Beryl @ JNU

Friday, April 14, 2006

Egypt & Zimbabwe for IRAN

Egypt called for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis while warning against military action against Teheran. "We need to reach a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear file," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said in a statement following a meeting with visiting U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Robert Joseph. Gheit also said Egypt did not want Iran to possess nuclear weapons. "Egypt does not accept the emergence of a military nuclear power in the region as this would further endanger the security situation in the Middle East," he said.

Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe expressed his support of Iran's controversial programme of uranium enrichment.Speaking after a meeting with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Harare, Mugabe said his government would look at ways of strengthening ties with Iran. "President Mugabe said like Iran, Zimbabwe lives in a free world where all nations are equal, as stated by the UN Charter”.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Tuesday that Iran "has joined the club of nuclear countries" by successfully enriched uranium to 3.5 percent, the purity necessary for nuclear reactor fuel. Despite the UN Security Council's calling on Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities by the April 28 deadline, Iran has remained defiant, maintaining that the aims of its nuclear program are entirely peaceful. The U.S. government insisted its priority was to seek a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

US Strategy towards Iranian Nuclear Program

As the current crisis with Iran deepens, the debate on a possible war is being highlighted, stirring a sense of deja vu and a feeling of inevitability. The Bush administration has issued harsh warnings about 'nuclear weapons' falling into the hands of a 'crazy' ruler heading a 'terrorist-sponsoring regime.' Once again, the administration has lobbied the UN Security Council, rather than the US Congress, for 'delegating power' to wage a war to preempt an ominous global threat.

In August 2005, the Europeans suspended negotiations when Iran, breaking an agreement to suspend all uranium processing activities while the talks were underway, began converting uranium into gas at a production plant in Isfahan. But after its referral to UNSC, Iran has refused to hold any negotiations on its nuclear programme with the European Union Troika. Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki remarked that 'from now on, we will talk to the whole of Europe, but on a bilateral basis on the basis of shared interests and in mutual respect, without preconditions.' At the same time, when Russia offered to conduct uranium enrichment and provide processed fuel, Iran rejected this proposal as 'inadequate.' But Iran is posturing to portray the Russian talks as productive, and is hopeful to prolong this dialogue process. However, should the Russian-Iranian talks on the proposed uranium enrichment joint venture on Russian territory fail, Iran may isolate itself and face the wrath of the US.

A careful examination of US strategy indicates that America's Iran policy has been carefully crafted. It pursues a diplomatic, political and military strategy at the same time.

On the diplomatic front, the US has been successful in lobbying India, China and Russia on referring Iran's case to the UNSC. It has now appealed to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, Iran's neighbors, to gain the support of the Arab countries in the region. Iran's nuclear program has been a matter of concern for the Arab states, as most of them view it as destabilizing. Speaking last month in London, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that 'there is a lot of life left in the diplomacy. After all, going to the Security Council is not the end of diplomacy; it is just diplomacy in a different, more robust context.' Its message to Tehran today is to adhere by the Paris Agreement, suspend all nuclear-related activities, and negotiate in good faith the eventual cessation and dismantling of all sensitive nuclear fuel cycle activities. According to the Paris Agreement, Iran agreed to suspend its uranium-enrichment activities for the duration of the negotiations with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom in November 2004.

On the political front, the US has sought a $85 million fund to promote political change inside Iran by subsidizing dissident groups, unions, student fellowships, and television and radio broadcasts. The American aid announced by US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, is to include $25 million to support 'political dissidents, labor union leaders and human rights activists' and to work with nongovernmental organizations outside Iran to build support inside the country. It shows that the US has started considering the 'regime change' approach but not publicly yet as in the case of Iraq.

On the military front, the US has accused Iran of promoting terrorism. The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has accused Iran of playing a 'negative role' in Iraqi affairs, and providing weapons, training and support to Iraqi militia and insurgent groups responsible for continuing violence and instability. He added there was evidence that Iranians had provided 'indirect help' to Sunni Arab insurgents to attack US and Iraqi government troops. Added to it is the recent statement of Condolezza Rice, who had termed Iran as a 'homeland for terrorists.'

Advocates of war with Iran focus on Ahmadinejad's hostile intentions toward Israel. Consequently, offering NATO membership to Israel has been mooted to counter the Iranian threat. As tensions rise between Iran and members of the international community, some Israeli and American politicians have talked about keeping all options open. The US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, has remarked that Iran could defuse international concerns over its nuclear program by following the example of Libya. Libya renounced its weapons its mass destruction in 2004, leading to a rapprochement between Washington and Tripoli after 24 years of isolation and sanctions.

