Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

My piece for Rediff where I ask whether Modi's swearing-in will set off a new SAARC-wide precedent

Here's the link to my piece for Rediff; published on 7 July 2014:

Rediff.com » News » Will Modi break from the past and swing by Kabul?

Will Modi break from the past and swing by Kabul?

Text size: A A A

July 07, 2014 15:24 IST

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Hamid Karzai

To get such articles in your inbox

Will Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in set off a new South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation-wide precedent? And will he spring a surprise again and attend the new Afghan president's inauguration? We will know soon. Other things being equal, India can be expected to be represented at a high level at the August 2 inauguration of the new president of Afghanistan.

It is reliably learnt that Afghanistan has drawn up a list of 40-odd countries whose heads of state and/or government would be invited for the ceremony to be held at the presidential palace in Kabul. Incidentally, all SAARC members are invited, which has got some asking: Will Modi travel to Kabul given that he himself made the unprecedented move of inviting SAARC leaders to his May 26 swearing-in ceremony?

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was among the SAARC leaders who graced Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. If Modi, and some or a majority of his SAARC counterparts, indeed make the journey to Kabul for the inauguration of the new Afghan president-elect, then they would have well and truly established an unwritten SAARC-wide convention for heads of state and/or government to grace each other's inauguration.

Security will be a consideration, as would protocol, but given Modi's penchant for the unconventional, it should not come as a surprise if he indeed decides to attend the ceremony in Kabul. That said, protocol has never come in the way of the time-tested ties between India and Afghanistan. Most recently, Vice President Hamid Ansari was the senior-most foreign dignitary to attend the funeral of Afghanistan's first vice-president Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a close lieutenant of the late charismatic Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.

However, if the past is any indicator, it could well be that the external affairs minister will represent India at the inauguration of the Afghan president. A former external affairs minister in the UPA-2 government, S M Krishna, represented India at the November 19, 2009 inauguration of Hamid Karzai's second consecutive five-year term as President.

Incidentally, New Delhi had initially planned to nominate Vice President Ansari to attend the inauguration but decided against it because Ansari was required for chairing the proceedings of the winter session of Parliament) About 800 invitees, including foreign dignitaries, government- and military officials and tribal representatives, were present. On the occasion, Krishna had a separate meeting with his American counterpart, Hillary Clinton, and got to exchange pleasantries with his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

Going further back, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh dispatched Prithviraj Chavan, a minister of state in the Prime Minister’s Office, as his personal emissary for Karzai's inauguration on December 7, 2004. Chavan was among the representatives from 27-odd foreign delegations who attended the event. The invitees included, among others, the then US Vice-President Dick Cheney and the then US Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the then Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao.

If Modi deputes his external affairs minister, Sushma Swaraj, for representing India at the inauguration of the new Afghan president next month, her visit to Kabul would come almost immediately after conclusion of her talks in New Delhi with visiting US foreign minister John Kerry. Kerry is expected to visit New Delhi for the annual India-US strategic dialogue, to be held on or about July 31. This year it was Washington's turn to host the Indian delegation for the strategic dialogue, which is held alternatively in Washington and New Delhi.

However, Modi's ascension as prime minister in May prompted Washington to change tack -- and quickly at that -- given its unofficial boycott of Modi for close to a decade. The US imposed a visa ban on Modi in 2005 for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and it remains in place to this day. (Yet, Modi would automatically be eligible for an A-1 (diplomatic) visa as head of government.)

Washington, accordingly, thought it fit to first send a bipartisan delegation to call on Modi in New Delhi before hosting him at the White House in September this year. John McCain of the opposition Republican Party called on Modi on July 3. Kerry's aide William Burns will be in New Delhi soon before Kerry himself comes calling on Modi -- something that would not have been possible if Washington had hosted the India-US strategic dialogue.

The only on-the-record comment so far has come from Amar Sinha, India's ambassador to Afghanistan, who said that the swearing-in ceremony of the new Afghan President would be attended by India at duly appropriate level.

