What's new

India has been warned

Hafizzz

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
5,041
Reaction score
0
US warns India not to break Iran sanctions
US warns India not to break Iran sanctions - Telegraph

The US has warned India to honour UN sanctions against Iran after its foreign secretary criticised "unilateral" measures against Tehran over suspicions it is developing a nuclear weapons programme.

Why would India break the sanctions when she is an ally of the USA ?

India Adds Economic Power to UN Bloc Skeptical Over U.S. Pressure on Iran
India Adds Economic Power to UN Bloc Skeptical Over U.S. Pressure on Iran - Bloomberg

India will be elected today to the United Nations Security Council for the first time in 20 years, joining Brazil and South Africa in a bloc of emerging economic powers that may resist U.S. pressure on Iran.

India and South Africa are unopposed candidates for Security Council seats designated for Asian and African nations. Along with Brazil, which was elected to the Security Council last year, they formed a coalition in 2003 to act as a voice for developing nations.

Their expanding economies will give the three countries political clout on the UN’s principal policy-making body, according to Jeff Laurenti, a UN analyst at the New York-based Century Foundation research group. Brazil ranked eighth and India 11th in gross domestic product last year, and South Africa had Africa’s largest economy, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

“On various sanctions proposals, when they come up, these are nations that can command respect because they have the economic power to constrain and constrict a miscreant country,” Laurenti said in an interview. “Twenty years ago, who would have cared what Brazil or India said? Now you don’t want to be riding roughshod over them.”

The UN General Assembly also will choose from among Canada, Germany and Portugal for two seats reserved for their regional group, and Colombia is the unopposed candidate for a Latin American slot. The five new members will start two-year terms on the Security Council on Jan. 1 and will take seats now held by Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda.

South Africa

South Africa, which was on the Security Council in 2007- 2008, joined China and Russia at the time in voting against a U.S.-backed resolution that would have pressed Myanmar’s military government to free political prisoners and move toward democracy.

Brazil voted in June against sanctions intended to block Iran’s possible pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability, a measure that passed with Chinese and Russian support. China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S. hold permanent seats on the 15-nation council and can veto measures.

India signaled possible opposition to sanctions on Iran before the Security Council’s vote in June. India’s government released a statement saying it “conveyed to the U.S. that sanctions on Iran have proved to be counterproductive and that all differences with Iran should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and negotiations.”

India’s mission to the UN said it wouldn’t comment on its prospective Security Council seat before today’s vote.

Iran Pressure

Since the Security Council passed tougher sanctions on Iran, the U.S. has stepped up pressure on Iran’s banks and the country’s national security leadership, and on companies that invest in Iran’s energy industry.

India is one of Iran’s largest crude oil customers. It is also pursuing the import of Iranian natural gas through a pipeline that transits Pakistan, Oil Minister Murli Deora said in a written reply to a question in parliament in August.

The Security Council’s elected members, lacking a veto, can block needed consensus on bringing issues before the body and obstruct proposed statements condemning governments including Sudan, Myanmar and Zimbabwe.

“I don’t think you will have a full-fledged coalition, but it is going to be a challenge for the U.S.,” David Gordon, head of research at New York-based risk consultant Eurasia Group, said in an interview. “The big issue will be Iran, and the election of these nations probably means the action will be elsewhere, shifting from the Security Council to a coalition of the willing.”

The U.S. State Department didn’t respond to a question about the possibility of India, Brazil and South Africa acting counter to American initiatives on the Security Council.

‘Balancing Game’

Gordon said he expects South Africa to be “in a class by themselves” when it comes to resisting Western initiatives. India and Brazil will “be playing a balancing game between the developing nations and the U.S.,” he said. South Africa’s mission to the UN didn’t provide an official for an interview.

India hasn’t been on the Security Council for two decades, because “historically, it has underplayed its hand in the region,” Gordon said. Now, on course to possibly overtake China as the fastest growing economy, India has “jumped onto the world stage without ever being a dominant regional power,” he said.

“I am not sure the coalition of the three will be a major factor, or whether India will go its own way,” Vanu Menon, Singapore’s ambassador to the UN, said in an interview. “Where they coincide fine, but my own sense is that when it is in their national interest, India will go its own way.”

Election to the Security Council requires a two-thirds majority of the 192 nations represented in the UN General Assembly. Envoys will cast secret ballots.
 
Last edited:
If the sanctions come as a hurdle in front of following strategic interest, then it should be violated...

If USA can have its own strategic interests and have friend ship with countries, which it sees as beneficial to USA, why can't India have friend ship with countries which are beneficial to India, even if it means breaking some sanctions...???
 
Supporting Iran sanctions = Losing Muslim votes in India = Strategic gains for India (read brownie points, possibly building up to get a UNSC seat sometime).

You do the math. Honestly, I think this is a real tough call for the GOI. Time to stop sitting on the fence.
 
Only if strategic relation with US offers more than same offered by Iran.
 
Supporting Iran sanctions = Losing Muslim votes in India

:what:

It has more to do with the fact that we get most of our oil from Iran (2nd after middle east).

Also Chabbar allows us to bypass Pakistan

edit: India-Russia-Iran used to be strategic partners some time ago right?
 
Sanctions are a load of BS anyway, they never work. It's just a fight in the schoolyard where the bully is saying "You're with me or against me......"
 
Everyone is pressurizing everyone, each trying to extract the max by jostling .

A large game of chess.

I want your view on this as an Indian. Will India go against the sanctions?

or in other words will it be beneficial to side with US for this and save the accords or India can have more benefits by going against it?
 
Supporting Iran sanctions = Losing Muslim votes in India = Strategic gains for India (read brownie points, possibly building up to get a UNSC seat sometime).
.

When was the last time Indian Muslim vote has anything to do with Iran ??

Its not the case neither can be even in coming 100 years
 
Only if strategic relation with US offers more than same offered by Iran.

I assume your strategy is limited to going against Pakistan's interests!!
So, principally India will welcome any alliance which seem to hurt Pakistan more!
 
I want your view on this as an Indian. Will India go against the sanctions?

or in other words will it be beneficial to side with US for this and save the accords or India can have more benefits by going against it?

India will only violate sanctions if they create hurdles in economic development. Since oil is a part of economy, it is likely they will violate. Moreover, large investment has been done by Indian Oil companies in Iran that would also influence the Indian Strategy. Chabber port is also being developed. Currently access to Afghan, is only through Iran, therefore 90% India would go with Iran but any wrong decision by Iran on Nuclear thing but disturb the whole thing. Since Russia is supporting the Iran, it does means Iran might be using for peaceful purpose only.
 
If the sanctions come as a hurdle in front of following strategic interest, then it should be violated...

If USA can have its own strategic interests and have friend ship with countries, which it sees as beneficial to USA, why can't India have friend ship with countries which are beneficial to India, even if it means breaking some sanctions...???

So what you are basically saying is that India is ready to betray the USA ?
 
When was the last time Indian Muslim vote has anything to do with Iran ??

Its not the case neither can be even in coming 100 years

Ignore that point. Iran doesn't have inch effect on Indian vote system since half of them don't know the rights of vote here.
 
Back
Top Bottom