Hard though it is to set aside the issue of the outcome of the US Presidential elections, and the potential impact of a Trump presidency on the pursuit of the Ukraine war, India has been touted as a prospective peacebroker by the Next Century Foundation.
India’s entry into the Ukraine war’s peace process is relatively late, especially considering the existing but ineffective dialogue tracks in place, raising questions about whether it will pursue an independent approach or join ongoing efforts. Furthermore, India’s decision not to sign the Burgenstock peace declaration in Switzerland may complicate its role in hosting future summits. Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine conflict appears to be escalating, some even argue with the potential for a broader Russia-NATO war, which could completely scupper efforts for de-escalation or a ceasefire. That said, India is not perceived as a neutral party due to its strong bilateral ties with Russia. In recent years, India has also become cautious about mediation, having previously rejected mediation attempts by outsiders regarding Kashmir.
The two-day “Summit on Peace” concluded last week in Burgenstock with mixed results. Switzerland successfully gathered representatives from over 90 countries, including leaders from at least 56 of them. Around 82 countries and organizations endorsed the final joint communiqué, although a few, such as India, abstained from signing. The statement strongly urged an end to Russia’s ongoing war with Ukraine, emphasizing the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and adherence to international law. It highlighted three key areas of consensus: nuclear safety, food security, and the exchange of all prisoners of war, as well as displaced and detained Ukrainians. However, the statement’s scope was relatively limited, as the organizers prioritized attracting as many countries, especially from the ‘Global South,’ which they partly achieved. Switzerland’s decision not to invite Russia and its focus on Ukraine’s Peace Formula, lent a somewhat one-sided impression to the event. The lack of endorsement from any current or future BRICS members suggested the statement failed to gain traction among emerging economies.
Switzerland, Ukraine, and other Western nations made a concerted effort to secure India’s support for the conference, including a last-minute appeal by Mr. Zelenskyy during his meeting with PM Modi at the G-7 outreach summit in Italy. Given India’s close partnership with Russia, its influential role in the Global South, and its balanced approach to the conflict, India’s endorsement would have been a significant achievement for the organizers. However, India has consistently abstained from UN, IAEA, Human Rights Council, and other multilateral resolutions that criticize Russia for its acions in Ukraine. While India may share some concerns reflected in the conference’s text, its alignment with an openly anti-Russian stance was unlikely. By attending but not endorsing the outcome, India demonstrated its willingness to engage in the process—particularly if it leads to a future conference that includes both Russia and Ukraine. Consequently, India’s decision to participate but refrain from endorsement was anticipated.
Less than two months after his first visit to Moscow since Russia’s full-scale incursion into Ukraine in February 2022, Modi visited Ukraine. His prior trip to Russia had attracted sharp criticism from Ukraine and open disapproval from the United States. Despite this, India maintains strong ties with both Russia and the West, Ukraine’s key supporter, leading the Next Century Foundation to believe that Modi could play a role in encouraging dialogue between the two sides.
To date, six countries have attempted to mediate peace between Russia and Ukraine, India being the latest, raising expectations given New Delhi’s close ties with Moscow and its cordial relations with Kyiv. Prior to India’s efforts, Brazil and China had proposed peace plans during a meeting held on the sidelines of the UN Genral Assembly by the newly formed “Friends for Peace” group, chaired by China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi and Brazil’s foreign policy adviser Celso Amorim. Neither Ukraine nor Russia attended this meeting, and the proposal followed a framework that China had supported since the early stages of the war. Additionally, African nations have taken initiatives to promote peace between Russia and Ukraine. In June 2023, leaders from seven African countries, including the presidents of South Africa, Egypt, Senegal, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Comoros, Zambia, and Uganda, met separately with both President Zelenskyy and President Putin. However, this African-led proposal did not succeed, facing collective disagreements from both sides.
The Swiss prove not so neutral after all?
Switzerland’s unwavering commitment to neutrality is presumed to be at the heart of its foreign policy, defining its stance in global affairs. This principle should mean that Switzerland refrains from taking sides or participating in armed conflicts, allowing it to maintain a unique position as a mediator and neutral ground for dialogue. Historically, by choosing neutrality, Switzerland not only protected its own sovereignty and territorial integrity but also established itself as a stabilizing force in Europe and beyond.
The legal framework governing Swiss neutrality obliges the nation to avoid involvement in wars between other states. This commitment enhances Switzerland’s reputation as an impartial player, building trust that fosters international cooperation and conflict resolution. Consequently, the country has been chosen as a venue for numerous critical discussions and peace negotiations. For instance, the Geneva Conference of 1954 served as a crucial turning point in efforts to address the Indochina crisis and lay groundwork for peace, while the Evian Accords in 1962 marked a pivotal step in resolving the Algerian War of Independence.
Recently, however, Russia has challenged Switzerland’s neutral stance following its decision to adopt the EU’s 12th sanctions package, which included a ban on the purchase and import of Russian diamonds. This sanction was agreed upon at the G-7 summit in December 2023, sparking criticism from Russia as Switzerland, traditionally neutral and not a member of the EU, aligned with European policy.
Switzerland, with an historic deep-rooted commitment to neutrality, stands in a unique position to serve as an effective peace broker between Russia and Ukraine. Despite recent criticisms from Russia over Switzerland’s adoption of certain EU sanctions, Switzerland’s historical stance of neutrality remains a defining feature of its foreign policy. And Switzerland’s longstanding ties with Russian business interests, including numerous Russian business elites who have close political ties to President Putin, could enhance its potential to foster constructive dialogue. These economic links, often seen as controversial, could be strategically leveraged by Switzerland to facilitate a bridge for peace.
Switzerland has repeatedly shown that it can serve as a credible mediator in international conflicts, and could not only host but actively support the mediation process between Russia and Ukraine by utilizing both its neutrality and its economic influence. However, its failure thus far to include Russia in ongoing discussions has undermined its position and perhaps leaves the path open for India and Prime Minister Modi.
Image above of the BRICS flags (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) by kirill_makes_pics from Pixabay
