Reprieve from the nuclear noose
This week, West Asia has taken a small step away from the nuclear noose. The nuclear agreement between Iran and the five permanent members of the United Nations plus Germany — the so-called P5+1 — puts some breathing space between Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and the prospect of a West Asian nuclear arms race which would have locked it into lethal competition with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Yet, it is important to understand that this is just a reprieve. Iran and the P5+1 now have signed an interim
agreement, which will expire in six months unless both sides negotiate a comprehensive deal. In those six months, Iran must halt enriching uranium above 5 per cent, freeze its stockpile of 3.5 per cent enriched uranium, and neutralise the uranium already enriched to 20 per cent — the kind that can, with relative ease, be further enriched to a grade that could be used to produce nuclear weapons. Iran must also halt activities at the Arak reactor, which can potentially produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, and permit escalated inspection activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency, including daily inspections of all facilities. In return, the P5+1 will free up some $6 billion of Iran’s frozen foreign assets and ease insurance-related restrictions that have crippled the country’s oil exports. Additionally, the United States Congress has to agree not to impose any new sanctions on Iran. This interim agreement is the result of months of painstaking secret diplomacy and one both Iranian and American negotiators can be satisfied with. However, there is very hard work ahead.
The challenges ahead are indeed huge. The international regime that was intended to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons has steadily frayed over the decades, as ever more states have sought the ultimate insurance against what they see as existential threats. Experts are divided on the risks proliferation poses: some argue the possession of nuclear weapons raises the risks of war to unacceptable levels, forcing states to behave responsibly; others that the dangers are simply unacceptable. As for India, it is critically important that the next step is taken — the conclusion of a comprehensive deal. Energy-deficient India needs Iran’s gas and oil. It also needs oil and gas from other major states in the region, like Saudi Arabia and Iraq. India simply cannot afford geo-strategic volatility in the region, let alone a nuclear-weapons race. The energy-rich states of West Asia form part of India’s near-neighbourhood. It is clear that New Delhi has real stakes in making sure Iran and the P5+1 succeed — and must exercise all the influence it can, to that end.
A historic victory for diplomacy
Despite a thin, lingering cloud of buts and maybes, the deal concluded between Iran and six leading countries over Tehran’s nuclear programme was historic — the kind of diplomatic agreement that alters the political landscape, forces the intransigent to change their positions, and opens up new opportunities that previously seemed hopelessly far-fetched.
The core of the interim deal is that Iran has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment above the five per cent level (pending a final settlement to be negotiated within six months) in exchange for relaxation of some sanctions — a relaxation estimated to be worth $7bn to Iran (“modest” according to the U.S.).
In addition, the Iranians have agreed to begin converting uranium enriched to a higher level to put it beyond weapon use, to increase the frequency and intrusiveness of inspections, to suspend work on the Arak plutonium plant, and to halt development of improved centrifuges that would greatly increase the speed and efficiency of enrichment.
Initially, some reports noted an apparent difference of view post-deal — the Iranians were claiming it recognised Tehran’s right to enrich uranium, while the U.S. and others were saying that it had done no such thing. As with many diplomatic ambiguities, both are right, and both wrong. No such statement appears in the deal in those terms, but it does provide for Iran to continue enrichment below the five per cent level (consistent with “peaceful purposes“), subject to conditions and the final settlement.
It soon emerged that the Iranian negotiators had full backing for the terms they agreed — President Hassan Rouhani and, more important, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, quickly issued statements welcoming it. Khamenei’s acclaim should ensure that the voices of dissenting hardliners in Iran will be muted.
The blast of disapproval for the deal from the Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, will also help quieten dissent within Iran. President Obama has already decided he can face down both Israeli and Saudi opposition. But he does have to persuade Congress to give this process a chance, and not impose new sanctions. To this end, Mr. Obama and his colleagues are presenting the deal as a “first step” that halts or reverses Iran’s nuclear programme. The U.S. would be wise to avoid any triumphalism, but the deal does represent real progress towards making safe the Iranian nuclear enterprise. Signed off by seven of the world’s most important foreign ministers, it nonetheless also signifies international recognition of Iran as a major nuclear power.
Part of the significance of the deal is that both the U.S. and Iran have pulled back from positions of intransigence, confrontation and escalation. The Iranians could have remained obdurate against any limits on their nuclear programme, accepting the price of isolation and the massive economic damage from sanctions, and making life miserable for their people. The U.S. could have continued with the “no enrichment, can’t trust Iran” line, steadily increasing the sanctions pressure until the only sanctions left to apply were military ones.