While a final deal on the enrichment proposal is unlikely before the March 6 meeting of the IAEA board, strong agreement for further discussions on the proposal, and steps by Iran to ease concerns by a pause in enrichment activities could ease pressure for punitive Security Council action and open the door to 'long-term diplomatic interaction with the Iranians that could lead to success.' As President Bush had noted on 27 September 2004, 'We've made it clear, our position is that they won't have a nuclear weapon.'

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Challenges and Options

The 24 November IAEA meeting in Vienna did not refer Iran's case to the Security Council. But, the US has not ruled out military action against Iran. The lack of unanimity in referring Iran to the Security Council has highlighted that it is the US, along with Israel, which is obsessed with the Iranian nuclear programme.

Russia and China have the veto in the UN Security Council and can stop any resolution being adopted against Iran. In fact, China has invested millions of dollars in Iran to safeguard its energy security. Iran has reportedly bought 29 mobile air defence systems from Moscow in a deal worth more than $700 million. Hence, the US is planning sanctions outside the ambit of the Security Council to scuttle Iran's trade with the European Union and Japan, Iran's major trading partners.

Iran says a planned meeting later this month with Britain, France and Germany would be crucial for negotiations on the crisis. The European Union should offer Iran greater incentives to give up its nuclear ambitions. What must Iran do to assure the international community about its nuclear weapons programme? What is the role of the IAEA vis-?-vis Iran? And what must the US do to make the region more stable?

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), urged the Americans to place US security assurances on the table with Iran as they had done in negotiations with North Korea. US security guarantees are crucial for Iran with American troops operating in two of its neighbours - Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran feels encircled by the American presence. The case against Iran's regime is hard to dismiss because it claims that its uranium-enrichment program is meant for producing electricity. The question is whether the program will be modified to prevent the making of bombs. Under the NPT, a country is allowed to enrich uranium to make fuel for nuclear power generation. Most countries get their fuel from a few suppliers under strict regulations. The key problem is that the same technology can be used to enrich uranium further to make nuclear weapons. There are fears that Iran might do this, either in secret or by developing the technology under safeguards and then withdrawing from the treaty to make bombs openly.

The US has said publicly that it will not permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons. President Bush has said that he wants diplomacy to resolve this problem, but that nothing is ruled out. There are fears of a military crisis. The Israeli perceptions regarding the Iranian nuclear programme also matters alongside US concerns. Israel has been threatened by inflammatory speeches made by the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for its destruction. Israel has not ruled out an attack on Iran. Given Israel's geopolitical location and its small size the threats posed are understandable. American officials have also assured the Israelis that the US will not give Iran any security guarantees in return for cooperation on the nuclear issue and that the US believes it is essential to keep the pressure on Iran until it provides full compliance with the demands of the international community. There are press reports that Israel, which bombed an Iraqi reactor in 1981, has begun planning a similar operation. Like the US, however, Israel says diplomacy has priority.

Washington fears that the potential for a nuclear breakout among other West Asian states would increase if Iran acquires a nuclear capability, which will add to the risks of such technologies reaching terrorists and thus creating a proliferation nightmare and making the region more volatile. Tehran's rapid progress on its ballistic missile programme is a major cause of concern now for the US, which has its bases in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.

But, Iran fears continued isolation from the US and the international community. Iran's nuclear programme has been conditioned by a narrower but more pronounced set of threats. Historically, the need to negate the American and Iraqi threats has been Iran's primary motive after the Iran-Iraq war. Nuclear weapons for Iran are a weapon of deterrence, not one of power projection. Consequently, political observers warn that Iran is next on the US list of direct targets, which enhances the strategic utility of nuclear weapons to Iran and validates its claim that the Islamic Republic requires this capability to ensure both regime survival and territorial integrity.

Iran, Isfahan & Emerging Nuclear Wisdom

The nuclear debate on Iran unfolds again after the resumption of uranium conversion at the Isfahan facility. Iran had earlier halted uranium enrichment during November 2004 to continue its dialogue with Britain, France and Germany. The recent controversy signals a major shift in the country's foreign policy under the new conservative president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

At the global level, countries involved in this issue fall into three categories. The first category, including India and Russia believe Iran needs nuclear energy, and should acquire nuclear knowledge and technology. The second category, including China and Pakistan argue that Iran should not only have nuclear technology as alternative sources of energy, but also possess a nuclear weapons capability. The third category, consisting of the US and EU demands that Iran should give up its nuclear development programme.

