Saturday, May 31, 2003
Saturday, May 31, 2003 |
| International | ||||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | International
By Amit Baruah
"Our own reading is not quite the same," the Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, said today, adding that Teheran had told India that the Iranian model did not apply to Iraq. His remarks come amid continuing reports in the Western press that the U.S. Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, favoured a change of regime in Iran. They also come at a time when the U.S. is mounting pressure on India to send troops to Iraq to take part in a "stabilisation force" under the "Authority" of the occupying powers — the U.S. and Britain. So far, the Indians have not obliged the U.S. by agreeing to send troops to Iraq. Evidently, India feels that after the destabilising effects of the unilateral military action in Iraq, American attention turning to Iran could further impact on an already difficult situation in West Asia. Making it plain that India had no intention of playing intermediary between Iran and the U.S., Mr. Sibal said that within the Western world there were differing views on the "mischief-making" by the Iranians. "Some partners of the U.S. don't have the same view," he said adding that there was "serious concern" that an already difficult situation could get worsened by the opening of a "new front". During the Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee's just-concluded talks with the German leadership in Berlin, the Indian side sensed that Germany wanted the United Nations to play an important role "no matter what is being said and done at the moment". The Germans conveyed that the U.N. alone had the expertise to deal with complex situations. Asked whether India would take a more "proactive" role in expressing its views on Iran, given the close relationship between the two countries, Mr. Sibal said everyone was aware of India's developing relations with Iran and the strategic importance New Delhi attached to the relationship. There should be no doubt, he said, in anyone's mind about how India viewed Iran. To a question whether Iran and not Iraq would dominate the discussions, both in St. Petersburg and on the sidelines of the G-8 deliberations in Evian, France, he said the concerns that Germany had would be shared with its other partners. On the issue of nuclear safeguards to be adopted by Iran as being urged, among others, by the European Union, he said India had a sui generis position on the question since it related to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. As world leaders gather in St. Petersburg, it is becoming clear that the agenda of the Bush administration, as feared by many, will not stop with Iraq, but could well extend to Iran. The "axis of evil" theory propounded by the U.S. President, George W. Bush, has already "taken care" of Iraq and "concerns" about Iran are clearly being expressed. Though India is very much part and parcel of the U.S.-led "coalition" against terrorism, New Delhi clearly differs from Washington as far as Iran is concerned — a point that has clearly been made today. If the U.S. displays the same appetite for "regime change" in Iran as it did in Iraq, then India might well be forced to make a critical choice in displeasing the U.S. on Teheran. That stage, clearly, is still to be reached, but India has signalled that it is not about to follow the "line on Iran" blindly. India is aware that much of what it has been doing in Afghanistan could not have been possible but for the ongoing cooperation with Iran — activities that have caused concern even to Pakistan. That situation is unlikely to change anytime soon.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