It is a mistake for Mr. Netanyahu, the Saudis or anyone else to suggest that would have been the right course. Things may yet go wrong, but it must be right to give the delicate seedlings of trust and diplomacy a chance. It involves risk, and courage, but it is the kind of risk that, ultimately, politicians are paid to take. After a decade-and-a-half of interventionist wars, American, British and other servicemen and their families have a right to demand that politicians exhaust all avenues of negotiation before we resort to military options.
In the continuing talks, the Iranians will look for an explicit statement of their right to enrich uranium, and the six will look for safeguards to prevent the Iranians engaging in weapons-related development. The U.S. will also look for new commitments from the Iranians to soften their stance on Israel.
Meanwhile, we should not overlook the internal political situation in Iran. Ultimately, improvements there are up to the Iranians. But an Iran that is engaged with the outside world is more amenable to influence in the right direction than one that is isolated and shouting at the rest of the world through a megaphone, à la Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
( Michael Axworthy is the author of Revolutionary Iran: A History of the Islamic Republic.) — © Guardian Newspapers Limited, 2013
The significance of the deal is that both the U.S. and Iran have pulled back from positions of intransigence, confrontation and escalation
Why women remain silent
An employee of Tehelka accuses Tarun Tejpal, founder and editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine, of sexually assaulting her during an event organised in Goa, and the police file a first information report. A law intern claims she was sexually harassed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court in 2012. A student of Jawaharlal Nehru University complains to the Director of the International Film Festival of India that a senior government official harassed her ahead of the festival. The three incidents have brought sharply to the fore the issue of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Sexual exploitation of women has existed for ages and cuts across societies, rich and poor. It is only in recent times that modern states have started taking harassment at the workplace seriously, putting in place laws that seek to provide a safer work environment for women.
In India, the Supreme Court recognised the need for a law when it laid down the Vishaka Guidelines against sexual harassment at the workplace in 1997. Sixteen years later, Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The law describes sexual harassment as unwelcome acts or behaviour (directly or by implication) which include physical contact and advances; a demand or request for sexual favours; making sexually coloured remarks; showing pornography; or any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
Complaints committee
The law stipulates that employers should, “by an order in writing,” constitute an Internal Complaints Committee, the Presiding Officer of which should be a senior woman employee; the committee should consist of at least two employees “committed to the cause of women” or have legal knowledge and experience in social work; and one member from an NGO or association committed to the cause of women or a “person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment.” At least one-half of the committee should consist of women. Section 6 of the law says Local Complaints Committees should be constituted in districts to receive complaints from women working in establishments that have fewer than 10 employees and cannot constitute an internal committee, or when the complaint is against the employer himself.
Thus, women working in both the organised and unorganised sectors are safer now at the workplace, at least on paper. Why, then, did the law intern not muster the courage to complain when she was allegedly harassed by a judge? Why do many women like her suffer in silence, most of them forever? Surely, for every case reported there must be hundreds of cases that go unreported. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
To answer the question, it is important to understand how society perceives a working woman. Women employed in the unorganised sector and single women are economically vulnerable. Many of them are not aware of the law. Their male colleagues and employers know that they cannot risk their livelihood. The plight of women employed in shops, supermarkets, private schools, hospitals, and as sales girls is no different. If and when the situation becomes intolerable, they leave their jobs. Those who cannot do so try to remove themselves from the situation by opting for a transfer, or learn to live with the harassment. Ironically, the threshold of tolerance increases with need and many women cope by suggesting to themselves that these are the ways of the world and they have no choice.
In rare instances when women do complain, they find support from co-workers hard to come by. Employers are not comfortable with a ‘difficult’ woman. They encourage her to leave as the perception that a man needs the job more than a woman is deep-rooted.
The belief that a man works to earn his livelihood whereas a woman does so to supplement the family income is widespread. Since a majority of workers in most corporate offices are men, they protect their turf zealously. Even if they know that a fellow worker’s behaviour towards his woman colleague is inappropriate, they hesitate to say so openly. They close ranks, isolating the woman.
In a society where a woman’s safety is her own responsibility — she has been ‘taught’ that she must dress modestly so that men are not ‘provoked’ and ‘ignore’ lewd comments — sexually coloured remarks or verbal sexual advances are hardly seen as acts of harassment. A woman who complains is accused of making a mountain out of a molehill. No surprise, then, that Mr. Tejpal alleged that his colleague had taken amiss a “drunken banter” — as though somehow it is all right for a man to misbehave when he is drunk.
