A NOTE ON THE COMPLEXITIES OF INTERNATIONAL MEDIATION FOR PEACE IN THE UKRAINE- RUSSIA BORDER

1. The armed conflict on the Ukraine border had been going on for about 8 months. As of date, there is no possibility of cessation of hostilities. What began as a ‘Russian Special Military Operation’ has evolved into a full-fledged war. Together Russia and Ukraine had lost about 150,000 lives of soldiers, besides grave loss of civilian human lives and property damage.  With the Ukrainian forces making substantial military gains, Ukraine might retake most (if not all) the positions occupied by Russia after Feb 2022. The world has now begun to worry about what Mr Putin will do if a militarily defeat becomes imminent. In fact, Russia has joined the list of countries (after North Korea and Pakistan) that threatened to use Nuclear Weapons in an armed conflict even though there is no first nuclear strike against them. Hence, the return of normalcy at the Russian-Ukraine border is very important for the world to avert the Third World War.

 

2. In the beginning, it was Ukraine that wanted a ceasefire and negotiated settlement through Diplomacy. At that time, Russia thought that it would subjugate Ukraine, install a puppet govt, ensure water security for Crimea (which Russia illegally occupied in 2014) and possibly have a bigger land corridor that would connect the Russian mainland with Crimea; this would give Russia almost full control over the oil field and gas reserves. Russia would, in due course, hoped to bring about a business-as-usual relationship with Western Europe. But all these plans backfired. Ukraine has fought back admirably. The USA has not only been able to singlehandedly finance the war but also put in place a system of very tough International Sanctions against Russia. Hence, now it is the turn of Russia to seek cessation of hostilities at the border and a diplomatically negotiated settlement. But, Ukraine has already declared that what began in Crimea in 2014 will end in Crimea at least in 2023. Hence, there is a stalemate in the efforts for an Internationally mediated settlement.

3. In the Ukraine-Russian armed conflict, Western Europe's sanctions on oil and gas supplies from Russia had resulted in the sabotage of the Nordstream 1&2 gas pipelines. Ukraine's sabotage of the Russia-Crimea bridge resulted in the oil price of 95-100$ a barrel and total denial of Russian gas Energy to Western Europe. This will have a very serious impact on the energy front also. More coal will be used for power production which will in turn aggravate Global Warming and Climate Change problems. Countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and even Bangladesh are on the verge of bankruptcy because of rising oil prices. Many other countries around the world are slowly lapsing into Recession. Hence, the outlook for International Trade and Global Development is very bleak. With the onset of the cruel Ukrainian and Russian winter, hostilities at the border will hopefully reduce. Hence, it is absolutely necessary for the rest of the world to seriously explore the possibilities of a mediated settlement.

4. Since the beginning of the war, there have been efforts for International Mediation. Turkiye and France were in fact touted as countries that can play the role of Impartial Mediators.

 

5. In fact, there was a German General, who was then in New Delhi who wanted the rest of Europe to condone the Russian Annexation of Crimea so that Russia can be kept under the European umbrella instead of compelling Russia to gravitate towards China. The General later put in his resignation! Halfway through the war, Henry Kissinger proposed a solution that would have permitted Crimean annexation and the Russian control of the strategic oil and gas reserves that are located on the eastern Ukraine-Russian border. Not surprisingly, Elon Musk who had hitherto been one of the greatest individual supporters of the Ukraine war efforts had advocated the same course of action. Even during the peak of hostilities, Russia and Ukraine exchanged POWs. This exchange was possible pursuant to an International Meditation by International RedCross(IRC) and the Saudi Arabian govt. Apparently, prosecutors from the World Court and other international agencies have been collecting evidence relating to war crimes soon after the Russian bombing of Ukraine's civilian areas. Legal Proceedings will continue. The rest of the international community was hopeful that there might be an end to the war. If there is going to be an end to the war, it doesn't matter who facilitates the end of the war, whether by negotiation or mediation or conciliation under the UN regime. This blog will explore the landmines ahead in the process of an Internationally negotiated settlement resulting in the end of the Russian war against Ukraine.

 

6. The Problem of Who Can Act as Mediators?

A. For obvious reasons, the UN cannot be a Mediator. The Security Council, the all-powerful peace-enforcing agency of the UN cannot do much because Russia wields VETO power. Hence, Ukraine will naturally be hesitant.

 

B. Russia will not be happy with Conciliation under the aegis of the UN General Assembly because already 145 countries have condemned Russia for the armed conflict in the Ukrainian region. Virtually, except North Korea, Iran, and Belorussia, no country of any consequence supports Russia.

 

C. Even India, which has not imposed sanctions against Russia, has clearly told Russia that the era of war is over. China under Xi Jinping had clearly reiterated to the international community of their intention to unify Taiwan with China(PRC), if necessary, by use of military force. Hence, China must be observing Russia's experiments to annex new areas and legitimizing the occupation of Crimea brought about by the use of military force and as per the result of the plebiscite conducted when the place was under military occupation. Hence, China has an interest in the outcome of the dispute. In fact, if the hostilities end, China's oil and gas import bills will quadruple. Hence, China cannot be the best Mediator. Countries like Japan have their own unresolved territorial disputes with Russia. Hence, not many countries in the Asian region are suited to host a meaningful International Mediation.

