THERE is worldwide disappointment that the recent talks between the European Union and Iran have led nowhere. The package of inducements offer by the E-3, as the negotiating team of Britain, France and Germany is known, was unacceptable to Tehran because it denied Iran the right to produce its own nuclear fuel. The goodies offered by the Europeans, inter alia, included help to develop civilian nuclear energy and in becoming a leading transit route for Central Asian oil.

Two factors seem to have pushed the Iranians to intransigence: the double dealing of the Bush administration and the insolent obsession of Washington with the regime in Tehran. One reason for the Iranian anger appears to be that the US is helping India with its nuclear programme, despite the fact that India is a nuclear-weapon power which has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). But Iran is being denied even the right to produce its own nuclear fuel, although it is a signatory to the NPT.

Under article IV of the NPT nations have “an inalienable right ... to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination”. Iran claims to be interested only in producing electricity, but the Europeans argue that the Iranians have concealed their nuclear programme from the world for 20 years.

The other factor for Iranian intransigence relates to US efforts to bring about a regime change in Tehran. If ever there was a shipwreck of US foreign policy, it has taken place in the case of Iran. One of the real aims of establishing “democracy” in Iraq was to strengthen the moderates in Iran and topple the autocracy of the “mullahs” in Tehran. With the mess in Iraq growing by the day and the sweeping victory of Ahmadinejad, American hopes have been dashed. Washington’s sanctions against Tehran, by increasing anti-Americanism, have only strengthened the hands of extremists in Iran.

Interestingly, President Bush has already executed a policy U-turn where Iran is concerned. He used to despise the E-3’s efforts to persuade Iran to curb its nuclear plans in return for a package of economic incentives. Realizing that there was no alternative to diplomatic efforts, he even pledged to add US funds to the European initiatives. To quote President Bush: “we are relying upon others because we have sanctioned ourselves out of influence with Iran.” But, by threatening use of force, the US president has again complicated the situation. The fact of the matter is that if the European carrot has not succeeded it is because the US stick is not credible under the circumstances. With the US military adventure sinking into the quicksand of Iraq, few Iranians believe that Washington can muster the will power and public support for another bloody war in the Middle East, at least as long as it remains involved in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Americans believe they cannot live with a nuclear armed Iran, they will have to change their tactics to achieve their objective. To begin with, Washington must start showing respect towards Tehran. The Iranians are justifiably a proud nation, with a very long history of a rich civilization, culture and achievements. If the compulsions of realpolitik could make President Bush in June this year address the North Korean leader Kim Jong-il as “Mr Kim” (a sea-change from the past year when the North Korean leader was described as “a tyrant” and “a dangerous person” who “starves” his own people and “has huge concentration camps”) then why does his administration persist in asking the Iranian people to topple the “mullah” regime in Tehran?

One of the hurdles in the way of dialogue between Washington and Tehran is that after a quarter century of hostile relations, beginning with the toppling of the Shah and the 1979 seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, too much national pride is involved on the American side to get off the beaten track and explore new ways of solving their bilateral problems.

Certainly, there is no comparison between the regimes in Tehran and in Pyongyang. From every conceivable point of view, the Iranian regime, even if it is theocratic and “mullah-dominated”, is far superior to the one in North Korea. It is more tolerant, less corrupt and more humane and democratic than the Stalinist regime of Kim Jong-il. The Americans have not only joined the six nation talks to solve the North Korean nuclear crisis, but have even held bilateral talks with North Koreans on the sidelines of the recently held negotiations in the Chinese capital.

It is beyond comprehension why Washington has persistently refused to join the E-3’s efforts to solve the Iranian nuclear crisis. Iran may change its attitude to the deal being offered by Britain, France and Germany if the US would join in providing meaningful economic incentives and, above all, security guarantees addressing Tehran’s legitimate anxieties over the ring of US bases near its borders, not to mention US nuclear weapons capability.

