Tag: India on Russian invasion

Russian, US Violations of International Law Leave India Tongue-Tied

While India abstained during the voting of a draft resolution condemning Moscow for annexing Ukrainian territory, it also has not reacted to the latest US unilateral sanctions on an Indian firm and a national for trading with Iran.

New Delhi: In the last 48 hours, India has kept silent on key violations of international law by Russia and the United States, opting not to condemn the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory and the US imposition of extra-territorial economic sanctions on Indian entities for trading with Iran,

At the UN Security Council on Friday, September 30, India abstained during the voting of a draft resolution – rejected due to a veto by Russia – that sought to condemn Moscow for holding referendums and then annexing four Ukrainian regions where Russian speakers are in a majority. India’s explanation of vote did not even mention the referendums that were conducted by Russia as the military occupier.

Sponsored by the US and Albania, the draft UNSC resolution garnered four abstentions from India, China, Brazil and Gabon. Ten votes were in favour, but the draft was not adopted as Russia wielded its veto.

This is likely the 12th time that India has abstained in voting on a draft resolution or a procedural matter related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at a major UN body since February 24.

India’s short explanation of vote only noted that New Delhi was “deeply disturbed by the recent turn of developments in Ukraine”, but made no direct reference to either the Russian president’s annexation announcement or the referendums organised in Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under the supervision of the Russian military occupation of those regions.

“Escalation of rhetoric or tensions is in no one’s interest. It is important that pathways are found for a return to the negotiating table. Keeping in view the totality of the evolving situation, India has decided to abstain on this resolution,” said India’s permanent representative to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj.

Ukraine has rejected the annexation – and Russia’s offer of talks – saying negotiations with Moscow will not be possible as long as Vladimir Putin remains president.

Kambhoj also brought up Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s statement to the Russian president that ‘this was not an era of war’. “We, therefore, sincerely hope for an early resumption of peace talks to bring about an immediate ceasefire and resolution of the conflict.”

Also read: Why India’s Implicit Support to Russia on Ukraine War Is a Strategic Blunder

Stating that India’s position has been consistent from the start of the conflict, she reiterated, “The global order is anchored on the principles of the UN Charter, international law and respect for sovereignty and the territorial integrity of all states.”

On September 21, Russia had announced its intent to partially mobilise its military reserves and hold referendums in the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions.

Following the announcement, Albania and the US had requested an urgent UNSC meeting to discuss the latest developments in Ukraine.

At the September 27 meeting as well, India had not mentioned the referendums. Neither did India condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in line with its public position since February 24. Besides India, China, Gabon and the UAE had also not condemned the referendums at the UNSC meeting.

On the same day, the initial draft of the resolution was circulated by the US and Albania.

Russia had proposed several amendments, but they were not added in general to the text.

During the negotiations, the draft was diluted to remove mention of Chapter VII of the UN charter.

Three days later, the draft resolution was tabled, which saw a slight change in the position by the UAE and Brazil.

While Brazil had stated earlier that “it is unreasonable to assume that populations in areas in conflict can freely express their will”, the Brazilian representative said on Friday that its abstention was based on the grounds that the resolution would not “contribute to resolving the conflict”. In his explanation of vote, however, he reiterated Brasilia’s view that ” the actions that took place around the annexation of territories cannot be perceived as legitimate”.

The UAE’s permanent representative to the UN, Lana Zaki Nusseibeh, said that her delegation had voted in favour of the text, but would have liked more time for the engagement on the language.

The final draft stated that the referendums that took place between September 23 and 27 were not valid. It had also called on the member states and international organisations not to recognise Russia’s annexation of the Ukrainian territories.

Russia was also asked to immediately withdraw all its military forces from Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.

According to the Security Council Report, several references to Crimea and language describing the referendums as “shams” were omitted and revised.

China abstained from the resolution, but raised concerns about “a prolonged and expanded crisis” in Ukraine.

The Chinese envoy, Zhang Jun, argued that while “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be safeguarded,” countries’ “legitimate security concerns” should also be taken seriously. Beijing had abstained from voting on resolutions in the UNSC and UNGA on several occasions that condemned Russia’s Ukraine invasion.

More than six years ago, Russia had also vetoed a draft resolution that declared the invalidity of the referendum organised in Crimea before its annexation. After the UNSC’s failure, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) passed a resolution against the Crimea referendum on March 27, 2014, with 100 votes in favour, 11 against and 58 abstentions.

India was not a non-permanent member of the UNSC in 2014. But it had abstained during the voting in the UNGA. Back then as well, India did not give any explanation for its vote.

Similarly, the action will now shift to the UNGA. “We are moving to the General Assembly where every country has a vote. In the General Assembly, the nations of the world will say loud and clear: It is illegal, and simply unacceptable, to attempt to redraw another country’s borders through force,” said US permanent representative to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, on Friday.

Also read: ‘Consistent With India’s Position on Ukraine’: Jaishankar on PM Modi’s Comments to Putin

India silent on the US sanctions on Indian firms

A day before the UNSC met to decide on the US-sponsored resolution, the US imposed sanctions on several companies, including an India-based petrochemical company, for facilitating financial transfers and shipping of Iranian petroleum and petrochemical products.

In a statement, the Department of Treasury said these entities had played a critical role in concealing the origin of the Iranian shipments and enabling two sanctioned Iranian brokers, Triliance Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (Triliance) and Persian Gulf Petrochemical Industry Commercial Co. (PGPICC).