He pre-empted speculation about India's preference (between Ashraf Ghani -- a Pashtun, a former World Bank economist, a former adviser to the Bonn Process and a former finance minster in Karzai's transitional administration; and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister of mixed Pashtun-Tajik ethnicity) for President by saying that "either of the candidates become president they both are good friend of India and will work very closely with them (sic). They look towards India as a true friend. Our policy towards Afghanistan transcends political differences and each government work very closely both in India as well as here."

Image: Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Ramesh Ramachandran is a journalist based in New Delhi.

Will Modi spring a surprise again and attend the new Afghan president's inauguration?

We will know soon. Other things being equal, India can be expected to be represented at the 2 August inauguration of the new president of Afghanistan. It is reliably learnt that Afghanistan has drawn up a list of 40-odd countries and heads of state and/or government that would be invited for the ceremony to be held at the Presidential Palace in Kabul. Incidentally, all SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) members are invited, which has got some asking: Will Mr Modi travel to Kabul given that he himself made the unprecedented move of inviting SAARC leaders to his 26 May swearing-in ceremony?

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan was among the SAARC leaders who graced Prime Minister Narendra Modi's swearing-in ceremony. If Mr Modi, and some or a majority of his SAARC counterparts, indeed make the journey to Kabul for the inauguration of the new Afghan president-elect, then they would have well and truly established an unwritten SAARC-wide convention for the SAARC heads of state and/or government to grace each other's inauguration. Security will be a consideration, as would protocol, but given Mr Modi's penchant for the unconventional, it should not come as a surprise if he indeed decides to attend the ceremony in Kabul. That said, protocol has never come in the way of the time-tested ties between India and Afghanistan. Most recently, Vice President Hamid Ansari was the senior-most foreign dignitary to attend the funeral of Afghanistan's First Vice President Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a close lieutenant of the late charismatic Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Masood.

However, if the past is any indicator, it could well be that the external affairs minister will represent India at the inauguration of an Afghan president. In UPA-2, a former external affairs minister of India, Mr SM Krishna, represented India at the 19 November 2009 inauguration of Mr Hamid Karzai's second consecutive five-year term as President. (Incidentally, New Delhi had initially planned to nominate Vice President Ansari to attend the inauguration but decided against it because Mr Ansari was required for chairing the proceedings of the winter session of Parliament.) About 800 invitees, including foreign dignitaries, government and military officials and tribal representatives, were present. On the occasion, Mr Krishna had a separate meeting with his American counterpart, Ms Hillary Clinton, and got to exchange pleasantries with his Pakistani counterpart, Mr Shah Mehmood Qureshi.

Going further back, former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh dispatched Prithviraj Chavan, Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office, as his personal emissary in a special plane for Mr Karzai's inauguration on 7 December 2004. Mr Chavan was among the representatives from 27-odd foreign delegations who attended the event. The invitees included, among others, the then US Vice-President Dick Cheney and the then Defence Minister Donald Rumsfeld, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special adviser Lakhdar Brahimi, the then Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the then Pakistani Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao.

If Prime Minister Narendra Modi deputes his external affairs minister, Ms Sushma Swaraj, for representing India at the inauguration, her visit to Kabul would come almost immediately after conclusion of her talks in New Delhi with visiting US foreign minister John Kerry. Mr Kerry is expected to visit New Delhi for the annual India-US strategic dialogue, to be held on 31 July. This year it was Washington's turn to host the Indian delegation for the strategic dialogue, which is held alternatively in Washington and New Delhi. However, Mr Modi's ascension as Prime Minister in May prompted Washington to change tack -- and quickly at that -- given Washington's unofficial boycott of Mr Modi for close to a decade. The US imposed a visa ban on Mr Modi in 2005 for his alleged role in the 2002 Gujarat riots and it remains in place to this day. Washington, accordingly, thought it fit to first send a bipartisan delegation to call on Mr Modi in New Delhi before hosting him at the White House in September this year. John McCain of the opposition Republican Party called on Mr Modi on 3 July. Kerry's aide William Burns will be in New Delhi soon before Kerry himself comes calling on Mr Modi -- something that would not have been possible if Washington had hosted the India-US strategic dialogue.