It may be recalled that on several occasions the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Muhammad ElBaradei, urged the United States to engage in dialogue with Iran over its nuclear programme. According to him, no permanent solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions is possible without full US engagement. Being UN’s nuclear guardian, ElBaradei has emphasized the need to address “Iran’s sense of isolation and insecurity” after more than 20 years of American hostility and economic sanctions.

It is, therefore, imperative that the US gets more actively involved in the diplomatic effort to resolve Iran’s nuclear issue. It is understandable that at this stage American involvement cannot take the form of a bilateral Washington-Tehran dialogue. But the US should not hesitate to join a framework similar to the Beijing six-party forum for dealing with the North Korean nuclear problem.

If the Americans can negotiate with North Korea under the six-party diplomatic umbrella, there is no justification for them to refuse to negotiate with Tehran under a similar multilateral framework. America’s active involvement in the negotiating process will not only help test Iran’s real intentions but may succeed in getting from Tehran what it has so far refused to offer: “objective guarantees” to show that its nuclear intentions are peaceful.

Two largely under-reported recent developments have raised hopes that it may still be possible to tackle the Iranian nuclear crisis through diplomatic efforts. Coinciding with Mr Ahmadinejad’s inauguration as the new president of Iran, a long awaited US intelligence analysis has estimated that Iran will not get the bomb for another decade — an estimate that almost doubles previous ones. The new data does not make the problem disappear, but gives time for reflection on both sides.

The American intelligence report has also thrown cold water on repeated Israeli claims that Iran is within six months of gaining nuclear weapons capability. The US intelligence analysis has also made the Americans much more reluctant than before to let an Israeli military strike against Iran’s scattered nuclear facilities, because that is bound to enrage the regime in Tehran that could easily impede America’s desperate efforts to create a new order next door in Iraq.

Emanating recently from the IAEA, another piece of information concerning Iran’s nuclear activities has brightened prospects for a negotiated settlement of the problem. It may be recalled that the charge of illicit bomb-making against Iran was levied because traces of enriched uranium particles were found on Iranian nuclear equipment. The tests performed by the IAEA have indicated that the enriched uranium particles found on Iranian nuclear equipment actually came from Pakistan, from where the equipment was imported, and was not produced in Iran.

Tehran has consistently maintained all along that this was the most likely explanation for the existence of the particles and now the IAEA appears to agree with Iran’s contention. It is true that Iran concealed its nuclear activities for many years. But when the new evidence is taken into account, the charge against Iran of illicit bomb-making does not rest on any incontrovertible evidence.

The policy of hostility to Iran has brought no dividends, nor is it likely to bring any in the future. Washington must seriously contemplate the option of engagement. If President Bush is willing to engage with the North Koreans and if two of his distinguished predecessors, President Nixon and President Reagan, could engage with China and the Soviet Union respectively, it is perhaps the burden of history that is preventing Washington from engaging with Tehran.

The decision to talk to Iran even under a multilateral umbrella will need a lot of political courage on the part of President Bush. Of course, there can be no guarantee of success for a policy of engagement with Iran. But after the failure of the policy pursued for about quarter of a century, a bold policy shift deserves to be given a fair chance.

The writer is a former ambassador.

A PAKISTAN television network based in Dubai asked me whether Prime Minister Manmohan Singh would tender his apology to Indian Muslims as he had done in the case of Sikhs for the Delhi riots 21 years after the violence. The network pointedly referred to the killings in Gujarat three years ago and the ones at Mumbai in 1993.

My reply was that the prime minister should do so. But then I realized that Atal Behari Vajpayee was the prime minister when the carnage in Gujarat took place. I knew he was all worked up against the state chief minister Narendra Modi before he went to Ahmedabad but settled down to mere expressions of irritation after the visit. By the time he reached Goa, he was not even angry. The RSS had “pacified” him. His ire, in fact, was then directed against Islam.