Obviously, nothing has changed much since 1988 when an IAS officer took police officer K.P.S. Gill to court for misbehaving with her. Mr. Gill was convicted under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 509 (word, gesture or act insulting a woman) of the IPC but his sentence was reduced to probation and a fine. The woman, on the other hand, was criticised by sections of the media for being in the “wrong place at the wrong time.”
When a woman complains of sexual harassment, the first thing most employers do is to try and settle the issue amicably, by transferring out one of the employees or getting the man to apologise. The IFFI incident, in which the officer was moved back to Delhi after he tendered an “unconditional apology,” reinforces this. In most instances, it is difficult for women to prove the charges, which is the reason many do not go to the police and are “satisfied” with the decision of the Internal Committee.
According to the Act, it is the duty of the employer to help the woman if she chooses to file a complaint for an offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law and “cause to initiate action under the law against the perpetrator.” Tehelka Managing Editor Shoma Chaudhury’s argument that she had to respect the privacy of the victim is nothing but escapism typical of an employer who wants to avoid adverse publicity for her organisation.
Social stigma
The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of the consequences of fighting a superior, pressure from colleagues to “forgive,” uncertainty over future prospects in the office, possible impact of the move on their career (employers prefer not to hire women who have created ‘trouble’ in their previous jobs), and adverse publicity among colleagues prevent women from complaining. This perhaps explains why the law intern spoke up a year after she was harassed and is reluctant to press charges.
A common accusation against a victim of sexual harassment is that she consented to the alleged acts. Mr. Tejpal has claimed it was an “incredibly fleeting, consensual encounter of less than a minute.” The law clearly says that an implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in employment (“it is the easiest way to keep your job”), a threat of detrimental treatment or creating a hostile environment amount to sexual harassment.
The social stigma a woman faces when she complains of sexual harassment is immense. Suddenly, her attire, behaviour and interpersonal relationships come under the scanner. She becomes a topic of discussion both inside and outside office. The Tejpal episode has already become a talking point in drawing rooms. The victim undergoes immense trauma as she lives the harrowing experience every time TV panellists debate the ‘genuineness’ of the complaint, colleagues whisper behind her back and ‘well-wishers’ tell her she would have saved herself a lot of trouble had she kept quiet and left at the earliest opportunity.
Section 14 of the Act says the Internal Committee or the Local Committee can recommend punishment for a woman who makes a false or malicious complaint. It is very easy to accuse a woman belonging to the lower or middle income group of making false charges and get rid of her. Members on the Internal Committee are appointed by the employer and they are well aware of the culture that prevails in their office.
What is the way forward? As a first step, follow the law in letter and in spirit. Employers should display the provisions of the Act conspicuously; appoint an Internal Committee; conduct awareness programmes; treat sexual harassment as misconduct under their service rules and assist women who file a complaint. They should be alive to the reality that in an office where men and women work, sexual harassment is a possibility and put in place formal and informal mechanisms to deal with it.
mythili.s@thehindu.co.in
The pressure to furnish proof, the fear of fighting a superior, the likely impact on career, and adverse publicity prevent women from reporting sexual harassment
China defends air defense zone; slams U.S., Japan for ‘irresponsible’ statements
A day after American and Japanese officials voiced concern over China’s plan to establish an air defence zone to track aircraft over parts of the disputed East China Sea, China strongly defended its move and hit out at both countries for making “irresponsible” statements on the issue.
On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel had both voiced “deep concern” over the move after China said the Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) would include the airspace over the disputed Senkaku or Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea. Chinese authorities will require aircraft to notify them of their flight plans, failing which they could face interception from air defence forces. The zone will not affect international flights, officials said.
The ADIZ overlaps with parts of the zone that Japan has already put in place, raising the likelihood of confrontations between the two countries, which have, in recent months, sparred over their territorial claims.
Mr. Kerry described China’s “unilateral action” as “an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea” that “will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident”.
China on Monday responded angrily to his comments, saying the U.S. needed to “immediately correct its mistake and stop making irresponsible accusations against China”.
In a separate statement, Mr. Qin said China had disregarded Japan’s objections, saying it was “unreasonable and completely wrong for Japan to make irresponsible accusation[s]”.