Dr Abdullah Abdullah and (on the right) Mr Ashraf Ghani

The only on-the-record comment so far has come from Mr AmarSinha, India's ambassador to Afghanistan, who has said that the swearing-in ceremony of the new Afghan President would be attended by India at duly appropriate level. He pre-empted speculation about India's preference (between Ashraf Ghani, a former World Bank economist, a former adviser to the Bonn Process and a former finance minster in Mr Karzai's transitional administration, and Dr Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister) for President by saying that "either of the candidates become President they both are good friend of India and will work very closely with them (sic). They look towards India as a true friend[.] Our policy towards Afghanistan transcends political differences and each government work very closely both in India as well as here."

Key dates*:

5 April 2014: First round of Afghan presidential election

14 June 2014: Presidential run-off

7 July 2014: Preliminary result of the presidential run-off

24 July 2014: Final result of the presidential run-off

2 August 2014: Inauguration of the new President-elect of Afghanistan

(* as on 6 July 2014)

INDIA WAITLISTS KARZAI'S WISH LIST !

Karzai, Singh discuss roadmap for 2014 and beyond

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan shakes hands with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Tuesday (Picture courtesy: Prime Minister's Office)

New Delhi
21 May 2013

The situation that will obtain in Afghanistan after the presidential elections in April 2014 and the subsequent withdrawal of international troops from the country before that year ends, not to mention the protection of Indian interests and investments made in the war-ravaged, landlocked country over the years, would have weighed on Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s mind as he hosted President Hamid Karzai for talks in New Delhi on Tuesday. That, when taken together with President Karzai’s stated desire to broaden and deepen security ties with India, including, but not limited to, the supply of weapons and other military hardware for the Afghan forces, set this round of talks apart from previous ones. Afghan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali prefaced the Karzai-Singh meeting by asserting that “we would like to go beyond the current trend of co-operation between the two countries in the defence sector. So, we would like to have both lethal and non-lethal assistance to our defence forces in Afghanistan.”

Kabul maintains that the Afghan national security forces must be equipped with the necessary capabilities – including capacity for logistics and equipment maintenance as well as adequate ground and air firepower – to execute independent operations against conventional and unconventional enemies. India and Afghanistan signed a strategic partnership agreement in October 2011, which dwelled on security, trade, capacity-building and people-to-people contacts. Specifically, India agreed "to assist, as mutually determined, in the training, equipping and capacity building programmes for Afghan National Security Forces". Therefore, Kabul’s desire to source hardware with Indian assistance must be viewed in that context.

According to Ashraf Haidari, deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in India who has served as Afghanistan’s deputy assistant national security adviser and deputy chief of mission of the Afghan embassy in the US, “the Taliban leadership continues to receive protection from the Pakistani military and intelligence establishments.” He buttressed his argument by pointing out that “without an external sanctuary, sustainable funding, weapons supplies, and intelligence support in Pakistan, the Taliban would be unable to reconsolidate its control over Afghanistan. Since 2003, the Taliban and its affiliated networks have gradually expanded their influence in the ungoverned southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan, launching daily terrorist attacks that have injured and killed thousands of innocent civilians.”

While India was expected to lend a sympathetic ear to President Karzai, how soon and to what extent will it be able to satisfy Afghanistan on this count will be a function of India's own assessment of the unfolding situation situation in the Af-Pak region. Adding to New Delhi’s anxieties is that there are many moving parts to the Afghan conundrum, namely Pakistan’s attitude towards Afghanistan and India, the Taliban’s own gameplan, the moves for a possible reconciliation with the Taliban and the extent of Pakistan’s role in it, the possibility of a greater Chinese involvement subsequent to the US pullout, the ethnic configuration of Afghanistan in the immediate future and last but not the least the eventual successor to Mr Karzai following the presidential elections to be held in April 2014. That may explain India’s circumspection, as evidenced by the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson’s remarks that while Afghanistan is a “strategically important” neighbour, India will “continue to discuss and respond to specific requests of the Afghan government ... within our own modest means as a developing country”.