Again, BJP chief L.K. Advani said at Karachi that the Gujarat riots were a national shame but did nothing when he was deputy prime minister. Modi is still there and Advani continues to be his ardent admirer. Not only that, Muslims in general and Gujarat’s riot victims in particular still suffer from the state government’s deliberate policy of discrimination and denial. Even rehabilitation is being carried out primarily by voluntary agencies.

Something has gone wrong with Gujarat. The state where Mahatma Gandhi, an apostle of Hindu-Muslim unity, was born and where his Sabarmati Ashram still radiates with amity is today the most communally-oriented place.

It is unbelievable that the state which touched the sublime heights of pluralism during Gandhi’s Dandi Salt march to oust the British, is today in the depths of hatred which Advani spread when he led a rath yatra from Somnath temple to Ayodhya. In fact, his rath was the beginning of assaults on India’s secular polity. It sowed the seeds of hatred. The nettle of communalism was the natural growth. We have become prey to triviality, inner shame and cowardice.

I do not think that the BJP would ever apologize. Advani had to pay heavily for commending Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah in Pakistan. How can Advani, or for that matter, any BJP leader say “sorry” to Muslims who are the party’s bete noir. After all, it is the same party, which demolished the Babri Masjid and faces criminal charges.

According to Justice Nanavati, who wrote the 1984 anti-Sikh riots report, there was no difference between what happened in Delhi and Gujarat. In the first, Sikhs were the victims, in the second, Muslims.

At both places, he found ample evidence to infer that some politicians and the police looked the other way when the crimes were committed. The pattern was the same: the state was on the side of rioters and the entire killing and looting was systematically organized and executed.

I only hope that Nanavati does not produce another wishy-washy report as he did in the case of the Delhi riots, condoning complicity at the top and picking up foot soldiers for punishment.

Manmohan Singh carries the sins of his predecessors in the Congress. Still, he must apologize for the Mumbai riots because the Congress was in power both at the centre and in the state at that time. When the inquiry into the riots was ordered, the Congress was in power.

The Shiv Sena-BJP coalition took over in March 1993 and included bomb blasts in the terms of the inquiry.

Judge Srikrishna held Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray guilty for whipping up communal frenzy through his writings, pronouncements and directives. The report recalled his famous press interview where he had given a call to throw out Muslims.

Srikrishna pointed out the nexus between politicians and police in killing and looting. Thackeray remained unrepentant and defiant. He not only rejected the report but called the judge biased, a usual reaction of the guilty.

After the report, Advani on behalf of the central government said that there was “no justification for any action against Thackeray”. I remember that when the killings in Mumbai did not abate for three days, some of us, senior journalists, met the then prime minister, P.V.Narasimha Rao, to express our concern.

He had no doubt about the culpability of the Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray. But when asked: “Why do not you ban Shiv Sena and arrest Bal Thackeray as you did in the case of RSS and Advani when the Babri Masjid was abolished? Rao gave a measured reply: “I cannot ban Shiv Sena because it is a political party”. As regards Thackeray, he said: “Wait”. I waited in vain during his entire tenure of five years.

Whenever I asked in the Rajya Sabha about the action taken, Advani, by then home minister, would say that the matter was with the state government. It came to be known subsequently that Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s principal secretary, P.C.Alexander, the then Maharashtra governor, was sitting on the report. Significantly, after retirement, he was elected to the Rajya Sabha, the Shiv Sena giving him crucial votes.

That we have not been able to cleanse India’s body politic of communalism is my biggest worry because it is coming in the way of normalizing relations with Islamabad. The fear of the maulvi in Pakistan and the RSS in India is still dominating politics in the two countries. Governments on both sides appear to be too afraid of them to take bold steps towards rapprochement.

Seeing 300,000 to 400,000 people assembling at the Wagah border on the night of August 14-15 was a heartening experience.

I felt all the more elated because we were only 12 persons when the first candle was lighted on the iron gates between India and Pakistan a decade ago. The sneering remark at that time was that the mombattiwalas were foolish to believe that their endeavour would bring people from both sides nearer.