Iran insists on nuclear power as an alternative energy source. Earlier this year, Iran's ambassador to Britain, Dr Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli produced a reasonable argument that, "Iran has a right to continue its conversion and enrichment programme, for its nuclear industry, as part of the country's diversification of its energy needs and that attempts to halt it were not only unfair but ungrounded."

The US President, George W Bush had warned that military force 'remained on the table' to compel Iran to comply with international demands. In May 2004, the US House of Representatives passed Resolution 398, calling on the US government "to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons." If a similar resolution is passed in the Senate, it will give President Bush or any future administration the ability to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities whenever this is deemed necessary.

The EU had proposed a resolution calling on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development and leaving the door open to further talks if it complies. The EU plan - which has not been made public - is said to 'offer recognition of Iran's right to produce nuclear power for civilian purposes, as well improved trade relations with the EU and guarantees of alternative nuclear fuel sources from Europe and Russia.'

The response of China and Russia has been very different than expected. Russia has urged Iran to halt the uranium conversion work 'without delay' in apparent reversal of Moscow's earlier endorsement of Tehran's plans to produce its own nuclear fuel. At the same time, Moscow warned Washington against taking repressive measures against Iran. It did not say that the hardening of stance would affect energy cooperation with Tehran.

China, which has a growing interest in the region to supply its own energy needs, is against any use of force against Iran. Iran supplies 'energy hungry' China with oil and key industrial materials essential to China's rapidly expanding economy. In the past 15 months, China has signed a number of energy contracts with Iran, including a '25-year agreement valued at more than $100 billion over the next decade, a deal that gives Chinese companies a 51 per cent interest in the vast Yadavaran oilfield, Iran's biggest onshore field'. In return, China provides Iran with military and civilian technology. Given the Sino-Iranian relationship, it is expected that China would veto any resolution aimed at Iran's nuclear programme.

Pakistan has been critical of the use of force against Iran, saying it would destabilize the region and welcomed the negotiations between the EU and Tehran. Pakistan said it supports the 'legitimate rights of Iran' to the peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy. Moreover, other nuclear states such as Brazil, Argentina, Pakistan, and South Africa are expected to oppose the resolution against Iran because they fear the same could comeback to haunt their own nuclear programmes.

There is also a real possibility of surgical military strikes against Iranian installations - not because there is a deliberate strategy towards this goal, but because the Americans and the Iranians are now 'subject to events, and events can take on a momentum of their own.' Given the complexity of the situation, an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could destabilize the entire region and strengthen the hard-line regime in Iran. Most Iranian views the nuclear programme as a symbol of national pride and security. The IAEA has been investigating Iran's nuclear programme for the past two years. While it has found no proof that Iran plans to build nuclear weapons, it has also been unable to confirm that the programme is entirely peaceful as Iran insists. While the current standoff will not necessarily lead to a showdown between Iran and the US or the EU, there is no guarantee that wisdom will prevail.

Casting the die in favour of US: Iran out of India's Strategic Matrix

Peter Morris' book Power (1987) has been celebrated for including the first systematic study of the question, 'Where does the thirst to acquire "power" lead to?' He defines power as "a symbolically generated medium of communication which reduces complexity and allows calculus". Even a cursory reading of the day-to-day international events affirms its harsh reality. Nations are eying for clear-cut gains and find it difficult to carry moral baggage. India's support to the resolution against Iran will show the particular 'morality' of national interest, a compelling reason of state, different from national morality.

India's support for the resolution is to be analyzed in the wake of the Indo-US nuclear deal. India says it supported the resolution after the draft was changed to give time for negotiations and it does not have anything to do with the nuclear deal with the US. During his talks with Bush, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh had affirmed that India was not holding a brief or alibi for Iran's nuclear programme and that 'another nuclear weapons power in the neighbourhood was not good'. India has maintained that Iran, a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), must fulfil its international obligations and, at the same time, diplomacy must be given maximum scope to resolve the issue. It was a position of principle, based on India's conviction on nuclear disarmament, even as it was cloaked in 'national interest'.

Iran is unhappy that India voted in favour of the IAEA resolution, while its key allies and trading partners China and Russia abstained. It is interesting to note the international response on this issue. The United States, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Argentina, Belgium, Ghana, Ecuador, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden, Slovakia, Japan, Peru, Singapore, South Korea, and India voted for the resolution. Pakistan, Algeria, Yemen, Brazil, China, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, and Vietnam abstained, while Venezuela voted against the resolution. With 22 votes for the resolution, 12 abstentions and only one vote against, the outcome highlighted the split between Western nations and the rest, which disagree with Washington and Europe on how to deal with Iran's nuclear activities.