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan holds talks with
President Pranab Mukherjee (Courtesy: Government of India)

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) were not forthcoming with details on the Karzai-Singh talks. It was left to Rashtrapati Bhavan to articulate India’s views which it did by putting out a press statement quoting President Pranab Mukherjee as telling his Afghan counterpart that India was prepared to increase bilateral contribution to Afghanistan’s institution-building, training and equipment “to the extent [it] can” and that India would stand by Afghanistan during its critical period of transition. Earlier in the day, External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid told journalists that India was already assisting Afghanistan with doing capacity-building, non-lethal military hardware, communication and transport equipment. “He (Karzai) may have a wish list and with which he may go to our Prime Minister but these are ongoing... which will all be discussed within the parameters of what our capacity is, what our philosophy is, we would help them as a friend,” Khurshid elaborated.

From President Karzai’s perspective there are three other issues that continue to engage his government’s attention. One is the tensions with Pakistan on the Durand Line, which has been cited by Karzai’s spokesman Aimal Faizi on more than one occasion. The second is the recognition that Afghanistan is vulnerable to transnational security threats, stemming in particular from the narcotics trade and terrorism. The third issue, which is of a more immediate concern to his government, is the lack of coordination among international donors or partners. Although the diversity of nations present in Afghanistan demonstrates international goodwill and consensus for supporting the country, Kabul feels each contributing nation has pursued its own aid strategies, effectively bypassing coordination with each other and the Afghan government. Hence, a lack of strategic coordination across international military and civilian efforts to ensure aid effectiveness has so far crippled the Afghan state and left it with no capacity or resources to deliver basic services to its people.

For landlocked Afghanistan, access to a sea port is particularly vital. This specific need can be met to a certain extent by India’s collaboration with Iran for developing the Chabahar port and linking it to Afghanistan by a network of roads. At the same time, Kabul is acutely aware that its location should help it serve as a regional trade and transit hub for easy movement of goods and natural resources to meet the rising energy demands of India and China. Incidentally, Afghanistan was discussed at some length by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh when they met on Monday. India has also been discussing Afghanistan with a host of other countries in the region and beyond, notably Iran, Russia and the US, besides international fora.

It was President Karzai’s 12th visit to India, and the second in the last six months. He paid a courtesy call on President Pranab Mukherjee and addressed industry representatives, too. In his address to the captains of Indian industry, President Karzai called for Indian investments in healthcare, agriculture and telecommunications in Afghanistan. He pointed out that agriculture was a priority sector for Afghanistan as it accounts for 36 per cent of its GDP and supports 85 per cent of the Afghan population. Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul, Afghanistan ambassador to India Shaida Abdali, Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan Gautam Mukhopadhaya and other senior officials were present on the occasion.

Video of President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan's meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in New Delhi on Tuesday (Courtesy: Prime Minister's Office)

India's poser to US: If you won't dump Pakistan, why should we jettison Iran?

Hyderabad
18 March 2012

As India negotiates the diplomatic minefield that is West Asia, questions are being asked of the government as to whether and how it could engage differently with Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia, without having to taking sides or pick and choose one over the other.

New Delhi would have you believe that the overlapping tensions in West Asia, manifested in the Israel-Iran stand-off over the latter's nuclear ambitions, the proxy war being played out in Syria between a Shiite Iran and the Sunni-bloc led by Saudi Arabia, or more generally the competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran for supremacy, constrict India's options.

In an example of some nimble Indian diplomacy, the government despatched external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia in order to offset any adverse fallout from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's proposed visit to Iran later this year. However, the same government chose in its wisdom to support a UNSC resolution against Syria.

While there is merit in New Delhi's argument, an influential section of the Indian diplomatic community contends that the ongoing investigation into the attack on an Israeli envoy in New Delhi or the threat of US sanctions on Indian entities post-June 28 for not reducing oil imports from Iran should not deter the government from pursuing what it deems is in its enlightened national interest.

"The US not only does not choose between India and Pakistan but actually assists our adversary in many ways, so why should we forego our limited relationship with Iran for the sake of the US?" wondered Kanwal Sibal, a former foreign secretary.

"Do Iran and Saudi Arabia choose between us and Pakistan? If at all they have been historically closer to Pakistan than to us. If Iran's statements on Israel and the Holocaust are objectionable, the Wahabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia is objectionable too. We should safeguard our energy relationship with Iran as best as we can despite US and EU sanctions and the Arab position," Mr Sibal told this newspaper.