Today, people-to-people contact has come to be the only mantra, which even the diehard on both sides see working. Thousands of Indians have visited Pakistan and thousands of Pakistanis have visited India. There has never been such an emotional upsurge as there is now.

Had the two governments allowed people-to-people contact to expand by liberalizing visa facilities and lessening police surveillance the limited atmosphere of goodwill would have spread all over.

Unfortunately, both Delhi and Islamabad have begun dragging their feet. Imtiaz Ahmed, a top Pakistani journalist, was not given a visa to join us at the border. Nor was the famous Shoba Mudgil to sing in Pakistan. Ministers on both sides are speaking out of turn.

I do not know what can be done about Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed who said the other day at a seminar in Lahore that he would prefer to go to India in a tank. He and persons like him are the core problem.

The writer is a free lance columnist based in New Delhi.

WITH the US enjoying overwhelming superiority in military strength, as well as technology, the neocons in the Bush administration are wary of any challenge to America’s pre-eminence. Since 1992, strategic analysts in Washington have talked about the new American century, declaring that the US must maintain its military edge, and dominate the world in the 21st century.

The events of 9/11 have strengthened the hands of those who remain committed to perpetuating US hegemony. As such, the game of identifying from where the next challenge to US domination might come goes on among think tanks and military planners.

Taking into account the remarkably fast pace at which China has developed over the last 25 years, and looking at its size and population, it is no wonder that many observers believe that China is the most likely rival with which the US will have to contend. Indeed, even senior members of the Bush administration, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have sounded a note of alarm over China’s rising defence expenditure. The defence agreements recently concluded with India by Washington, which considers the South Asian giant as its strategic partner, also appear to be based on the assumption that China may eventually confront the US.

The expression “cold war” was coined to describe the global rivalry between the US and the Soviet Union after the Second World War that ended with Moscow’s defeat in 1989, following its failure to occupy Afghanistan. The two superpowers competed for world hegemony, at the head of groups of capitalist and socialist countries, so that the contest was partly ideological, and partly imperial. Earlier, the rise of Japan in Asia had also appeared a challenge to the US — one which ended after the first use of nuclear weapons compelled the Japanese surrender.

In anticipating rivalry between the US and China during the present century, observers appear to be taking a superficial view, of the situation, not realizing that the world of today is totally different from what it was on the eve of the Second World War. China itself has no global ambitions, and is totally committed to the task of developing its economy, for which it requires a peaceful and stable world order over the next half century.

US preoccupation with the containment of China, for which it supports Taiwan and is building up a string of alliances, appears to be a case of conjuring up a threat to maintain its military superiority. It may be recalled that when President Bush started his first term, China was described as a “strategic competitor” rather than the “strategic partner” it had become during the Clinton presidency. China had remonstrated mildly when in May 2001 Bush announced his project of Ballistic Missile Defence, aimed ostensibly at “rogue” states, but designed clearly to acquire the capability to attack any power considered hostile, without fear of reprisal.

The 9/11 attacks on the US saw China join in the war on terrorism, and changed US perceptions. President Bush realized, as his predecessors had done, that China was preoccupied with economic modernization, and was anxious to maintain its close engagement with the US and other western countries for mutually beneficial interaction. He welcomed the constructive role China played in promoting a peaceful dialogue on North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, with the shared objective of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula.

Though China was critical of the attack on Iraq, its attitude arose out of a desire to strengthen the role of the UN in maintaining world peace. Its opposition to hegemonic policies arose out of its adherence to the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, whose 50th anniversary was marked in Beijing in 2004, with two former US secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger and George Schulz participating.

Unlike the previous challengers of US hegemony, Japan and the Soviet Union, which were expansionist and engaged in an arms race with Washington, China is totally focused on developing its economy, and stresses the peaceful transfer of technology and investment from developed countries. It has literally taken the capitalist road, so far as its economic policies are concerned, and the western world is participating in this process, both for economic benefits, and with expectations that economic reform would foster pluralistic politics, and eventually replace the single party rule of the Communist Party.