According to the list, an India-based petrochemical company, Tibalaji Petrochem Private Limited, had purchased millions of dollars worth of Triliance-brokered petrochemical products, including methanol and base oil, for onward shipment to China. Earlier in June, a Ratnagiri-resident, Mohammad Shaheed Ruknuddin Bhore, was also sanctioned for being a broker for Triliance.

The UN has not imposed any sanctions on Iranian energy exports and Indian law also does not proscribe trade with Islamic Republic.

So far, India has not reacted to the imposition of US extra-territorial sanctions on an Indian firm or an Indian national. This is even though there is widespread consensus among legal scholars that unilateral sanctions are illegal under international law.

In a 2022 paper published in the Journal of Conflict and Security Law, a law professor at the University of Exeter, Julia Schmidt, observed, “extra-territorial sanctions contained in the US sanctions regimes against Iran and Cuba are … in violation of the law on sanctions..”

The database of the US treasury department’s Office of Asset Control shows that 22 individuals and entities, with Indian addresses, have been sanctioned. Till now, nearly all of them had been listed under anti-terror and anti-drug sanctions by the US. Besides, sanctions were also imposed on a North Korean government’s IT firm that opened an office in India and two Iranian firms with addresses in Mumbai.

It has been a long-standing position of India to oppose extra-territorial unilateral sanctions. This was also reiterated by Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Arindam Bagchi in April after US and EU had started to impose sanctions against Russia.

“Look, I don’t think our position on sanctions has changed one bit. We have always stood by the UN sanctions,” he had said on April 28.

The latest Shanghai Cooperation Organisation joint statement, which has India as a signatory, also criticised the imposition of unilateral sanctions. “They stressed that unilateral application of economic sanctions other than those adopted by the UNSC is inconsistent with the principles of international law and adversely affects third countries and international economic relations,” said the Samarkand Declaration dated September 16.

‘Europe Has to Grow Out of Mindset That Its Problems Are World’s Problems’: Jaishankar

The strong comments by Jaishankar came amid persistent efforts by Europe to convince India to take a tough position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the argument that Delhi may face a similar challenge from China.

New Delhi: India has a difficult relationship with China but it is perfectly capable of managing it, external affairs minister S. Jaishankar said on Friday, rejecting the European construct that New Delhi’s position on Ukraine could impact global support to it if its problems with Beijing increases.

In an interactive session at a conference in the Slovakian capital Bratislava, Jaishankar also said that the “Chinese do not need a precedent somewhere else on how to engage us or not engage us or be difficult with us or not be difficult with us.”

He said Europe has to grow out of the mindset that its problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.

The strong comments by Jaishankar came amid persistent efforts by the European countries to convince India to take a tough position on the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the argument that New Delhi may face a similar challenge from China in the future.

“In terms of the connection you are making, we have a difficult relationship with China and we are perfectly capable of managing it. If I get global understanding and support, obviously it is of help to me,” Jaishankar said.

“But this idea that I do a transaction – I come in one conflict because it will help me in conflict two. That’s not how the world works. A lot of our problems in China have nothing to do with Ukraine and have nothing to do with Russia. They are predated,” he said.

Jaishankar was asked why he thinks anyone will help New Delhi in case of a problem with China after it did not help others for Ukraine.

“Somewhere Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems. That if it is you, it’s yours, if it is me it is ours. I see reflections of that,” he said.

“There is a linkage today which is being made. A linkage between China and India and what’s happening in Ukraine. China and India happened way before anything happened in Ukraine. The Chinese do not need a precedent somewhere else on how to engage us or not engage us or be difficult with us or not be difficult with us,” he said.

Jaishankar said Europe was also silent on many developments in Asia.

“If I were to take Europe collectively which has been singularly silent on many things which were happening, for example in Asia, you could ask why would anybody in Asia trust Europe on anything at all,” he said.

Jaishankar said India condemned the killings in Bucha in Ukraine and favoured an investigation into it as well.

“First of all you are mischaracterising our position, for example when Bucha happened, we condemned Bucha and we actually asked for an investigation into Bucha,” he said.

“In terms of what is happening with the Ukraine conflict, our position is very clear that we favour an immediate cessation of hostilities. Its not that we have ignored it unless you call phone calls to (Vladimir) Putin and (Volodymyr) Zelenskyy as ignoring something,” he added.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had made phone calls to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and Russian President Putin on the crisis.

Nordic PMs Condemn Russian Invasion of Ukraine in Second Summit With India

The summit saw the participation of the prime ministers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

New Delhi: The Nordic prime ministers strongly condemned the “unlawful and unprovoked” aggression against Ukraine by Russian forces at the second India-Nordic summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, on Wednesday, May 4.

The Nordic countries, out of which Finland and Norway share land borders with Russia, have been worried about Moscow’s intentions and have been at the forefront of taking a strong position against the Ukraine war.

The response from the Nordic countries has upended decades of policy of non-confrontation with the Russian government in the post-Soviet period.

While Norway is already part of NATO, Sweden and Finland, who have been traditionally non-aligned, have conveyed their intention to join the transatlantic military alliance, which has led to a sharp response from Russia.

On the second day of his stay in Denmark, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi took part in the India-Nordic summit with his counterparts from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen.

