India and Iran's Afpak policy

BY Atul Aneja

How does India propose to get back into the game of realignments beginning to unfold in and around Afghanistan?

Iran's recent hyper-activism in neighbouring Afghanistan and Pakistan has caused considerable consternation in large parts of the globe. In media circles, think-tanks and world chanceries, high-browed mandarins and their well-healed affiliates are trying to make sense of the latest, seemingly inscrutable piece of the Persian puzzle.

Yet Iran's deft moves in an area that the Persians have known well for thousands of years originate from deeply deliberated and well-grounded fundamentals. Ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iran has been ceaselessly battling the threat of a direct American attack or an invasion by a third country that is backed by the United States. The Iraq war of 2003 brought the American forces in an eyeball-to-eyeball face-off along Iran's western borders, while the entry of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan became a potential cross-border threat to Iran from the east.

Since 2003, the Iranians have been seeking the exit of American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of their aspirations have a good chance of realisation, as the bulk of the forces are slated to leave Iraq next year. The U.S. exit from Afghanistan could begin in July 2011.

While the exit of foreign forces would mark a substantial advance, the Iranians have been looking further ahead to a post-exit scenario, in anticipation of a political vacuum that is likely to emerge once the American troops depart. Viscerally opposed to any repositioning by extra-regional players , Iran is working vigorously to establish a de facto alliance of regional countries that will dominate the geopolitical arena stretching from Turkey in the west to China in the east.

It is in this larger context of regionalising the geopolitical space that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set foot on Afghan soil on March 10. Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai — who fought running battles with the Americans who were more inclined to favour his rival Abdullah Abdullah during the recent Afghan elections — received the Iranian President warmly. Like the Iranians, Mr. Karzai has concluded that the Americans are tiring in Afghanistan and that the time has come to explore deeper alignments in an alternative camp that includes Iran, and has China, Pakistan, Central Asian republics and Russia as potential allies.

While engaging the Afghans on a new footing, the Iranians have also begun to cultivate Pakistan. A major shift in the contours of their relationship can be traced to October 2009, when the Pakistan-based Jundallah group, led by Abdolmalek Rigi, killed Nour-Ali Shoushtari, and other senior commanders of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC). Incensed by these high-profile assassinations, in the Pishin area of the Sistan-Balochistan province, the Iranians sent a few days later their Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar to Islamabad, with the demand for Rigi's handover. Subsequently, Rigi was nabbed in a dramatic fashion when the Iranians forced a Kyrgyzstan airlines plane in which he was travelling from Dubai to Bishkek, to land in the Iranian port city of Bandar Abbas. Influential voices in Pakistan say that Islamabad gave the vital tip off that led to Rigi's arrest. The Iranians, however, insist that the arrest was possible on account of their meticulous intelligence work, without any foreign involvement whatsoever.

Since the 2009-10 winter war in Gaza, during which Turkey openly distanced itself from Israel, the relationship between Tehran and Ankara has been warming up. Political goodwill is being translated into significant energy cooperation and both sides, despite resistance from several influential quarters, are looking at participating in the Nabucco pipeline, which will carry huge quantities of gas to Europe.

As the geopolitical alignments ahead of the U.S. pullout begin to emerge, India's absence is glaring. Piqued by India's high profile in Kabul, Pakistan's military establishment has been looking for openings that would allow it to achieve its maximalist objective of seeking India's hasty, and preferably unseemly, exit from Afghanistan.

However, two major hurdles have been impeding Pakistan's path so far. First, the rapid improvement in Indo-U.S. ties during the Bush presidency firmly deterred it from taking India head-on in Afghanistan. Second, the Afghan presidency, closely tied to New Delhi since 2001, was hostile to Islamabad.

However, the scenario changed dramatically with the exit of the Bush administration and the emergence of Barack Obama. Focussed on an exit strategy from Afghanistan, the Americans deepened their security dependence on the Pakistanis in the hope of achieving rapid success. As a result, the Indian fortress in Afghanistan which looked impregnable during the Bush era was breached. Pakistan utilised this opportunity to the hilt.

