Scholars of International Relations often develop various sets of conceptual tools in order to make sense of the International system. It is assumed that there is some sort of pattern in the world and that the international system is not just a description of events one after another. Interpretations of facts however, create disagreements which in turn generates complimentary, supplementary and at times antagonistic theories. The idea behind theorizing is to predict the behaviors of states in the system and the success of a theory depends on the extent to which it can be tested against the facts. This leads to yet another problem. States in their behavior are primarily guided by concerns of national interest and to that extent at times behave in ways which defies these theoretical constructs. On September 25, 2005 India precisely did this when it voted against Iran in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on the latter's nuclear programme.
India's behavior in the International System has always been on predictable lines. Commitment to the Third World Solidarity, Opposition to the discriminatory policies of the West, stressing the need for creation of a Liberal Aid Regime, has always been the motivating factors for its action in International arena. The concern for the cause is so intense that at times it had to suffer and even compromise on its vital interests for the good of others. The vote at IAEA is definitely a Volte - Face from its traditional stand. Or should we think that way? First I don't believe in such arguments and second even if we for a moment thinks in that direction, other question that comes up in mind i.e. doesn't it have the right to change its traditional patterned behavior?
I endorse Stephen Philip Cohen's view that the vote shows a new maturity and that India is beginning to think for itself. In fact more than maturity it shows pragmatism. The action can be understood only by taking extreme consequences in account. The vote is an aftereffect of India's negotiation with the European Union -3 namely Germany, France and the UK, wherein it was decided that some more time be given for negotiations and that the issue remain within the purview of the IAEA itself. It ensured that the matter directly does not go to the Security Council. However, even if the matter goes to the Security Council, one expects that Iran would be saved there by China and Soviet Union. Both these countries have significant commercial interest in Iran and will definitely come to its rescue. Having abstained from voting on 25th September are unlikely to see that through in the Security Council. Meanwhile the time that Iran has with it can be used to ease suspicion. So heavens will not fall on Iran even when India voted against it and if heavens are to really fall still we are not to be blamed. It is not only India that voted against Iran. Several other non-aligned and developing countries, also voted in favour of the resolution. So why single out India. Given the fact that the resolution was passed 22-1 with 12 abstentions it would have been passed eitherways with or without India being a party to it. Let's for example take the view point of Malaysia a NAM member which abstained from voting. According to the Malaysian representative on the IAEA board, the head of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) group, Ryma Jama' Hussein: "Due to the serious nature of the issues contained in the draft resolution, NAM had suggested that time and diplomacy be allowed for the matter to be deliberated at the November board meeting and for negotiations to proceed with a view to reaching a consensus decision". What India by voting has managed is precisely this. Let's also take into account the gains that India has from this action. It is clear now that the nuclear supplies deal with the US would not see any Senatorial hurdle. Even if we accept the thesis that it adversely affects the gas deal with Iran (though Iran has denied this subsequently) it cannot be denied that oil and gas are finite resources, but nuclear energy is not. Moreover, the target of 10,000 MW set by DAE, and the dreams of 20,000 to 44,000 MW set by nuclear founding fathers Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai can not be realized on the imports of hydrocarbons. Either ways areas which have stores of hydrocarbons are geo-strategically so located that it will take massive efforts to reach them and may involve considerable compromises. Secondly India has projected an image of a state which is capable of taking decisions on issues based on its own independent assessment and in consonance with its national interests. Within 48 hours of the vote, Canada, agreed to resume full nuclear cooperation with India, an arrangement that was twice disrupted by India's nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998.
Now if one has to take into account the plus and the minus of India's action it seems that we have lost nothing but gained significantly. The loss and gains can neither be explained on Realist -Neo Realist nor on Liberal - Neo Liberal approach. At best, it can be explained on accounts of the use of Rational Choice Theory, which attempts to deduce what will happen when individuals are faced with a political situation. People are assumed to be rational in their capacity to devise, choose, and put into practice effective means to clear ends. Constructivism is definitely in.
About the Author Chandrachur Singh teaches at Hindu College, University of Delhi. He is the author of 'Human Rights : Acts, statutes, and Constitutional Provisions'. He has participated in a number of international and national symposiums and conferences. He can be reached at chandrachurleo@rediffmail.com.
