It was as expected. The much-awaited and much-touted Swiss peace conference on Ukraine ended not with a bang but a whimper. It was, as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, a "step" towards peace because peace in Ukraine is going to be a long and arduous process.
The conference that took place in Bürgenstock in Switzerland from 15-16 June was a non-starter from the beginning. It was the fourth conference convened to find a resolution to the conflict after conferences in Copenhagen, Malta, and Jeddah. But it was much more ambitious as it was meant to be a "summit".
And yet, it did not include Russia, the party with which Ukraine has to resolve the conflict.
Rather, it was meant to garner support for Ukraine’s formula for peace put forth by President Volodymyr Zelensky. This time, the support was to be sought not just from the West, Ukraine's traditional ally, but also from countries of the Global South.
Ukraine mounted a global diplomatic campaign, which also saw Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba visiting Delhi to explain Kyiv's position and drum up India's support in the conference. 92 countries participated along with the UN and other international organisations. Yet, at the end of the day, only 40 heads of state attended the conference and only 80 present signed the final document.
Russia had called on countries to not participate in the summit, calling it “futile” as one of the main parties to the conflict will be absent. The Kremlin asserted that it was completely illogical and hopeless to seek a solution to the Ukrainian conflict without Russia’s participation. Russia did not view Switzerland as a "neutral " venue since the Swiss had adhered to the sanctions imposed on Russia.
Ahead of the summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin demanded that Ukrainian troops leave four eastern Ukrainian regions that are partially occupied by Russian troops, and also called on Kyiv to abandon plans to join NATO.
China, a key strategic partner of Russia, had kept away from the conference, having floated its own peace formula a year ago. More recently, it released a joint statement together with Brazil on resolving the conflict.
The Swiss conference watered down the agenda from Ukraine’s peace proposals and three main points discussed were nuclear safety. It ended with a declaration which stated that the UN charter and the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states “can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine.”
It also stated that threats or use of nuclear weapons was “inadmissible”, as well as attacks on the Zaporizhzhia nuclear energy plant captured by Russia early in the war that now sits on the frontline. It called for attacks to cease on Ukrainian civilian ports and on merchant ships because food security “must not be weaponised in any way”. It also called for the release of all prisoners of war and the return of unlawfully detained Ukrainian civilians, including children.
However, along with India, a number of countries from the global south did not sign the document. This included heavyweights like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as Armenia, Bahrain, Brazil, the Vatican, Indonesia, Libya, Mexico, Slovakia, South Africa, Switzerland, and Thailand. Later Qatar joined them.
Why did these countries desist from signing the final document the conference produced?
A key reason is that all these countries view the Ukraine conflict as a European war or a transatlantic one. All of them would like the war to end, but at the same time, they enjoy close relations with Moscow. The absence of Russia prevented any substantial outcome. The conference was a Ukrainian initiative, outlining the Ukrainian position which had already been dismissed by Moscow as "futile".
Much of the Global South, for historical and ideological reasons, has been closer to Russia, and at the very least, wants to retain its neutrality in this conflict. Signing the document would have violated that.
This, however, wasn't all of Ukraine’s woes. Even its closest ally, the United States, was represented at the conference not by President Joe Biden, who had just visited neighbouring Italy for the G7 summit, but by Vice President Kamala Harris. She too did not stay the entire duration, flying out before the conference ended. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida flew in only for a short while. All in all, Ukraine is not too happy with how the conference went. It was, as von der Leyen said, just a step in the arduous path to peace.
India's Role in Peacemaking
India did well to attend the conference, though at a junior level, and in spite of the fact that Zelensky had met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi a number of times, including on the sidelines of the G7 summit, almost on the eve of the conference in Bürgenstock. Pavan Kapoor, Secretary (West), Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), represented India at the conference.
The participation is consistent with India's resolve to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict and to spare no opportunity to achieve this. "India’s participation in the Summit, as well as in the preceding NSA/Political Director-level meetings based on Ukraine’s Peace Formula, was in line with our consistent approach to facilitate a lasting and peaceful resolution to the conflict through dialogue and diplomacy. We continue to believe that such a resolution requires a sincere and practical engagement between the two parties to the conflict," read an MEA statement.
In particular, after Modi’s participation in the G7, India manifested itself as a bridge between the G7, Russia, and the Global South with its participation at the conference on Ukraine, signalling its ability to act as a conduit between both sides, if and when necessary. This is a role India has already played on a number of occasions, quietly, and away from the media glare.
At the same time, India did not sign the final declaration, in line with its neutral status on the conflict. Underscoring this position, Kapoor, in his remarks at the conference said, "We continue to believe that such a peace requires bringing together all stakeholders and a sincere and practical engagement between the two parties to the conflict.......In our view, only those options acceptable to both parties can lead to abiding peace. In line with this approach, we have decided to avoid association with the Joint Communiqué or any other document emerging from this Summit."
India's decision has been a wise and nuanced one. However, the new government under Modi 3.0 should be more proactive and step up its role in keeping with its aspirations as an emerging power and a leading voice of the Global South.
India does not need to float its own peace plan for this increasingly brutal conflict with both parties taking up maximalist positions. It can, however, facilitate a meeting of all stakeholders, something that has not yet happened. That would indeed be the most constructive step in the path to peace. It is what much of the world wants.
(Aditi Bhaduri is a journalist and political analyst. She tweets @aditijan. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)