A staunch ally of India for several years, President Karzai after his re-election last year began to exhibit unusual warmth towards Pakistan. His description of India as a friend and Pakistan as a conjoined twin during his visit to Islamabad was widely seen as a demonstration of his waning affection towards New Delhi.

There has been a significant deterioration in India-Iran ties since New Delhi voted against Tehran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the Iranian nuclear programme. In fact, the day India voted against Iran, it seriously jeopardised its project in Afghanistan. Without a geographically contiguous border, India can extend its reach into Afghanistan only through the Iranian corridor.

With its back to the wall, how does India propose to get back into the great game of realignments beginning to unfold in and around Afghanistan? It can draw some inspiration from its diplomatic conduct in the past — when it worked successfully with the Iranians, Russians and Central Asians, especially the Tajiks to unroll the Northern Alliance against the Taliban in 2001. With the recent visit of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to New Delhi where discussions on Afghanistan took place, India has taken its first major step in the right direction.

Mending fences with Iran has to be India's next major undertaking. However, in trying to rework its relations, India is left with only one weighty card, which it can play with good effect provided it begins to view its national interests independently and not through the tinted glasses of the U.S. With its huge requirements of energy, India needs to get back to the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline project. But in doing so, it has to substantially modify the arrangement and turn it around to suit its core long-term interests.

Iran would, with considerable enthusiasm, welcome India's participation in this project, as is evident from the provisions included in the gas deal that was signed by Iran and Pakistan in Istanbul in March. Therein lies the opportunity for India to claw back into the arrangement and take it forward from there.

Instead of waiting for others like Pakistan to seize the initiative, India can benefit substantially by boldly and formally initiating the introduction of two significant players — Russia and China — into this tie up. The Russian gas giant Gazprom has already expressed its keen interest to participate in IPI. Gazprom's representative in Tehran, Abubakir Shomuzov, has called for the extension of IPI to China, in an arrangement that would tie Russia, China, India, Pakistan and Iran together in a giant project.

Russia's participation in the IPI would be crucial for India. With Russia firmly on its side, India can, with greater ease and confidence, engage with China in this cooperative enterprise. In the debate on the extension of IPI to China, the route that this pipeline can pursue would be of vital importance. If India has to take advantage of this extension, it has to insist that the pipeline passing through Iran and Pakistan should go through an Indian transit corridor and no other alternative route before entering China.

Such an arrangement would greatly help in making the IPI-plus arrangement more stable and workable. With China, Pakistan's all-weather friend as the final beneficiary, Islamabad would find it impossible to block supplies to India. In other words, the routing of the pipeline to China via India, and the interdependence that it would generate among the various stakeholders would become New Delhi's insurance policy for obtaining assured gas supplies from Iran via Pakistan.

There is a final diplomatic dimension which needs to be added if IPI-plus is to succeed. Critics of the IPI rightly point to the security problems that this project, in the current circumstances, is bound to encounter during the pipeline's passage through the turbulent province of Balochistan. A comprehensive dialogue may therefore be the way forward to resolve this problem. India, which in recent years has gone into a diplomatic shell, can take the high-ground and propose a comprehensive six-party process. Besides itself, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran can become the core participants of this arrangement. Such a forum, carefully constructed, adequately resourced and energetically led can take head-on not only the question of Baluchistan, but all other issues that may stand in the way of a lasting trans-national energy partnership.

===================================================================================

Comments:

I beg to differ on this. First of all, Pakistan and Afganistan (AF-PAK/PAK-AF) is one region that's not going to stabilise now or ever. Pakistan was born with one thing in mind, "hate India" The jihad ideology will one day create civil unrest and mayhem in Pakistan, better not to get involved with a failed state and better to secure the borders.

from: sachin nair
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 01:18 IST

All issues considered, perhaps the shallow sea route through Pakistani waters on to mainland India and then on to China through Myanmar may be the best route for the pipeline. Of course, the pipeline would also involve passage through the shallow waters of Bangladesh. Bangladesh probably presents less of a hurdle to this route than Pakistan. The security aspects based on Pakistan's instability could thus be overcome by routing the Pakistani supply through an off-shoot from the main supply line from the sea.

from: Brahm Prasher
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 03:48 IST