Increasingly, diplomats who have observed or served in the region insist that India's relationship with Iran should stand on its own feet and not linked to its relations with Saudi Arabia. They maintain that whatever the differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and the Shia-Sunni conflict that is building up, India does not need to take sides or feel compelled to choose.

They cautioned against a repeat of 2005 when New Delhi jettisoned its ties with Tehran in its narrow pursuit of the India-US nuclear deal. While some claim that Iran's rise as a regional power is inevitable, others cite the significance of Iran as land bridge to Afghanistan and beyond as a case in point.

From The Asian Age, New Delhi, edition

Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh to visit Iran despite regional tensions

Hyderabad

12 March 2012

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's much-anticipated visit to Iran this year can be expected to serve the dual purpose of maintaining India's ties with Iran on an even keel and kickstarting peace talks with Pakistan.

Tehran will host the 16th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in September.

His visit to the Iranian capital will, literally, be couched in nonalignment, coming as it will in the midst of a brewing crisis in West Asia, between Iran and Israel, and between the Shiite and Sunni blocs represented by Iran and Saudi Arabia, respectively.

It will follow the visits by external affairs minister SM Krishna to Israel, and defence minister AK Antony to Saudi Arabia. Also, it will be the first visit by an Indian premier to Iran in over a decade, after Atal Bihari Vajpayee's in 2001.

Prime Minister Singh's proposed visit to Tehran is being described as a manifestation of India's balanced and equitable relationships with various protagonists in the region. A broad-based relationship with the region is a welcome shift in policy, particularly after the narrow-minded pursuit of interests in the run-up to the signing of the India-US nuclear deal.

India and Pakistan are among the 120 members of the NAM. Besides interacting with the host, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Prime Minister Singh is likely to re-engage his Pakistan counterpart, Yousuf Raza Gilani, on the margins of the summit.

The prime ministers of India and Pakistan last met in November 2011 on the sidelines of the Saarc summit in the Maldives. Incidentally, it was on the margins of the last NAM summit, hosted by Egypt in the Red Sea resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009, that prime ministers Singh and Gilani agreed to insulate the peace talks from "action on terrorism".

Prime Minister Singh will be hoping that peace with Pakistan will be his legacy, as India heads for elections in 2014. The Singh-Gilani talks will be preceded by Mr Krishna's visit to Islamabad.

The Asian Age, New Delhi

Deccan Chronicle, Bengaluru

India, Iran discuss trilateral cooperation with Afghanistan; issue of oil payments nowhere near resolution

From left: Nirupama Rao, foreign secretary of India; Mohd Ali Fathollahi, Iran's deputy foreign
minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs; and Ali Akbar Salehi, foreign minister of Iran

New Delhi

6 July 2011

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao discussed trilateral cooperation among India, Iran and Afghanistan in her talks in Tehran, signalling a movement beyond mere articulation of positions to possibly a structured consultation on the situation in Afghanistan.

Ms Rao called on foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi on Tuesday and

held talks with deputy foreign minister for Asian and Asia-Pacific affairs Mohd Ali Fathollahi. She met with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council, on Wednesday.

The situation in the Arab world, anti-piracy cooperation and consular issues were among other issues that Ms Rao discussed in her talks with Mr Fathollahi, who first mooted the trilateral cooperation during his visit to India in August 2010.

Ms Rao's visit to Iran followed that of national security adviser Shivshankar Menon in March, on the eve of the Persian New Year.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has shied away from visiting Iran but an opportunity could present itself in 2012 when Iran hosts the NAM Summit.

Foreign secretary Nirupama Rao with Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's supreme

national security council

Ms Rao's visit comes amid India's continuing search for an amicable solution for crude-oil payments to Iran. Iran has been selling crude to India on credit (the outstandings are over Rs 4,400 crore) since December 2010, when the Reserve Bank of India discontinued the practice of routing payments through a regional clearinghouse called the Asian Clearing Union in view of the US sanctions on Iran.

India switched to the services of the German-Iranian Europaish-Iranische Handelk AG (EIH) bank based in Hamburg but the European Union's sanctions against the bank in May forced Germany to terminate the facility. Petroleum and natural gas minister Jaipal Reddy has said that efforts were being made to ensure uninterrupted oil supplies from Iran. Iran is India's second largest source of imports after Saudi Arabia.