Whatever happens internally in China is its domestic affair, and President Hu Jintao has taken certain actions to strengthen the role of the party, primarily as a unifying force in pursuit of the goals of development. Despite the remarkable growth of the economy since 1978 at the rate of nine per cent per year, the average per capita income has just crossed $1,000.

To achieve the goal of reaching the level of $10,000, which is equal to that found in medium level developed countries, China needs at least three to four decades of uninterrupted growth. Economists estimate that China will become the world’s largest economy in about 15 years, and this would give enough clout, and influence to intimidate the West.

At this point, we need to consider whether an economically powerful China would remain a peaceful and law-abiding member of the world economy, or turn into a predator, and use its power for regional or global hegemony. The signs are that China not only needs a stable and peaceful world order for its development over the next 50 years, but has also shown no inclination to utilize its growing resources for a military build-up.

It is technologically way behind the US and other western powers, and is increasing its defence expenditure very slowly, to achieve a modernization of its armed forces, which is the last of the four modernizations.

When Secretary Rumsfeld talked about China’s military threat in Singapore recently, the regional press pointed out that as against $400 billion that the US was spending ($500 billion including Iraq and Afghanistan), China’s defence expenditure was estimated to be between $50 billion and $90 billion.

China has minimal nuclear deterrence capacity, and is depending mainly on diplomacy to counter offensive moves by the US military hard-liners. It has sought to promote a global coalition against the unipolar world order the US wishes to perpetuate. However, it relies on reasoning and good sense to promote respect for principles, and is at the same time taking firm action against terrorism and extremism.

China has succeeded in allaying the fears of its neighbours in Asia, by presenting its economic growth not as a threat but an opportunity. It has established a friendly equation with the countries of Asean, with Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as with the members of Saarc, which it may join.

It has invested diplomatic capital as well as economic aid in Latin America and Africa so that the great majority of developing countries regard China as a sincere friend, whereas the US and other G-8 countries are seen as exploiters of the poor nations. In the contest for world opinion, China is way ahead of the US or the EU, and seeks changes in the global economic and political order peacefully, and opposes diversion of scarce resources to armaments.

This is the background against which to assess whether a cold war is unavoidable between the US and China. It is the US that has sought to base global politics on power, and has generated an arms race by its resort to force, and military pressure in order to get its way. After having got bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it won quick military ascendancy only to generate unending insurgency, it has to rethink its strategy for the future. In particular, its elite must carefully evaluate whether hegemony based on military might will provide the answers to all the problems the world faces, notably poverty among the majority of mankind, with diseases like Aids decimating millions.

A touch of realism and refinement in US policy-making has come in the second term of George W.Bush who appointed Robert Zoellick, US Trade Representative in his first term, to the number two spot in the state department in place of Richard Armitage. Though Cheney and Rumsfeld continue their tough talk, Zoellick fine tunes the policy towards China to accommodate its key concerns. Taiwan was not encouraged to declare independence, though the US continues to defend it. Similarly, there are other red lines the US must not cross, for instance over Tibet. Missile defence, that mainly targets China, remains a disputed concept that will only militarize space.

We may witness a healthy realization in the US that diplomacy, and peaceful multilateral cooperation will do more for the people of America, as well as the rest of the world than weapons, and threats of pre-emption. Of course the great powers will continue to carry a responsibility for peace and security, and should China, or any other rising power pose a real threat, action could be taken through the UN.

But there is no rationale for the US to prepare for a cold war with China, which has neither the intention nor the ability to threaten peace. It is worth noting that the China and US are working together to oppose the G-4 plan for UN reform. With China backing the US on North Korea and US exports to China catching up with imports, the two leading powers across the Pacific may be cooperating more frequently than confronting each other.

The writer is a former ambassador.