In
the last 20 years or so there has been a remarkable growth in India-Israel
relationship, which is all to the good. Criticism that India wants to work on
this relationship more behind the scenes rather than giving it full visibility,
is not unjustified. This should change. More openness would consolidate the
image of independence of our foreign policy.
The
problem is that we have long convinced ourselves that there would be a price to
pay not only with regard to friendly Islamic countries, but also our own Muslim
population. We have created this mental block for ourselves, which our policy
makers will take time to overcome.
The
point is raised about our voting against Israel in the United Nations. Frankly,
too much should not be made of this issue. Actually, such voting has not
mattered much in affecting realities on the ground, and probably does so even
less today. Behind the charade of voting in the UN in particular way, we should
look at the developing reality of the India-Israel relationship. The two should
be separated.
When
India votes in the United Nations in a particular way, it is because of the
difficulty in dramatically changing past positions taken over several decades.
Any radical change can generate an unnecessary controversy, especially as some
of the core issues underlying the Israel-Palestinian issue have not moved
towards any durable solution. We have also to weigh our relations with the
Islamic world- whatever the differences between them and their hypocrisies- the
lobby that is comprised of 1½ billion Muslims. Some kind of a balance has to be
found, just as Israel is cautious about taking positions on India-Pakistan
issues. This is a small price to pay in terms of having a cover domestically
and internationally to develop our bilateral relations with Israel, strengthening
them and giving them more visibility.
The
other issue is Iran going nuclear. We have to look at the so-called domino
effect of Iran going nuclear more carefully. I believe there cannot be any such
domino effect unless, primarily, the West opens the doors to nuclear technology
to the Muslim countries or China does. If there is fear that Saudi Arabia or
other countries would go nuclear, then the way to avoid this is to exercise
very stringent controls on any transfer of nuclear technology, including civil
nuclear technology, to these countries. As of now, I don’t think that any
Muslim country, barring Iran that has now got a nuclear reactor from Russia,
has a nuclear reactor. There is one being built in UAE by the Koreans, but
other than this not a single Islamic country has it. Some of them have
experimental reactors, but most are non-functional. These countries, therefore,
do not have a base to go nuclear, and if such a base is created, it will be by
western companies, besides China and, potentially, Pakistan. Therefore, why not
focus on the sources of proliferation.
The
United States and the West had a robust policy on non-proliferation, which for
years and years we suffered from, and even now the doors are not fully open for
us, as, for example, the issues of re-processing and enrichment technology with
the Americans. There is a bar to that even in our 123 Agreement with the United
States carries restrictions in this regard. The Russians, however, have not put
any such conditions in our bilateral agreement with them, and the French are
saying everything is open in terms of cooperation. But these are grey areas.
What I mean is that even with a country like India, the international community
is not ready to open the doors of nuclear technologies. So, there is absolutely
no case for them to open the doors of nuclear technologies to potentially
problematic countries.
In
any case, if Iran goes nuclear and other countries in the region follow, from
our point of view there are two points to note: one is that it reduces
Pakistan’s calling card as the only Islamic country with a nuclear bomb; if
four or five other Islamic countries have them, it devalues their exceptional
status. I am saying this half in zest and half seriously too. Second, Pakistan
is being given so much space in the area of proliferation that is baffling.
This is being given not only by the United States of America, but indirectly
even by Israel, as Israel is concentrating only on the threat that Iran’s
nuclear capability can pose to it. I don’t see, for example, the very powerful
Jewish lobby in the United States putting pressure on the US Government to do
something about Pakistan’s nuclear capability. Pakistan could be a source of
proliferation of nuclear technology to the Arab world should Iran go nuclear.
China announced very recently the agreement to set up of a new 1000 MW power
plant in Pakistan, and there is not a squeak from the rest of the world.
From
Indian perspective, 99 percent of our security has already been compromised by
the ease with which Pakistan was allowed to go nuclear by the West, with its
unwillingness to focus on the China-Pakistan nuclear connection. If Iran goes
nuclear that might add maybe one percent to our concern, but not much more.
If
we have a different perspective, it is not to say that we contest the reality
of Israeli concern, given its history, which requires it take the existential
threat to its security far more seriously than others. The unacceptable
statements that the Iranian leadership makes about the existence of Israel do
not make sense and add to concerns all round. It is difficult to understand why
Iran makes such statements because, as it is, Iran is beleaguered
internationally from the diplomatic point of view and it makes things worse for
itself by unnecessarily provoking not only US opinion, but international
opinion in general. Why Iran should stand out as the sole country to talk about
the eventual destruction of Israel is not easily comprehensible.
Additionally,
Iran’s own future, its identity, its vocation, its civilizational profile do
not depend on Israel, the nature of its relationship with Israel or the
creation or the destruction of Israel as a state. Why does Iran give so much
importance to this issue? It would seem that Iran considers this is part of
Iran’s confrontation with the United States of America; in itself it is a side
issue. The Iranians claim that they have never talked about the destruction of
Israel as such- they speak of one state in Palestine, which implies, of course,
the effacement of Israel as a separate entity. Iran’s position is also part of
its effort to retain its leadership of the Islamic world.
Should
one take the Iran threat to destroy Israel seriously? Unlike Pakistan, which is
a 65 year old state, Iran is a three to four thousand year old country and
civilization. They are not going to risk the destruction of their own
civilization in return, which has such a glorious past, simply because of the
Israel-Palestinian issue.
As
regards India’s concerns about oil price stability being a factor in our
concerns about the Iranian nuclear issue, the position is not clear. Some
people are wondering why in view of persistent global recession oil prices are
so high. The dynamics of oil prices are quite complex. The Iranians had thought
that all these military threat against it would inflate oil prices and they
will have a bonanza. In fact, one arrow in their quiver has been found to be
useless because oil prices haven’t shot up to the levels that people thought
that they would in view of the uncertainties surrounding Iran. The game is
complex, and reasons why oil prices rise and fall need better understanding. I
wouldn’t take the question of oil price stability that seriously in terms of
the Iranian nuclear question and its impact on the Arab world.
-
See more at:
http://www.vifindia.org/article/2013/april/15/indo-israel-relations-and-iran-s-nuclear-question#sthash.tMTfNlJu.dpuf
कोई टिप्पणी नहीं:
एक टिप्पणी भेजें