India, which had originally opposed the EU resolution, inexplicably voted for it. There were indications that the option of abstention, along with Russia, China and the non-aligned bloc was considered but it was ruled out because it would have only served to reinforce the signal of ambiguity from New Delhi. In addition, India outweighed its promising relationship of 'strategic partnership' with US against its burgeoning relationship of 'utility' with Iran.

Even an elementary knowledge of the events would indicate India's dilemma in taking stand on this issue. Indian policy planners have made it abundantly clear - at least so far - that they prefer to pursue pragmatic friendships with both Iran and the United States. Iran figures a lot in India's national security interests as a nation with which a strategic relationship is most desirable. The mutual convergences between India and Iran have resulted in asserting and crafting a "strategic partnership" as highlighted in the Teheran Declaration (2001) and the Delhi Declaration (2003). India needs Iranian oil to satisfy its growing thirst for energy. Iran offers a significant and vast market in close proximity for India's trade and industry. It also views Iran as a passageway for trade with Central Asia and Afghanistan. Moreover, with the world's second-largest Shia Muslim population, India was not prepared to face the wrath of offending sensibilities in a Shia-majority country.

Though Iran figures a lot in India's (energy) security interests, US figured a great deal in India's quest for becoming a global power. India today views a strong relationship with the United States as a key to gaining a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and for its acceptance as a legitimate nuclear power. India wanted to prove that it is a strong supporter of global non-proliferation objectives. This move by India is also seen as an attempt to convince the non-proliferation lobby in the US that is actively mobilizing Congressional opinion against the nuclear deal with India.

During his visit to Iran earlier this month, Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh expressed New Delhi's support for Tehran's peaceful civil nuclear energy programme - an assertion that did not go down well with the US, which made it an issue during Manmohan Singh's meeting with US President George W. Bush on the sidelines of the UN summit. India's decision to support the resolution has to be seen in the backdrop of these and several other questions of national interests.

Iran Oil, US Spoil, India Foil: Burgeoning India-Iran relations

"Among the many peoples and races who have come in contact with and influenced India's life and culture, the oldest and most persistent have been the Iranians," wrote Nehru in his Discovery of India. It is through statesmanship that challenges contesting the relations have been met throughout history.

India meets 70 per cent of its needs through crude oil imports and ranks sixth in global petroleum demand. By 2010, India is projected to replace South Korea and become the fourth-largest consumer of energy, after the United States, China, and Japan. In its quest to secure adequate resources, India has forged strategic alliances with several countries. It looks to work in partnership with historical rival Pakistan for construction of major fuel pipelines, with Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, and Myanmar.

India-Iran relations came to a high point on 26 January 2003 when the Iranian President Khatami won the plinth as our chief guest at the nation's Republic Day parade, a privilege held in reserve for New Delhi's most trusted friends. India and Iran forged an historic strategic partnership since then. While Iran wants to bolster defense development programs, India wants oil.

Indian policymakers tend to downplay military relations with Iran, but the 'strategic relations' with Tehran have a significant military dimension. The two countries conducted a joint naval exercise in March 2003, conceivably motivated by the US naval presence in the Persian Gulf. According to a recent CSIS report - Iran's Developing Military Capabilities - Iran sought India's help to service it's naval and air force equipment and in developing batteries for its submarines, which are more suitable for the warm waters of the Gulf than those supplied by Russia. China, however, is selling far more military hardware (especially missile technologies) to Iran than India. On its part, Iran plans to give presentations on some of its defense development programs, including 1,000-pound bombs, Fadzr-3 rocket systems and Hadaf-300 training unmanned aerial vehicles.
India is also helping Iran build a transport corridor that will link India with Central Asia through Afghanistan and Iran. As part of this project, India will assist Iran in modernizing the Chahbahar port connecting it to the main roads. India also signed a memorandum of understanding more than a year ago with Iran and Turkmenistan to facilitate Indian exports to Central Asian countries by rail across Iran from the port of Bandar Abbas. There also is an agreement between Russia, India and Iran to construct an International North-South Transport Corridor. Creation of East Corridor connecting Uzbekistan, Iran, and Afghanistan is also on the cards.