Ms Rao's visit came a year to the day since her July 5, 2010 speech in New Delhi in which she spoke about India pursuing its ties with Iran independent of the US, making accelerated efforts" to complete infrastructure projects, and how India was "justifiably concerned that the extra-territorial nature of certain unilateral sanctions recently imposed by individual countries" could adversely affect India's energy security.

The bilateral ties have remained in disrepair since 2005 when India voted against Iran in the IAEA.

After the 2006 vote against Iran, India abstains on Syria, but questions remain

(L) President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and, on the right, IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano

New Delhi

10 June 2011

India abstained in Thursday's (9 June 2011) vote in the International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA), which decided to report Syria to the United Nations security

council (UNSC) over its alleged covert nuclear programme.

The 35-member board of governors of the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog decided by

a 17-to-six vote, with 11 abstentions, to refer Syria to the UNSC for building an

undeclared nuclear reactor at a site in Dair Alzour (which was unilaterally destroyed by

Israel in 2007), for not allowing the IAEA to carry out investigations, and for not adhering

to its safeguards agreements.

The last time the IAEA reported a member-state to the UNSC was Iran in February 2006.

India's votes against Iran had been widely criticised at home, but Thursday's abstention

did not go unchallenged either.

A section of the official circles described India's decision to abstain, and to not cast a 'no

vote' along with Russia and the others, as being dictated by a desire to keep the US and

Israel in good humour. It felt that the IAEA vote was meant to bully President Bashar al-

Assad of Syria into submission and to set in motion a process to effect a regime change

(similar to Libya) in order to disrupt the Syria-Iran axis.

However, New Delhi defended itself by maintaining that states were required to comply

with safeguards obligations and it has consistently been against clandestine

proliferation. At the same time, it pointed out, scope for dialogue should be fully utilised.

The IAEA's referral of Syria to the UNSC should be seen in the context of the attempts by

the West to push for a UNSC resolution condemning Syria's crackdown on protesters.

With Russia indicating that it might veto any such UNSC resolution against Syria, New

Delhi was of the opinion that putting it to vote in the 15-member UNSC, of which India is a

non-permanent member, would be pointless.

In Thursday's vote, 17 countries voted for reporting Syria to the UNSC. They were: the

US, the UK, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Germany, Italy, Japan, South

Korea, Australia, Belgium, Cameron, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, and the UAE.

Six countries voted against the motion: China, Russia, Pakistan, Ecuador, Venezuela

and Azerbaijan. India and 10 other countries abstained, which included Argentina, Brazil,

Chile, South Africa, Peru, Jordan, Kenya, Niger, Tunisia, and Ukraine. Mongolia was absent
from the vote.

Iran spoils maiden flight of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's new plane

New Delhi

31 May 2011

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit to India made headlines even before her aircraft landed in New Delhi Tuesday morning. Iran first refused permission to the Airbus A-340 "Konrad Adenauer", Germany's equivalent of the US' Air Force One, for flying over its airspace but later relented, delaying her arrival in New Delhi by two hours.

She more than made up for the avoidable distraction by immediately plunging headlong into the talks with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in which she reaffirmed Germany's 10-year-old strategic partnership with India; inked four pacts to expand bilateral cooperation in areas such as vocational education and training, science and technology, and research; and exchanged views on a wide swath of issues such as trade, counter-terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and reform of the United Nations security council (UNSC), which Germany and India are spearheading along with Brazil and Japan.

While Prime Minister Singh was "in agreement" with Ms Merkel on the need for UNSC reforms and he shared similar views about regional peace and security, some divergences were discernible in their positions on issues such as the way forward in Libya, whether a non-European should head the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and nuclear energy.

Ms Merkel, whose government announced plans Monday to shut down all nuclear power plants in Germany by 2022, wants the focus to shift to renewable sources of energy in the wake of Japan's Fukushima disaster. For his part, Prime Minister Singh insisted that making use of nuclear energy, together with maximum possible emphasis on renewables, was a combination India needed if it was to meet its emission targets.