The joint statement issued after the summit stated that “the Nordic Prime Ministers reiterated their strong condemnation of the unlawful and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine by Russian Forces”.

The subsequent paragraph was a joint declaration from India and the Nordic countries generally condemning civilian killings in Ukraine, combatting the ongoing humanitarian crisis and on the need to stop the violence immediately, but without mentioning Russia by name.

“They discussed the destabilising effect of the conflict in Ukraine and its broader regional and global implications. Both sides agreed to remain closely engaged on the issue,” said the joint statement.

This formula of allowing both sides to stick to their positions on condemning or refraining from criticising Russia has been a standard template of joint statements issued during Modi’s current visit to Europe.

In a press communique, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre explained that the “Nordic countries and India have different starting points and different approaches”.

“From the Norwegian and Nordic sides, we expressed strong condemnation of Russia’s war against Ukraine. We stressed that this is not just a European issue. The war also has serious global consequences such as reduced food and energy security,” said Støre.

He added that he felt that “my Indian colleague listened attentively and understood why we react so strongly to Russia’s conduct in Ukraine”.

Earlier on May 3, Danish Prime Mette Frederiksen had expressed hope that India would “use its influence” over Russia and Vladimir Putin to end the war in Ukraine. After that, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had appealed for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and asked the countries involved to return to the path of dialogue and diplomacy to resolve the crisis.

According to a press release from the Finnish prime minister’s office, the main topic of the summit was the “changed security situation in Europe and cooperation between the Nordic countries and India”. “The importance of multilateralism and respect for human rights and gender equality also emerged from the discussion,” it added.

After attending the summit, Prime Minister Modi said that there is much that India and the Nordic countries can achieve and contribute to global prosperity and sustainable development.

Also read: India’s Ukraine Dilemma Could Have Consequences for Years to Come

“The India-Nordic Summit will go a long way in boosting India’s ties with the region. Together, there is much that our nations can achieve and contribute to global prosperity and sustainable development,” Modi tweeted.

The Indian readout of the summit meeting said that “discussions were held on multilateral cooperation in post-pandemic economic recovery, climate change, sustainable development, innovation, digitalisation, and green and clean growth”.

Modi invited the Nordic countries to invest in the blue economy sector, with a special invitation for the sovereign wealth funds.

“India’s partnership with the Nordic region in the Arctic Region was discussed. Prime Minister noted that India’s Arctic Policy provides a good framework for expansion of India-Nordic cooperation in the Arctic region,” said the press note.

The first India-Nordic summit was held in Stockholm in 2018.

Modi arrived in Denmark on May 4 after concluding his visit to Germany where he held extensive talks with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and attended the sixth India-Germany Inter-Governmental Consultations.

In Copenhagen, Modi held talks with his Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen on May 3.

Before attending the India-Nordic Summit, Modi held separate bilateral talks with the prime ministers of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

‘Would Prefer If India Moves Away from NAM, Russia’: Top US Diplomat

Wendy Sherman said India has made comments on Bucha killing which indicates that the US needs to keep working and helping to support India to understand what is in their national security interest.

Washington: The US would prefer India to “move away” from its long-term history of non-alignment G77 partnership with Russia, the Biden administration has told lawmakers, observing that there is a great opportunity to ramp up defence trade between the two countries that are moving forward on many achievements critical to the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific region.

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman told members of the powerful House Foreign Affairs Committee during a Congressional hearing early this week that America shares a very critical relationship with India.

“They are the largest democracy in the world. We have a strong defence relationship with them. They are part of the Quad, with Australia and Japan, and we are moving forward on many achievements that are critical to Indo-Pacific prosperity and security,” she said.

“We, obviously, would prefer that India move away from their long-term history of non-alignment G77 partnership with Russia,” Sherman said in response to a question from Congressman Tim Burchett.

The US has told Indian officials that it will be very hard for them now to get spare parts or to get them replaced from Russia because of the sanctions, she said.

“They have increased their defence relationship with us, and defence sales, and co-production efforts. And I think this is a great opportunity for that to surge in the years ahead,” she said.

US officials have expressed concern over India’s purchase of the S-400 missile systems by Russia.

In October 2018, India signed a USD 5 billion deal with Russia to buy five units of the S-400 Triumf air defence missile systems to ramp up its air defence, despite a warning from the then Trump administration that going ahead with the contract may invite US sanctions.

The US has already imposed sanctions on Turkey under the CAATSA for the purchase of a batch of S-400 missile defence systems from Russia.

“I’m wondering will India’s neutrality in Russia’s war on Ukraine and the country’s general friendship with Russia have any effect on our policy towards India? US policy towards India, I guess I should say,” Burchett asked.

Congressman Joe Wilson also asked about India’s position in Ukraine. He said the world’s largest democracy should be standing firm with the other democracies.

“We’re in a conflict that has been identified by President Biden as totalitarianism against democracies. And so, either we stand for democracy’s rule of law or we’ll be facing around the world destabilisation by governments that are the rule of the gun,” he said.

“And so, how can we make an effort to replace the oil that India depends on and the military equipment that they depend on from Putin? This is just so illogical for the extraordinary country of India, the wonderful people of India, to be overlooking abstaining. That’s incredible. That’s such an insult to the people of India,” Wilson said.

India has faced flak from US lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, for choosing to abstain from UN votes to rebuke Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Unlike many other leading Western powers, India has not yet criticised Russia for its invasion of Ukraine and it abstained from the votes at the UN platforms in condemning the Russian aggression.

However, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has asserted that India is strongly against the Russia-Ukraine conflict as no solution can be arrived at by shedding blood. He told parliament this week that “if New Delhi has chosen a side, it is the side of peace and an immediate end to violence”.

During the hearing, Sherman said America’s relationship with India, the world’s largest democracy, is critical in so many areas.

“We have had very direct conversations with them about how we can address their very legitimate needs for their country,” she added.

“I think that there’s progress being made to see what we can do to be supportive to them, while, at the same time, urging them to be more forthright regarding what’s happening in Ukraine,” Sherman said.

“I did note that they made comments, not surprising, about the horrors that have taken place in Bucha. And so, I think we just have to keep working at this relationship and understanding the complexity of it, and helping India to really understand what is in their national security interests,” said the top American diplomat.

Talking about the civilian killings in the Ukrainian city of Bucha, Jaishankar has said that India was “deeply disturbed” by the reports of civilian killings in Ukraine.

Explainer: What to Expect As UN Votes on West’s Move to Remove Russia from UNHRC

There are two likely scenarios: one is obviously that there will be enough ‘yes’ votes for the resolution to be approved without any controversy. The second one is messier.

New Delhi: The United Nations General Assembly will vote on a resolution pushed by the US to suspend Russia’s membership from the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council in New York on Thursday.

The draft resolution expresses concern at the “gross and systematic violations and abuses” by Russia in its “aggression” against Ukraine.

Here is The Wire’s primer on how the voting on the resolution could play out and what will the considerations behind India’s voting position.  

How can a country be removed from the UNHRC? 

The 47 member states of the Council are elected for a three-year term by the UN General Assembly through a secret ballot. The UNHRC’s founding resolution, 60/251, empowers the General Assembly to suspend the membership of a country that “commits gross and systematic violations of human rights”.

According to OP8 (60/251), the UN General Assembly “[d]ecides that the membership in the Council shall be open to all States Members of the United Nations; when electing members of the Council, Member States shall take into account the contribution of candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights and their voluntary pledges and commitments made thereto; the General Assembly, by a two-thirds majority of the members present and voting, may suspend the rights of membership in the Council of a member of the Council that commits gross and systematic violations of human rights”.

Russian Army military vehicles drive along a street, after Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized a military operation in eastern Ukraine, in the town of Armyansk, Crimea, February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Stringer

What is the likely outcome of voting in UNGA?

To make a reasonable forecast, let’s cast an eye back on the two resolutions passed by the UNGA following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24.

The first resolution on March 2 was approved by 141 member states. The second one on March 24, which focussed on the humanitarian aspect while condemning Russian acts, got 140 votes in favour. Both the resolutions had only five negative votes. The number of abstentions increased slightly from 35 to 38 between the two resolutions.

This means that it technically looks feasible for a resolution to sail through the UNGA that will suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council. However, the numbers belie the actual complexities.

Also read: India Abstains on the Second Resolution on Ukraine in UN General Assembly

A substantive part of the developing world, many of them part of the non-aligned movement (NAM) bloc, had supported the two resolutions that condemned Russia, but they will likely hesitate from taking a step that will punish Russia in concrete terms.

The International Crisis Group had also cautioned that the seeming international solidarity could crack open if the UK and EU officials don’t listen carefully to the rising anxieties of their Asian, Latin American and African counterparts over food security and development aid in the wake of the Ukraine war.

That’s a critical reason that the West had, till now, not pushed for a resolution to suspend Russia, a P5 country, from UNHRC. The devastating images from the Ukrainian town of Bucha, with civilian dead lying on the street, changed the calculations. The momentum of the worldwide outrage persuaded the West that there might be enough numbers to pass the resolution.

There are two likely scenarios. One is obviously, which the West hopes, is that there will be enough ‘yes’ votes for the resolution to be approved without any controversy.

The second one is messier.

According to the UNGA’s rules on the method of voting, the General assembly shall vote by replying “yes”, “no”, or “abstention” when the country’s name is called out in a roll-call. Usually, the voting is by show of hands or by standing, but a representative can request a roll-call. Therefore, according to Rule 87, abstentions are counted as a ‘vote’.

(a) The General Assembly shall normally vote by show of hands or by standing, but any representative may request a roll-call. The roll-call shall be taken in the English alphabetical order of the names of the members, beginning with the member whose name is drawn by lot by the President. The name of each member shall be called in any roll-call, and one of its representatives shall reply “yes”, “no” or “abstention”. The result of the voting shall be inserted in the record in the English alphabetical order of the names of the members.

But, Rule 86 muddies the water by stating that “present and voting” does not include abstentions.

For the purposes of these rules, the phrase “members present and voting” means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members who abstain from voting are considered as not voting.

It means that even if higher than the number of yes votes, abstentions will not be counted as ‘votes’ under Rule 86. This rule is undoubtedly likely to be invoked by Western countries if the number of ‘yes’ votes is less than required for two-thirds of the countries present at the General Assembly. Then the argument would be that the number of ‘yes’ votes is two-thirds of the total number of ‘affirmative’ and ‘negative’ votes.

Has any country been thrown out of Human Rights Council? 

In March 2011, the UN General Assembly suspended Libya from the Human Rights Council using the provisions of resolution 60/251. Until now, it is the first and only time that a country was removed from the UNHRC.