Very good thought about having stability in Asia. I may also add, besides IPI+link there can ba a railway link among all Asean countries. Let the ancient civilisations come together so their populations could have better understaning of all the mythical cultures.

from: Kashmir Singh Bains
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 03:56 IST

The IPI pipeline is a non-starter in the short term, due to Pakistan's adverserial relationship. Though the pipeline extension from India to China sounds good in theory, there is no incentive for Pakistan or China to agree to this. They can go straight to China through Pakistan or the Wakhan corridor in Afghanistan, bypassing India. We still need to find ways to work with Iran and ensure the US plans of isolating it are unsuccessful, but just not through the IPI.

from: Venki
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 04:40 IST

This article is a nicely laid out analysis of ground realities of interdependent security/economic interests of multiple regional players. However,in giving a solution, the author is too optimistic in his expectation of cooperation amoung the participents. As an example,when it comes to implementation,China may not agree to depend on the pipeline transit through India, citing cost factor. Due to competing nature of the players involved,ultimately it may end up as series of BILATERAL pacts amoungst the nations involved. I hope I am wrong.

from: Vinod vinjamuri .
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 06:14 IST

I don't agree as IPI is more a headache than investment. Key for Iran lies in Russia and Israel.

from: raje
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 08:16 IST

There are interesting points in this article and I hope that in near future the union of Asian giants would happen to counter American and European influence in the world.

from: Varun Gaur
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 08:34 IST

A very good article. India's tendency to get itself tied to the apron string of US should be stopped. In the fight between US and Iran we need not tow the US line. We should have remained neutral. The IPI pipeline project is a good one but US will torpedo it somehow or other. It is already pressing Pakistan.

from: Guptan Veemboor
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 11:47 IST

The story is interesting but the analysis seems flawed. You forget the role of the US and our real long term ally, a natural one is the US not by any stretch of imagination the Islamic clergy run government. By ignoring US strategic interests we harm ourselves much more as the game plays out with Pakistan, who WE are joined at the hip with, being a major factor.

from: Varun Sood
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 12:28 IST

India should have a consistent policy towards Iran. It should not treat Iran as untouchable when it comes to the relation with US. India should back Iran in international fora such as UN and IAEA. There should be a great deal of cooperation between South Asian countries, China and Russia. If India still depends on Uncle Sam for its foreign policy issues and behaves as a regional big brother it will soon stand isolated in International area after being heavily exploited and let down by United States.

from: R. Mohanasundar
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 14:08 IST

Time and tide may change Iran's AfPak policy.India has to wait and watch and prepare its strategy in a balanced way.RADHA KUMUD DAS.

from: RADHA KUMUD DAS
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 14:11 IST

Interesting scenario! However, it is important not to abandon the links with the U.S. however tempting the Iranian pipeline is. In the final analysis, while Russia is a long time ally and a dependable one, China is not. And Iran is still under the control of extremists. Pakistan will fish in troubled waters as long as it can, but will be reined in by the U.S. who is its major donor. And Karzai can be brought back in once he realises that Pakistan is not a reliable entity.

The way to go forward is cautious diplomacy, no hasty moves.

from: Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Posted on: Apr 7, 2010 at 17:19 IST

IPI pipeline is a pipe dream whichever way you route it. Iran has plenty other takers for its gas. It would use the gas card to win concessions from Russia, Pak and even Afghanistan and finally in any non-nuclear energy discussions with USA too, just to keep its nuclear programme going.
Pak. has no interest in giving India what it needs - cheap energy and energy security
Similarly China has no interest and it can lay different Afghan routes.
USA has no interest either! It needs to sell all the nuclear reactor tech and some fuel too.

from: Kamesh
Posted on: Apr 8, 2010 at 05:19 IST

As an Iranian, I can assure you that Iran has not only been a threat to the world at large but a threat to Iranians. I suggest you first live with the regime in Tehran and then put out such theories.

from: Banafsheh
Posted on: Apr 8, 2010 at 09:06 IST
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOURCE; THE HINDU

VP SPEAKS ON CHANGING POLITICAL CONTEXT IN INDIA'S NEIGHBOURHOOD'

Vice President addresses International seminar on ‘changing political context in India’s Neighbourhood’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 NOV 2008

The Vice President of India Shri M. Hamid Ansari has said that our political commitment to closer ties with our neighbours in South-Asia is serious. India’s security interests are better served if our neighbours evolve as viable states with moderate and stable political and social environments and vibrant economies. Delivering key note address at the International Seminar on ‘Changing Political Context in India’s Neighbourhood: Prospects of Regional Security and Cooperation’ jointly organized by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) here today, he said that we wished to see South Asia at peace with itself, leading to ever widening circles of security, peace and prosperity in the region.

