The road to Ukraine’s peace passes through Delhi

about 40 days ago, Russia launches full-scale military offensive on Ukraine In contravention of international law and its security assurances under the Budapest Memorandum, 1994. And, there is no winner in sight. Despite peace talks held on March 29 in Istanbul (Turkey), direct talks between the conflicting parties have failed to make much progress: an armistice has not yet been achieved, and Russian attacks on the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine continue. As a result, Ukraine has suffered 3,455 civilian casualties (1,417 killed and 2,038 wounded) while more than four million people have fled in search of safety, security and aid.

Similarly, except Casualties on the Russian sidefinancial and economic sanctions imposed by The European Union and the G7 have affected the Russian economy, Despite artificial measures to boost the ruble, the economy is tanking, annual inflation has reached 15.6%, the Russian Central Bank’s foreign exchange reserves are frozen and it cannot access financing and loans from multilateral institutions. Globally, this war is disrupting supply chains and causing fuel and food prices to rise. This begs the question – if there has been no victory as a result of this unnecessary war, why have the talks failed to end it?

positions vs interests

Previous negotiations in the form of video conferencing or peace talks (held in Belarus and Turkey) have failed to make much progress because the parties are negotiating ‘situations’ rather than ‘interests’. A ‘status’ is a superficial statement of what a party wants; For example, Russia demands that Ukraine recognize the separatist republics of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states. Whereas, ‘interest’ is the underlying reason behind those terms; For example, why is Russia focusing on the independence of these separatist regions? Therefore, mediation as a conflict resolution tool can assist the parties in identifying these hidden ‘interests’ and facilitate them to work towards creating a solution that each party will value – A Europe of common security and prosperity where sovereignty of all nations (Ukraine, Russia and the West) is guaranteed.

Mediation (or assisted negotiation) is a conflict resolution tool facilitated by a neutral third party. Depending on the choice of the parties, this may be facilitation or evaluation and may be conducted in joint sessions or caucuses (ie, private meetings). Additionally, its focus on collaborative bargaining that produces a win-win result (as opposed to contentious proceedings such as arbitration or litigation that result in a win-loss result) makes it ready to handle all types of conflict: from workplace disputes. From Broken Contracts to International Conflict International arbitration follows this process of “assisting two or more competing parties to find a solution without resorting to force”. Because of its immense potential, the Charter of the United Nations under Article 33 recognizes the promise of international arbitration for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

broker peace

Throughout history, individuals, countries and organizations (such as the International Committee of the Red Cross) have acted as third parties and made peace between conflicting countries. International mediation has been used to resolve conflicts for hundreds of years, described by theorists as a power brokering or political problem-solving process. The most famous example is that of US President Jimmy Carter who mediated peace between Israel and Egypt (known as the Camp David Accords of 1978) which has resulted in 44 years of peace.

Scholarship on neuroscience proves that emotions have a significant effect on cognitive processes (Kraegel & Labar 2016). If feelings are running high between the conflicting parties, there is a high chance that one or both of the parties may reactivate (ie acting without thinking). Ambrose Byers wrote: “Speak up when you’re angry and you’ll make the best speech you’ll ever regret.” This is where a neutral third party can act as a ‘middleman’ (known as shuttle diplomacy) to gather more information and help the parties identify their hidden interests. This helps ensure that the conflicting parties keep their eye on the prize. More importantly, arbitration closure between the parties helps limit or reduce reactive devaluation – a cognitive barrier where disputers wrongly treat conflict as a zero-sum game. As a result, even the value of an actual offer is automatically reduced in the eyes of the receiver coming directly from an opponent. Therefore, subject to the context and consent of the parties, the mediator can either play a passive role to facilitate communication or play a more active role and have a greater influence on the content of the discussion and the final solution.

focus on priority

Certainly, international arbitration has much to offer. But is it the right choice in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?

Despite bilateral peace talks, Russian airstrikes on cities in Ukraine continue, resulting in civilian casualties. The Voice Against Dictatorship would like to convict Russian President Vladimir Putin of violating the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. It may appear that the option of arbitration legitimizes past violations of international law and civilian killings. Or is it the equivalent of trade justice for the peace? The answer is a bit more complicated. Mediation is a tool that avoids ‘reactivation’. More importantly, it helps to focus on the number one priority, that is, the security of the Ukrainian people through a complete ceasefire. In addition, a mediator’s skill of strategic empathy (also a tool of state craft) would further help Mr. Putin understand the underlying drivers and constraints.

Furthermore, scholars such as Zartman (1981) have argued that power parity between the disputing parties is critical to the success of international arbitration. In fact, a major power imbalance exists between Russia and Ukraine – Russia commands the world’s second most powerful army, while Ukraine, a country of about 44 million people, pinky promises (or security assurances) made by Russia in Budapest. depended on. memorandum. However, US President Joe Biden’s strategy of making US intelligence publicly accessible (about Russia’s intention to invade Ukraine under false pretenses), equips Ukraine with a ‘power of solidarity’ that is balanced or The scale tipped in its favor. As a result, Russia is besieged, Ukraine has world solidarity, Germany abandons its pacifism and takes a hard line against Russia by stalling the Nord Stream 2 project, and Finland and Sweden are being pushed closer to NATO membership. Thus, the option of arbitration is the only way left for Russia to try and escape the sanctions that cripple its economy.

For the West, proceeding with mediation presents itself as an opportunity to build a Europe of common security, equal prosperity and peace. Simply put, it may have been a starting point for Russia’s inclusion in Europe’s security architecture (as it did with East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989) – an opportunity that had followed the Soviet Union in 1991. was abandoned after dissolution. ,

India fits the bill

Mediation between Russia and Ukraine is certainly possible because there is a willingness to negotiate. But the approval of the concerned parties will be important for this to be started. Much depends on the identity of the intermediary. Recent diplomatic visits to India by the US Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economics, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Commonwealth and Development and Women and Equality, and the Russian Foreign Minister show what the world expects from India. To take a more active role in the Ukrainian crisis.

This is a golden opportunity for India to establish itself as a global power. More importantly, mediating in the dispute is in India’s long-term interest in countering the Chinese threat – especially with the growing “no borders” partnership between Russia and China. Furthermore, with the rise of China and its belligerence, its relations with the West have soured. As a result, the US and its allies need India as a strategic partner to balance China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific; This is the reason why India is now a member of the Quad.

For now, India is right in not taking sides. Its relations with the then Soviet Union were forged against China to balance it (as the US was cohabiting with China). But Russia is now more dependent on China due to Ukraine’s invasion and Western sanctions. Therefore, if India wants the best of both worlds, it has to come forward and live up to its claim of becoming a ‘Vishwa-Guru’ (or world leader).

Utkarsh Singh teaches Law at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad. Faizan Mustafa is the Vice Chancellor of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad.