INDIA-IRAN

INDIA-IRAN
Energising relations
JOHN CHERIANin New Delhi India ignores U.S. pressure and holds talks on further steps towards the gas pipeline project during Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s visit.
S. SUBRAMANIUM President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on arrival in New Delhi on April 29.
IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was on a whirlwind tour of South Asia in the last week of April as part of his government’s “look East” policy,
made a “working visit” to New Delhi on April 29. The visit, the first by an Iranian head of state to India since the state visit of President Muhammad Khatami five
years ago, coincided with heightened tensions in the Gulf region.
Around the time Ahmadinejad was holding talks with the Indian leadership on important issues such as the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project, United
States Defence Secretary Robert Gates issued bellicose statements against Teheran. He accused Iran of “killing American servicemen inside Iraq”. The Pentagon
announced the despatch of a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf and ordered military commanders to develop new options for attacking Iran.
In a press briefing on the eve of Ahmadinejad’s visit to the subcontinent, U.S. State Department spokesman Tom Casey suggested that India ask Iran to suspend its
uranium enrichment programme and become a more responsible player on the world stage. New Delhi refused to play ball. In a strong response to the Bush
administration’s suggestion, the Ministry of External Affairs emphasised that India and Iran were both “ancient civilisations” that “are perfectly capable of managing all
aspects of their relationships with the appropriate degree of care and attention. Neither country needs any guidance on the future conduct of bilateral relations”.
Briefing the media, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon made it clear that Iran had the right to gain access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Washington was irked by the red carpet welcome India and Pakistan accorded the visiting leader at a time when it has been calling for international sanctions against
Iran. Senior Bush administration officials have not been circumspect about their views on the India-Iran relations. Last year, the Secretary of State publicly advised
New Delhi against pursuing the gas pipeline deal with Iran. In January 2006, the U.S. Ambassador to India, David Mulford, stated that the U.S.-India nuclear deal
could be jeopardised if India did not vote against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
New Delhi temporarily succumbed to pressure and voted with the West that year against Iran. That vote facilitated the passage of the United Nations Security
Council resolutions against Iran, leading to limited international sanctions on it. The Iranian leadership was, naturally, upset with India over its unexpected position on
its nuclear programme but pragmatically decided to close that chapter and move ahead.
New Delhi also adopted “go-slow” tactics on the gas pipeline negotiations. Nicholas Burns, former U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, had claimed in
a lecture at Harvard University that he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had convinced India to stay out of the pipeline project. Rice, in her testimony to the
U.S. Congress in 2006, stated that participation in the pipeline project would be a violation of the Iran Sanctions Act that penalises governments investing more than
$20 million in Iran’s energy sector.
In recent months, the Indian government’s position on Iran has become more forthright. The United Progressive Alliance government seems to have finally broken
free from Washington’s shackles. External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said recently that the U.S. should not arrogate to itself the role of the IAEA in
pronouncing judgment on the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme. He said in Parliament in the last week of April that the U.S. had no right to pass such a judgment.
PEACE PIPELINE
V. SUDERSHAN Union Petroleum Minister Murli Deora flanked by Ghanimi Fard (left), Special Representative of the Minister of Oil, Iran, and Ahmad Waqar, Secretary, Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Resources, Pakistan, before their meeting on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline in New Delhi on June 29.
But with the U.S.-India nuclear deal put on the back burner, there is a newfound enthusiasm for the IPI gas pipeline project. The subject was on top of the agenda
during Ahmadinejad’s visit. At a press conference in New Delhi, the visiting President, who has been calling the pipeline project the “peace pipeline”, said that the
proposed project would be finalised in the “near future”. According to reports, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh assured the President that New Delhi was serious
about the deal. During his interaction with the media, Ahmadinejad described the U.S. as a “declining power” which would be forced to leave both Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Despite the arm-twisting by the U.S., Pakistan has gone ahead and signed the pipeline deal with Iran. Indian Petroleum Minister Murli Deora was in Islamabad in the
last week of April for talks on extending the pipeline to India. Deora told the media that both sides had almost finalised the “transit fee”. Iran has indicated in recent
months that if New Delhi kept vacillating on the pipeline issue, the gas would be diverted to China via Pakistan. Trilateral talks relating to the pricing of the gas and the
security aspects are expected to start soon. Ahmadinejad said the talks on the $7.4-billion project would be completed within 45 days.
Shiv Shankar Menon was more cautious in his remarks. He told the media that while the IPI project was “doable”, there was still a “long road ahead” as a lot of
spadework was required. Echoing Ahmadinejad’s views, he said the project had the potential to emerge as a confidence-building measure between the three nations.
Disagreeing with Washington on the need to isolate Iran diplomatically, Menon argued that “the more engagement there is, the more Iran becomes a factor of stability
in the region”. He said that the Iranian side did not raise the issue of the Indian Space Research Organisation launching an Israeli spy satellite. The Iranian government
was known to be upset as the Israeli spy satellite is specifically targeted at Iran, Pakistan and Syria. The Foreign Secretary said India was willing to cooperate with
Iran in the area of space technology but added that there were no specific requests from Teheran so far.
The Indian government seems to have belatedly realised that energy-rich Iran can remove the roadblock to India’s economic growth. Iran is the second largest
supplier of oil to India. With global oil prices reaching astronomical figures, the demand for cheaper gas is expected to increase further. There is already a “supply-
demand mismatch” in India. A recent report about the energy scenario in India stated that “against an overall requirement of 77 million standard cubic metres per day
(mmscmd) of gas between April 2007 and January 2008 only 37 mmscmd was supplied”. Iran has 17 per cent of the world’s proven gas reserves. These can meet
the gas requirements of India, which are set to quadruple in the next 10 years.
Good relations with Iran would also help India have access to gas from Turkmenistan. Iran wants to be the “energy corridor” of the region. Iranian gas is finding its
way to European countries such as Italy through Turkish pipelines. However, the proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline is likely to remain a
pipedream, with Afghanistan in turmoil.
Talks are also on to iron out the differences over the pricing of the liquefied natural gas (LNG), which Iran agreed to supply following a contract signed with India in
2005. India and China are major shareholders in a joint venture to develop one of Iran’s largest oilfields – the Yadavaran.
Shiv Shankar Menon said the bilateral talks held during Ahmadinejad’s visit focussed on the joint venture to develop the Persian Gulf port of Chahbahar, the
construction of a highway from the port city to link it with Afghanistan and Central Asia and the 2001 agreement on the North-South rail corridor connecting Iran,
Russia and India. The North-South corridor has the potential to provide speedier access to Indian exports to the Central Asian region and Eastern Europe. The
Chahbahar port could emerge as a rival to the ambitious Gwadar port in Pakistan built with Chinese assistance.
SECURITY SITUATION
Another important topic discussed during Ahmadinejad’s visit was the security situation in West Asia and Afghanistan. Both Teheran and New Delhi have
considerable stakes in the West Asian region. Recent statements from Western capitals threatening military action against Teheran, coupled with Israel’s proclivity for
violence against the people under its occupation, have made the situation more volatile. Israel is threatening to go to war against Syria and has indicated that it is
keeping its military options open against Lebanon.
In Afghanistan, India and Iran have common strategic interests. Both countries had backed the Northern Alliance in its fight against the Taliban. Now, with a resurgent
Taliban extending its influence once again to northern Afghanistan, the two countries have reasons to be worried.
Teheran is well aware that the three South Asian countries he visited are all “strategic allies” of the United States. At the same time, these countries, especially India
and Pakistan, attach great priority to energy security. Their national interests leave them with no option but to have bilateral ties with Iran.