This article argues that India should mediate in the Ukraine-Russia war, emphasizing that its current geopolitical position and relationships with global powers provide a unique opportunity to facilitate peace. It discusses the merits of India’s involvement, the timeliness of actions, and the importance of third-party mediation, concluding with practical steps for engagement.
The notion that India must delay its involvement in global conflict mediation until it attains greater power is erroneous. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) indicated last year its readiness to assist in resolving the complexities of the Ukraine-Russia conflict prior to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kyiv. This opens potential avenues for India to actively pursue mediation in the longstanding war between Russia and Ukraine.
India’s steadfast approach of refraining from condemning Russia while balancing relationships with both Russia and the West has proven to be a strategic success. New Delhi’s decisions, both to engage and to withhold commentary, have positioned it well in the arena of global power dynamics. However, as the world stage evolves, India should not remain passive, especially in light of ongoing discussions in Riyadh aimed at negotiating peace in Ukraine.
India should consider proposing itself as a mediator between Russia and Ukraine, seeking a venue for ceasefire discussions involving U.S. participation. The timing appears conducive: with Russia seeking to lift sanctions and engage in conversations with the U.S., India may position itself favorably by facilitating dialogues that include all relevant parties, potentially encouraging a resolution to the conflict.
There are three significant reasons for India to engage in mediation. First, the present geopolitical context is ripe for intervention, wherein Russia is exploring opportunities to end sanctions and is open to power dialogues. Second, India’s reputation as a neutral actor is acknowledged by many involved actors, distinguishing it from other nations that may carry biases. Third, mediating would align with India’s aspiration to elevate its status as a global leader in a multipolar world, enhancing its influence and credibility.
Furthermore, if a ceasefire occurs, Ukraine is likely to demand assurances against future Russian aggression. Given its peacekeeping experience, India could facilitate peacekeeping missions along the Ukrainian border. Thus, India should aspire to take the lead in negotiations, rather than merely participating in others’ agreements.
Nevertheless, India faces challenges, primarily a fear of failure in mediation efforts. Despite this apprehension, the pursuit of third-party mediation often yields geopolitical advantages, regardless of the success of conflict resolution. The role of mediation is as much about facilitating dialogue as it is about achieving a peaceful resolution.
Practical measures are recommended for India, including the appointment of a special envoy to engage discreetly with all parties involved, gathering insights into their interests and boundaries, and proposing a negotiation venue within India itself.
Ultimately, the argument for waiting until India gains more power to mediate is unfounded. By comparison, India’s economic stature far exceeds that of other nations already attempting mediation. It is essential for India to embrace its role on the global stage and take proactive steps in mediating conflicts, starting with the Ukraine-Russia war.
In conclusion, India stands at a critical juncture where it must assert itself as a mediator in the ongoing Ukraine-Russia conflict. The timing is appropriate, and its neutral stance is respected among major stakeholders. By engaging in mediation, India could enhance its geopolitical standing while contributing to a significant international resolution. The fear of failure should not deter Indian involvement, as successful mediation offers substantial benefits for national and global interests.
Original Source: www.hindustantimes.com
