India abstains from resolution aimed at Iran

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,599
Country flag
India abstains from resolution aimed at Iran - Hindustan Times

India and 39 other nations abstained from a UN resolution condemning an alleged Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States, saying full facts were not known and the matter was sub-judice.
The resolution, which was introduced by Saudi Arabia, doesn't directly accuse


Iran of involvement but calls on it "to comply with all of its obligations under international law" and to cooperate in "seeking to bring to justice" the people who allegedly plotted to kill the envoy.
The vote was 106 in favour, nine against and 40 abstentions.

India takes its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons Convention with utmost seriousness, India's Permanent Representative Hardeep Singh Puri said in an explanation of India's vote.

"However, we have abstained today on the resolution, as its substance deals with a specific case in which we are not in the possession of full facts and the matter is sub-judice," he said.

"India has been a victim of terrorism for decades," Puri said. "We condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and we have been in the forefront of global actions on counter-terrorism."

"Our tireless efforts as Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Committee, established under Security Council Resolution 1373, have resulted in the UN adopting a 'zero tolerance' approach towards terrorism. We urge all UN member-states to strive for the strict implementation of this approach," he said.

US officials in October accused Manssor Arbabsiar, a 56-year-old naturalised US citizen, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iran-based member of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, of conspiring to hire hit men from a Mexican drug cartel to bomb a restaurant where the Saudi ambassador would have been.

Iranian Ambassador to the UN Mohammad Khazaee called it "mind boggling" that "an unsubstantiated claim of one member state with a long history of animosity against my country that my government has already and strongly rejected" served as a basis for the resolution.
led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) - would not stay with the central government and demanded a roll-back.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
The correct move would have been to vote against. How long do we plan to continue to not take a stand?
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
The correct move would have been to vote against. How long do we plan to continue with decisions of no conviction?
As long as the West reigns supreme in the global power equations, we cannot risk such a move. Otherwise we will be grouped with Iran, North Korea, Libya, etc. before you can say "democracy".
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,885
Likes
48,599
Country flag
The correct move would have been to vote against. How long do we plan to continue to not take a stand?
We have Gwadar port in Iran which strategically is more important than anything else being offered, and Iran supports Northern alliance like we do in Afghanistan.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
The correct move would have been to vote against. How long do we plan to continue to not take a stand?
Why should we pounce without any teeth ? We dont have veto power and our vote is meaningless as it is.

So why pick either side in the open. In anycase by not voting it means we are against resolution against iran but wont do it officially. Iran understands it and so does the west.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
We have Gwadar port in Iran which strategically is more important than anything else being offered, and Iran supports Northern alliance like we do in Afghanistan.
I think you mean Chabahar and I said we should vote against the resolution which means favoring Iran. :)

Why should we pounce without any teeth ? We dont have veto power and our vote is meaningless as it is.

So why pick either side in the open. In anycase by not voting it means we are against resolution against iran but wont do it officially. Iran understands it and so does the west.
This specific case required us to vote against as the case against Iran is a fairy tale. Like the article says its sub judice - subject to judiucial deliberation. Our justice system does not work on the principle of majority. As per Indian law, it is illegal and hence we should have voted against it citing its illegality per our law. the American judiciary uses the concept of jury. It is flawed as can be seen through thousands of racist convictions delivered over the years.

This UN resolution is based on something similar. 100 of us think you did it so hand over these people. That's got to stop.

I consider the whole thing to be added propaganda to achieve cumulative consensus to attack Iran.

Iran's nuclear stance is a complicated issue. The current NPT is bullshit and no attack based on the current NPT is legally justifiable.

Not to poke holes in anybody's argument, but pre 1998 we were in the exact place that Iran was. What if China decided to pre-emptively strike our nuclear installations citing our weapons program? And if the US put together a similar case and went to the UN against India?

Anyway these are my views.

point to note : Did China vote for or against or abstain? Does anyone know?
 

Dovah

Untermensch
Senior Member
Joined
May 23, 2011
Messages
5,614
Likes
6,793
Country flag
We have Gwadar port in Iran which strategically is more important than anything else being offered, and Iran supports Northern alliance like we do in Afghanistan.
Gwadar= China-Pakistan.
Chahbar=India-Iran.

And yes, it is strategically more important than anything along with that highway in Afghanistan.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
point to note : Did China vote for or against or abstain? Does anyone know?
China abstained

China again calls for proper address of alleged plot to kill Saudi ambassador to U.S.
Liu said China abstained from the vote on the resolution, because the case is highly complicated and sensitive at present and relevant parties still have different views on the issue.
Also

"Those joining Iran in voting "no'' were Armenia, Bolivia, Cuba, North Korea, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Zambia."

UN deplores Saudi assassination plot - Americas - Al Jazeera English

AFAIK this is a Saudi resolution, it'll be unwise to say no since we need their oil
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Great move. At least MMS is adopting right approach on international stage.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
Well, at the end of the day economic necessity >>>>> Principled Stance
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Great move. At least MMS is adopting right approach on international stage.
It seems the chinis have poked the dodos to wake up from deep sleep.

We must thank chinis for this :thumb:
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Why did such a case go to the UN in the first place? Since when did the UN become a place to put pressure on member countries to investigate or extradite criminals etc. what a precedent this is.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
India on a new course?

Great!
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Well given the US/Israeli/Gulf Arab pressure to vote for on this resolution, I think taking a neutral way out by abstaining was the best that could be done.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
Why did such a case go to the UN in the first place? Since when did the UN become a place to put pressure on member countries to investigate or extradite criminals etc. what a precedent this is.
UN has been a puppet of the US since lets see.... 1945?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top