EDITORIAL- MARCH 1, 2022

THE HINDU EDITORIAL- MARCH 1, 2022

 

Counting the costs Talks to end the war are a must as sanctions on Russia will hurt the wider world Saturday’s announcement by the U.S., the U.K. and European allies, including France and Germany, of a raft of ‘further restrictive economic measures’ to increase the costs on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine has just raised the risks of a more widespread economic fallout from this war. With a view to further isolating Russia from the international financial system, the western allies decided  to block ‘selected’ Russian banks from the SWIFT massaging system used to validate and complete international payment transactions. They also resolved to impose restrictions on the Russian central bank’s ability to access and deploy the country’s ‘war chest’ of an estimated $630 billion in foreign exchange reserves. The immediate impact of these moves on Russia’s economy and financial markets have manifested in a sharp depreciation in the value of the ruble- the currency tumbled almost 30% intraday to a record low against the dollar in Asian trading on Monday and has weakened about 26% so far in 2022. They also forced the country’s central bank to more than double its benchmark interest rate to 20%, the highest in almost two decades, and impose controls on capital flows. Russia’s largest lender Burbank found its European arm facing a run on its deposits, which the European Central Bank Warned could lead to the unit’s ‘failure’. With Russians waiting in long queues outside ATMs on fears of likely cash shortages, the country’s citizens face the real prospect of runaway inflation. But the economic costs of Vladimir Putin’s unilateral decision to embark on what he called a ‘special military operation’ to describe Russia’s all-out invasion of its western neighbor last week are already being felt worldwide. European banks and companies with significant business exposure to Russia have taken a beating on the bourses given the extent to which the sharp escalation in the sanctions is certain to hurt their operations and revenues. And though the western allies have carefully avoided any mention so far on closing the tap on Russia’s massive exports of oil and gas that contribute substantially to the country’s current-account surplus, concerns about possible disruptions to shipments from the world’s second-largest producer of oil have pushed the price of Brent crude futures well above $100 a barrel. With most large European economies majorly reliant on energy costs fanning a bruising acceleration in inflation in Europe and worldwide is very real. At a time when a durable recovery from the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic is yet to take hold, the war initiated by Russia, and the consequent sanctions on it, especially if widened to cover countries that seek to bypass the sanction regime, pose a challenge to the global economy that Robobank’s economists projected could be ‘so bad’ as to be unquantifiable. Expedient negotiations to end the conflict are the only way forward.   On top at home Indian cricket’s emerging players are showing no signs of stage-fright   With the Himalayas looming over Dharamshala, India scaled fresh heights in its evolving journey in Twenty20 Internationals. After winning the inaugural 2007 ICC World t20 in South Africa, the Men in Blue flattered to deceive in cricket’s shortest version, specifically in global events. However, India largely does excel in bilateral series and the latest triumph was the 3-0 sweep against the visiting Sri Lankans in a clash that had its final episode at Dharamshala on Sunday night. After clinching the opening fixture at Lucknow, India extended that winning-act in the next two games under the mountain skies. Having recently swept past the West Indies at 3-0 each in ODIs and T20Is, Rohit Sharma’s cup of joy continues to brim. The latest squad missed Virat Kohli and Rishabh Pant, who were given a bio-bubble break, while the injured duo of K.L. Rahul and Hardik Pandya remain on the recovery path. Yet, India papered over the cracks and found men who could fill these vacant boots, Even Rohit after a 44 ant Lucknow, managed just one and five in the last two encounters. The absence of key personnel and the meager batting returns from the captain were tided past. The West Indies earlier and Sri Lanka now are essentially outfits in transitions, but India deserves credit for the way it drove home its advantage with emphatic performances. As India builds a unit leading into the ICC Twenty20 World cup later this year in Australia, these results offer hope. Even from among those players penciled in as part of the core group, Rohit missed and injured Suryakumar Yadav, who had flourished against the West Indies. But like the Test squad that revealed a strong bench-strength during the tour of Australia in the 2020-21 season, the Men in Blue displayed a similar resilience. Be it Ishan Kishan or a Sanju Samson being tried atop the batting tree or a Shreyas lyer, positioned as the latest middle-order fulcrum, what caught the eye was the ease with which these batters embraced their roles. Shreyas was in blistering form as evident from his unbeaten knocks of 57, 74 and 73. The Mumbaikar and his alliance with Ravindra Jadeja in the second match, which perhaps could have gone to the wire, offered riveting fare and hinted at the host’s ominous form, especially in its backyard. Jadeja’s return again provides the all-round option that India has chased ever since Kapil Dev retired in 1994. Jadeja, Hardik and wicket-keepers who can bat like earlier in the case of M.S. Dhoni and currently through Pant, offer balance to any unit. Currently through Pant, offer balance to any unit. Currently Indian cricket’s conveyor belt is chugging along smoothly with emerging players showing no signs of stage-fright.