Many countries, from the U.S. and India to Japan, have set up ADIZ areas beyond their frontiers to track and monitor aircraft that are headed toward their territorial airspace.
However, the timing of China’s move, amid territorial disputes with Japan, has raised concerns that tensions may be escalated.
At a briefing on Monday, Mr. Qin defended the move, saying it was “based on the need for China to defend its national sovereignty and security of China’s territory and airspace”.
China, he added, will “in due course” announce whether it planned to set up zones across its other contested frontiers. China faces territorial disputes with India in the west, and also maritime disputes involving at least 10 countries over the South China Sea.
Mr. Qin said it was “unreasonable” for Japan to object to the move. He acknowledged that the two zones had “some overlapping areas”, and said China “hopes that the relevant country can enhance communication to jointly maintain regional peace and security”.
Japan is not the only country in the region that has voiced concern over the move. South Korea on Sunday said the ADIZ also overlaps with parts of its zone.
Move to set up zone ‘based on the need for China to defend its national sovereignty and security of China’s territory and airspace’
U.S. needs to ‘correct its mistake’; ‘unreasonable’ for Japan to make accusations
The undesirability of being Rohingya
Noor Jaan lifted her black Islamic veil and recalled the last time she saw her husband. He was among more than 600 Rohingya Muslim men thrown in jail in this remote corner of Myanmar during a ruthless security crackdown that followed sectarian violence, and among one in 10 who didn’t make it out alive.
Ms. Jaan (40) said that when she visited the jail, the cells were crammed with men, hands chained behind their backs, several stripped naked. Many showed signs of torture. Her husband, Mohammad Yasim, was doubled over, vomiting blood, his hip bone shattered.
“They killed him soon after that,” she said of her husband. The sectarian violence that has gripped this predominantly Buddhist nation of 60 million in the last 16 months has been most intense in the western state of Rakhine, where 200 people have been killed in rioting and another 140,000 forced to flee their homes. Three-quarters of the victims have been Muslims — most of them members of the minority Rohingya community.
For every Buddhist arrested, jailed and convicted in connection with mob violence across Rakhine state, roughly four Rohingya went to prison, according to data compiled by The Associated Press.
Members of the ethnic minority often have been severely punished, even when there is little or no evidence of wrongdoing. For example, Amnesty International says Dr. Tun Aung was summoned by authorities to try to help ease tensions but could not quiet the agitated crowd. He was arrested a week later, labelled an agitator and is serving nine years in prison. The human-rights group calls the doctor a prisoner of conscience.
Nowhere have Rohingya — described by the U.N. as one of the most persecuted religious minorities in the world — been more zealously pursued than in northern Rakhine, which sits along the coast of the Bay of Bengal and is cut off from the rest of the country by a parallel running mountain range.
Stateless, homeless
It’s home to 80 per cent of Myanmar’s one million Rohingya. Some descend from families that have been here for generations. Others arrived more recently from neighbouring Bangladesh. All have been denied citizenship, rendering them stateless. For decades, they have been unable to travel freely, practice their religion, or work as teachers or doctors. They need special approval to marry and are the only people in the country barred from having more than two children.
A half-century of brutal military rule in Myanmar ended when President Thein Sein’s quasi-civilian government took power in 2011. But in northern Rakhine, where Buddhist security forces have been allowed to operate with impunity, many say life has only gotten worse for Rohingya.
“As far as I know, not a single member of the security forces has even been questioned,” said the U.N. special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar, Tomas Ojea Quintana, calling on the state to investigate allegations of official brutality.
“This government needs to understand it has a responsibility toward its people, that there has to be some accountability.”
Despite more than half a dozen inquiries by phone and e-mail, presidential spokesman Ye Htut refused to comment about allegations of abuse by soldiers, police and security forces linked to sectarian violence.
Chris Lewa, director of Arakan Project, an independent humanitarian-based research group that has spent nearly a decade documenting abuses in the region, said 966 Rohingya from northern Rakhine were jailed after the riots — 611 in northern Rakhine jails, where 62 inmates died (all in Buthidaung), and another 287 at the jail in the state capital, Sittwe, where she tallied another six prisoner deaths.
The numbers were based on testimony from family members and released inmates. Mr. Lewa said many inmates were denied lifesaving medical treatment for injuries sustained during arrest or from torture and beatings in jail both by wardens and Buddhist Rakhine inmates.