However, the differences did not dissuade Ms Merkel from offering to partner with India in nuclear safety and green energy. Defence and security dialogue was progressing satisfactorily, too. Indian counter-terrorism officials were expected to meet with their German counterparts in September to discuss operational matters, including, but not limited to, equipment and technologies. Also, external affairs minister SM Krishna would participate in the Bonn conference on Afghanistan in December.

From Germany's perspective, the contract for the sale of multi-role aircraft to the Indian air force will be of considerable significance given that the Eurofighter Typhoon is one of two aircraft on New Delhi's shortlist. Speaking at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Singh, Ms Merkel said, "With the Eurofighter we have made good proposals and want to intensify our relationship with India. The Eurofighter is the best product on offer".

Incidentally, the diplomatic standoff between Iran and Germany over denial of permission to the "Konrad Adenauer", named after post-war Germany's first chancellor, coincided with the visit here by an Iranian delegation for resolving the issue of oil payments. India is seeking an alternative mechanism for making payments for the imports of crude oil from Iran after Germany discontinued the practice of routing the payments through the Hamburg-based Europaisch-Iranische Handelsbank AG (or EIH Bank.)

Iran's relations with Germany, which along with the five permanent UNSC members (the US, the UK, France, China and Russia) had held negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme, has deteriorated of late. Recently the European Union and the United States imposed further sanctions on Iran.

The Iranian ambassador in Berlin was called to the German foreign ministry to explain the snub. Iran is since understood to have blamed "technical [and] organisational events", according to a media report, for the lapse due to which Ms Merkel's aircraft was forced to circle over Turkey for a couple of hours.

Ms Merkel is the second European head of government to have visited India on a refurbished aircraft. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France had used a new official Airbus plane, dubbed Air Sarko One, for his December 2010 visit here, although unlike Ms Merkel, he had already flown on it on its maiden flight to South Korea for the G-8 summit in November.

'26/11 was the low point of my stay in India'

The battle against terrorism will require concerted international action of all likeminded

countries as it is a battle that we cannot afford to lose, says MARK SOFER, Israel's

outgoing ambassador in New Delhi, as he prepares to leave India soon after spending

four years here. In an interview to RAMESH RAMACHANDRAN, he talks of how the

"dynamic" relationship between the two countries "is now going places". Excerpts:

Q: How would you describe the Israel-India relations today, and what are some of the

high and low points of your tenure?

A: It is a relationship in motion, which started before I came of course, but clearly, it has

an enormous dynamic of its own. If you look at the basic facts and figures, the bilateral

civilian trade has reached $5 billion. We are working on a Free Trade Agreement (FTA).

Next year will be the 20th anniversary of the establishment of India-Israel relations, and,

hopefully around that time we will be able to conclude the (FTA) negotiations. Some

experts estimate that bilateral civilian trade will triple in the next three or four years, so

we are talking $15 billion worth of civilian trade. And the trade is finely balanced in terms

of imports and exports, and it will include such things as investment, services, and

goods. In agriculture, a centre of excellence is already up and running in Karnal,

Haryana; a second centre will open in Sirsa, also in Haryana; and a third probably will

be in Nagpur in Maharashtra. We are also looking at Tamil Nadu. I mean - the sky is

the limit. And, now we are embarking on a new negotiation process for an MoU

(memorandum of understanding) in dairy farming, etc.

So, basically, in every field of human endeavour, this relationship is in a dynamic mode.

It didn’t start with me and it won’t end with me; I am just in the middle of it. So this is a

relationship that is going places. One of the real high points in my four years here has

been the opening of the agricultural centre in Haryana. A vast population of India is

dependent on farming. At the end of the day, embassies and countries interact to better

the lives of their peoples, and if we can cooperate on the main issue which faces the

Indian economy and social world, which is agriculture of course, this gives me the

greatest pleasure. There is nothing more inspiring or heart-warming than seeing farmers

from far and wide coming to look at Israeli technologies and incorporating them into their

own smallholdings. We all like to deal with geostrategic issues, but, sometimes, it is

these things, the nitty-gritty, that make a term of duty the beauty that it is.

