an
eye-opener on the need for a foreign policy that is not based on the
appeasment of any country
Track II meetings can be useful when participants express their views
candidly, without worrying about offending the sensitivities of others.
When the event is held in India, visiting think tankers take pain not to
upset their hosts. Since most foreigners have rightly concluded that
Indians are not only flattery prone but credulous as well, they are
usually complimentary about India’s role in various situations such as
in Afghanistan, Syria, Middle East, etc.
It is therefore refreshing when a visiting participant in a Track II
meeting gives free rein to his views about India’s foreign policy as was
the case when an Iranian expert, familiar with the official thinking of
his government, spoke his mind at an event in Delhi some time ago.
Other Iranian participants at the same meeting spoke in a similar vein.
‘Inclined towards U.S.’
India, he said, was anxious not to make the United States unhappy. “Your
‘qibla’,” he said, “is Washington.” India was much inclined towards the
U.S. and should reconsider striking a balance in its foreign policy;
India had some shortcomings and should reconsider its relations with
Iran; India was not being pragmatic but opportunistic. Traditionally,
India enjoyed huge social capital in Iran; it was hugely popular with
the Iranian people. All that had been destroyed for generations in one
stroke because of India’s anti-Iran vote in the International Atomic
Energy Agency. India could not vote against Iran and claim, at the same
time, that Iran was important for India; it just did not make sense. A
little later in the interactive session, he reiterated his view that
India could not vote against Iran and, at the same time, say it wanted
to work with Iran. “I repeat this because it was a very harmful act and
it is very hard for any friend of India in Iran to accept this.”
Some Indian participants, evidently upset and taking advantage of this
candour, reminded the Iranian gentleman that Iran had always sided with
Pakistan and asked him what it was that Iran had done for India, that
Iran was buying wheat from the U.S. but was not willing to buy it from
India, that Iran was spreading radicalisation among the Shia community
in India, that India says Iran is important for India but Iran never
says India is important for Iran, etc. Someone pointed out that Shiite
Iran supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was a diehard Sunni
movement.
The Iranian friend — we have to describe him as a friend since friends
are supposed to talk frankly without worrying about offending anyone —
was not nonplussed. It was not Iran which placed obstacles for Indian
wheat sales in Iran; this was a matter of business considerations. He
added that India could not have an unfriendly attitude towards Iran and,
at the same time, expect special consideration. Iran was a land of
moderation, not a land of extremism; it never exported Shia extremism to
India. If there is Shia extremism in India, there is also Hindu
extremism, he added for good measure. As for supporting Pakistan, he
said Iran had to, since Pakistan was a neighbour and a friendly country,
but Iran had never done anything against India and wanted to be helpful
to both. He rubbished the reports about supporting the Taliban and
added that India had been in touch with the Taliban.
On the nuclear issue, the Iranian expert said Iran was not asking for
anything more or less than the rights and obligations under the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran had always been in full compliance with
its treaty obligations. No section of Iranian society saw nuclear
weapons as a matter of privilege or security. Islamic jurisprudence
specifically forbade intentionally polluting the atmosphere. Nuclear
weapons did not provide security to nuclear weapon states; the U.S. and
Nato had nukes but of what use had they been in Afghanistan? Had India
been able to use them against Pakistan? As for some ‘evidence’ contained
in a laptop revealed in Vienna, it was fabricated and a cheap argument.
The ‘friend’ used the very point raised by the Saudis and others; India,
he pointed out, could easily get oil from other sources, Iran was not
really important for India as an energy source.
Instead of taking offence at his remarks, we ought to draw some lessons from them.
Unlike Iran, which never says India is important for it, Indian
strategic community never tires of repeating how crucial Iran is to us
for its energy resources, for alternative access to Afghanistan and for
the northern corridor to Central Asia. For good measure, we often remind
ourselves of the fact that there is a large Shia community in India,
the assumption being that the Shias in India expect the government to be
mindful of their religious sentiments while deciding on the policy
towards Iran. Such talk only strengthens Iran’s attitude of being
somewhat contemptuous or dismissive of India. It further makes people in
Iran and India conclude that India needs Iran much more than Iran needs
India, if at all.
As of today — and this must be emphasised — Iran certainly needs India’s
friendship. It is true that our anti-Iran vote in IAEA has harmed our
relations with Tehran, but international relations cannot forever be
held hostage to past actions. We ourselves have long forgotten even the
fact that many countries had voted against us in the United Nations at
the time of Bangladesh’s war for independence in 1971.
The Iranian friend was right; there are other sources from where India
can buy oil. Saudi Arabia would be delighted if we were to turn to it to
make up the shortfall, since it would clearly be interpreted as India
siding with it in the undeclared politico-sectarian war against Iran.
(This is one reason why India would not want to do so.) But the number
of buyers of Iranian oil is dwindling fast and Iran is hard put to find
alternative buyers, even at discounted prices. Contrary to what our
friend said, his Oil Minister has publicly acknowledged that Iran’s oil
exports fell by 40 per cent last year.
Iran needs India’s friendship
The Prime Minister paid an official visit to Iran last year for the
non-aligned summit, no doubt upsetting the Americans. The fact that he
was ‘granted an audience’ by the supreme leader should not flatter us.
Iran certainly needs friends like India. Would the supreme leader have
‘received’ the Prime Minister if his country did not face sanctions?
Iran surely knows that India has not joined in the unilateral sanctions
imposed by the West. If Iran, in the face of these facts, has convinced
itself that India’s ‘qibla’ is in the direction of Washington, there is
nothing we can do to disabuse it of its thinking.
The above analysis is not an argument for downgrading Iran’s importance
for us and for the region of which it is a part. Rather, it is meant to
keep in mind what Harish Khare, the respected columnist, recently
observed: Appeasement policy does not serve national interest, in
domestic politics or in international relations. His advice is aimed at
the government but is equally true at the non-governmental level.
International relations must be conducted on the basis of reciprocity
and mutuality of interests. We also have to keep in mind that countries
which at present have strained, even hostile relations with Iran, can
and will change their policy at a time of their choosing; we should not
be left surprised.
(Chinmaya R. Gharekhan, former Indian Ambassador to the United
Nations, was until recently Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's Special
Envoy for West Asia)
No comments:
Post a Comment