Victims and suspects
Rohingya make up not only the vast majority of victims, but the vast majority of suspects. Data collected from rights groups, courts, police and other officials indicate that at least 1,000 mostly Rohingya Muslims and 260 Buddhists were arrested following the statewide riots.
More than 900 trials have been held in northern Rakhine, all against Rohingya, according to Mr. Lewa. Three were sentenced to life in prison in August for the killing of the monk, she said, and many others got up to 17 years behind bars. Those accused of lesser crimes such as arson got between three and 10 years.
Less than a dozen have been acquitted.
Many defendants were tried without the benefit of defence lawyers, Mr. Lewa said. There were no translators or family members present. Some were tried collectively, according to Mr. Quintana.
“These kinds of proceedings are not following any kind of process of law or judicial guarantees,” he said. “In many cases, it’s not clear what charges have been filed against each of these prisoners.”
One of the only steps the government has taken to address abuses since the sectarian crisis flared has been to disband Nasaka in July, largely over fears the U.S. was preparing to slap it with sanctions.
The announcement won international praise. But Thein Sein’s government has made no effort to explain what happened to its former members. Human-rights activists and Rohingya speculate that they were simply transferred to other units.
With no ethnic violence in northern Rakhine for more than a year, some Rohingya say security forces aren’t as brutal as they once were.
But some, like Ms. Jaan, whose husband was killed in jail, have lost hope that the persecution of their people will ever end.
“It’s better,” she said, “if Allah just takes our lives.” — AP
Geneva-2 on Syria on January 22
A long-awaited international conference to resolve the Syrian crisis will be held in Geneva on January 22, bringing diplomacy into sharper focus as a means to resolve some of the most intractable problems besetting the region.
The United Nations (U.N.) announced the date of the conference on Monday, a day after Iran and six global powers successfully negotiated a landmark nuclear deal in the Swiss city.
“We will go to Geneva with a mission of hope,” said the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon through his spokesperson, Martin Nesirky. The conference, billed as Geneva-2, will be held within the framework of the Geneva Communiqué that was issued in June 2012 following a meeting of the global and regional heavyweights with Kofi Annan, the former special envoy on Syria of the United Nations and the Arab League. The conference had then yielded an agreement for the establishment, based on mutual consent, of a transitional governing body in Syria that would be armed with full executive powers, covering all government institutions, including the military and security agencies.
The Geneva-2 conference would be the result of herculean, mostly behind- the- scenes efforts of Russia, the United States and Lakhdar Brahimi, the veteran Algerian diplomat, who replaced Mr. Annan as the joint special envoy on Syria.
Persuaded mainly by Russia, the Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad had agreed to the talks even earlier. But getting the opposition on board proved to be a tall order. However, there are now signs that a single delegation will represent the Syrian opposition under the umbrella of the National Coalition of Opposition and Revolutionary Forces.
As the U.N. announced the date of the conference, hectic diplomacy was under way in Geneva. Russian diplomats, Mikhail Bogdanov and Gennady Gatilov, began a two-day meeting with various groups of the Syrian opposition, RIA Novosti reported.
Riding the wave of diplomacy in West Asia, the Palestinians have also now begun to call for an international conference to resolve their dispute with Israel. “We believe that after the Geneva conference on Syria and future Geneva-2 and probably Geneva-3 may be held,” Itar-Tass quoted Fayed Mustafa, the Palestinian ambassador to Russia. “Perhaps, one more Geneva conference — the third one or the fourth one may be convened… to resolve the Palestinian problem,” he observed.
Alternative road to NH31A gets Centre’s green signal
The Defence and Forest and Environment Ministries have given the green signal to the proposed 150 km alternative highway to NH 31A, exclusively for defence purposes in Sikkim and West Bengal.
The stretch from Damdim, Chalsa to Rhenock has been allotted to the National Highways Authority of India and the remaining 51 km to the PWD department for expansion, Chief Engineer Project Swastik S.S. Powral told PTI here.
Damdim, Jaldhaka
to be covered
The proposed route will cover Damdim, Chalsa, Khunia More, Jaldhaka and Tokday in West Bengal.
The Khunia More to Rhenock axis via Rachela, a distance of about 75 km, linked up with the 51 km stretch from Rhenock to Ranipool via Rorathang.
The proposal was floated by BRO Project Swastik in 2010-11.
