Ukraine challenge in changing global order
Ukraine, a nation of 44 million free citizens, is fighting valiantly to defend its freedom and territorial integrity against Putin’s Russia, a war of choice for all the wrong reasons. Caught between disbelief, despair and compulsions of realpolitik, the world at large seems helpless to help beyond an expression of outrage, even as the Russian armed forces continue to penetrate deep inside Ukraine. Moscow has placed its nuclear forces on alert in an ominous signal of a possibly prolonged confrontation. Meanwhile, the exclusion of Russia from the SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) financial system and additional pledges of military support from the United States and other countries is of some comfort to those who stand on the right side of history.
The escalating armed hostilities in Ukraine underscore the urgency of reforming the UN system so that the aspirations of the ‘numerical majority’ are not suborned by the ‘mighty minority’ through an unconscionable exercise of the veto power.
Putin’s repeated misadventures, starting with Georgia in 2008 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014, represent a brazen infraction of the first principles of the UN charter. Russia’s ambition to redraw the territorial map of Central Europe and to forcibly reconfigure its geopolitics is a case without parallel in the 21st century. The possibility of a sovereign nation losing its identity within days by deployment of brute Russian force, inspired by the fading memories of imperial grandeur and superpower status of the erstwhile Soviet Union, tests the assumptions of a rules-based international order. Just when the world was beginning to limp back to a semblance of normalcy, having suffered the consequences of a devastating pandemic, Russia’s unprovoked assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine has ramifications for global political stability. It raises once again the profoundly important question about the role and relevance of the UN and its instrumentalities as facilitators of global peace. The escalating armed hostilities in Ukraine underscore the urgency of reform of the UN system so that the aspirations of the ‘numerical majority’ are not suborned by the ‘mighty minority’ through an unconscionable exercise of the veto power, seen in the West-sponsored UNSC resolution against Russia. In a bizarre scenario, the aggressor, acting as a judge in its own cause, vetoed the critical resolution in the UNSC to shield itself against a formal international censure for its act of war in Ukraine.
Moscow’s justification for ‘demilitarisation’ of Ukraine as a measure of self-defence, through what it describes as a ‘special military operations’ to prevent the former Soviet republics from moving into the US-led NATO orbit, is an orchestrated case of invented injury to reclaim lost territory and restore the dented Russian prestige following the dismemberment of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Putin’s excursions in Georgia, Crimea, Moldova and Donbas et al, are clearly part of a time-driven strategy, bolstered by the China-Russian entente and facilitated by divisions in Europe to ‘reset the imperial table’ and reclaim Russia’s lost sphere of influence. Revelling in revanchism, Putin longs for Moscow’s old glory and wishes to rewrite the past into the future. The outcome of the war in Ukraine would determine whether or not his wish would be fulfilled.
Even though Putin’s assertion that Ukraine cannot be treated as a state independent of Russia, is a historical absurdity post 1991, his boastful challenge that “any country attempting to interfere will create consequences you have never seen,” has introduced a chilling dimension to a grim situation. An extended war in Europe could de-freeze frozen conflicts in the region and challenge the received wisdom that economic interdependence between nations could alone safeguard international peace. The trajectory of the Ukrainian conflict could re-kindle international interest in nuclear capability as the ultimate deterrent and defence against threats to territorial integrity, in a setback to the nuclear disarmament process.
Through the course of its evolution, international law has been repeatedly called upon to defend not only its efficacy but also its existence as an instrument of world peace. The debates in the UNGA and UNSC on several defining moments bear testimony to its impotence for securing peace in zones of conflict. This reminds us over and over again that we live in a world of power untamed by legal constraints since a ‘power is apt to be insolent’. Will the world find its voice to denounce Putin’s war gambit or yield yet again to validate the ancient Greek wisdom that those who have the odds of power exact as much as they can and the weak yield to such conditions, as they get, is the question.
Resolution of the Ukraine crisis, consistent with its sovereignty and territorial integrity, will indeed test the ‘tenuous balance between power and principle’. It will demonstrate whether the question of justice can be divorced from the equation of power and whether in civilising itself in the use of state power, the world has progressed from force to diplomacy, from diplomacy to law. For the moment, we must accept that the repeated triumph of force over freedom in times of conflict belies the claim that the present global order is designed to secure the triumph of freedom everywhere.
Europe’s darkest hour today must spur the world to recognise the futility of evading hard choices to sustain principles that can ensure a just and humane world order. Indian diplomacy is challenged once again to navigate, as best as possible, the balance between principle and pragmatism. In asserting the inviolability of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations, without explicitly endorsing the censure of Russia in UNSC through abstention, India’s has been a fine balancing act. While reinforcing the sacrosanct principle of the UN charter, India has preserved its strategic neutrality in the service of its overarching and multi-dimensional national interests. Jawaharlal Nehru had cautioned that “no government dare do anything, which in the short or long run is not manifestly to the advantage of the country.” Prime Minister Modi’s implicit message to Putin in his reported telephonic conversation and through India’s statements in the UNSC is to step back from the red line and work towards a negotiated settlement with Ukraine.
Despite the formidable and vastly superior war machine at his command, Putin should know that in today’s wired world, any act of injustice or brutality is bound to have global ramifications. He would know from history, that the cry for freedom is an ‘unending frenzy’ once it seizes popular imagination and that neither the aggressor nor the victim can escape the ravages of war. And Putin, the strategist, cannot ignore history’s profound reminder that a ‘strategic frivolity’ is punished sooner or later. He should know that just as Iraq and Afghanistan have irretrievably diminished America’s credibility as the superpower arbitrator of global peace, the perception of Putin as an aggressor in Ukraine has dented his standing, both in the chanceries of the world and in the collective consciousness of the people as a whole. The emergency resolution condemning Russian invasion of Ukraine, being discussed in the UNGA, is likely to reflect the international mood against Russia.
In the meanwhile, a collective global will to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people fighting for their freedom and dignity, will be the test of civilisational progress anchored in empathy for the oppressed and resistance against injustice.
Views are personal
