01-27-2006, 11:13 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pipeline or pipedream? : Imtiaz Gul </b>
Fridaytimes.com
US pressure on Pakistan and India to get out of the gas pipeline deal with Iran is now becoming overt and pronouncedÂ
 Â
On the face of it, the Jan 23-24 technical-level talks between Iran and Pakistan on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline went well.Pakistani Petroleum Minister Amanullah Khan Jadoon and his Iranian counterpart Nejad Hossenian led their respective delegations at the two-day Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting and agreed on a trilateral ministerial meeting â also involving the Indian petroleum minister â on the project in April. The Iran-Pakistan JWG will also meet in March before the trilateral talks.
âThe petroleum ministers of Iran, Pakistan and India will meet in Tehran in April for further discussions on the project,â said a joint statement at the end of the fifth JWG meeting on the proposed 2,670-kilometre long gas pipeline, worth over 4.5 billion dollars.
During the talks, both sides discussed the project structure, framework agreement, principles of gas pricing mechanism, feasibility study and gas sales and purchase agreement, with Pakistan still pursuing a two-track policy, i.e., either with or without India. The sans-India agreement is being pursued because until the April meeting takes place, it will not be clear whether India is on board or not.
For his part, the Indian petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar continues to say the project is on tracks. However, no less a person than the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh cast suspicion on the feasibility of the project after he signed a nuclear deal with the United States in April 2005. He was seen to have done so largely under US pressure.
However, if India does remain a part of the deal, the three parties would sign a Tripartite Framework Agreement in Tehran in April after their respective sub-technical groups negotiate the technical issues of the project.
Despite heavy odds looming over his country, Nejad Hossenian, the Deputy Petroleum Minister of Iran, sounded optimistic and said his country would sell gas to buyer countries in accordance with the international market rates. Hossenian also said Iran would not abandon the project even if the US or the United Nations slapped sanctions on Iran.
However, the Iranian ministerâs resolve and optimism, notwithstanding, certain developments in Washington as well as here have removed whatever little doubts existed earlier about the Bush administrationâs opposition to the project.
While in New York, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz made it clear that Pakistan would decide about the project after the nuclear issue of Iran was solved. (Interestingly, Secretary Petroleum and Natural Resources, Ahmad Waqar, told reporters in Islamabad on Jan 24 that he was unaware of Azizâs New York statement.)
Dr Salman Shah, Azizâs finance advisor, also added to the doubts by telling the media in Karachi that âbeing a member of the United Nations, Pakistan shall have to abandon the gas pipeline project if Iran was sanctioned.â
What is more damning compared to these statements flowing from the Pakistani side, however, is what US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said before leaving Islamabad on Jan 22. âWe respect both India and Pakistanâs quest for new sources of energy but I do not think this project [IPI] should be pursued,â Burns told a private TV channel.
Burns called the project unfeasible and said that India and Pakistan should look for a third country. He even named some central Asian republics as a source of cheap energy. âIran is adverse to the United States, is against Israel, and is pursuing nuclear weapons,â he said.
Meanwhile, on the nuclear deal with India, he said it was âuniqueâ and the United States could not offer a similar deal to Pakistan. âWe offered the unique deal to India because it did not proliferate,â Burns said when asked as to why Pakistan, which too needs alternative sources of energy, is being discriminated against.
Although Ms Tasneem Aslam, the foreign office spokesperson, brushed aside Burnâs statement saying planning for its energy requirements is Pakistanâs sovereign right and buckling under foreign pressure on this count is out of the question, yet, only a day before the Iranian delegation arrived in Islamabad, Nicholas Burns managed to inject uncertainty into the talks by venting his countryâs opposition to the IPI project.
Despite Burnâs categorical statement, Pakistani officials say the project stays on course, come what may. The reality may be different and the situation will become clearer come April
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fridaytimes.com
US pressure on Pakistan and India to get out of the gas pipeline deal with Iran is now becoming overt and pronouncedÂ
 Â
On the face of it, the Jan 23-24 technical-level talks between Iran and Pakistan on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline went well.Pakistani Petroleum Minister Amanullah Khan Jadoon and his Iranian counterpart Nejad Hossenian led their respective delegations at the two-day Joint Working Group (JWG) meeting and agreed on a trilateral ministerial meeting â also involving the Indian petroleum minister â on the project in April. The Iran-Pakistan JWG will also meet in March before the trilateral talks.
âThe petroleum ministers of Iran, Pakistan and India will meet in Tehran in April for further discussions on the project,â said a joint statement at the end of the fifth JWG meeting on the proposed 2,670-kilometre long gas pipeline, worth over 4.5 billion dollars.
During the talks, both sides discussed the project structure, framework agreement, principles of gas pricing mechanism, feasibility study and gas sales and purchase agreement, with Pakistan still pursuing a two-track policy, i.e., either with or without India. The sans-India agreement is being pursued because until the April meeting takes place, it will not be clear whether India is on board or not.
For his part, the Indian petroleum minister Mani Shankar Aiyar continues to say the project is on tracks. However, no less a person than the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh cast suspicion on the feasibility of the project after he signed a nuclear deal with the United States in April 2005. He was seen to have done so largely under US pressure.
However, if India does remain a part of the deal, the three parties would sign a Tripartite Framework Agreement in Tehran in April after their respective sub-technical groups negotiate the technical issues of the project.
Despite heavy odds looming over his country, Nejad Hossenian, the Deputy Petroleum Minister of Iran, sounded optimistic and said his country would sell gas to buyer countries in accordance with the international market rates. Hossenian also said Iran would not abandon the project even if the US or the United Nations slapped sanctions on Iran.
However, the Iranian ministerâs resolve and optimism, notwithstanding, certain developments in Washington as well as here have removed whatever little doubts existed earlier about the Bush administrationâs opposition to the project.
While in New York, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz made it clear that Pakistan would decide about the project after the nuclear issue of Iran was solved. (Interestingly, Secretary Petroleum and Natural Resources, Ahmad Waqar, told reporters in Islamabad on Jan 24 that he was unaware of Azizâs New York statement.)
Dr Salman Shah, Azizâs finance advisor, also added to the doubts by telling the media in Karachi that âbeing a member of the United Nations, Pakistan shall have to abandon the gas pipeline project if Iran was sanctioned.â
What is more damning compared to these statements flowing from the Pakistani side, however, is what US Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said before leaving Islamabad on Jan 22. âWe respect both India and Pakistanâs quest for new sources of energy but I do not think this project [IPI] should be pursued,â Burns told a private TV channel.
Burns called the project unfeasible and said that India and Pakistan should look for a third country. He even named some central Asian republics as a source of cheap energy. âIran is adverse to the United States, is against Israel, and is pursuing nuclear weapons,â he said.
Meanwhile, on the nuclear deal with India, he said it was âuniqueâ and the United States could not offer a similar deal to Pakistan. âWe offered the unique deal to India because it did not proliferate,â Burns said when asked as to why Pakistan, which too needs alternative sources of energy, is being discriminated against.
Although Ms Tasneem Aslam, the foreign office spokesperson, brushed aside Burnâs statement saying planning for its energy requirements is Pakistanâs sovereign right and buckling under foreign pressure on this count is out of the question, yet, only a day before the Iranian delegation arrived in Islamabad, Nicholas Burns managed to inject uncertainty into the talks by venting his countryâs opposition to the IPI project.
Despite Burnâs categorical statement, Pakistani officials say the project stays on course, come what may. The reality may be different and the situation will become clearer come April
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->