The import of oil and natural gas through a pipeline, an important aspect of the India-Iran relations, not only provides security of supply of a large quantity of clean fuel, but also addresses a strategic challenge, with several political dimensions. For Iran, which has vast reserves of natural gas in its southern part, the subcontinent is clearly the most attractive market. It was in 1989 that Dr Ali Shams Ardekani, later Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, and R. K. Pachauri jointly developed a proposal for import of natural gas from Iran to India through a pipeline stretching overland across Pakistan. India expects the $4.5 billion India-Iran gas pipeline to be completed by 2009-end. The thaw in India-Iran relations has allowed Indian companies to make some inroads into Iran. Recently, Indian Oil Corporation reached an agreement with the Iranian firm Petropars to develop a gas block in the gigantic South Pars gas field, which holds the largest natural gas reserves in the world.

The growing connection between India and Iran is significant, given India's good relations with Israel and the United States. A hitch cropped up when Condoleezza Rice, during her recent visit to India said, "Washington is opposed to the $4 billion pipeline deal with Iran, a nation the Bush Administration is trying to force to abandon its nuclear programme." Though perturbed initially, India brushed off US concerns and has asserted that it would go ahead with the landmark pipeline deal "without any compromise". Adding to it is Mani Shankar Aiyer's remark that "the multifaceted relation with Iran can't be compromised for any third party concern." Interestingly, the US has offered "broad energy dialogue" to India to discuss nuclear energy cooperation possibilities. Israel is quiet as long as the connection does not become overtly military in nature. Also this emerging relations leave Pakistan 'isolated and surrounded'. Pakistan has worked hard to expand its own trade with Iran to counteract India's perceived efforts to outflank it.

Democratic Mandate in West Asia and Implications for India

West Asia is currently at the confluence of the most decisive developments of our times. Some of the world's most complex problems are insecurely balanced in this region, which include the Palestinian conflict, the tragedy of Iraq, and the terrorization by radical religious movements and other non-state actors. With the elections over in Iraq and Palestine, the time has come for India to decide what is in our national interests in West Asia.

The voter turnout in Palestine and Iraqi elections surprised the world, underlining the reality that apart from Bush and Blair, who had direct interest in the region, the entire world was concerned the situation was getting into a mess from which the world economy and stability could suffer. The only hope left was that the elections would mark the moment where the injection of democracy would transform this situation, like the emergence of democracy in Malaysia and Turkey the within Islamic world.

Palestine Elections

The recently concluded Presidential elections on 9 January 2005 raised high hopes in the Arab community in Israel. The death of Arafat and subsequent election of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) as President of the Palestinian Authority by securing a comprehensive victory over his opponent Mustafa Bargoti, has opened up a welcome passage for those who see Abbas as a moderate leader who can bring peace to the region. This has created a high level of optimism, but cast greater responsibility on the new incumbent. However, his critics say that "Abbas has eliminated the political term thawabet" (immovable issues, such as the right of return and the status of Jerusalem), reasoning that politics can't be frozen and one must be flexible. So, there will be interesting political developments that would decide the future of Palestine.

Iraqi Elections

At the same time, Iraq's election on 30 January 2005 marks an important step on the road to bring peace to the country, but whether it is a turning point remains to be seen. The Electoral Commission announced that out of 8.45 million registered voters, the Shia's United Iraqi Alliance secured 48% of the vote, followed by Kurdish alliance, which secured 25% share. Sunni Arab turn out was low and it is set to have only around 5 seats. Next step is to constitute a 275 member National Assembly that must agree on a president and two vice-presidents by a 2/3 majority. The Transitional National Assembly election was conducted according to a closed-list proportional-representation system with the entire country considered as a single electoral district and expected to compose at least 25 percent women. According to an expert, this political process "will culminate in a new constitution by October and a fully constitutional government by the end of the year". But if in case, the Sunni Arabs are largely shut out of government, they could still "potentially veto the new Iraqi constitution due to be written this year, causing political deadlock."

Implications for India

1. The 'exit strategy' deliberated on by the US and Britain suggests that elections are not just critical to Palestinians and Iraqis. India too has a stake in the unfolding situation and has a wide range of responsibilities if it claims to a permanent seat at the Security Council.

2. India, like Norway, could prop up its diplomatic resources to have a niche for itself in the eyes of international community. The appointment of Chinmaya Gharekhan as Special Envoy for West Asia and the Middle East Peace Process is evidence of India's strategic move.

3. India is already exploring several options to expand its energy security, both in terms of products and suppliers. There is also ample potential for India to evolve broader long-term economic relations with the region. As Manmohan Singh said, "this could include expanding our contacts with the Gulf Cooperation Council into an enduring institutional relationship."

