Developments in Russia-Ukraine War
Ukraine Peace Summit:
The two-day peace summit, titled the ‘Path To Peace’, held in Switzerland was an attempt to reinvigorate global public opinion on mobilizing support for Ukraine in the Russia-Ukraine war at a time when the war appears to be deadlocked and there is fizzling international interest in seeking peace. The agenda of the summit was to look at ways to end the war. Ahead of the summit, Ukraine had made multiple attempts to enlist support of various countries in the Global South to attend the summit.
While India’s representation was there at the summit at a bureaucratic level, China refused to participate. Turkey, another country which had attended the summit and had offered to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, had criticized the summit for not inviting Russia, arguing that any resolution of war between the two parties necessarily needs to have involvement of both parties. Without such direct involvement, these summits would be meaningless. The same position was taken by China in its refusal to attend the summit, and by Pakistan as well which simply followed China’s cue. While India did participate and urged an end to hostility, the country did not sign the joint communique at the end of the summit, citing similar reasons. Interestingly, from the West, the US’s attendance was marked by the absence of President Joe Biden, with the Vice President, Kamala Harris being sent instead. Other countries – mainly from the Global South – who attended the summit at bureaucratic level, but did not sign the final communique included Mexico, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Thailand, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates.
The joint communique reflected the summit’s focus on three key areas viz. nuclear safety, global food security and humanitarian issues. It was signed by eighty countries and four organizations. The communique stressed that the ongoing war was imperiling the world in all these areas. It also urged for the release of all prisoners of war. Ukraine hailed the summit as a success.
Russia-North Korea Treaty:
As the Russia-Ukraine war lumbers on with neither side gaining a decisive upper hand, a significant development that threatens to alter the existing status-quo is the formalization of a mutual defence assistance treaty between Russia and North Korea. The pact was signed, recently, on Putin’s first visit to North Korea in 24 years. It was a culmination of a series of developments signaling closer cooperation between Moscow and Pyongyang over the past year in view of Russia’s international isolation after it launched the attack on Ukraine in 2022, with North Korea supplying additional ammunition to Russia in exchange for technology transfers. Resembling a Cold War-era pact that the former Soviet Union had signed with North Korea in 1961, the significant feature of the present treaty is that it binds both the countries to come to each other’s defence, mobilizing their full military resources and ‘by all of one’s means available’, if either country is under attack.
Interpretation
Despite the signing of this treaty, it is unlikely that North Korea will intervene directly in the Russia-Ukraine war, as Russia refuses to recognize it as a war and terms it a special military operation. Further, the specific conditions under which this treaty can be invoked have also been left deliberately vague in terms of interpretation – much like how the 1961 treaty was never invoked despite multiple theatres of conflict during the Cold War.
Implications
There are two immediate key implications of this treaty visible:
First, it is a signal to the West, especially to the United States that any aggression against Russia by any allies of the United States will have wider consequences. The treaty is a reminder of many such pacts that were signed prior to the Second World War, hardening geopolitical fault lines and alliances and resulting in a world war. The situation today is beginning to resemble the past, as there is increasingly sharp polarization in US-China and US-Russia relationships, with the former being beyond salvation even through economic means.
Second, the treaty creates discomfort for China which has always treated North Korea precariously and has had a largely transactional relationship with Russia. China already has a similar mutual defense assistance treaty with North Korea signed during the Cold War, also signed in 1961. This means that if North Korea comes to Russia’s aid and is attacked by Moscow’s enemies, China will have to come to North Korea’s aid, thereby leading to a wider war.
It is to be seen how the impact of the latest treaty unfolds, but one thing that is clear is that the world is precariously close to conflict-like conditions, with no mitigating factors in sight.
Israel-Hamas: Failure of the Peace Plan
After investing much effort and strategy, the United States had finally come up with a three-phase peace plan, which received some legitimacy after it was stamped with approval from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) which asked, both, Israel and Hamas to accept the peace plan. On its part, the United States maintained that the plan was already agreed to by Israel and that the main obstacle in its implementation was Hamas’s refusal to accept the plan. According to the plan, there would be a six-week ceasefire in the first phase. In this phase, Israel would withdraw from densely populated areas of Gaza and allow the release of Hamas prisoners in exchange for 33 Israeli hostages held by Hamas. In the second phase, Israel would be expected to completely withdraw from Gaza, while Hamas would release the remaining Israeli hostages. In the third and the final phase, there would be the reconstruction of Gaza.
On its part, Hamas has not fully accepted the peace plan. Hamas’s conditions for a ceasefire include complete Israeli withdrawal from Rafah, total freedom in determining who are the Palestinian prisoners that will be released, and guarantees involving China, Russia and Turkey in any final settlement with Israel. On the Israel’s part, expectedly, despite the US’s fabrications that Israel has approved the plan, the latter has not publicly backed it. This is not surprising given the superficial and weak nature of the so-called peace plan, which betrays intentions to avoid the root causes of the conflict in the form of Palestinian terrorism and does not contain any provisions to penalize Hamas for the October 7th, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel. To the contrary, the peace plans appear to bestow unnecessary legitimacy on a terrorist outfit like Hamas, by compelling Israel to negotiate with it. This is reflected in the fact that the plan makes very little strategic concessions or gains for Israel except the release of hostages. Importantly, the Israeli objective of complete annihilation of Hamas cannot be secured through this plan. Further, the plan contains no security guarantees for Israel and does not present any substantive solution to the ongoing conflict.
