E-Paper
Language around Ukraine war: 255 words at heart of communique challenge
India's quest for a joint communique at the G20 summit has been hindered by Russia and China's opposition to language regarding the war in Ukraine.
New Delhi: Through its G20 presidency, the Indian quest to arrive at a joint communique has consistently encountered one seemingly insurmountable obstacle — Russia and China’s joint opposition to the language around the war in Ukraine, its implications, and the need for its resolution.
But what exactly do the others, particularly members of the G7 led by the US, want to include? What is it that India, which has adopted a careful position on the war, and other members of the body who aren’t necessarily aligned with either side on the issue, can live with? And what is it that Beijing and Moscow can’t accept?
The entire fate of the joint communique rests on a debate over 255 words. When juxtaposed with the fact that the average length of the communique is now over 6000 words, with the last declaration at Bali at 10,411 words, as HT pointed out in a graphic on Friday, it is a lesson in how each word matters so much in diplomacy.
Last year, even as Russia’s war in Ukraine commenced and intensified, the G20 succeeded, due to last minute diplomatic intervention by Indonesia and India, in coming out with a statement because both Moscow and Beijing agreed to these 255 words. This year, as India assumed the presidency, the two countries backtracked from their position, leaving Delhi with the difficult task of asking the West to drop the reference, a request that Indian negotiators knew from the outset would not be accepted. India stuck to what it had signed on to in Bali, but was left struggling to get Russia and China on board.
So what’s the language that lies at the heart of the global diplomatic contest playing out in Delhi?
Taking off from Bali, in the ministerials held under the Indian presidency, 18 members of the group first recognised that since February 2022, the war in Ukraine had “adversely” impacted the economy and that there was a “discussion” on the issue. These are seemingly obvious statements which should ideally not draw an objection, unless one is the aggressor party.
As a way around the diverse national positions on the issue among these 18 other members — think of how India’s own formulation on the war is so distinct from the West’s — the statement then says that countries reiterated their national positions, as expressed in the United Nations. On the insistence of the G7, the fact that UN resolutions on the war have strongly condemned a Russian aggression and demands Moscow’s “complete and unconditional” withdrawal, with the widespread support of member states, is then mentioned as a factual statement in the text. A reminder that its invasion has little support is not what Russia wants.
It then goes on to say that “most members” strongly condemned the war in Ukraine — again a statement of fact based on the views within the group — and that they stressed that it was “causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy”. This included “constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity, and elevating financial stability risks”. Almost all countries, including India, have often spoken of the secondary implications of the war for the global economy and this part of the statement reflects that.
The language around Ukraine, once again in a nod to the diversity among members, says that there were “other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions”. It also recognises that the G20 was not the forum to resolve security issues, but that security issues “can have significant consequences for the global economy”.
The next part of the statement revolves around the way out. Eighteen members of the group have consistently signed on to language that says that it is essential to “uphold international law and the multilateral system that safeguards peace and stability”.
“This includes defending all the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and adhering to international humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and infrastructure in armed conflicts. The threat of use of nuclear weapons is inadmissible. The peaceful resolution of conflicts, efforts to address crises, as well as diplomacy and dialogue are vital. Today’s era must not be of war,” the outcome statements say. The last line is borrowed from PM Narendra Modi’s direct message to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Samarkand. All of this is seen by Moscow as a coded rebuke of its actions in Ukraine.
In each outcome statement, a caveat says that Russia and China didn’t agree to these paragraphs. The final shape of India’s G20 summit outcome will hinge on whether these two countries relent in their opposition, whether they offer specific but acceptable changes to the rest, or whether they stick to their stated positions, thus blocking progress once again.
