Have China, India shifted stance on Russia’s war?
NUSA DUA, INDONESIA » China and India, after months of refusing to condemn Russia’s war in Ukraine, did not stand in the way of the release this week of a statement by the world’s leading economies that strongly criticizes Moscow.
Could this, at last, signal a bold new policy change by Beijing and New Delhi to align themselves with what the United States and its allies believe is the best way to end a war that has brought death and misery to Ukraine and disrupted millions of lives as food and energy prices soar and economies crack?
There’s certainly an eagerness by a world weary of war to see it as the beginning of a shift by the burgeoning global powers.
Look close enough, however, and there’s enough subtlety, not to mention spots of vagueness, in both the official statement released at the end of the Group of 20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, and in actions from China and India themselves, to raise questions about whether a real change is underway.
Their positions will become clearer in coming weeks, but for now both nations, which have significant trade ties with Russia and have so far stopped short of outright criticism of the war, may simply be looking out for their own interests and keeping future options open.
Figuring out what exactly happened in Bali matters because there’s growing worry that without political and diplomatic pressure by China and India, Russia will be far less likely to end its war.
The conflict in Ukraine loomed large over the two-day summit on Bali, which was attended by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. News early Wednesday of an explosion that rocked eastern Poland prompted U.S. President Joe Biden to hastily arrange an emergency meeting with Group of Seven and NATO members at the summit.
The backroom wrangling at the G-20 over how to address Russia’s invasion in its statement was “very, very tough,” summit host Indonesian President Joko Widodo said.
“Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy,” the statement said.
The less-than-universal language — “most members” — signals the presence of dissent, as does an acknowledgement that “there were other views and different assessments” and that the G-20 is “not the forum to resolve security issues.”
The final product, however, was seen by some as a strong rebuke of a war that has killed thousands, heightened global security tensions and disrupted the world economy.
The public statement used language from a March U.N. resolution that deplored “in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine” and demanded “its complete and unconditional withdrawal” from Ukrainian territory.