Rise of Right Wing in Europe
The rise of the right-wing parties in the recently held European Parliamentary elections signals the changing political landscape across Europe. It also reflects the discontent of European people towards the policies of allowing unmitigated migration and minority appeasement that is being practiced under the guise of liberal and moderate ideologies, and whose outcome has already damaged the socio-cultural fabric of Europe irreparably. Mounting attacks by illegal immigrants on native Europeans, the rising instances of migrants rioting on the streets of Europe and the rise in crimes and terrorist attacks have become increasingly visible in Europe, especially in advanced economies like France and Germany. Others like Spain and Sweden have also witnessed rise in disturbances. The fact that the existing justice system allows these crimes by migrant populations – majority of whom are from Middle eastern Muslim countries – to go lightly punished has further aggravated matters. Further, the strain on social security resources precipitated by the rise in immigration and the rise in unemployment and general economic discontent has further disillusioned the people. Another significant concern centered around nearly 4000 different protests held by farmers’ groups across the EU
It is under such a disturbing and polarizing backdrop that the victory of the right-wing parties in the recently held European Parliamentary elections does not seem surprising, particularly in France and Germany. In France, President Macron’s centrist faction was humbled by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party, and in Germany, German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz’s socialists were humbled by the far-right Alternative for Democracy (AfD). The highest gains came from Italy, where Prime Minister Georgia Meloni’s party, Brothers for Italy, won 28% of the national vote for the EU assembly. Despite the gains made by the far-right parties in key countries, the center-right European People’s Party remained the biggest bloc in the EU assembly, retaining around 191 out of 720 seats. This was followed by the center-left bloc retaining around 135 seats. Many far-right parties are not part of any consolidated group, but if their votes were counted together, they would make up for around 131 seats. The biggest losses were suffered by the Greens whose seats came down to just 53. In the wake of the results, the French President dissolved the Parliament and called for snap elections. The results will significantly alter the direction of the EU policy on key issues like immigration, climate change, and trade.
The US Presidential Debate
The recently held United States Presidential debate between the Democrat President Biden and the Republican nominee, former President, Trump, has now conclusively tilted the scales in favour of the Republican Presidential candidate. While Biden tripped on his words, lost his focus, was unable to finish his sentences and repeatedly forgot details of his train of thought, Trump was sharp in his responses as well as attacks. The moderators asked both the Presidential nominees questions on key foreign policy issues like Russia-Ukraine war, China, Iran, Israel-Hamas war, and domestic issues like cross border illegal immigration, abortion, rising childcare expenses, healthcare, climate change, social security service net, policy on tax cuts or increases etc. The responses by the two candidates were, predictably, in line with their recent campaigns in the past few months, but Trump was able to present his arguments and attacks better. He was robustly able to attack Biden on issues such as open borders policy and how it is disadvantageous for Blacks, Hispanics and majority of Americans. He was also effectively able to corner Biden on Israel-Hamas war accusing him of not letting Israel finish the war. He further cornered Biden for his unsuccessful approach to Russia-Ukraine war. A notable issue was the age of both the candidates, especially President Biden, which Biden was not able to allay.
After the debate, there was widespread panic within the Democratic Party, as Mr. Biden’s performance was being touted as the worst by any candidate in the history of the American Presidential debate. By the end of the debate, viewers ratings had given a 67% performance score to Trump and a merely 33% performance score to Biden. This was despite the stunning fact that Biden had sequestered himself with his closest aides for a full week in the Camp David Presidential retreat to prepare for the Presidential debate and had a fair idea about the nature of questions that would be fielded. Further, it was Biden’s office which had asked for such an early Presidential debate in June. After Biden’s performance, various Democratic Party donors came out in the open to express reservations about Biden’s performance.
Reports also indicate that the Democratic Party is seriously debating whether Biden should be replaced by another Presidential nominee through an open convention, if not an endorsement by Biden of his successor. But with barely four months left to go for the Presidential election, the last-minute choice becomes particularly difficult. Furthermore, the Vice-President, Ms. Kamala Harris, is perceived as being highly unpopular with her competence often mocked. In the event of any change of candidate, Biden will have to endorse the person who is next in line, that is, Ms. Harris, who also carries the identity of being a person of colour, an Asian and a woman. Any attempts to skip over her in favour of a white, male candidate (such as, Gavin Newsom) will not go down well with the Democratic vote-bank. Apart from these considerations, Biden himself has refused to back out of the race.
These dilemmas have increased the likelihood of a Republican victory in the November elections. Opinion polls have indicated the tight nature of the Presidential race, with falling approval ratings of Biden and rising approval ratings of Trump, with Trump retaining a thin lead in some important swing states. Trump and Biden are both polling just above 40 percent, with Trump currently holding a slender edge, while the independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. has been polling at about 10 percent.