The move began after the government of Moammar Qaddafi cracked down on anti-government protests as the Arab spring movement spread across the region.

On February 25, 2011, the UNHRC’s one-day special session passed a resolution that recommended that the General Assembly “consider the application of the measures foreseen in paragraph 8 of General Assembly resolution 60/251”, that is, suspend Libya from its membership of the Council.

Taking note of the UNHRC’s resolution, General Assembly suspended Libya from Council membership on March 1. A month after Qaddafi was killed, Libya’s suspension was lifted in November 2011.

The critical difference between the past and the current scenario is that both the resolutions at the UNHRC and UNGA suspending Libya were passed by consensus, that is, there was no voting. This was a result of the resolution being supported technically by Libya. The entire Libyan permanent missions in New York and Geneva had ‘defected’ and expressed support for the resolutions in both the UN bodies. Therefore, the Libya precedent cannot be applied to the latest move to throw out Russia in the wake of reported human rights violations during the Ukraine war.

What will be India’s position?

India has, so far, cast abstention votes at all the resolutions condemning Russia for invading Ukraine, passed in the UN General Assembly, UN Security Council and UN Human Rights Council.

At the UNSC meeting on April 5, India condemned the civilian killings in Bucha and called for an independent investigation. Indian official sources stressed that India’s call for a probe echoed the suggestion of UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres for an international investigation. In New Delhi, the statement was not perceived as a significant shift, especially since the statement did not name Russia as the perpetrator of the Bucha killings.

Also read: At UN General Assembly, India Abstains From Resolution Criticising Russian Actions in Ukraine

Unlike the previous resolutions on Ukraine, the move to throw out Russia from Human Rights Council is viewed by South Block officials to have repercussions that go beyond the current crisis.

India has a long-standing position that it does not support a specific resolution criticising a country for human rights violations. Therefore, it will undoubtedly be difficult to vote in favour of a resolution to throw out Russia from UNHRC. While it has a long-standing technical stance, India will take a call based on political considerations, just like other countries.

A negative vote by India will be challenging to explain to Western capitals, most of whom had been persuading New Delhi to not dilute the economic pressure on Moscow by increasing the purchase of Russian fuel.

At the end of previous UNGA votes on March 2 and March 24, Russia had commended countries who had voted against the resolution, as well as those who had abstained, for staving off US pressure. This time, Russia has made it clear that abstention or non-participation in the voting will be “seen as an unfriendly gesture” since the West is largely aiming to get two-thirds among the counted ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes.

When the UNHRC recommended the suspension of Libya in 2011, there was no vote, but India did make a statement.

While India stated that it had taken note of the concerns of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on violations, the statement also said that the Council should not take a “politicised decision”.

“The credibility and legitimacy of the Council will be enhanced when the council is seen to be dealing with similar situations in a similar manner, and not sacrificing concern for human rights at the altar of political expediency and strategic opportunism,” said India at UNHRC’s special session on February 25, 2011.

‘Ask Putin to Stop the War, It’s in India’s Interest’: Ukraine Foreign Minister

“I call on the governments of India, China and Nigeria to appeal to Russia to stop the fire and allow civilians to leave,” Ukraine’s Dmytro Kuleba said in a televised address.

New Delhi: As Russia’s war on Ukraine enters its tenth day, foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba on March 6 called on the governments of several countries, including India, to appeal to Russia to stop the ongoing conflict.

“I call on the governments of India, China and Nigeria to appeal to Russia to stop the fire and allow civilians to leave,” he said in a televised address.

According to news reports, he also accused Russia of violating ceasefire agreements and urged it to stop shooting to allow civilians, including foreign students, to evacuate. He claimed that Russia is trying to “win the sympathy” of countries that have foreign nationals in Ukraine.

“For 30 years, Ukraine was a welcoming home for thousands of students from Africa, Asia… to facilitate their (foreign students’) movement, Ukraine arranged trains, set up hotlines, worked with embassies… The Ukrainian government is doing its best,” he said.

According to the Indian government, around 1,700 students are still waiting to be evacuated from Ukraine. On March 1, an Indian medical student, Naveen S.G. of Karnataka, was killed in shelling in the Ukrainian city of Kharkiv when he ventured out to buy food for himself and fellow students. The next day, another Indian student, Chandan Jindal, died after suffering an Ischemic stroke.

Also read: Why India’s Implicit Support to Russia on Ukraine War Is a Strategic Blunder

Kuleba further said that all countries, including India, who enjoy special relations with Russia, can appeal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that “this war is against the interest of all.”

“India is one of the largest consumers of Ukrainian agricultural products and if this war continues, it will be difficult for us to seed new harvests. So, even in terms of global and Indian food security, it’s in the best interest to stop this war,” he said.

Asking ordinary Indians to put pressure on Putin to stop the war, he said, “Ukraine is fighting only because we were attacked and we have to defend our land because Putin does not recognise our right to exist.”

The embassy of Ukraine in India has also issued a statement on its Facebook page urging all foreign governments to demand from President Putin that he immediately stops his war on Ukraine.

Earlier, on February 24, ambassador of Ukraine to India, Igor Polikha, had asked Prime Minister Narendra Modi to tell Russian President Vladimir Putin to stop any more military adventure, and also conveyed to the officials in the Ministry of External Affairs that Kyiv was “deeply dissatisfied” with the Indian position on the crisis.

“Your PM can address Mr Putin, and he can address our president. Many times in history, India played a peacekeeping role. That’s why the peace-loving nation of India, we are asking for your strong voice to stop this war,” he had said.

Also read: Indians in Ukraine: Rescue Buses to Arrive at Pisochyn, Embassy Talks Routes Out of Sumy

Meanwhile, amid allegations of Indians facing racism while crossing the Ukrainian borders, the embassy of Ukraine in India in its statement on Thursday said, “Discrimination of any kind, which includes discrimination based on race, skin color or nationality, has never been condoned in Ukraine which has been a key destination for foreign students from all corners of the globe for decades. The Ukrainian government takes very seriously all accounts alleging unequal treatment, including when it comes to the crossing of the state border by foreign citizens.”

“We continue to prioritize supporting foreign citizens to leave Ukraine as safely and as quickly as possible. Over the past week, the government of Ukraine has assisted more than 130,000 foreigners to leave the country, including 10,000 Indian, 2,500 Chinese, 1,700 Turkmen and 200 Uzbek students.”

It further said that the Ukrainian government has continued to keep all checkpoints on the western border open, 24 hours a day, and added that those who are crossing the border to have their documents ready and to be as organised as possible.

Quad Announces New Mechanism on Ukraine Response, Agrees Not to Repeat Crisis in Indo-Pacific

The joint readout issued after the summit stated that the Quad leaders “discussed the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and assessed its broader implications”.

New Delhi: The four ‘Quad’ leaders announced a new mechanism to communicate their response to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, even as they agreed that they cannot allow similar “unilateral change to the status quo by force” in the Indo-Pacific region.

The Quad leaders – Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and US President Joe Biden – held a virtual emergency meeting on Thursday to exchange their views on the Ukraine-Russia war.

The joint readout issued after the summit stated that the Quad leaders “discussed the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and assessed its broader implications”.

The document also implied that the four leaders have set up a new “mechanism”, which would also support more intensive discussion on the response to the fallout of the Ukraine crisis.

“They agreed to stand up a new humanitarian assistance and disaster relief mechanism which will enable the Quad to meet future humanitarian challenges in the Indo-Pacific and provide a channel for communication as they each address and respond to the crisis in Ukraine,” it said.

Following the summit, Kishida told reporters in Tokyo that the four leaders had raised concern about the impact of Ukraine in the region.

“We agreed that we should not allow any unilateral change to the status quo by force in the Indo-Pacific region like the latest case (in Ukraine) and we need to step up efforts to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific in times like this,” said the Japanese prime minister, as quoted by Kyodo News.

While the joint readout did not directly refer to Kishida’s words, it did assert that the leaders committed that “sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states is respected and countries are free from military, economic, and political coercion”.

Among the four countries, India has been the only one to abstain on Ukraine-related resolutions criticising Russia in the United Nations, which has led to considerable consternation in Western capitals.

In Washington, US senators repeatedly raised questions about India’s refusal to publicly criticise Moscow during a senate committee hearing. US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, Donald Lu, said that “all of us have been working to urge India to take a clear position, a position opposed to Russia’s actions”.

Also read: Ten Theses on the War in Ukraine and the Challenge for India

India issued a separate press release which stated that the ‘Quad’ discussed developments in Ukraine, “including its humanitarian implications”.

“The Prime Minister emphasised the need to return to a path of dialogue and diplomacy,” it said.

The Indian press release also underlined that the Quad “must remain focused on its core objective of promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region”.

There has been concern among Indian foreign policy analysts that the current antagonism with Russia will cause Washington to divert attention from the Indo-Pacific and, therefore, lessen any pressure on China.

India had tried to rope Russia into the Indo-Pacific, but Moscow had steadfastly opposed the ‘Quad’ as a construct of the West to corner Beijing.

Watch | ‘Putin’s Invasion Has Converted Imminent Diplomatic Victory Into a Major Political Setback’

Former foreign secretary Krishnan Srinivasan in conversation with Karan Thapar for The Wire.

Calling Russian President Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine “irrational” and “illogical”, one of India’s former foreign secretaries has said that he has converted “an imminent diplomatic victory” into “a serious military or political setback”, and added that Putin’s own position now must be in doubt.

Krishnan Srinivasan said: “He has managed a military or political defeat, and if that’s putting it too strongly, a serious setback from what looked like an imminent diplomatic victory.” Asked if in these circumstances he believes Putin’s own position could be in doubt, he said: “Yes, I do… it would be an extraordinary feat of resilience for Putin to bounce back… it’s really hard to see how a political leader could survive in these circumstances.”

In a 30-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Srinivasan said that on February 24, when Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, diplomacy was, in fact, working for Russia. Putin had recognised Donetsk and Luhansk as independent entities and sent in so-called “peacekeepers” and the world had accepted that, French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz were paying court to the Kremlin, US President Biden had agreed to a summit, and credible voices in Europe were calling for greater attention to Russia’s interests.

Srinivasan said: “Diplomacy was close to delivering what Putin wanted.” In these circumstances, the invasion was “almost counterfactual”. He said it “doesn’t stand up to reason”.

Elaborating on the pre-February 24 situation, he said, “He [Putin] had all the cards stacked in his favour … since 1990 Russia’s assertions had not got so much respect.” He also said, “The negotiations were working quite well” from Russia’s point of view.

