As Xi, Zelenskyy make phone call, how New Delhi should mediate in peace talks

Now that the Ukraine War is an inside page news on odd days, there is a craving for permanent peace before it begins occupying the front page for destruction it continues to wreck. The hat is doing the rounds as to who would make the best mediator from among the few available. The temptation among many in the Indian strategic community is that New Delhi should play the role. Their arguments sound hollow in the face of ground realities. Certainly, their proposal does not stem from India chairing the G-20 and the SCO this year. It has more to do with their perception that China was seeking to steal the thunder with President Xi Jinping’s peace proposals, and the two warring nations readily accepting as a possible point to begin peace negotiations.  This was followed by leaders like French President Emmanuel Macron and his Brazilian counterpart Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva making a beeline to Beijing, with a request for Xi to play the peace-maker. Events and non-events of the past weeks have proved their reasons and reasoning wrong. There is no visible movement after Xi’s initial proposal which he discussed with Russia’s Putin in person and which Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky welcomed very enthusiastically in the early days. If the initiative has not moved an inch since, the reasons are not far to seek. These are also the reasons why India should tread carefully where there are no angels to wave the white flag. Incidentally, in what is seen as the first Xi-Zelensky telephone conversation since the war began, there does not seem to be any reference to Russia at all. The Chinese read-out of the telephone conversation hence does not mention what should be Russia’s prime concerns, either. Without them, any peace initiative by any nation or institution like the UN is sure to fail in the first rung. Partial negotiation There was a time not long after the commencement of the war, Russia and Ukraine sat down for the talks. The situation became untenable after the West began supplying weapons to Ukraine – which was fair enough up to a point, yet. But not when both Ukraine and its western backers maintained stony silence on Russia’s one single demand – for not granting NATO membership to Ukraine, thus bringing the western military alliance to Russia’s door-step. It would have taken Europe back to the forgettable Cold War era, which Western Europe and its American backers did not and does not want to acknowledge. Today, an economically weaker Russia (compared to the early years of the Soviet Union) cannot afford tit-for-tat detente. It needs peace or a war that could ensure peace (but on its terms?) Therein also lays the hitch for peace-building and for a prospective peace-maker. Over the past years of the war, the US-led West has sanctioned Russia and Russian leadership, then threw out Russia from international bank network SWIFT and the West-backed International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued an arrest warrant against Putin, for alleged ‘war crimes’. All of them are a product not only of a western perspective but they are also a product of the West’s stranglehold of the international systems and organisations. Russia is not going to agree to a partial negotiation, with Ukraine alone on the other side of the table. It will want either the West to be represented at the table, or someone who can guarantee good behaviour by the West, too. There is no one to do so, other than possibly the US. Even here there are suspicions if Washington could convince West European nations like France, Germany and others on agenda-points where it has struck a deal with Moscow.  Multilateralism rules in the post-Cold War world.  India, which is one such power that grew out of the ashes of the Cold War, knows it better. Hence, without specific commitments from the US and its allies, New Delhi or any other peace-maker could make no progress whatsoever. Russia will not come to the negotiations table without such a promise.  Rather, if there are such commitments from the West, then Russia and Ukraine may not even require a third-party facilitator or negotiator, so to say. UN as peace-broker It is in this context that the world, starting with prospective peace-makers like India and/or China, has to look at the UN’s role in the aftermath of the Ukraine War. In the past, UN secretary-general’s had played peace-brokers between warring nations. Or, they at least identified nations and/or individuals who could play that role – and left it at that. In specific cases, the UN system may have also extended minimum facilitation and support for the identified peace-maker who is acknowledged by the two adversaries. It is not any more like that. Post-Cold War, especially over the Ukraine War, the UN under secretary-general António Guterres has been acting like another NATO member, or an US ally, or both. His condemnation of Russia and Putin has been coming in faster than those from individual western nations, or at times even Ukraine. His criticism too is harsher than those of others on most occasions. This has made the UN untenable as a global peace-facilitator in this particular case. Thankfully, neither Russia, nor China, or any of their allies has made an issue of secretary-general Guterres’ indefensible conduct in the matter. From the larger perspective of Global South, such behaviour on the part of the global referee that the secretary-general’s office is, may have hastened the need for fast-tracking UN reforms. However, this may not be the context in which they would want to flag their larger concerns over the impartiality of the UN scheme and systems, including such institutions as the IMF and World Bank, International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court. Whenever that issue erupts, India as the marked leader of Global South will be asked to take a sterner position than at present.    The more recent Indian Security Council statement by Permanent Representative Ruchira Kamboj, on the lines of predecessor T S Tirumurti and her own earlier speeches, calling the UN system ‘anachronistic’, has to be seen also in this context. New initiative India can play Peace Dove in the Ukraine War, if it can talk to the US ally straight on the face over Russia’s three concerns. It could only strain bilateral relations, and this could extend to India’s ties with the EU. This issue needs to be addressed but better the initiative and pressure comes from within the West. Having moved closer to the midpoint, French President Macron might be better-placed to talk to his western allies, in NATO especially, starting with the USA. Yet, Russia and Putin may not trust France or any other western power enough as it trusts India and/or China. India and France have been silent partners in global affairs – it goes beyond Mirage and Rafale fighter deals – and they may make a better combo than a France-China team. A three-party team may be avoided as the mutual suspicions about intentions and motives of India and China could spoil the broth, if it cooks to that point. Anyway, time is running out for peace-makers. India has its own focus on the successful conclusion of its G-20 chairmanship than even that of SCO. It expects US President Joe Biden to attend the G-20 summit in September. It would also be hoping for Putin’s presence and also Xi and other G-20 leaders. Right now, it cannot do, or is seen as doing something that can upset this apple-cart. As coincidence would have it, at the end of India’s G-20 chairmanship, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be facing a crucial parliamentary election for possible re-election for a third successive term. The US will be stepping into yet another year of presidential polls. Modi cannot afford to lose out on his global initiative. Having talked and acted tough on Russia and the Ukraine War over the past year and more, Biden cannot be seen as a weakening when he is said to be keen on re-election.   This means the long drawn-out peace dove route for India may have to be either fast-tracked or left out. The real window for India will be between the conclusion of the G-20 summit and the commencement of the New Year, when the national mood would have set in to face the next Lok Sabha polls. Maybe, India should be doing its silent work behind the scenes just now, to be taken up more seriously and relatively openly after the September summit. But then, in the summit itself, western leaders, starting with Joe Biden might have vitiated the atmosphere, with or without Putin’s presence that New Delhi may have to pick up the pieces one by one and build a new peace-plank. For which, time is of essence from every angle and perspective – and time is what an election-bound India and PM Modi may not have on hand! The writer is a Chennai-based policy analyst & political commentator. Views are personal.   Read all the  Latest News ,  Trending News ,  Cricket News ,  Bollywood News , India News  and  Entertainment News  here. Follow us on  Facebook ,  Twitter  and  Instagram .