By Cernig
Recently, The Bush administration took it upon itself to advise India that, ahead of the Iranian President's visit, India should tell Iran to behave 'responsibly' and meet United Nations Security Council requirements with regard to its nuclear program. The Indian response was a sharp rebuke that it doesn't need 'guidance' on how to conduct its foreign relations.
The MEA effectively told the US that India's relations with Iran go way back in time, that both nations are mature enough, and capable of holding a dialogue to resolve pending issues without the need for third party guidance.
Parts of External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee's response had the feel of a direct snub. "We are advising Iran that since it is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it has some obligation to international treaties. We tell the US -- do not take on yourself the responsibility of whether Iran was manufacturing weapons or not. Leave it to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the designated authority".
On a wider stage, notes the Indian Rediff news-site, India has recently backed off from provisions of the proposed US/Indian nuclear deal and is also slowly becoming more hostile to U.S.-led plans for "a a confederation of democracies, consisting of the US, Japan, India and Australia, that China viewed as being directed against it.
Interestingly, the Australian government under new Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has withdrawn from the concert of democracies (Japan has also shown recent signs of cold feet); it has said it will not sell uranium to India and according to unconfirmed reports, indicated that Australia will not back India at the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
So if the Bush administration can't hold together a four-member League, what chance has McCain got of creating a global one to give a fig-leaf of cover to American divinely mandated interventionism? After all, in many of those democracies being pro-U.S. can be a large setback at the polls.
No comments:
Post a Comment