The Hindu (India): The road to peace in Ukraine passes through Delhi
Negotiations mediated by a neutral third party will help Russia and Ukraine settle the conflict, writes The Hindu. The authors of the article explain why India can act as a mediator.
Utkarsh Leo, Faizan Mustafa
Almost 40 days ago, Russia launched a full-scale special military operation in Ukraine. Apparently, there will be no winners. Despite the peace talks held on March 29 in Istanbul (Turkey), direct dialogue between the conflicting parties did not lead to any particular success: the ceasefire has not yet been secured, and Russian troops continue fighting in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine. As a result, 3,455 civilian casualties were registered in Ukraine (1,417 killed and 2,038 wounded), while more than four million people left their homes in search of protection, security and assistance (data from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights – Approx. InoSMI).
Similarly, on the Russian side, in addition to losses, the country's economy is affected by financial and economic sanctions imposed by the European Union and the G7 countries. Despite artificial measures to strengthen the ruble, the economy is rapidly falling, annual inflation has jumped to 15.6%, the foreign exchange reserves of the Russian Central Bank remain frozen, and it cannot access financing and loans from international financial organizations. At the global level, a special military operation disrupts supply chains and causes a sharp rise in fuel and food prices. In this regard, the question arises: if a hopeless situation has developed as a result of this special operation, why did the negotiations not lead to its termination?
Positions and interests
Past negotiations conducted via videoconference or as peace talks (in Belarus and Turkey) did not lead to any particular success, because the parties engaged in a dialogue about "positions" and not about "interests". A "position" is a "lying on the surface" statement about what one or the other side wants. For example, Russia's demand that Ukraine recognize the separatist Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics as independent states. And "interests" are the reasons underlying these positions. For example, why does Russia prioritize the independence of these separatist areas? Thus, mediation as a conflict resolution tool can help the parties in identifying hidden "interests" and in developing a solution that will be valuable for each of the parties. We are talking about a Europe with common security and prosperity, where the sovereignty of all countries (Ukraine, Russia and the West) is guaranteed.
Mediation (or negotiations with the assistance of third parties) is a flexible tool for conflict resolution. At the choice of the parties, it can be favorable or evaluative and can be carried out at joint meetings or meetings (i.e., closed meetings). In addition, mediation is focused on joint negotiations that provide a mutually beneficial result — unlike discussions of problems based on antagonism and confrontation, for example, arbitration or court proceedings, leading to a result in which one of the parties wins and the other loses. Such mediation allows resolving conflicts of all kinds: from labor disputes to terminated contracts and international conflicts. International mediation follows the process of "assisting two or more warring parties to find a solution without the use of force." Due to its enormous potential, the UN Charter, in accordance with Article 33, recognizes international mediation as a means of peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Mediation in peace negotiations
Throughout history, individuals, countries and organizations (such as the International Committee of the Red Cross) have acted as third parties and mediated peace between conflicting countries. International mediation, which theorists call a form of mediation of influential forces or a process of solving political problems, has been used to resolve conflicts for hundreds of years. The most famous example is US President Jimmy Carter, who brokered peace agreements between Israel and Egypt (known as the Camp David Accords of 1978), thanks to which peace has been maintained between the parties for 44 years.
Research in the field of neurobiology proves that emotions have a significant impact on cognitive processes (Kragel and LaBar, 2016). If emotions are raging between the conflicting parties, it is likely that one or both sides will act reactively (that is, without thinking). Ambrose Bierce wrote: "Speak in anger, and you will make the main speech of those that you will regret." This is where a neutral third party can act as an "intermediary" (so-called shuttle diplomacy) to gather more information and help the parties identify their hidden interests. This helps to ensure that the conflicting parties do not forget what they have gathered for and persistently go to the goal. More importantly, an intermediary acting as a "shuttle" between the parties helps to limit or reduce reactive depreciation — a cognitive barrier when disputants mistakenly interpret a conflict as a tug of war, a game in which there can be only one winner. As a result, in the eyes of one of the parties, the value of even a serious offer coming directly from the opponent automatically decreases. Therefore, depending on the specific situation and the consent of the parties, the mediator can either play a passive role to facilitate communication, or play a more active role and have a significant influence on the content of the discussion and the final decision.
Emphasis on priority
Of course, international mediation can provide many opportunities. But is it the right choice in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict?
Despite the bilateral peace talks, the fighting continues. Those who oppose dictatorial regimes will want to hold Russian President Vladimir Putin accountable for violating the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional Protocols. It may turn out that the choice in favor of mediation legitimizes past violations of international law and the killing of civilians. Or is it even equivalent to exchanging justice for peace? The answer is not so simple. Mediation is a tool that avoids "reactivity". More importantly, it helps to focus on the number one priority, that is, on the security of the Ukrainian people through a complete ceasefire. In addition, the ability of the mediator to show strategic empathy (which is also an instrument of statesmanship) will further help to understand what is secretly driving Vladimir Putin and what is holding him back.
Moreover, scholars such as Zartman (1981) argue that the parity of forces between the disputing parties is crucial for the success of international mediation. In this regard, it should be noted that there is a huge imbalance of forces between Russia and Ukraine — Russia has the second most powerful army in the world at its disposal, and Ukraine, a country with a population of about 44 million people, relied on the "sworn" promises (or security guarantees) given by Russia when signing the Budapest Memorandum. However, the strategy of US President Joe Biden, aimed at making publicly available American intelligence (about Russia's intention to launch a military operation in Ukraine), provided Ukraine with a "force of solidarity" that balanced or even tipped the scales in its favor. As a result, Russia is cornered, the whole world is in solidarity with Ukraine, Germany has abandoned its pacifism and taken a tougher stance against Russia by stopping the Nord Stream 2 project, and Finland and Sweden are being pushed closer to NATO membership. Therefore, the choice in favor of mediation is the only remaining opportunity for Russia to save face and avoid sanctions that damage its economy.
For the West, continued mediation represents an opportunity to build a Europe with common security, common prosperity and peace. Simply put, it could be a starting point for Russia's inclusion in Europe's security infrastructure (as it was with East Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989) — an opportunity missed after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
India is suitable for the role of mediator
Mediation between Russia and Ukraine is certainly possible, since the parties are ready for negotiations. But in order for this to begin, the approval of stakeholders will be crucial. A lot depends on who will be the mediator. Recently, the Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs of the United States, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Development of the United Kingdom, the Minister for Women and Equal Opportunities, as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia came to India on diplomatic visits. This indicates that the world hopes that India will play a more active role in the Ukrainian crisis.
This is a favorable opportunity for India to establish itself as a world power. More importantly, the role of a mediator in this conflict meets India's long—term interests in countering the Chinese threat - especially given the growing "unlimited" partnership between Russia and China. Moreover, with the growth of China's power and influence and its belligerence, its relations with the West have deteriorated. As a result, the United States and its allies need India as a strategic partner to balance China's influence in the Indo-Pacific region. It is for this reason that India is now a participant in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad).
At the moment, India is acting correctly, not taking sides. Its relations with the then Soviet Union were built in such a way as to balance relations with China (as Washington was trying to get closer to Beijing). But after the start of the special operation in Ukraine and the introduction of Western sanctions, Russia is now more dependent on China. Therefore, if India wants to benefit the most, it must take a step forward and justify its claims to become a "Vishwa Guru" (or world leader).
