India’s unfazed neutral stance on Ukraine crisis amid global heat

New Delhi is witnessing unprecedented diplomatic activity. A flurry of high-level visits a consequence of seismic shifts in geopolitical and geoeconomics paradigm due to the ongoing Ukrainian crisis has two important facets to it. Firstly, this reflects the rising stature and relevance of India in the changing world order and secondly, a Western proclivity to perforce India to take a stand on Ukraine issue.

Pursuing legitimate national interests India has adopted a neutral stance in response to Russia’s brutal conventional war against Ukraine which Moscow vainfully dubbed it as “special military operation”. Advocating diplomacy and dialogue, India abstained from voting resolutions of the West and Russia in UNSC and General Assembly. Successfully evacuating over 22,000 students and nationals of over 20 countries, Indian leadership held direct conversations with Russian President thrice and Ukrainian President twice who enabled creation of humanitarian corridors for evacuation.

Unlike other countries, India unflinchingly maintained its position and even during the virtual meeting of the Quad leaders, India discussed the humanitarian implications of Ukraine developments and emphasised on “the need to return to path of dialogue and diplomacy”.

India’s rock-solid position on Ukraine issue has unsettled the American policy makers and politicians. America construes India’s call for dialogue as siding with Russia. Washington hasn’t taken kindly to India’s abstention from voting and Axios report of a sensitive but unclassified strong worded cable vindicates the same. One of the draft points in the cable referring to the Indian and UAE, states- “continuing to call for dialogue, as you have been calling so in the Security Council, is not a stance of neutrality; it places you in Russia’s camp, the aggressor in the conflict”¹. It instructs the US diplomats to convey this message and carry out conversations with their Indian and UAE counterparts.

While UAE voted to support Ukraine in HRC (Human Rights Council), India abstained from voting against Russia. Despite America’s displeasure with India, it realises the need for partnering with New Delhi to counter China. It is in this context, strategists widely believed that US has lobbied Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Yoshida and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison to hold summit meets and persuade India to recalibrate its position. Deftly, shifting the focus to the Indo-Pacific, India bolstered economic cooperation with both countries and announced to sign an interim free trade agreement with Australia.  Even the virtual summit of Quad leaders might have been an attempt to test waters to gauge India’s position on Ukraine issue.

Though the US has recalled the cable which was sent to US embassies in 50 countries, issuing a “clarification that it didn’t intend such language for clearance but was released in error”, the cable has revealed Washington’s motives. Nonetheless, while US states that it understands India’s predicament, the West upped ante against India when New Delhi accepted Russia’s offer of discounted prices on crude oil.

Wading in, the White House stated, India’s purchase is not violation of the sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine, but Jen Psaki, spokesperson remarked, “But also think where you want to stand when text books are written at this moment of time”². America’s sermons of “right side of history” deplorably exposed its double stance which on pressure from its European allies has exempted ban on Russian oil imports.

For years, America has been using sharp economic measures in its diplomatic tool box. Indeed, to stay out of CAATSA and maintain good will of India-US ties, New Delhi stopped oil purchases from Iran in entirety. Making the best out of this opportunity, China not only availed Iran’s oil but strengthened the relationship with Tehran and sealed a $400 billion strategic agreement for 25 years. A tragic outcome for India besides foregoing the benefits of Iranian crude like 60-day credit, free insurance and shipping has even losing out the strategic Iranian space to Beijing.

Interestingly, a day after Australia expressed understanding of India’s position on Ukraine³, President Biden characterised India’s position as “somewhat shaky”⁴. But a day later, US State Department spokesperson Ned Price said, India is an “essential partner” for the US in the Quad⁵. Biden administration’s incoherent India policy of government playing a good cop and thinktanks and media playing a bad cop are sending conflicting messages.

Notwithstanding the partisan media drumming up criticism against India, following Biden’ remarks US undersecretary Victoria Nuland in a TV interview not keen on falling apart with India clarified, “democracies need to stand together and evolve their position vis-à-vis Russia because the choices Putin has made. Democracies must stand against autocracies like Russia and China”⁶.

In an interrelated globalised world where geoeconomics and geopolitics are intertwined, expectation of complete loyalty of allies and friends by the US would be rather churlish. Resorting to coercive measures and rude protestations would severely undermine the binding trust factor of the relations. US Deputy NSA Daleep Singh’s visit has precisely brought the countries to such an edge, especially in terms of spooking the public reaction. Singh who has been architect of America’s economic sanctions against Russia bluntly said, “if China breaches LAC again, Russia will not come running to India’s defence”⁷. This harsh warning coming from a country which claims to be friend of India has clearly rattled the common folks and diplomats alike.

India’s former envoy to UN tweeted, “So this is our friend. This is not language of diplomacy. This is the language of coercion. Somebody tell this young man that punitive unilateral economic measures are a breach of customary international law”. Ironically even some of the official American cables disparagingly, refer to India as a client state of Russia. Which it isn’t. On the contrary, India is not part of any alliance system. She is just objectively pursuing her own national interests.