He said that experience elsewhere in the world shows that political constraints need not be permanent barriers to economic cooperation and the later could help create a climate of opinion to resolve conflicts.

He expressed his concern that the Human Development Indices of most countries of South Asia are not flattering and it would be a miracle if the targets of the Millennium Development Goals are achieved. Yet, economic growth has continued as most of the South Asian Countries have liberalized and moved towards market economies. Regional Cooperation has made headway within the framework of SAARC which itself has expanded to include Afghanistan as well as nine observers.

He commended that the new initiatives on the operationlisation of the SAARC Food Bank, establishment of the SAARC Development Fund, setting up of the South Asian University, launching of negotiations to bring serves into SAFTA and signing of the Convention of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters are significant for regional integration.

Following is the text of the Vice President’s address:

“I feel privileged to be here amidst such a distinguished audience. Over the years the IDSA has provided the impulse for such gatherings of scholars and analysts. The end products add to the compendium of knowledge. The attention of this conference, I understand, would be on dimensions of change in South Asia and its possible implications. The logic of geography is compelling. For India, the neighbourhood radiates in concentric circles, buttressed by history, cultural affinities and economic necessities.

Our political commitment to closer ties with our neighbours in South Asia is serious. India’s security interests are better served if our neighbours evolve as viable states with moderate and stable political and social environments and vibrant economies. We wish to see South Asia at peace with itself, leading to ever widening circles of security, peace and prosperity in the region.

The theme of this seminar is twofold: security and regional cooperation. Both need to be understood in themselves as also in their mutual relationship. Their logical manifestations could be (1) security exclusively in national terms (2) regional security cooperation (3) regional economic cooperation and (4) a mix of all these resulting in comprehensive security. In terms of linkages, it would be valid to ask if the perceived regional economic cooperation is to be the first step in our quest for regional security cooperation, or vice versa.

Perceptions, as this audience is well aware, have changed overtime. At one point security in the conventional sense offered a menu of choices in regard to security cooperation and suggested options ranging from alliances to collective security, security regimes and security communities. At a later stage, frameworks for communication and dialogue emerged. Each of these was experimented with; results varied from region to region.

Regional economic cooperation has tended to be influenced by a set of factors relating to intra-regional relations and convergence of political interests and cultural compatibility. The potential for economic cooperation is stymied when historic fears cloud security perceptions.

South Asia presents a varied picture towards the end of 2008. In some areas, forces of change are resonating noticeably. Bhutan has opted for a new system of governance through a constitutional monarchy. Change is the message of the election in Maldives last week. Nepal has witnessed historic transition from a monarchy to a democratic republic with a new leadership, and a new constitution in the offing. Pakistan has reverted to civilian rule with a new Parliament and a democratically elected President.

Less specific are the readings on Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The former seeks a return to constitutional democracy and the latter an end to internecine strife.

The conflict in Afghanistan remains a source of considerable concern and calls for innovative solutions premised on national unity.

India, having registered rapid growth in recent years, is itself moving into a period of state and national elections.

The move towards popular and democratically elected governments in South Asia, however, has not eclipsed the existing challenges to governance in all the countries of the region. Poverty and economic disparities coupled with ethnic and social divisions have created political and social fault lines that have been exploited by non-state actors with their own agendas.

Human Development indices of most countries of South Asia are not flattering and it would a miracle if the targets of the Millennium Development Goals are achieved. Yet, economic growth has continued as most of the South Asian countries have liberalised and moved towards market economies. Regional cooperation has made headway within the framework of SAARC which itself has expanded to include Afghanistan as well as nine observers.

