![]() |
|
|||||||
|
Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board! The World Affairs Board is one of the premier forums for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include foreign & defense policy, international security, military developments, weapons proliferation, terrorism, international strategic affairs, and politics. Our membership includes many from military, defense industry, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today? |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Contributor
|
India and Iran: Getting Friendly?
India and Iran: Getting Friendly? - TIME
By landing his plane in New Delhi on what was to have been a routine refueling stop, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has provoked a diplomatic contretemps between India and the U.S. that reveals the fragility of their emerging alliance. New Delhi remains deeply wary over being seen to be doing Washington's bidding when it comes to dealing with other countries. The furor began when New Delhi received a request for Ahmadinejad's plane to make refueling stop on a flight home from Sri Lanka. The Indian government, which has of late been remedying its prolonged neglect of the West Asian region, pounced on the opportunity to host the Iranian President. Turning the six-hour stopover into an official visit, the government hoped, would also smooth the ruffled feathers of its leftist coalition partners, who have accused the government of betraying old friends like Iran and pandering to the U.S. ever since India voted at the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2005 to refer Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. Also, with negotiations over a $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline stalling, India saw the visit as a chance to breathe life back into a project desperately needed by energy-starved India. But the announcement that Ahmedinejad would be feted in New Delhi didn't pass without comment from Washington. State Department spokesperson Tom Casey, in reply to a question, said: "We would hope that the Indian government... would call on [Ahmadinejad] to meet the requirements that the Security Council and the international community has placed on him in terms of suspending their uranium enrichment activities and complying with the other requirements regarding their nuclear programme." That statement piqued India's Ministry of External Affairs, which responded: "India and Iran are ancient civilizations whose relations span centuries. Both nations are perfectly capable of managing all aspects of their relationship with the appropriate degree of care and attention." In a sharper tone, the statement added: "Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations as both countries believe that engagement and dialogue alone lead to peace." Washington quickly moved to defuse the tension, with Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Richard Boucher saying the issue had been blown out of proportion: "It's up to every country to determine for itself how it's going to organize its bilateral relations." Boucher may have ended the verbal spat, but the episode has once again highlighted India's diplomatic dilemma, as it cozies up to the world's only — but highly unpopular — superpower while not annoying traditional allies and preserving its own self-interest. "Iran is the litmus test for India's foreign policy," says former diplomat Rajiv Sikri. "India and Iran have been allies historically, and India's interests are bound with Iran's. If India cannot take a free stand on Iran, it can hardly hope to claim an independent foreign policy." Iran considers itself the leader of the world's Shi'ite Muslims, and India has the world's second largest Shi'ite population, at 20 million. Iran has previously backed India against Pakistan's claims over Kashmir in the Organization of the Islamic Conference, an international forum of Muslim and Muslim-majority countries. Iranian ports have also allowed India to circumnavigate Pakistan in trading with Central Asia. Iran, for its part, needs Indian business, investment and technology cooperation. The gesture to Ahmadinejad demonstrates that even at the expense of upsetting the U.S., India is keen to mend relations with Iran that were damaged when New Delhi voted with Washington at the IAEA in 2005. "There is an increasing realization in India that India's interests in the region are tied with Iran's," says Prof A.K. Pasha, a Middle East expert at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. "Iran is the only country that can give credible help to Indian efforts to rebuild Afghanistan. And India must ensure that Iran remains on India's side and does not side with Pakistan as it did during the Iran-Iraq war, when India did not sufficiently support Iran." In the past, India has similarly asserted its diplomatic independence from the U.S. over Myanmar — while the U.S. and the E.U. were trying to isolate the military junta and impose sanctions, India was supplying military hardware and carrying out infrastructure projects in the country. Still, analysts point out, India is yet to formulate a clear-cut policy on how to deal with issues where its interests conflict with those of the United States. "And it's high time it did," says Sikri. "If India could take an independent stance 50 years ago, it should be able to do so now when it is too big to be pushed around."
__________________
Hasta la Victoria siempre! |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
I have always said this before, USA and India are way too similar to be allies. We will not take dictates nor do we like that tone.
That said, USA probably should keep silent on the issue since it is always advisble to have a friendly country be in talking terms with an enemy, it can only do good. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) | |
|
Postmaster General
Military Professional
|
Quote:
That is my gut feeling.
__________________
![]() "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination." I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. HAKUNA MATATA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) | |
|
Regular
|
Quote:
It took the State Dept less than an hour to clarify their position once the statement over the wire. India's relationship with Iran is an opportunity and not a threat.
__________________
http://www.christiancs.com/files/J2/bear2.gif |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Moderator
Scotch taster |
I disagree. That smacks of underhand dealings. Everything should be up front. The US cannot interfere with any relations between India and Iran but by the same token, if the relationship cannot withstand words of disagreement, then the relationship is worth squat all.
__________________
Chimo |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) | |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
You are a military man, though I dont claim to know anything better than you on any matter but in politics nobody keeps anything on the table. Russians dont want the Indians to have anything to do with the Americans, but we have inevitable and enviable relationship. We have relationship with both Palestinians and Israel. Adu Last edited by Adux : 04-26-2008 at 13:38 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Contributor
|
Quote:
Quid pro quo, comprende? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
Quote:
Hardly, Lobbying is taken as a legitmate practice in the US. Lobbying cannot be taken in the same breath as interference in a country's domestic affairs. And it is not gun point or blackmail. I dont know about the Info-ads and WaPo? Do explain. Last edited by Adux : 04-26-2008 at 15:18 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
Contributor
|
Quote:
2. What is the legitimate quid pro quo for Indian lobbying in the US? 3. Indian embassy in the US ran info-ads in the NYT and the Washington Post in the beginning of the Kargil counter-offensive, laying out its position and justifying it to a largely American audience. Why shouldn't the US be able to the same in India? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) | ||
|
Banished
Senior Contributor
|
Tremendous goodwill, and lots of business transactions in the offing. I dont know much about the Strategic programme's with Iran regarding Pakistan. I heard quite a lot about Chabbar, but I am not so sure about it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| INDIA’S DRIVE FOR A ‘BLUE WATER’ NAVY : Dr.David Scott | Adux | Naval Forces | 50 | 04-29-2008 14:14 PM |
| British India | Grundy | Political Discussions | 187 | 07-01-2006 07:39 AM |
| How clean is India? | Neo | Political Discussions | 163 | 05-03-2006 19:09 PM |
| Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council | Dreadnought | Political Discussions | 13 | 01-16-2006 15:14 PM |
| Why use force when talk works so well? | Leader | International Defense Topics | 54 | 12-05-2005 04:29 AM |