The words of Bandung to live again in Bali and Delhi

Three back-to-back summits over the past fortnight have helped settle the dust as to who stands behind the Russian invasion of Ukraine: BRICS (23-24 June), followed by the G-7 summit (26 June and 27 June), and then the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Madrid (29 June). Prime Minister Narendra Modi virtually attended the BRICS summit, and then Germany for the G-7 outreach among the seven “most industrialized countries” and special invitees this year, namely Argentina, Indonesia, India, Senegal and South Africa. traveled. India was not a part of the NATO summit, which included an outreach to the Indo-Pacific Treaty allies of the United States, i.e. Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

To understand what they represent for the future global world order, it is necessary to study the messages sent by each of these groups against the background of the situation in Ukraine. Some of the impact will become apparent this week as India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar attends the foreign ministers’ meeting of the G-20, the “world’s largest economy”, in Bali (July 7-8) and over the next few days. The month, when Indonesia hosts the G-20 summit in November and India assumes the G-20 presidency in December. More importantly, how can India, which has so far done a careful balancing act between all groups, build a movement out of this moment of deep polarization in the world?

BRICS-G7-NATO

The Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa summit hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping in virtual format was significant as it was the first multilateral grouping in which Russian President Vladimir Putin met on February 24, 2022 (the day Ukraine was invaded). The latter had participated, and both Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin took aim at unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union. The fact that Mr Modi agreed to attend the summit, India’s commitment to BRICS as an alternative grouping of economies, reflected India’s refusal to distance Russia and with China’s People’s Liberation Army on the line. Settlement to set aside the two-year stalemate. Actual Control (LAC) in favor of multilateral meetings like BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The BRICS Beijing Declaration was a consensus document, as each member cited different “national positions” on the Ukraine issue. However, the BRICS economic initiative, which Mr Modi hailed as “practical”, poses several challenges to the Western-led sanctions regime against Russia. In addition to the BRICS’ New Development Bank (NDB), which has approved about 17 loans totaling $5 billion for Russian energy and infrastructure projects, a “contingency reserve arrangement” (CRA) for coordination between them, and a BRICS Paid Task Force (BPTF). The central bank, Mr. Putin, also proposed creating a “basket of currencies” and a global reserve currency based on trading in local currencies, to substitute for the SWIFT payment system. Russia is also committed to providing BRICS countries with more oil and coal supplies, which will undoubtedly raise red flags in the West, as the possible entry of countries such as Argentina and Iran into the BRICS mechanism.

A day after BRICS, Mr Modi left for the G-7 summit in Schloss Elmau, Germany, a testimony to this, if any, of India’s resilience in dealing with both sides of the conflict. In several statements, the G-7 (US, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the European Union) targeted Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s economic aggression. However its outreach documents – “Resilient Democracies” and “Clean and Just Transition to Climate Neutrality” – only signed by India and other invitees, did not mention any of them.

At the NATO meeting, however, there was no sign of any restraint as the United States, Canada and the grouping of European countries committed to greater NATO action against “Russian aggression”. These included, for the first time, a reference to “systemic competition” from China as a challenge to NATO’s “interests, security and values”. The presence of America’s trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific military allies at a conference sent a clear message against an alleged Russia-China alliance. In addition to last year’s Australia-UK-US (AUKUS), the launch of another Indo-Pacific alliance – “Partners in the Blue Pacific” (PBP), i.e. US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. This is another sign of America’s increasing focus on countries with which it has military alliances against adversaries. In addition to the Indo-Pacific partners at the summit, there were leaders from five countries that have applied to join NATO, namely, Finland, Georgia, Sweden, Ukraine (President Zelensky gave a virtual address), and Bosnia-Herzegovina (its Defense Minister) participated). The direct message was that NATO would no longer consider Russian sensibility on the subject of NATO expansion.

India should lead

The results of all three summits point to increasing polarization, even as battle lines are drawn, between the Western Atlantic-Pacific axis and the Russia-China alliance. So where does this leave India? The Narendra Modi government has committed to a singular strategy, albeit a defensive one, that does not forgive Russia for its attacks on Ukraine, but also one that does not criticize it. First, India joins China as one of the global economies that has grown the most in Russian oil consumption, and where India continues to source fertilisers, cement and other commodities from Russia using a variety of methods. , even including payments in Chinese Yuan to circumvent sanctions. Second, India is working to diversify its defense purchases from Russia, has increased hostilities with China, and has a growing strategic tilt toward the US and Quad partners in the Indo-Pacific. Even on the multilateral fora, India remains a balanced voice in the room: along with Brazil and South Africa, India ensured that the BRICS Beijing Declaration does not escalate the Russian position on the Ukraine war or any criticism of the West, while it Ensures, along with other partners in the global south, that there is no criticism of Russia and China in the G-7 outreach documents.

However, this dangerous hard move is unlikely to be sufficient as a long-term strategy. The time has come for New Delhi to take the lead in a world increasingly uneasy with the increasing polarization and disruption caused by the Ukraine war. India is not alone. In Germany, Mr. Modi found common cause over this with Indonesian President, Joko Widodo, who is trying to ensure that both sides of the world attend the G-20 summit to be held in Bali in November, Amid growing concerns, at least nine member states (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the UK, the US as well as the European Union) may abstain from sessions where Mr Putin speaks. As the next chairman of the G-20, Mr. Modi must also shoulder the burden of ensuring that the G-20 stays together, and reassures those concerned with the West on the one hand and Russia and China on the other.

gather like minded

These countries are more than you can imagine. At the United Nations General Assembly, for example, a majority of the 141 countries voted to reprimand Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but a very few, only 93, voted to exclude Russia from the Human Rights Council. More importantly, only 40 countries joined the US and Europe-led sanctions regime against Russia. It represents a large pool of free-thinking countries who do not see it in their own national interest to choose one side over the other. So instead of avoiding every vote or being defensive against sanctions, India’s national interests are better served by building a community of like-minded countries (South America to Africa, the Gulf to South Asia and the Southeast Asian Union). Will be nations), which cannot afford hostilities, and wish to avoid the possibility of global war at all costs. Like Mr Widodo, who flew from Germany to Kyiv and Moscow to talk to Mr Zelensky and Mr Putin, Mr Modi is one of the few leaders who has been able to speak to both sides even today. The group of people who can insist for the predominance of conscience should grow.

words that matter

In 1955, it was at such a moment that India led (along with countries such as Indonesia and Egypt at the Asian-African Conference of the 29 Newly Independent Nations in Bandung), a conference that eventually led to non-alignment. Movement (NAM). “If the whole world is divided between these two big blocks, what will be the result?” Asked Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru in Bandung. “The inevitable result will be war. So whatever step is taken to reduce that area in the world, which can be called the unaligned zone, is a dangerous step and leads to war. It is that purpose, that balance, undermines the approach that other countries without military might probably use.”

While the Narendra Modi government has shown little interest in the Non-Aligned Movement or Nehruvian ideas, it may be necessary to reconsider Nehru’s words almost 70 years later in a world full of danger. It is time to reconsider India’s role in “development of the unorganized sector” and bring in the “objective and balanced” approach that Nehru said, by spreading that idea from Bandung to Bali and Delhi this year, India’s At the forefront of strategic policy.

suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in