New initiatives on the operationalisation of the SAARC Food Bank, establishment of the SAARC Development Fund, setting up of the South Asian University, the launching of negotiations to bring services into SAFTA and signing of the Convention of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters are significant for regional integration.

The question that one must ask is whether the changed and changing political context in many SAARC countries would confine itself to domestic politics or go beyond it to develop a changed context for security and economic cooperation with India? In other words, do the new political elites in our neighbourhood harbour a new paradigm of bilateral and regional cooperation?

We have to admit that the traditional pattern of bilateral state-to-state relations has already been transformed in varying degrees as a result of globalisation. Governments today do not control information or patterns of human interaction. Across the region, we see a web of connectivities between political actors, media centres, civil society organisations and commercial entities. Common people freely exchange views and ideas on their governments and their lives.

The prospects of security and economic cooperation are thus correlated to the ability of States to broad-base their relations beyond the traditional frameworks.

Let me venture to summarise some overarching themes that characterise the emergence of this new political context.

First, there is recognition of the importance of good relations with India and an advocacy for closer economic and political relations. There is also a desire for updating, where relevant, the existing instrumentalities of such cooperation to reflect the new ground level realities. The question for renegotiating existing treaties has been raised in this context.

Second, India on its part has tried - incrementally and non-reciprocally - to incentives economic cooperation through confidence building measures. As a result, some in our neighbourhood have begun to feel that a prosperous and economically vibrant India is an opportunity for them to reap both economic and political benefits.

Third, political elites are increasingly emphasising that the desired economic outcomes transcend investments, growth or development. The focus is on the human development of people, the quality of the lives of citizens and even Gross National Happiness!

Fourth, all countries in South Asia realise that globalisation would be meaningless without the improvement of intra-regional connectivities. Informal trade and third country trade is still predominant with formal intra-regional trade constituting under 5% of South Asia’s overall trade.

On the other hand, negative security perceptions continue to cloud cooperation in tackling trans-national and cross-boundary issues. These include security concerns such as terrorism, drug-trafficking and money laundering, as well as economic and developmental issues such as food, water, climate change and energy security.

Some initiatives need to be mentioned. India has taken the lead in building infrastructure for intra-regional trade in the full knowledge that the economic importance of intra-regional trade is considerable for the smaller regional economies. Taking the theme of connectivity forward, the SAARC Transport Ministers identified specific corridors for implementation linking Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh. A draft Motor Vehicles Agreement and a draft Railway Agreement are also being negotiated.

The expectation is that cross-border trucking and container movements, improved regional air and rail links and upgraded customs and trade facilitation would knit our neighbourhood in a network of mutually beneficial economic partnerships contributing to long term political and social stability.

Such partnerships are the need of the hour and can help address problems that cannot be solved nationally. Two instances of these lie in (i) rivers and flood control; and (ii) energy generation, energy trade and energy transit. Both are critical to the achievement of development goals of the countries of South Asia.

Experience elsewhere in the world shows that political constraints need not be permanent barriers to economic cooperation and that the latter could help create a climate of opinion to resolve conflicts.

We live in times of great change. The challenges we confront overflow national frontiers. The public in South Asia has, in diverse ways, signalled its impatience with the politics of the status quo. This is most evident in the younger generation. It is now for the governments to think innovatively and encapsulate this impulse in national policies.

History is witness to occasions when bold thinking has led to creativity. Why should South Asia be an exception and remain embedded in the unproductive routine and ritual of six decades?

Would it then be altogether unrealistic to hope that South Asian cooperation would seek to achieve the following?

• Free travel and trade across frontiers, a euro-style single currency, environmentally sustainable and regionally balanced development.

• Security coordination resulting in Joint action on crime and terror.

• Speak with a single voice and work closely together on trade issues and development policy.

• Develop a mechanism for dispute resolution.

• Coordinate approaches on major foreign and defence policy questions?

The meandering River of Time is mighty and can flow in many directions. The answers to the above questions lie in harnessing it for common good and regional betterment. The analyst should go beyond identifying the obstacles and pitfalls to suggesting solutions. I venture to hope that today’s conclave would be part of such an effort. I thank Mr. Sisodia for inviting me today. I wish the Seminar all success”.

sOURCE: pib)