Debunking Russia’s international law justifications                                                                    The grounds on which the Russian President has tried to justify Moscow’s illegal actions against Ukraine are erroneous PRABHASH RANJAN & ACCHYUTH ANIL Notwithstanding the spin offered by international relations experts on the Russia-Ukraine crises, the unequivocal truth is this. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a brutal murder of the United Nation (UN) Charter and several other tenets of international law. Ironically, Russian President Vladimir Putin has invoked international law to justify Moscow’s barefaced illegal actions. But these justifications are erroneous.   Recognition of territories Three days before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Russia recognized the supposedly independent territories of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine and signed treaties of friendship with these entities paving the way for Russian troops moving in as “peacekeepers”. In doing so, Russia seems to rely on the controversial theory of remedial secession, which posits the unilateral secession of territory from the parent state in the most extreme cases. However, international law, beyond the context of decolonization, does not recognize a general right to unilateral secession within the principle of self-determination. Even if an arguable case could be made for remedial secession, it requires a very high threshold such as severe violations of human rights and systemic oppression of ethnic Russians by Ukraine. Russia’s claims of the genocide of ethnic Russians are not backed by any evidence Ukraine has moved the International Court of Justice on the issue of alleged genocide. In any case, Ukraine expressly agreed to recognize the autonomy of Donetsk and Luhansk under the Minsk Accords with Russia, thereby promising to protect the right to self-determination of these territories. Therefore, Russia’s claims have no basis in international law. In recognizing the statehood of Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia has violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter by undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity.   Use of force The Russian illegality has not been restricted to just this. The Russian missile strikes in Ukraine including on non-military objects and the Russian forces marching through Ukrainian soil are a ruthless exhibition of the use of force in international relations, which Article 2(4) of the UN Charter proscribes. Bizarrely, Mr. Putin claims that he is acting in self-defense in the case of an armed attack by one state against another state. However, Ukraine has not launched an “armed attack” against Russia warranting defensive strikes. Moreover, there was no ‘imminent’ threat from Ukraine that would have justified Russia’s actions even under the arguable theory of anticipatory self-defense in international law. The right to collective self-defense under Article-51 exists only for states. Donetsk and Luhansk are not states under international law. Moreover, Ukraine did not attack these purportedly independent states. Even assuming that legitimate grounds for self-defense exist, nothing in Article-51 or customary international law permits a disproportionate action in self defense, such as a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Mr. Putin’s despicable actions are tantamount to committing the crime of aggression as defined under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Rome Statute in Article 8bis (2) defines an act of aggression to mean any use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another state. Ideally, the aggressor state and its leaders should face international criminal responsibility for aggression. However, the ICC is unable to exercise jurisdiction unless both the aggressor and victim states are party to the Rome Statute. With Russia and Ukraine not being a party, the likelihood of legal accountability to the actions of Russia is slim.   