 

D. We must be conscious of the fact that International Criminal Court/ICJ is currently exercising its adjudicatory jurisdiction over the Russian-Ukraine military conflict. In fact, it has ordered Interim Measures. Russia, after having contested the competence of ICJ to adjudicate the dispute, is still participating in the proceedings asserting that no violations of the International Law of war had taken place. According to Russia, new nations have emerged due to the exercise of people's right to self-determination. Russia has merely annexed the erstwhile Ukrainian regions only because the residents there wanted it. In any case, even assuming that the International Criminal Court decides the issue, it is certain that Russia will not respect the Judgement as in the past. Hence, even the International Criminal Court/ICJ cannot play the role of an impartial Mediator.

7.  Whether the Ukraine war is an Unrealistic Dispute that can be mediated?

There are substantial differences in practice and content between mediation in Municipal Law jurisdictions and meditation of an International conflict. In fact, Mediators have been trained to distinguish between Realistic Conflict and Unrealistic Conflict. Real conflicts are such that even if the parties wish, the respective positions of the parties will prevent them from preferring mediation because the parties perceive the conflict as a fight unto death over the dispute. All mediators recognise that mediators should not waste their time in realistic conflicts/disputes. Realistic conflicts are conflicts in which mediators cannot play any role. In the case of apparent or perceived conflicts, the mediators have a higher degree of success. For example, in the Indus river water dispute between India and Pakistan, since sufficient waters were available in the Indus river water basin for the countries to share the water in an equitable manner, Mr David Lilinthal and the World Bank could bring about the mediated settlement between arch-rivals. The results of the mediation are still holding even after 60 years and 3 wars. But, had there not been sufficient waters available in the Indus river system, then the conflict would have remained a realistic conflict thereby preventing mediated settlement. Hence, it is imperative to analyse whether the current crisis at the Russia-Ukraine border is a realistic conflict or an unrealistic/perceived conflict.

 

8. Areas of conflict requiring Mediators' attention in the Russian-Ukraine conflict:

a. The legality of the Russian annexation of Ukraine or can Russia be considered as the Aggressor 

b. Russian-speaking, Russian-controlled enclaves within the Ukrainian territory

c. Russia's obligation to pay reparations for their acts of aggression, commission of war crimes, and other violations of International Laws of war.

d. Sharing of resources, more particularly oil and gas reserves, in the area falling under Russia's occupation after the commencement of 2022 hostilities.

e. Russia's obligations to pay for infrastructural damage done to Ukraine in pursuit of non-military objectives.

f. Russia's obligations to third parties who had suffered collateral damage from the armed conflict.

g. Wise concessions that Ukraine can reasonably make in the circumstances with a view to bringing about the cessation of hostilities and avoidance of further human misery.

h. Further expansion of NATO in Eastern Europe

i. Continuance of Petro-Dollars as an institution for pursuing global trade.

 

9. Assuming that there will be an international mediation who can best serve as International Mediators?

 

a. Turkiye and France pursued a foreign policy bearing in mind their best international interests. In many ways, their foreign policy and defence interests showed slight deviance from that of America's NATO allies. Turkiye, in fact, earlier facilitated the shipment of grains and fertilizers from the wartorn region. France also tried their best to stop the conflict; the French president even today remains in regular touch with the Putin administration. But, Turkiye's role is peculiar. In Crimea, there is a substantial Turkish (Tatar) population. Besides the only way to the Black Sea is through the Bosphorus Straits. Turkiye had been supplying European Bayraktar drones to Ukraine during the conflict. It is contemplating the manufacture of these drones in Ukraine. So, it will be difficult to conclude in the circumstances that Turkiye has no interest in the outcome of the conflict. That leaves only France as the available European Mediator excluding Norway and Switzerland.

 

b. Similarly, China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the Russian-Ukraine conflict in terms of its ability to secure very cheap oil and gas prices. Saudi Arabia had indicated that henceforth it will be open to accepting Chinese RMB and Russian Roubles as the acceptable currency for the sale of oil and gas in international trade. As explained earlier, the position of China vis a vis Taiwan will constitute a conflict of interest for China a becoming a Mediator.

 

c. It will not be in the best interest of India to volunteer for International Mediation. Ukraine had not been a particularly friendly country. They support the Pakistani point of view in the Kashmir conflict. If India is to act as an International Mediator in this dispute, it will have to tell Russia a lot of things which may not be palatable to Russian ears. In any case, the Indian Foreign Minister had said that the Ukraine conflict is essentially an European conflict having a global impact. It will be better for the European countries themselves to arrive at their homegrown solution by having Mediators drawn primarily from their region.

 

d. The other candidates that may qualify as prospective mediators are Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Brazil and even New Zealand. These countries have substantial clout in international relations and have a well-established foreign office and expertise in the conduct of International Diplomacy. The venue of Mediation can be Switzerland or Germany, which are not seen as particularly hostile to Russian security interests in Europe. Hence, it will be in the best interests of the rest of the world to demand International Meditation drawn from countries like France, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, New Zealand, and Brazil who may not really have any interest in the outcome of the proposed solutions that the International Mediators can suggest.

 

10. This is the first part of my Blog on the Russian-Ukraine conflict. Hopefully, two other blogs will follow. In the second blog, I will elaborate on each area of conflict, Third parties who would have to be involved in the Mediation, possible solutions mediators can suggest, venue etc. If you have any comments or opinions, please write to my email at muralimanu@gmail.com.