No sane person can object to Trump’s efforts to stop killings and end the Ukrainian conflict and bring back peace. But for peace to be durable, it must be fair, it must be even handed and both sides should feel winners.
In the 1970s hit Hindi film, Safar, featuring Rajesh Khanna, Firoz Khan and Sharmila Tagore, there was an endearing song conveying a time-tested sage advice: Jo tumko ho pasand wohi baat kahenge/Tum din ko agar raat kaho, raat kehenge…
This simple, practical strategy works not only in love affair and marital life but is equally effective in politics, business and international affairs. One politician had mounted a sharp criticism against Prime Minister Modi and exited from government. Subsequently, he underwent a change of heart, expressed remorse for his earlier utterances, rejoined the government and reincarnated himself as a strong admirer of the PM. His detractors called him an opportunist but in the eyes of his supporters, he was a practical pragmatist par excellence.
This phenomenon isn’t confined to India alone; such pragmatists exist elsewhere as well. Some years back, an American politician compared Donald Trump to Hitler, he is now his Vice President; he rebuked the Ukrainian President in front of the cameras in the Oval Office. And “little Marco”, who openly accused Russia of invading Ukraine, and during the Biden administration, favoured support to Ukraine as long as it takes, now as the Secretary of State, ensured that the US voted against the UN Resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Three years ago, when India refused to condemn Russia, the US and European leaders were competing with each other in telling India that she was on the wrong side of history. They scorned at our inability to call a spade a spade and condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Amazon heads, who weren’t too enamoured of the Presidential candidate Tump have been singing his tune. Meta has stopped fact checking. How pragmatic are the industrial giants.
Apparently, the thin line between what’s right and what’s wrong is blurred; we choose our own truth or what’s half-truth or mixed truth or a convenient truth which would serve our interests amidst changes on which we have no control. Russia purportedly invaded Ukraine to address her legitimate security concerns thinking that its special operation would be over in a few weeks. Three years past, it’s still raging, thousands have died on both sides, cities and towns have been reduced to rubble, millions have taken refuge in neighbouring countries, men, women and children have been confined to basements without light in biting cold for weeks, countries thousands of miles away have faced disruption of supply chains, shortages of food, fertiliser and energy as collateral damage. The sagacious advice of the Indian PM that this wasn’t the era of war, and solution to conflicts couldn’t be found on battlefields fell on deaf ears. Copious resolutions passed at summits of world leaders reiterating their commitment to uphold the UN Charter and adherence to inviolability of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations and observance of human rights even in war zones remained mere pious platitudes on paper.
The current President of the superpower which supposedly extended military and monetary assistance to Ukraine in the last three years amounting to over US$350 billion (Kiev claims it received only US$100+ billion) and egged it on to keep fighting assuring support for as long as it takes and spearheaded imposition of severest sanctions on Russia, abruptly says no more military aid, no more sharing of intelligence, says, sign a deal for rare minerals and come to the negotiating table to discuss a deal with Russia and put an end to the endless killing of people and facilitate return of peace or you are finished.
No sane person can object to Trump’s efforts to stop killings and end the Ukrainian conflict and bring back peace. But for peace to be durable, it must be fair, it must be even handed and both sides should feel winners. But if an aggressor isn’t an aggressor anymore and the victim isn’t a victim and the territories captured by the aggressor remain with her, how long can such a peace last? If one side feels aggrieved and having been wronged and browbeaten into submission, won’t sooner than later, a conflict erupt again?
The outgoing German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, stressed this position at the emergency EU Summit on 6 March: “It is very important that we make sure that Ukraine does not have to accept a dictated peace but that it is a just and fair peace that guarantees [Ukraine’s] sovereignty and independence.”
Russia’s security concerns are legitimate. Swift eastward expansion of NATO was ill-advised; it was insensitive to Russia’s security concerns. But should security concerns of a nation be legitimate grounds for invading a neighbour in violation of all international laws and conventions? If such invasions are legitimised and condoned, won’t we be descending in to jungle raj?
Whether on account of bullying by President Trump or self-realisation, the Europe girds up to take care of its security needs and steps up its support for Ukraine significantly, it will herald the emergence of a more confident and self-reliant Europe. Isn’t that still a pipe dream?
We have decades long security concerns from Pakistan; we know the locations of terrorist camps on its soil from where terrorist attacks have been mounted against India. Following Russia’s example, should we attack Pakistan and occupy Lahore and other areas closer to our border? We have security concerns from Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Should we resort to military operations in these countries to address our security concerns? What about India-China’s security concerns from each other? Shouldn’t there be other means to address security concerns rather than waging war and causing death and destruction?
In the first address of his second term to the joint session of the Congress, President Trump has announced the dawn of a golden age and the healthiest, wealthiest and most successful times for America. As America’s global, comprehensive strategic partner, we wish him good luck and hope he succeeds in Making America Great Again. But isn’t the prosperity of America linked with the prosperity of the rest of the world in some ways? If the world is engulfed in tariff wars, if the most powerful and most prosperous nation withdraws from global organisations where it has been the leader for decades, pursues policies which sound like my way or highway, will it lead to greater peace or greater disruption and chaos?
The advent of the AI is the most transformative revolution of present times, it affects all aspects of our lives. While an open, free, inclusive, transparent, rule-based innovation oriented and people centric AI can do enormous good to humanity, its reckless and unbridled march can unleash a jungle raj difficult to contain. Let us harness and hone AI to serve human beings rather than allow it to overshadow human intelligence and destroy human beings.
* Surendra Kumar is a former ambassador of India.