The Ukrainian war: Time for non-alignment 2.0, writes Harini Calamur

Just over four weeks ago, the Russians invaded Ukraine. What was meant to be an easy victory, has dragged on, ratcheting up the body count, devastated cities, and wrecked lives? The condemnations against the invasion have been swift. As have the announcement of economic sanctions.

But the impact of sanctions is never one way. It is not just the sanctioned country that is impacted, but also all the economies that sanction it. And this is especially true if the sanctioned nation sits on valuable resources. Russia supplies almost 11 % of the world’s oil requirements. It also is a major source of natural gas. The world in general, and the EU in particular are heavily reliant on Russian energy. About 27% of EU’s oil requirements, 41% of its natural gas, and 47% of its coal imports come from Russia. Turning off Russian energy would take time and strategic investment. It is not something that can be done overnight, without major devastation of the sanctioning economy. The Germans have categorically said that turning off Russian energy would mean condemning the German people to mass poverty. The same is the case with other EU nations.

Right now, there is downward pressure on the price of Russian crude, and upward pressure on the price of the rest. Countries and companies are tripping over each other to buy discounted Russian oil, often without the use of the dollar as an intermediary. India imports 80% of its energy requirement. Right now, it has two choices – absorb the increased energy prices and stall development, and please the West or buy cheaper energy where available and put Indian national interest first. While Indian action is not likely to attract sanctions, western governments are not very happy with the Indian stance. And part of the problem is that while the West is part of two major blocs – EU and NATO, India is going in alone. And it doesn’t need to.

About 75 years, the world saw the end of the war to end wars. Or, so we were told. The second world war ended, and the period of decolonisation began. Starting with the Independence of India, various colonies declared independence, and the right to self-determine their future. The old Imperial Powers split into two major camps; the Capitalist camp led by the United States - which focused on a consumer market, and individual liberties- and the Communist camp led by the USSR – that focused on a state-controlled market, and the need for individual liberties being sacrificed for the ‘greater good.' It was an age where it was expected that you would be part of one group or the other. And that was dashed by some of the newly independent nations, and their focus on being able to develop and grow, without getting embroiled in the issues of the new Empires.

Stalwarts of the decolonisation movement from the newly independent states – didn’t want to be pulled into the skirmishes of the Europeans. The Americans and the Russians were also classified as part of this ‘white’ universe. These leaders of the newly independent nations who drove the non-alignment movement formation were; Jawaharlal Nehru from India – which had seen imperial powers from Britain, France, Portugal fight its battle in our territories; Kwame Nkrumah from Ghana (the former British Colony of Gold Coast) that was looted for its mineral wealth; Josef Tito of Yugoslavia – whose leadership of the Partisans led to the defeat of the Axis powers occupying the country; Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt – who had battled the British and French spheres of influence and imperialism; and Sukarno - who led the Indonesian liberation movement against the brutal Dutch imperial forces. The first of the major decisions taken by the Non-Aligned Movement was against taking sides in the Korean War. And this meant we stayed out of their battles. We committed our resources to what mattered most – helping people ravaged by imperialism. We sought access to both markets and sought technologies and imports from both blocks. This was not ideological. It was practical. For people recovering from Imperialism, participating in imperial shows of strength was not an option.

The Non-Aligned Movement pledged to work as a bloc – avoiding the confrontations of the Europeans and standing up against all forms of colonialism and imperialism. It was a pact that held well till the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting unipolar world.

Three decades after the victory of the West, the western hegemony is challenged. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia has not weakened Russia – both economically and in terms of stature; it has also exposed the fissures in the western bloc, and their collective disdain for the rest. And this leaves the world ripe for China to become even more dominant on the world stage. Having flexed its economic muscle for the best part of a decade, it is now flexing both its diplomatic and military muscles. That likely post the Ukraine war – there will once again be two major blocs – the West, and a Russia China axis – where the energy-hungry Chinese market will absorb Russian production, and supply it with a host of high quality, and high-end products and technologies made in China.

The question for India to answer is - will it become a part of a western alliance, where it will be mostly on the second rung of decision making? Will it side with the Russian Chinese axis for energy and imports? Or will it adopt a mid-way path between equally unappealing options and make decisions based on what it needs. And, in this, it may have allies, across the world, who all want to focus on their countries and development, without getting embroiled in the great game of the Europeans. Maybe it is time for nonalignment 2.0, geared for the needs of this millennium. And maybe that is what India needs to explore.

(The writer works at the intersection of digital content, technology, and audiences. She is a writer, columnist, visiting faculty and filmmaker.)

Published on: Monday, March 21, 2022, 08:35 AM IST