India’s decisive stance in face of increased pressure from the US and European countries has unwittingly revealed their imperialistic tendencies. The post-cold war unilateralism of the US is now severely contested by countries yearning for a multipolar world. Rebuking the hypocrisy and high moral ground of the West that reeks of solipsism, India is resisting the global smackdown to blunt it independent stand and toe its line.

Similarly, “US has no objection to India buying Russian oil provided it buys it at discount, without significantly increasing from previous years” and warning of “great risk”⁸ if it significantly increases oil imports from Russia has irked Indian officials. At a time when crude prices are soaring through the roof, expecting a country like India which imports 80% of the oil to unconditionally surrender to the whims of the America might be bit too rich. That too at a time when European countries flatly refused to support a ban on oil imports from Russia.

Interestingly, while sanctimonious American ministers lecture India of the right side of history, in response to Putin’s decree of oil payments in rubles to non-friendly countries, Germany and Italy are reported to have sought compromise with Putin on ruble gas payments⁹. By some accounts both countries have agreed to open accounts at Gazprom Bank. Indeed, Deputy Secretary of Russian Security Council Michel Popov confirmed that US has over past one week increased imports of Russian oil by 43% reaching 100,000 barrels per day. It further added, “Besides, Washington allowed its companies to import mineral fertiliser from Russia, listing it as essential goods”¹⁰.

In response to a Russian proposal of India assessing the use of Russia’s SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages), SWIFT styled banking system for bilateral payments, American commerce secretary Gina Raimondo once again invoked the trope of “right side of history” and urged India to “stand with United States and dozens of other countries standing up for freedom, democracy and sovereignty with Ukrainian people and aiding and funding and fuelling and aiding President Putin’s war”. Even Australian Trade Minister Don Tehan appealed India to “ensure that rules-based approach continues”¹¹.

For all the hue and cry, India has thus far obtained 13 million barrels of Russian crude, wherein the country’s daily crude consumption is 5 million barrels. India acquires its major oil supplies from the Middle East, and US is the fourth largest oil supplier making up for 8% (tipped to increase to 11% this year)¹¹ and Russia accounts for less than 1%.  For all the severe backlash against India, by one account US and allies still continue to buy $600 million crude from Russia.

From March 15^th, Indian diplomatic climate has heated up with a panoply of diplomatic visits which included- Prime Minister of Japan Fumio Kishida, Foreign ministers of Oman Sayyid Basr Al Basundi, Austrian foreign minister Alexander Schallenberg, Greece foreign minister Nikos Dendias, Mexican foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard Casaubon, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, UK Secretary of state for foreign affairs, Elizabeth Truss, US Deputy NSA, Daleep Singh, US undersecretary Victoria Nuland, the Netherlands Prime Minister advisor Geoffrey Van Leeuwan, German foreign & security adviser to Chancellor Jens Plotner.

All these visits fell under three broad categories of -comprehensive review of bilateral ties with economic cooperation, investments as a principal area of focus, an appeal to recalibrate India’s stance towards Ukrainian issue and thirdly, an implicit warning to side in their efforts to isolate Russia.

Pertinently all these aspects invariably bespeak of India’s raising global stature as a responsible power committed to an international rules-based order. Assiduously adopting an uncompromised stand in working towards her national interests, India has embraced strategic autonomy. Galwan incident and absence of a squeak of protest from any country has strengthened New Delhi’s resolve to firmly adopt an independent foreign policy. New Delhi’s assertive approach has unnerved the West which is now realising the futility of overplaying its hand.

Making no secret of India’s disapproval of West’s arm-twisting tactics, EAM Jaishankar in response to India’s decision to buy Russian oil, hit out at what he called “campaign against India”. At the inauguration of India-UK Strategic Futures Forum along with UK Secretary Elizabeth Truss said “I was reading a report that in the month of March Europe has bought 15% more oil and gas from Russia than it did the month before. If you look at the major buyers of oil and gas from Russia, you will find most of them are from Europe”¹².

Defending India’s position he added, “when oil prices go up it is natural for countries to go out into the market and look for what are the good deals for their people. I am pretty sure if we wait two or three months, and actually look at who are the big buyers of Russian gas and oil, I suspect the list will not be different from what it used to be, and I suspect we won’t be on the top 10 on that list.”¹³

The repercussions of the interstate wars in modern times coupled with unilateral economic sanctions are extending beyond boundaries. The consequences are impacting the neutral bystanders. The inept responses to military conflicts and brinkmanship are bound to trigger hostilities and seed enmities between nations. In a multipolar world, to avoid the spill over of conflicts, the only plausible solution seems to be diplomacy and dialogue. Recovering from pandemic, the world can no longer afford a confrontational attitude. The stakeholders must realise this and initiate conversations.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

@