India’s decision to walk out of step with the international community on Iran isn’t just a slap in the face for the U.S. – it raises questions about its ability to lead.
The Indian government’s ill-advised statement last week that it will continue to purchase oil from Iran is a major setback for the U.S. attempt to isolate the Iranian government over the nuclear issue.
The New York Times reported recently that Indian authorities are actively aiding Indian firms to avoid current sanctions by advising them to pay for Iranian oil in Indian rupees. It may go even further by agreeing to barter deals with Iran – all to circumvent the sanctions regime carefully constructed by the U.S. and its friends and allies. According to the Times, India now has the dubious distinction of being the leading importer of Iranian oil.
This is bitterly disappointing news for those of us who have championed a close relationship with India. And, it represents a real setback in the attempt by the last three American Presidents to establish a close and strategic partnership with successive Indian governments.
The Indian government’s defense is that it relies on Iran for 12 percent of its oil imports and can’t afford to break those trade ties. But India has had years to adjust and make alternative arrangements. Ironically, the United States has had considerable success on the sanctions front in recent months. The EU has decided to implement an oil embargo on Iran, the U.S. is introducing Central Bank sanctions and even the East Asian countries, such as China, have imported less Iranian oil in recent months. That makes India’s recent pronouncements seem extremely out of step and out of touch with the new global determination to isolate and pressure Iran to negotiate in order to avoid a catastrophic war.
There’s a larger point here about India’s role in the world. For all the talk about India rising to become a global power, its government doesn’t always act like one. It is all too often focused on its own region but not much beyond it. And, it very seldom provides the kind of concrete leadership on tough issues that is necessary for the smooth functioning of the international system.
The Indian government has supported the four U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since 2006. It says Iran should give up its nuclear ambitions. But India hasn’t stepped up to a leadership role in the negotiations and has resisted the option of being a bridge between the Iranian government and the West. It has, instead, been largely passive and even invisible on this critical issue.
I wrote a Boston Globe column recently arguing that the U.S. should commit to an ambitious, long-term strategic partnership with India. I remain convinced of its value to both countries and to the new global balance of power being created in this century.
With its unhelpfulness on Iran and stonewalling on implementation of the landmark U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, however, the Indian government is now actively impeding the construction of the strategic relationship it says it wants with the United States.
Presidents Obama and Bush have met India more than halfway in offering concrete and highly visible commitments on issues India cares about. On his state visit to India in November 2010, for example, President Obama committed the U.S. for the very first time to support India’s candidacy for permanent membership on the U.N. Security Council. Like many others who wish to see India become a close strategic partner of the U.S., I supported the president’s announcement.
Unfortunately, India has made no corresponding gesture in return for the big vision that Obama and Bush have offered the Indian leadership. It’s time that India speaks much more clearly about the priority it places on its future with the United States. Most importantly, India must begin to provide the kind of visible leadership on difficult issues such as Iran that its many friends in the United States and around the world had expected to see by now.
R. Nicholas Burns is Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy and International Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School. He served as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs from 2005 to 2008. Previously, he was U.S. ambassador to NATO. The following piece was originally published at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government “Power and Policy” blog.
Photo Credit: Office of the Indian Prime Minister
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
SV
if US is a responsible Leader country, why has it not thought of India’s 15% oil imports from Iran which effects a billion people. Perhaps, US sanctions on Iran are a result of Saudi’s money-laundering-based lobbying and Obamas political gain calculations for re-election. If not, How is Iran more of a threat to US than Pakistan which is the cradle of terrorism? No wonder twisted US policies for the gain few elitists killed 19 CIA officers in Afghan by Pakistan.
theindian
when us leaves afganisthan india shall be the countriy to ensure taliban does not return there . pakisthan does not grant india acess to afganisthan so iran is the only way for india to reach afganisthan and aid its development which will also benifit the us
Nathan B..
Apologies for my spelling error: Mr. Rushdie is not, of course, a variety of salmon.
Ivan
India will stop buying oil from Iran the day US stops supporting the only nation in the world using terror as a state instrument – Pakistan. For all the author talks about, friendship is a two way street you cant have India doing all the walking with US carrying on its policy of ignoring pakistani misadventures. ALso, you cannot judge the depth of India-US relations just based on this episode…and the truth is that US needs India more than India needs US…and that is a fact
Vishnu Gopalakrishnan
For far too long India has been wooly headed in foreign relations. But this is one decision that is driven by India’s interest. In the event of an India-Pakistan conflict in the future, it is nearly certain that Iran will be the only source of crude for India as Saudi and others in the mid-east are close backers of Pakistan. The US for all its talk of global leadership, supports incredibly repressive regimes in the middle east to safe guard its energy security and therefore should not expect India to behave in a different manner.
Anon
My only question is; why should India back sanctions against Iran when there is yet to be physical evidence tying the Islamic Republic to any wrong-doing? Outside of conjecture, name me three things that Iran has done wrong – IAEA reports don’t count in my eyes as they’re largely influenced by the West and don’t provide substantial evidence to enforce such embargoes.
And before you go ahead and call me biased against the West, I am from the West. I love the West. But they are wrong.
Nathan B.
Anon wrote:
“My only question is; why should India back sanctions against Iran when there is yet to be physical evidence tying the Islamic Republic to any wrong-doing? Outside of conjecture, name me three things that Iran has done wrong – IAEA reports don’t count in my eyes as they’re largely influenced by the West and don’t provide substantial evidence to enforce such embargoes.
And before you go ahead and call me biased against the West, I am from the West. I love the West. But they are wrong.”
I agree that personal attacks of the sort you mention are wrong and wrong-headed–and I deplore them. That said, your first sentence is factually wrong. Iran has been tied to evidence of wrong-doing. For example, the entire world watched as the late Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the death of Salmon Rushdie, a non-Iranian national, who had the gall to have written a book. That was serious business. Then there were the 85 people who died in the Buenos Aires Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association bombings. I site Wikipedia as a convenient source:
“In November 2006, an Argentine judge issued an arrest warrant for former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and eight other ex-officials in relation to the 1994 bombing of the Jewish-Argentine Mutual Association (AMIA) community center in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people. Iran refused to carry out the arrest demanded by the warrant claiming it to be a ‘Zionist plot’”(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Argentina).
These are just two examples. There’s also the matter of the recent bombings of Israeli interests in three different Asian countries within the last few weeks alone. Furthermore, everyone knows, not merely conjectures, that Iran backs Hezbollah in Lebanon and Assad in Syria. Quite clearly, Iran has a history of belligerence outside its borders with states that have not injured it.
USkalauda
It’s Salman Rushdie ! Not salmon get the name right . He’s Indian but that does not seem to have any effect on India does it ?
Alaskan
Iran’s condemnation of Salman is nothing compared to the Pakistan’s killing of 29 US CIA officers when Pak military double crossed them. The same team that killed Osama Bin Laden. 2005-2010 proved to the world that Pakistan is a bigger threat to the World than any other country. Saudi needs and supports Pakistan on Islamic agenda. US needs Saudi on oil agenda. Dumb US will people will know the Saudi’s sword edge when oil crosses $5 a gallon.