Speaking about the present situation, Srinivasan said Russia’s failure to make significant advances in Ukraine, even a week after the invasion, and force Kyiv to surrender, have now raised worrying questions about Russia’s military prowess. He said: “All military headquarters and staff all over the world will be watching very closely. They will notice that the operations have not gone to Putin’s timetable. Second, Russia’s strategy and logistics seem weak and inefficient. Third, Russian equipment is perhaps overestimated.”

He agreed that this is a very serious and worrying outcome for a country that considers itself a military superpower.

Ukrainian President Speaks With Modi, PM Expresses ‘Deep Anguish’ at Loss of Lives

Volodymyr Zelensky, who still remains in Kyiv, posted on social media that he informed Modi of Ukraine “repulsing” Russia’s “aggression”. “More than 100,000 invaders are on our land. They insidiously fire on residential buildings,” he tweeted.

New Delhi: On a day on which India abstained on a Security Council resolution on Ukraine, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called up Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to seek “political support” in the UNSC.

Modi expressed “deep anguish” at loss of lives due in the conflict which began with the Russian military invasion.

Zelensky, who still remains in Kyiv, posted on social media that he informed Modi of Ukraine “repulsing” Russia’s “aggression”. “More than 100,000 invaders are on our land. They insidiously fire on residential buildings,” he tweeted.

He urged India to give “political support” to Ukraine in the UN Security Council. “Stop the aggressor together”.

 

The Indian government’s readout said that Zelensky briefed Modi “in detail about the ongoing conflict situation in Ukraine”.

“Prime Minister expressed his deep anguish about the loss of life and property due to the ongoing conflict,” it said.

Ukraine’s health minister has claimed that 198 civilians, including three children, have been killed in the conflict that erupted on February 24 after Russian military rolled through Ukrainian territory.

Modi reiterated the “call for an immediate cessation of violence and a return to dialogue, and expressed India’s willingness to contribute in any way towards peace efforts”.

With thousands of Indian students still in Ukraine, Modi also expressed “deep concern” about their safety and “sought facilitation by Ukrainian authorities to expeditiously and safely evacuate Indian citizens”.

Earlier on Friday evening (accord to New York’s Eastern Standard Time), India had abstained, along with China and United Arab Emirates on the draft resolution backed by US and EU that “deplored” the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia had stopped the resolution from being adopted by wielding its veto as an UNSC permanent member.

At the UNSC, India had asserted that “no solution can ever be arrived at, at the cost of human lives” and called for ending the violence. But, the statement again stopped short of directly criticising Russia.

After the resolution failed to get adopted, The Ukrainian permanent representative to the UN, Sergi Kyslytsya criticised the countries who had abstained, stating that “he was saddened to see a small handful of delegates tolerating the war, as they should oppose it to protect their own nationals in that country”.

Earlier on Thursday, Ukrainian ambassador to India, Igor Polikha had appealed to PM Modi to use his good offices with Modi to stop further military aggression. He had also stated that Kiev was “deeply dissatisfied” with the Indian position that New Delhi was monitoring the situation closely. Later, Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla that India had not got any such feedback from the Ukrainian side.

Ukraine War: As Russia-US Crisis Escalates, India Is Realising It Has No Safe Hand to Play

The choices for India remain stark against the backdrop of the Indian Army’s continuing standoff with China and also with regard to future long-term security alliances.

India can presently be likened to a bewildered and perplexed rabbit caught in the headlights of two of its strategic and defence allies – Russia and the US – both of who are demanding its commitment to their hostile line-up on warring sides over the former’s military invasion of Ukraine.

India’s predicament just sharpened following its decision to abstain at the UN Security Council when a US-sponsored resolution condemning Russia was put to vote on Friday, New York time.

Security analysts, diplomats and senior services personnel believe that New Delhi’s paradoxical predicament presents hugely uncertain outcomes, in which it is likely to get badly scalded. But it remains to be seen, over the next few days, how severely it gets singed, as it plays out its poor hand in the high-stakes poker game underway in Ukraine, Moscow, Washington and several other European and world capitals.

The choices for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government remain stark, against the backdrop of the Indian Army’s continuing standoff with China along the disputed line of actual control or LAC in eastern Ladakh, and also with regard to India’s future long-term security alliances.

Condemning Russia for its ongoing offensive against Ukraine by land, sea and air, and backing the harsh US-led sanctions against Moscow, runs the assured risk of India annoying a dependable ally and long-standing material supplier, albeit with close ties to China.

Also read: India Needs to Make Some Tough Foreign Policy Choices

Not doing so would similarly aggravate strategic partner and defence equipment provider Washington which is also a Quadrilateral partner along with Australia and Japan. The US had also ably supported Delhi over its Ladakh impasse in addition to being a close naval collaborator in the Indo-Pacific region.

A grim Hobson’s Choice

Regrettably, however, much to the Modi government’s discomfiture, settling for India’s timeworn ‘strategic autonomy’ option of equitably balancing its strategic, military, political and diplomatic relations with Moscow and Washington, simply does not appear to be the default option anymore.

Ironically, the prevailing fraught circumstances, with limited alternatives, present India with the hackneyed fait accompli of whether it is with the US or Russia; both possibilities are simply unacceptable.