On’R2P’ Mr. Putin also indirectly invoked the controversial doctrine of humanitarian intervention, also termed Responsibility to Protect (R2P), in international law for its actions in Ukraine. R2P stems from every state’s responsibility to protect its population from gross violations of human rights and the international community’s responsibility in assisting states to fulfill such responsibility. Controversially, this principle has been stretched to justify the use of force by third states in the territory of a state which has failed in its duty to protect its citizens Such actions may or may not be authorized by the UN Security Council (UNSC); the 2011 military intervention in Libya received UN authorization, while the 1995 North Atlantic Treaty Organization bombing of Bosnian Serbs did not. However, the R2P doctrine remains disputed in international law. Even if it exists, there is no evidence that ethnic Russians in Ukraine are facing atrocities that merit a humanitarian intervention of the scale that Russia has launched. The irony of Russia invoking the R2P doctrine for its Ukrainian invasion, in the same declaration criticizing the West for R2P in Libya and the former Yugoslavia, is lost in hubris.   Russia’s revisionism It will be futile to look at the current crisis through the narrow lens of black letter law alone without expounding the ideational moorings of Russia’s approach. The Kremlin believes that the world is divided into spheres of influence. Thus, one needs to distinguish between countries that are truly sovereign and countries that possess nominal or limited sovereignty. Russia views Ukraine as an entity that possesses limited sovereignty. The global community should take note of Mr. Putin’s precarious game of resurrecting a ‘Russian empire’ that could topple the very foundations on which the post-World War rule-based international order has been laboriously built. This is part of the Russian approach toward international law which believes that the basis of international law is not universal but cultural and civilization distinctness. Rooted in Russia’s cultural and civilization exceptionalism is the emphasis on statism. Indeed, Putin’s Russia has doubled down on statism in international law through institutionalizing several mechanisms. For example, Russia has created a constitutional apparatus to denounce international human rights law, by empowering the Russian Constitutional Court to invalidate any judgment by any human rights mechanism (including the European Court of Human Rights), if they are found to be inconsistent with the Russian constitution. History tells us humanity has suffered at the hands of hypermasculine autocratic leaders who set out on the path of achieving mythical civilsational greatness. The global community should collectively ensure that this is not repeated. International law should be marshaled to constrain arbitrary state power and check imperial designs. Or else the sustenance of a rule-based international order shall remain a pipe dream.   Ukraine’s situations, India’s national interest While India needs to remind Russia that its actions violate the BRICS Delhi resolution, the UN can assist Ukraine SUBRAMANIAM SWAMY The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, in his televised speech on the night of February 21,2022, had announced a “special military operation to protect people who have been abused by the genocide of the Kyiv regime for eight years.” Mr. Putin further said; “We will strive for the demilitarization and de-Nazification of Ukraine, as well bring to justice those who committed numerous bloody crimes against civilians.” Who is ‘We’? In the 21st century, why is Mr. Putin using despicable 19th century Imperialist language?   A belief without basis There is, or was, however no genocide in Ukraine proved by any documented report. Moreover, the Ukrainian government is nowhere close to be legitimately called “Nazi”. For example, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a Jew. He is also proud of his Jewish grandfather who had fought against Hitler’s German army. In fact, Mr. Putin’s actions during the last few days are making Mr. Putin himself sound more like the hated Nazis. As of now, Russian bombs are pounding Ukraine. Russian soldiers are pouring into Ukraine. The only question on everyone’s lips is: “Why? What does Russia hope to accomplish with this bloody invasion?” The Ukrainian people from the very top, from President Zelensky himself, have decided to fight and Russian troop movement is thus down to a crawl and behind announced schedule. Mr. Putin seems to believe that “Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that is historically and rightfully Russia’s”. But even the most biased Russian history book does not suggest even remotely this outrageous Nazi-like belief of Mr. Putin. Thus the talk of a “de-Nazification” of the Russian establishment, while absurd at the factual level nonetheless reveals that Mr. Putin is “acting on his long-held autocratic belief that the Ukrainian government has no right to exist”. His ultimate goal seems to be to make Ukraine into a vassal of his future as yet imaginary, Russian-led Soviet Empire. In his earlier 2005 Declaration, Mr. Putin had stated that “the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster”. There are not many takers for this view even inside Russia. “The most relevant formulation, for the purposes of understanding the current invasion, however came in Mr. Putin inflammatory speech on Ukraine policy delivered on February 20 last, in which the central contention of his address is that Ukraine and Russia are, in historical terms, essentially inseparable. Mr. Putin’s narrative is twisted history: it is simply incorrect to say that Ukraine has had no independent national identity that is separate from Russia”. The Narendra Modi government has decided to abstain on the vote on the United Nations Security Council Resolution (moved by the United States and its allies against Russia over the Ukraine invasion). But Prime Minister Modi should surely recognize that BRICS, in its New Delhi Declaration (paragraph 22 in the XIII BRICS Summit), had resolved that the five BRICS nations were opposed to the unilateral use of force against any state, and wanted all disputes resolved by peaceful means, and categorically ruled out the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State (September 9, 2021).   The BRICS Delhi resolution The text adopted was as follows: “We (BRICS) underscore the inadmissibility of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes and principles or United Nations.” Thus, the New Delhi BRICS Declaration commits to resolving all disputes by peaceful means and is opposed to unilateral use of force against any state. Russia by invading Ukraine has violated that resolution to which India also was a prominent party. This declaration was in fact approved and signed by Russia in the presence of Mr. Putting along with China’s President Xi Jinping. Yet, six months later, Russia, a founder-member of BRICS, has forgotten that resolution by Russia’s unilateral illegal violent military action against Ukraine. That is why I have been advocating, since long, for India walking out of BRICS since I had earlier apprehended the coming collapse of BRICS. In 2015 I had declined Prime Minister Modi’s offer to me, conveyed by Bharatiya Janata party leader Amit Shah in the presence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh representative, of accepting to become the first President of the BRICS Bank. I conveyed to the Prime Minister directly later that China would soon be turning hostile to India, and BRICS would lose credibility. Today the invasion and aggression against Ukraine has in effect cremated the spirit of BRICS. “By casting the Ukrainian regime in the most negative possible light- and officially linking Russia’s official war aims to ‘de-Nazification’ and ‘demilitarization’- Mr. Putin is all but openly acting on his belief, that Ukraine is not a legitimate sovereign state, into aggressive action. The Russian case for the war is thus built on an unwitting lie about Ukraine’s history”, as an article says.   The path for New Delhi From this juncture onwards, India has to take stock since the apparent foal of India becoming a “Viswa Guru” is now, at best, a mirage. From Jawaharlal Nehru onwards, India has filed to become one since it cannot be a reality in the present global dispensation. Instead, India needs friends and collaborators but without bowing before any country. One way for India to begin asserting itself is to suggest to Russia to withdraw its armed forces from the entire Ukraine in keeping with the aforenoted Delhi Resolution of BRICS. If Russia does not give weight to India’s Suggestion, the Modi government should announce in the UN General Assembly, consideration of the U.S. proposed Draft Resolution; India would vote for it after the United Nations General Assembly adopts any reasonable amendments proposed. India should also urge the United States to re-structure the objectives and the priorities of the Quad, outline a clear strategy to achieve the objectives, and mobilize the resources required. For India, a President Xi-led China is a hostile nation directly, and in global competition. India is potentially capable of meeting this Chinese threat- a threat that is evident by China grabbing 50,000 square kilometers of Indian territory. The potential strength of India can become actual capability with a little help from the United States. As for Russia, its position in global affairs will depend on the outcome of the Ukraine invasion. At present Russia is falling behind its announced schedule. Ukraine has by its bravery caused delays in Russia’s schedule. With help from members of the United Nations, Ukraine can become the David against the Russian Goliath and become a free democratic nation again.