UN Resolution Condemning Russian Aggression

Context: India decided to abstain from voting at the UN Security Council against Russia’s war on Ukraine that sought to condemn Russian aggression and called for the immediate cessation of violence and withdrawal of Russian military from Ukraine.
Key resolution

• The Council’s resolution reaffirmed its commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders.
• The resolution “deplores in the strongest terms Russia’s aggression against Ukraine” and decides that Russia “shall immediately cease its use of force against Ukraine and shall refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN member state”.
• The resolution added that Russia “shall immediately, completely, and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognised borders”.
• It also asked Moscow to “immediately and unconditionally reverse the decision related to the status of certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine”.

India's stand

• India did not endorse the harsh language used in the resolution condemning Russia’s actions.
• It wants to maintain a balance between the Western bloc led by the US, and Russia, since it has strategic partners on both sides.

Did India Abstained for the First Time?

• India’s past record has been maintaining balance between the West and Russia.
• India abstained on a procedural vote on whether to discuss the issue of Ukraine.
• New Delhi had then articulated its position on “legitimate security interests” that echoed with a nuanced tilt towards the Russian position, and had abstained along with Kenya and Gabon.

How did India explain its vote?

• India said that it is “deeply disturbed”, but did not name Russia at all. “India is deeply disturbed by the recent turn of developments in Ukraine”.
• India reiterated its appeal for “cessation of violence”. All efforts are made for the immediate cessation of violence and hostilities. No solution can ever be arrived at the cost of human lives.
• India flagged its core concern about Indian nationals in Ukraine, most of whom are students. The country is deeply concerned about the welfare and security of the Indian community.
• India touched upon “territorial integrity and sovereignty”. “The contemporary global order has been built on the UN Charter, international law, and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. All member states need to honour these principles in finding a constructive way forward.
• India advocated diplomacy. Dialogue is the only answer to settling differences and disputes, however daunting that may appear at this moment. It is a matter of regret that the path of diplomacy was given up.

Is this good for India’s diplomatic space?

• Sources said that India maintained its “consistent, steadfast and balanced position on the matter”.
• India has been in touch with all sides, urging the parties concerned to return to the negotiating table.
• By abstaining, India retained the option of reaching out to relevant sides in an effort to bridge the gap and find a middle ground with an aim to foster dialogue and diplomacy.

About UNSC

• It  is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations (UN), charged with ensuring international peace and security, recommending the admission of new UN members to the General Assembly, and approving any changes to the UN Charter.
• Its powers include establishing peacekeeping operations, enacting international sanctions, and authorizing military action.
• The Security Council, the United Nations’ principal crisis-management body, is empowered to impose binding obligations on the 193 UN member states to maintain peace. The UNSC is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions on member states.
• The council’s five permanent and ten elected members meet regularly to assess threats to international security, including civil wars, natural disasters, arms proliferation, and terrorism.
• Structurally, the council remains largely unchanged since its founding in 1946, stirring debate among members about the need for reforms.
• In recent years, members’ competing interests have often stymied the council’s ability to respond to major conflicts and crises, such as Syria’s civil war, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the coronavirus pandemic.

Road Ahead

• Within India’s foreign policy establishment, there is ongoing debate on what India might gain or lose by its neutrality and the consequences of siding with the West. There is also the thinking that the West cannot afford to cut away from India at this point, as it needs India’s markets, and India’s heft as a democracy as it seeks partners to contain China. Therefore, India’s position may have to be calibrated constantly as the situation evolves especially if confronted by growing casualties in Ukraine.