If you ask me, it has been the most wonderful four years of my life working with the

Indian government and people on not just issues related to West Asia but related to the

welfare of people, such as water, alternative energy, agriculture, technology and

industry. I think that there is no doubt in my mind that the low point of my stay here was

the Mumbai attacks; of that there is no doubt. Our prayers are with the families of those

Indians that were killed, but the Jewish people also were specifically targeted in that

atrocity.

Q: How will the killing of Osama bin Laden affect the war on terrorism in general, and the

situation in West Asia in particular?

A: The world is a better place now that Osama bin Laden is no longer with us. But does it

mean the end of terrorism? Of course it does not. Other such fanatics will come out of the

woodwork, they are already coming out of the woodwork, already planning new attacks.

The way to tackle it is concerted unified international action of all like-minded countries.

This is a battle that we cannot afford to lose.

Q: US President Barack Obama's speeches on the West Asia peace process have not

gone down well with the Israeli government. How do you see the Israel-Palestine peace

process going forward?

A: This relationship is rock-solid. There is no rift. There are differences of opinion, which

are natural; there are differences of opinion between friends and even inside a family.

That is a normal process; so one should be careful not to over-dramatise it. If someone

is trying to find fissures (between the United States and Israel), it will be very hard to find

them, but that is not to suggest that we agree on everything. But, yes, we are at a

crossroads. We do believe strongly in Israel that we urgently need to get back to the

negotiating table. There is no point in putting preconditions down because if we all start

doing that, then we are predetermining the outcome of the negotiations before they

actually have taken off in any seriousness. So we really have a great deal of difficulty in

understanding in all honesty why all of a sudden the Palestinian Authority has placed

this condition or that condition. Second, this agreement between the Palestinian Authority

and Hamas is something that places us backwards. Hamas, in a way, is West Asia’s Al

Qaeda. It is an extremist organisation dedicated to the eradication of the State of Israel

and is anti-Semitic by its own charter and it has not moved one iota from the demands of

the international community that it accept Israel’s existence, that it accept previous

agreements reached between Israelis and Palestinians, and stop massacring people. I

must stress that these are not conditions placed by Israel; these are placed by the

Quartet, by the international community, on Hamas, and they have not met them. We do

see in Mahmoud Abbas a serious and pragmatic partner, we do see in the PLO

(Palestinian Liberation Organisation) an institution with which we can achieve peace, but

we do not at this stage at all (visualise) the Hamas entering into that arena.

Q: How does Israel view the Palestinians' move to seek a vote in the United Nations

recognising Palestine as a sovereign country?

A: We, of course, disagree with it entirely. We don’t have dozens of countries that will

support us. A former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, has said that if Israel were to

propose in the UN that the world was round, the UN will vote that it was flat. Anything

[that is done] in the UN is a priori geared against Israel. We believe the way for the

establishment of a Palestinian state should be through negotiations between Israelis

and Palestinians, that is the way to move forward. Actually we are not that far apart: we

both agree on a two-state solution. But, of course, the devil is in the details. A lot of

discussion is necessary, and it is not going to be easy, but scoring points is not going to

move forward any type of peace process in West Asia.

Q: How do you see the emergence of representative governments following the popular

uprisings in Israel's neighbourhood?

A: I think a moving away from authoritarian leadership towards democracy is almost

automatically positive. It cannot be negative when people are able to find an expression

of their views and freedoms that were denied to them. This has to be positive and I think

there will be positive spinoffs as well.

Q: The US and the European Union have imposed further sanctions on Iran. How would

you describe the current thinking in Israel on Iran?

A: There is a difference between the people of Iran and the regime, and one must make

this distinction. It is so tragic that they have at the helm a leadership of hate, a regime

dedicated to the destruction of Israel, denying the Holocaust, striving for nuclear arms in

order to carry out the destruction of the world’s only Jewish country. Why should we sit

idly by when this is happening? And we won’t. The Jewish people have suffered

throughout history at attempts to annihilate. Our supposed annihilators have always

been annihilated. We will never lose in this struggle against those who would do us ill.

When we say never again after the Holocaust, we mean never again. And when (Iran

talks about) killing and murdering Israelis, it is something that we cannot of course take,

and watch idly as it does this.