4. Given India's emergence as a safe destination for foreign direct investment and the presence of several million of our NRIs, India must pursue a proactive strategy of seeking investments from West Asia.

5. India should do all it can, as Iraq stabilizes, to help the return of normalcy and in the task of reconstruction that lies ahead. At the same time, it should guard against any major disruptive developments to its national security and interests caused by religious fundamentalist forces. As K. Subrahmanyam remarks, "this calls for vigorous proactive diplomacy, involving the US, the EU, Russia and the West Asian countries - a kind of diplomacy that India has not been used to."

India, Israel and US

Continuing a long-standing relationship among India, United States, and Israel, Tel Aviv is planning to host a first ever annual meeting of a Tri-National Accord on important sectors. Emphasizing the need for greater cooperation between India, Israel and the US, Israeli Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has proposed the setting up of a "Trilateral Fund" to stimulate, promote and support industrial research and development for mutual benefit ensuring strategic triad concept between the three democracies. The US and Israel already have a binational fund, commonly referred to as BIRD Foundation (Binational Industrial Research and Development). Its mission is to stimulate, promote and support industrial R&D for mutual benefit of the U.S. and Israel. Israel had earlier suggested setting up a similar fund TIRD (Tri-national Industrial Research and Development) to boost Indo-Israeli cooperation during the visit of the then Commerce Minister Arun Jaitley to Tel Aviv. Israel?s excellent science, cutting edge technologies and ambitious entrepreneurs have generated great interest in global markets and it is imperative to analyse the benefits that India would get out of this ?Strategic coalition?.?

India, United States and Israel are democracies that have survived amidst hostilities. However India and Israel are surrounded by uncompromising adversaries in a heavily militarised security environment. Both nations have fought wars in nearly every decade of their existence, facing external and internal security threats in the form of Islamic terrorism and sabotage. During the Kargil War, despite pressures from various quarters, Israel supplied UAVs for high altitude surveillance, laser?guided systems and many other items within 24 hours to India.?? It is therefore natural for India to reach out to Israel in terms of establishment of meaningful political and economic relations.

After assuming charge in his South Block office, Mr Natwar Singh told media persons that foreign policy, by its very nature, was "evolutionary, not revolutionary" and ?India would make efforts to improving relations with all its neighbours and specially with Israel?. This can be substantiated by the remarks made by the Indian Representative to the United Nations, Vijay Nambiar, during a debate at the UN on Israel. Nambiar drew link between Palestinian violence and Israeli policy and suggested that India would ?categorically support Israel.? Another signal is from the Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee when he stated that ?there would be no slowing down in India's burgeoning defence ties and economic relations with Israel.?? He noted that it was the Congress Government of former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao that established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992.

It is interesting to note the equitable relations between the three countries on the technology front. Barring Indo-US cooperation in many fields which is widely discussed, the alliance with Israel is less discussed. In fact, Israel is India's second largest supplier of military equipment after Russia as it bagged contracts worth billions of dollars, including for the supply of three Phalcon early warning radars. Seventeen Israeli companies had participated in Defexpo 04, a major Government ? Industry initiative held in New Delhi during February 2004. Israel military industries displayed its trajectory corrected rockets for the IDF Artillery Corps' M-270 multiple launch rocket system (MLRS).?

After getting an assurance from India that it will not 'leak' sensitive defence technology that it receives from Israel to a third country, particularly Iran, Israel had offered India a partnership in the development of a state-of-the-art attack submarine. Being a reliable repository of technology, Israel had ventured in pursuing the co-production of unmanned aerial vehicles with India.? Apart from the defence sector, India had a lot more co-operation in the field of Agriculture. It is estimated that at least 22 percent of the agricultural goods is being exported to India. Besides, research ties in the areas of agro-biotechnology, arable land management, irrigation systems, and organic cultivation support the view that India should further its relation with Israel.

If the Tri-national Fund is established, these are the following implications (other than defence deal) for India

In high potential technological areas such as communications, the Internet, security, corporate software systems, stem cells, and cardiovascular applications, India would be steadfast with Israel.
India would focus its attention on market sectors with high commercial potential and a significant number of innovative Israeli technology companies. This combination increases the chance of matching any one of those companies with an American market leader.
India is currently planning to concentrate efforts on the following areas: homeland security, nanotechnology, communications (connecting everything), medical devices, stem cells and regeneration of defective organs, personalized medicine, semiconductors (capital equipment and microelectronics), software security, and others. This is would come true if TIRD is established.