STATECRAFT BY HAPPYMON JACOB
Ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides wrote in his epic treatise History of the Peloponnesian War that while the strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. While this describes the inner workings of the international system in general, then and now, no wisdom better than this can explain the philosophy behind the global nuclear non-proliferation regime as well as the ongoing confrontation between Iran and the United States (along with the European countries and Israel).
While this should not surprise the students of international politics, what may be surprising for many is the moral rhetoric with which the west attacks the Iranian regime. They argue that Iran has no right to make nuclear weapons (not that Iran has admitted to making nuclear weapons) because it will be a violation of Iran’s NPT obligations, it is not good for stability in the West Asian region and that Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. Informed observers of international politics, am sure, will be able to call the bluff of these arguments without much effort. My focus today is on the Indian policy towards the Iranian nuclear programme.
Hypocrisy towards Iran
New Delhi, whenever possible, tries to remain silent on the Iranian nuclear question. When pushed to the corner, it would argue that Iran should not develop nuclear weapons. Surely, suspected development of nuclear weapons is not the only reason why the US has a problem with Tehran; there is deep enmity between Iran and US notwithstanding the nuclear developments in Iran. This means that even though Iran is clearly under threat from US and Israel, New Delhi’s policy posture seems to assume that the American policy towards Iran is justified.
India argues that Iran should give up its nuclear weapons programme, if any, because Iran, unlike India, is a signatory to the NPT and hence it has treaty obligations which it should respect. Is that not a hypocritical argument to make? India has traditionally argued that the global non-proliferation regime is discriminatory and that India does not agree with NPT-mandated ‘nuclear apartheid’. If so, how can India blame Iran for violating a treaty that India thinks is blatantly discriminatory in the first place?
More importantly, it is clear that one lesson that we can draw from global nuclear politics is that the powerful countries have always had their way in defining standards for the less powerful ones as the Marxist historian E. H Carr rightly points out “morality is the product of power”. This explains why Israel is able to have its secret nuclear weapons programme without being challenged by the international community. By pointing fingers at Iran, India is not only agreeing to these very same arguments but is also conveniently forgetting the not-so-clean history of India’s nuclear development which is witness to a number of instances of India diverting nuclear material sourced from the western countries for civilian purposes to its weapon programme. Given such a history, how can India blame Iran? I am reminded of a biblical story: when a woman accused of adultery was brought to Jesus for his opinion on whether or not she should be stoned to death as per the Law of Moses, he said “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
What explains the Indian behaviour?
Surely, New Delhi’s policy towards the Iranian nuclear programme is not informed by moral or normative considerations but plain geopolitical calculations. There is a heightened level of pressure on New Delhi from the US and west for isolating Iran and this was predicted by many Indian analysts during the negotiations of the Indo-US nuclear treaty. The Hyde Act passed by the US Congress specifically requires India to cooperate with the US to isolate Iran.
Apart from the pressure exerted by the US and the West on New Delhi, there is also the Indian calculation of potential benefits that it can get if it joins forces with them against Iran. New Delhi’s illusion of being the new strategic lynchpin of American grand strategy in the region has convinced it to give up on its traditional partners, alliances and ideals. With the Pak-US relations nose-diving, and China’s rise being resisted by the Euro-Atlantic alliance partners and India being courted by them to checkmate China, New Delhi feels the need to make use of the geopolitical opportunity to become the key strategic partner for the US and the West in the region. Hence maintaining a strategic silence on the issue of Iran and speaking up against it when pushed to do so is seen as the correct strategy by New Delhi. Keeping this in mind, India voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in late 2005 and early 2006 thereby giving up the traditional Indo-Iranian relations which until then were smooth, mutually beneficial and accommodative.
I am convinced that India will have to pay dearly for adopting such hypocritical policy towards Iran. Indeed, our hypocritical policy towards Iran has been costing us geo-strategically, economically, politically, and even grand strategically. United States may be an ally for India but Iran is a neighbour: allies change, neighbours don’t.
(Source: Greater Kashmir, 19 February, 2012, URL: http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Feb/19/new-delhi-s-hypocritical-iran-policy-6.asp)
