Ukraine war: Why India makes an ideal peacemaker
Delhi
should seize the opportunity to bring an end to the conflict, a move
which will burnish its credentials for a permanent place in the United
Nations Security Council
Published by Kishore Mahbubani
Straits Times, 23 April 2022
"An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would lead to a world of the blind and toothless."
Mahatma
Gandhi may not have said this literally but it is widely attributed to
him because in 1947, his biographer Louis Fischer used it to describe
his philosophy. Seventy-five years have passed since. Yet, humanity
hasn't become wiser.
A major war has broken out in Ukraine. The big question now is who could play an effective role as a peacemaker.
The answer is clear. The country with the best opportunity to bring peace to Ukraine is the motherland of Mahatma Gandhi: India.
Why India? No other major country enjoys simultaneous trust today in the two key capitals: Washington and Moscow.
But
why should India do it? It could, as I shall explain further down,
fast-track India's assumption of a permanent seat in the UN Security
Council (UNSC).
Peace
in Ukraine will not be easy. Russia has been deeply wounded, physically
and psychologically, by the failure of its military operations in
Ukraine. It will not accept a settlement seen as a defeat for it. Hence,
it may need to deliver a counter-punch to demonstrate its continuing
military credibility.
As
an Asian, I have long believed that the Europeans, representing the
more advanced and developed societies, would also be geopolitically
wiser. Instead, they are playing with fire. They are beginning to treat
Russia as a toothless tiger, imposing sanctions and offering no
compromises. This is unwise. Russia is not toothless. It has sharp
nuclear teeth. Hence, if pushed into a corner with no escape, Russia's
most logical and natural counterstrike would be to unleash some nuclear
weapons.
One
man who knows Russia well is Ambassador Bill Burns, the current
director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), who also served as
the US Ambassador to Moscow from 2005 to 2008. Mr Burns said in 2008 to
then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that "Ukrainian entry into Nato
is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just
President Vladimir Putin). In more than 2½ years of conversations with
key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the
Kremlin to Putin's sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone
who views Ukraine in Nato as anything other than a direct challenge to
Russian interests".
More
recently, on April 14, he warned that "given the setbacks they've faced
so far militarily, none of us can take lightly the threat posed by a
potential resort to tactical nuclear weapons or low-yield nuclear
weapons.
US
President John F. Kennedy famously warned over 60 years ago: "Nuclear
powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a
choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war."
Why a compromise is needed
This
is why some voices in Washington have been advocating a realistic
compromise. In a New York Times essay on April 11, Georgetown University
Professor Charles Kupchan argues the following: "What, then, is the
path forward? The war in Ukraine now confronts the United States with
the need to tilt back toward the practice of realpolitik."
His
main message is clear: Yes, condemn Russia. However, he also adds: "A
more realist world is back, requiring America's idealist ambitions yield
more regularly to inescapable strategic realities." In short, the West
should also compromise.
There
are other powerful reasons for searching for compromise in Ukraine.
Firstly, the great global economic shutdown, accompanied by a surge in
inflation, has inevitably unleashed populist forces in the West.
France's President Emmanuel Macron is fighting for his political life.
Former US president Donald Trump remains alive and well, politically in
the US. It would be hugely ironic if Mr Putin's invasion of Ukraine
catalysed a new surge of populism in the West.
Secondly,
in the developing world, in Africa, Asia and Latin America, millions
are also suffering from the Ukraine war. The UN Secretary-General
Antonio Guterres has said that "the war has launched a silent assault on
the developing world. This crisis could throw up to 1.7 billion people -
over one-fifth of humanity - into poverty, destitution and hunger on a
scale not seen in decades".
The West has so far shown a callous indifference to the fate of these poor people.
This
is why most developing countries would cheer an effort by India to
bring Ukraine to peace. It would bring some badly needed relief if it
calmed global economic turbulence.
Similarly, the Europeans, if they were astute, should welcome a serious peace effort.
Peace
will not be easy. However, the outlines of compromise were offered by
Dr Henry Kissinger in a Washington Post article in 2014. Essentially
they can be summarised in three points :
1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.
2. Ukraine should not join Nato.
3.
Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the
expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a
policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country.
Eight
years have passed since Dr Kissinger proposed this formula. A lot has
changed. Russia has been humiliated militarily. The Ukrainians are
feeling triumphant. So too are many Europeans. This isn't the right brew
for finding an acceptable compromise.
Why India?
Yet,
precisely because it is so difficult, India should make an effort to
find a peaceful compromise. If it fails, no one will blame it. They will
still admire India for trying a mission impossible.
Yet,
if it succeeds in finding a viable compromise (or even a durable
ceasefire), the whole world will acclaim India and acknowledge that the
world desperately needs a strong new independent pole to balance the
three existing powers in Washington, Beijing and Moscow. They will also
recognise that the world would be better off if India is immediately
made a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
UNSC
reform is difficult. I know. I have written a book, The Great
Convergence, which describes the complex difficulties. Yet, I also know
that if two key rival capitals, Washington and Moscow, were to jointly
co-sponsor a resolution in the UN General Assembly (UNGA) making India
the sixth permanent member of the UNSC, it would receive overwhelming
support, especially after Delhi has secured some kind of compromise in
Ukraine.
Yes,
there will be some resistance from some countries in Asia, Africa and
Latin America. Yet, most of them will not vote against India. Indeed,
many would be happy to do so if India delivers some kind of peace in
Ukraine.
There
is one undeniable fact. One of the greatest anomalies about our current
world order is that the third most powerful country in the world (after
the US and China) doesn't have a permanent seat at the UNSC. Indeed,
Martin Wolf of the Financial Times wrote in 2009 that "within a decade a
world in which the UK is on the United Nations Security Council and
India is not will seem beyond laughable".
It's
true that some permanent members could veto India's application. Yet,
both the United Kingdom and France are probably aware that a UNSC with
India as a permanent member would be a far more credible council. And
China would be better off with a UNSC which is less dominated by the
West.
Hence,
a resolution co-sponsored by the US and Russia (especially after some
kind of settlement in Ukraine) would definitely succeed in making India a
permanent member of the UNSC. A new window of opportunity has opened
for India. It should seize it.
Kishore
Mahbubani, a veteran diplomat, is a distinguished fellow at the Asia
Research Institute at the National University of Singapore and the
author of several books.