Serving and retired military officers in Delhi claimed that Ukraine’s annexation by Russia had, without doubt, put India in the unenviable and pincer-like situation of damned if it condemned Russia for its Ukraine misadventure; and damned by Washington and its NATO allies, if it did not.

Smoke rises from the territory of the Ukrainian Defence Ministry’s unit, after Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized a military operation in eastern Ukraine, in Kyiv, Ukraine February 24, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Valentyn Ogirenko.

“It’s a poisoned chalice-like situation for India,” said retired Brigadier Rahul Bhonsle of the Security Risks consultancy group in Delhi. It faces a grim Hobson’s Choice in this crisis and has to tread warily to try and find a compromise solution which will be difficult to attain, he added.

In his telephonic conversation with President Vladimir Putin on Thursday, Modi had incredulously called for restraint and “honest and sincere dialogue” at a juncture when Russian tanks, artillery and ground troops had already encircled the Ukrainian capital Kyiv and firefights in the streets were audible in television reports. Russian combat aircraft and attack helicopters circled the skies overhead, leaving no doubt that Russia’s sole goal is Ukraine’s eventual annexation. The time for Modi’s suggestion for conciliation and negotiation seemed long past, as Putin was already headed for the finish.

Ukraine’s ambassador to Delhi too expressed his “deep dissatisfaction” with India’s non-committal position on the Russian invasion, and called upon Modi to prevail upon Putin to end hostilities.

“We are waiting, we are asking, we are pleading for the strong voice of India (to condemn the aggression),” ambassador Igor Polkha told ANI news agency on Thursday. The Ukrainian ambassador, it seems, will have to wait.

Also read: US, India Cracks? Biden Says Talks on Russia ‘Unresolved’

US Congressmen in Washington, interviewed by CNN, too echoed analogous views, criticising India for neither condemning the military intervention nor supporting the subsequent sanctions. One Congressman even paired India with China in this regard, as one of two major (nuclear-armed) countries who had neither denounced Russia’s military campaign nor backed the ensuing embargoes. China’s stance, he inferred was understandable as it was  Russia’s close ally, but not India’s, which was a democracy.

Road ahead for India

But like the perilous rabbit, India’s alternatives in the Ukrainian calamity are daunting as sanctions on Russia would most certainly impinge on its military’s operational readiness, while supporting Washington’s stand would in no way alleviate this situation, only exacerbate it.

The US-led embargoes on Russia would most definitely impact the imminent transfer to India of four of five Russian Almaz-Antey S-400 Triumf self-propelled surface-to-air (SAM) missile systems it had ordered in 2018 for deployment along the LAC and over 20,000 Kalashnikov Ak-203 assault rifles, badly-needed by Indian Army units in Ladakh and others employed on counter-insurgency operations in Kashmir.

Sanctions would also stem the supply of assorted Russian missiles, ammunition, ordnance, spares and components, essential to keep the Indian military’s predominantly Russian platforms operative. Indian Army officers warned that this paucity could prove “worrisome” in the upcoming summer months along the LAC in Ladakh when the snows had melted and an emboldened PLA, aware of its rivals’ handicaps, re-emerged as a palpable threat.

And if these sanctions endured, which by all indications they would, considering Moscow’s aim of eventually occupying Ukraine, the transfer to the Indian Navy of four Admiral Grigorovich Project 1135.6M stealth frigates – two of which are being built in Russia and two indigenously under a technology transfer – and the leasing of one more’ Akulka’ (Schuka-B)-class nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) would be endangered, if not altogether terminated.

Also read: India-US Divergence May Face Another Challenge at UNSC Vote on Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Alongside, the export to India of critical components and sub-assemblies for the Indo-Russian BrahMos cruise missile, for which India had recently bagged a $375 million order from the Philippines, too would be imperiled and could be scrapped.

Over the past two decades, in which India has acquired almost $20 billion worth of US defence equipment, Delhi had managed to balance its strategic and defence ties equitably between Moscow and Washington. The latter had turned a Nelson’s eye to India acquiring Russian military hardware, provided Delhi also placed adequate orders for US equipment, which it did.

Under this unstated ‘accommodative’ agreement the US had also desisted from sanctioning India for recently deploying in Punjab its first S-400 system under its Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) enacted in 2017. The Act was aimed at penalising almost all Russian military design and production units, amongst other facilities, for its annexation of Crimea and for reportedly interfering in the US Presidential elections two years later. So far CAATSA has been invoked against China and Turkey for installing S-400 system, but Delhi seemed to have been provided a ‘silent waiver’, with Washington making occasional anodyne references to the matter and little else.

Furthermore, industry officials said that in anticipation of Washington’s pique and displeasure over acquiring the S-400, India’s ministry of defence (MoD) had, in July 2018, quietly approved the $1 billion import from the US of Raytheon’s National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System-2 (NASAMS-2) for the Indian Air Force to fortify the country’s missile defence shield over Delhi.

Thereafter, the MoD also sanctioned the $3 billion import of 30 weaponised General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc (GA-ASI) Sea Guardian unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that were to be divided equally between the three services.

However, both these ‘placatory’ buys have since been shelved and with the Ukraine crisis erupting, it is quite likely that an agitated and frustrated US would, in all likelihood, end up sanctioning India over the S-400 as it was in the pipeline, easy to accomplish and would hurt Russia.

If so, it would only intensify Delhi’s prevailing vacillation and overall sense of simply not knowing what to do.