By N.P. Upadhyaya (Aryal)
Biratnagar: The political events that have unfolded of late, more so in the third week of March, let’s be very clear, bodes ill for world peace.
The actions recently taken against Russia’s sitting President Vladimir Putin by Pre-Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court, or otherwise the ICC, worsen world politics in many more ways than one and force the globe near a warlike situation whose escape, in any untoward turn of international politics, appears a distant affair. The West, housed in the ICC, though, takes it as a move long overdue.
To be precise, the ICC issued warrants of arrest on March 17 for two particular Russian personalities, firstly, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, on scores of grave charges, and the Court, which has issued a warrant notice on Putin, claims that Putin is tentatively a criminal and, hence, must be tried by the International Criminal Court.
Notably, Maria is the Commissioner for Children’s Rights in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation, and she has been held responsible for the war crimes of unlawful deportation of the population (children) and unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation. (Various international agency sources)
“The possibility of a trial at the ICC appears distant as the accused Russian President does not recognize the ICC’s jurisdiction, and legal sources say that Russia even does not extradite its nationals.”
Moreover, Ukraine is not a member of the ICC but has yet to allow the ICC entrance into its territory for investigation.
In addition, the ICC has no “police force” of its own, and thus it entirely depends on the benevolence of the international community to come to its logical end.
The questions thus will be: does the fragmented, or should I say polarized,” international community subscribe to the arrest warrants issued by the ICC on Vladimir Putin?
In the meanwhile, the Russian Federation said recently that the warrant issued against President Putin is meaningless.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova said talking to her Telegram channel that “the decisions of the International Criminal Court have no meaning for our country, including from a legal point of view”.
Maria’s clarification on the ICC’s indictment thus stands, at least for the time being.
International legal eagles hasten to add that “Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of the ICC and hence bears no obligations under it.”
However, the fact is that though the Russian Federation signed the Rome Statute as far back as 2000, it has yet to ratify it.
So much so that the Russian Federation for some mysterious reasons, withdrew its signature in 2016.
The indictment came from the ICC in 2023.
What would be the legal status of the ICC’s war crime accusations in such an eventuality that needs to be discussed afresh?
In plain words, Putin’s actions since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis are tantamount to a monstrous war crime that demands and necessitates a trial by the ICC, which has been given to understand of late by the countries housed in the ICC.
The arrest warrant issued by the ICC, and that too on a political personality who has been at the helm of state affairs in the Russian Federation for several years and is even expected to stage his comeback for yet another term of the Russian Presidency, is simply difficult.
Apart from Vladimir Putin being one of the most powerful men on earth as President of the Russian Federation, he still commands respect and honor from some equally powerful countries, for instance, China and India, among others, and is yet in a position to influence world politics should Putin so desire.
So much so that even the Indian regime, which is a strategic partner of the US-designed security mechanism, the Quad, still has immense residual love and respect for the accused President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, as Russia is still exporting war materials and fighter jets to the Indian regime.
In plain words, India is playing double with both: Russia and the US, and the fun is that both count upon the friendship with India even if they understand that India has been using and overusing both for its prime national security benefits.
Yet one must admire the smart “Indian diplomacy,” which has been playing double with both the US and Russians with proper finesse.
Yet India’s attachment to the US through the Quad is meant to contain China’s increasing influence across the globe.
India will continue to remain glued to the US on account of China, India’s prime rival.
Russia sticks with India only because the latter has not come down heavily on Russia on the Ukrainian issue. Or else Pakistan under Captain Imran Khan would have been the best ally for the Russian Federation but he was unceremoniously deposed almost around the same time when the Ukrainian “invasion” or “military operation” took place.
The resultant effect was that if Pakistan lost a powerful friend, then the Russian Federation lost a potential future ally who could have easily replaced India in times of political crisis. Yet FM Bilawal’s diplomatic acumen remains to be tested.
Imran Khan’s ouster was clearly a colossal loss to both Russia and Pakistan for a variety of political reasons.
The political commentators could initiate an intense debate on this topic should they so desire.
However, this should not mean that Putin’s actions in Ukraine were justified and that he is sacrosanct. How elephantine Russia has penalized Ukraine since the crisis took a formal shape is just unacceptable. We mean it.
However, it is also very important to take into account the fact as to why the Russians took such military actions against Ukraine. Was it only an exhibition of military strength?
Clearly, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as the information got circulated then, wished to expand its grouping by adding sovereign Ukraine into the NATO block which is why the Russian Federation is abhorrently against the NATO decision.
If the NATO members strategically wish to increase their sphere of influence in the Russian neighborhood then the latter is willing not to allow the NATO members to inch closer to its territory.
It is this fact that contained the seeds of high voltage conflict in between Russia and Ukraine.
In fact, people around the world thought that the so-called “invasion” or the “military operation” shall end the war with the defeat of Ukraine; the general thinking was that Ukraine shall not endure the Russian challenge even for a week or so.
However, with the unequivocal support of the entire NATO strength led by the US, minuscule Ukraine endured the Russian assault for over a year or so to the annoyance of the Russians.
Thus, President Voldomyr Zelensky, the comedian turned President, must appreciate the NATO member states for having supported Ukraine’s en-masse to brave the Russian all-out attack or else his country would have been decimated.
Some even say that Ukraine was encouraged or say ballooned by the NATO States to tease the mighty Russians and thus the full-scale war broke out between the two that caused colossal damages on both sides.
Now it is up to the acclaimed international commentators to initiate an intense debate on ascertaining whether Russia or for that matter Ukraine is at fault for initiating the war; secondly, whether the NATO forces should have encouraged Ukraine to face the mighty Russian Federation; thirdly Russia should have exhibited restrained behavior while pouncing upon the smaller country; fourthly, is Russia waging a war singly with Ukraine or with the combined forces of the NATO?; and the question is also how a minuscule Ukraine has braved the mighty Russian Federation for over a year plus? And lastly, should we give a deep thought to the Chinese peace plan to end the conflict? And finally, was Zelensky used by NATO forces against Russia?
Various such logical questions about the RF-Ukraine confrontation could be asked which demands logical answers, however, “countries located/placed in ‘polarized’ camps may not provide justified answers as camp politics compels to answer camp wise.
Yet the quest for getting suitable and justifiable answers must continue.
In a surprising note expressed by one Indian scholar close to Modi’s Indian regime, Ambassador M. K. Bhadra Kumar writes in his fresh article, “US paranoid about Russia-China summit” published in the Punchline on March 19, says that among other things,(sic), “The arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Vladimir Putin can only be seen as a publicity stunt by the Anglo-Saxon clique, with the US leading from the rear”.
Ambassador Kumar tentatively speaks the Indian establishment’s version of Russia and the ICC warrant issued to Vladimir Putin.
He adds, “there’s no chance, of course, that the ICC warrant will ever be taken seriously. ICC has no jurisdiction in Russia, which, like the US, is not a signatory to the Rome Statute. But the intention here is something else”.
By implication ambassador Kumar also intends to send signals to his own government, India, not to take seriously the arrest warrant issued by the ICC on President Putin.
Thus what could be presumed in advance is that in case the US builds pressure on India and seeks Indian assistance in penalizing President Putin, the obvious answer from India will be a “no”.
It is at this point, Pakistan’s diplomatic shrewdness will be tested. With internal wrangling, Pakistani politics can hardly compete with Indian diplomacy.
The opposition and the government get united on “issues” that benefit India’s prime national interests. In Pakistan, like Nepal, there is a difference of opinion in looking even at the prime national interests.
China’s peace plan to end the conflict:
Several countries instantly came into action deriding the Chinese peace plan for the end of the RF-Ukrainian war. They collectively think that the Chinese plan in many more ways than one has ‘sympathy’ towards the Russian Federation and that it is soft for the Russian Federation.
Sharp reaction obviously came from none other than Antony Blinken-the US Secretary of State.
Secretary Antony Blinken reacted to the plan by saying on March 22, “China’s diplomatic and material support for Russia goes against the US interest in ending the Ukraine war”.
Blinken’s Capitol Hill testimony came ahead of a potential call between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
This should mean that the Chinese side also took Volodymyr Zelensky into confidence prior to forwarding the peace plan.
The Voice of America, March 22, reports Antony Blinken saying, “China’s Peace Plan Will Not End Russia’s Aggression in Ukraine”.
In addition, US Secretary of State Blinken has also voiced on March 20 scepticism over China’s “peace” proposals, warning that they could be a “stalling tactic” to help Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine.
“The world should not be fooled by any tactical move by Russia, supported by China or any other country, to freeze the war on its own terms.”
Does this mean that the US has summarily dismissed the Chinese plan? Or is secretly studying the plan as is the practice in diplomacy?
While advancing the peace plan, China must have thought of the US interests as well as its own colossal trade turnover with the United States that run in billions and billions. For trading purposes, China may not push the US to the wall, hopefully. Moreover, China too can’t ignore the US as the US-China reconciliation is the key to world peace. This fact both China and the US understand and the Russians too know this fact.
Yet, China has had a definite “soft corner” for the Russian Federation over these years on some specific political commitments. Both China and the RF give importance to the UN Body.
China’s peace plan has some 12 points to end the war. The plan as such includes initiating dialogue, respect for all countries’ territorial sovereignty and an end to economic sanctions. Beijing has also advanced, in its peace plan, the idea of avoiding nuclear escalation.
However, Beijing in a very smart way has not proposed Russia withdraw its forces which is what gives some room for suspicion.
In response, President Putin has welcomed China’s proposals for peace in Ukraine at a joint press conference with Xi Jinping in Moscow – a plan the west has warned would allow the Kremlin to “freeze” its territorial gains in the country, reports the Guardian on March 21.
Putin said while welcoming his Chinese counterpart that, among others, “Russia and China are fighting common threats”.
The meeting of the Chinese and Russian Presidents in Moscow sends several signals across the political corridors of politics in the globe, mainly to the US and its allies in Europe.
The meeting of the two big heads in Moscow and that too when the Ukrainian war has not come to an end has intrinsic political connotations.
Needless to say, Moscow and Beijing are once again on the same wavelength which must have been a cause of serious concern to the US and its European allies.
But can the Russians and the Chinese ignore the United States of America for long-term multiple political considerations?
The 12-point Chinese peace plan:
Needless to say, in recent years, China and Russia possess similar views on key international issues. In addition, President Xi Jinping very freshly landed in Moscow at the personal invitation of Vladimir Putin.
President Xi during his visit to Moscow most likely convinced his Russian counterpart to study the peace plan from Beijing to end the RF-Ukraine overly stretched war.
In response, Vladimir Putin said that “China’s peace plan could end the war, but Ukraine and the West are not ready for peace”.
“It could be a basis to end the war”, Putin believed.
Unconfirmed reports have it that President Zelensky may follow the 12-point Chinese peace plan as the latter now takes China as a real peacemaker and a good mediator after the Riyadh-Tehran reconciliation. But will the NATO forces allow Zelensky to go for China’s peace plan? That’s all.
Login to add a comment