NHAI’s reservations
Defence sources said that after the Ministry was informed that NHAI had expressed reservations over taking up the project in Darjeeling district in West Bengal, it was allocated to Project Swastik under BRO. — PTI
Government notification on potato movement stayed
Traders had moved the High Court against it last week
The Calcutta High Court issued an interim stay here on Monday on a notification issued by the West Bengal government restricting inter-State movement of potatoes.
Hearing a writ petition filed by two potato traders, Justice Sanjib Banerjee imposed a stay on the notification and directed both the State government and the petitioners to file an affidavit before December 3.
“In the wake of the stay order, the State government cannot restrict any trader to take potatoes out of the State,” Sukumar Bhattacharyya, counsel appearing for the petitioner told The Hindu .
“We had challenged the notification stating that it was a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) to carry out any profession or any occupation, trade and business within the territory of the country, he added.
The case will come up for hearing again on December 3.
The traders had moved the High Court last week challenging the notification of the State government issued on October 23.
The notification was issued after potato became scarce in various retail markets and the prices soared.
After the restriction, hundreds of trucks carrying potato were prevented from going outside the State and diverted back to local markets by the Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to direct the Election Commission to hold fresh polls if the majority of the electorate exercises ‘None of the Above Option’ (NOTA) in the electronic voting machines while casting their votes.
A three-judge of Chief Justice P. Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana Desai and Ranjan Gogoi told the counsel for the petitioner that it was for the legislature to amend the law as it was too early to pass such a direction. The CJI said: “The NOTA has been introduced recently and it remains to be seen how the people respond to it. We cannot give such a direction. It is for Parliament to amend the law. If you want, you give a representation to the government.”
The petitioner Jagganath sought a direction to the Election Commission not to declare the results when the majority of electorate opted for NOTA in the electronic voting machine.
The apex court had on September 27 held that the voters had a right to exercise the option to reject all the candidates contesting in an election by exercising the NOTA option and the Election Commission has introduced it in the Assembly recent elections in phases.
Iran and India have agreed on the need to keep Saudi Arabia engaged in order to remove its misgivings about Tehran’s interim understanding with the six global powers reached in Vienna early on Sunday.
At meetings with National Security Advisor Shiv Shankar Menon and Foreign Secretary Sujatha Singh, visiting Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ebrahim Rahimpour also clarified his country’s position on involving India in modernisation and development of the Chah-bahar port.
Mr. Rahimpour, recently appointed Iranian Foreign Ministry’s top official responsible for Asia and Pacific affairs, took the opportunity of prearranged Foreign Office consultations to acquaint Indian officials with the finer points of the agreement between Iran and the six powers.
Government sources here say the impression that things will immediately begin easing on the India-Iran energy front appears to be misplaced. Most of the key sanctions aimed at oil and shipping and curbs on banking and financial transactions will remain in place for a minimum of six months or could be partially lifted earlier if the proposed Joint Commission between Iran and the six nations is set up and makes progress on some of the aspects agreed upon in the interim agreement.
With Saudi Arabia fearing that Iran might emerge as the predominant regional power, Tehran and New Delhi want friendly powers to allay its fears. Riyadh has announced its intention not to join the United Nations Security Council as a temporary member and there are apprehensions about its throwing a spanner in the works — the new balance of power emerging in the region.
Official sources in the Ministry of External Affairs said the visiting Deputy Minister provided a briefing to the Foreign Secretary on the scenario in the region in the light of the Interim Agreement between Iran and E3 plus 3 and outlined the prospects of moving forward in the evolving situation. They also discussed various possibilities of furthering bilateral economic cooperation, particularly the Chah-bahar project in which India has evinced keen interest.
Following the meeting, Mr. Rahimpour called on the External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. Mr. Rahimpour has switched places with Seyyed Abbas Aragchi as the India pointman among Iran’s five Deputy Foreign Ministers. Mr. Aragchi has joined the Iranian nuclear negotiating team but Mr. Rahimpour is no stranger to India as he has earlier served here as Iranian Ambassador.
France’s Foreign Minister said on Monday that the European Union would likely lift some sanctions on Iran in December, as part of a hard-won deal that curbs Tehran’s nuclear programme. Laurent Fabius also said Israel — which blasted Sunday’s agreement as a “historic mistake” — was not likely to launch any preventative strikes on arch foe Iran, “because no one would understand” such a move “at this stage.”
World powers sealed the agreement with Iran after four days of intense negotiations in Geneva, promising to ease some crippling US and EU sanctions on the Islamic state in return for limits on an enrichment programme the West suspects was aimed at developing an atomic bomb.— AFP
