Foreign Policy Update – USA Gov Policy

INDIA

Multiparty elections are moving into their final week in five Indian states containing over 180 million people or about 13% of the country’s population. On March 10 the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hopes it will add to its previous four wins by taking the fifth state during this election cycle. Uttar Pradesh is the state most political analysts are watching carefully to see if Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath wins. If he does, he may become the successor to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. To convince the BJP he deserves the position he must achieve a decisive win. In 2017 his election was less contentious than in this cycle.

Four years ago, the BJP picked up 312 of the 403 state seats. Rising unemployment in Uttar Pradesh in recent months, however, has made it a more difficult challenge this year as many have joined violent protests against the state, which suffered more than most of India from the Covid pandemic. Hundreds of thousands died when the Indian health care system collapsed, and two devastating lockdowns resulted in millions losing their jobs. According to Michael Kugelman, writing in Foreign Policy: “The Uttar Pradesh election is in many ways a referendum on BJP rule: its handling of the economy and the pandemic, its use of divisive rhetoric, and its political future. And when it comes to Indian politics, what happens in Uttar Pradesh doesn’t stay there.”

The elections this week, according to some analysts following the elections, are so important that they may determine the future of democracy in India.

UNITED NATIONS

Earlier this week nine US senators called for the removal of Russia from its seat on the United Nations’ Security Council. The cries have grown stronger in recent days as Putin continues to move his invading forces further into Ukrainian territory. “The UN is a political body. It is not a church. Ultimately, the UN is there as a place where states…can talk to each other in the last resort,” said Richard Gowan, UN director at the International Crisis Group. Senator Joni Earnest (Iowa-R), added that “Putin has demonstrated in plain view his ruthlessness and complete disregard for humanity and our international norms, and the idea that he and his cronies should have a vote on the U.N.’s Security Council is an absolute disgrace.”

The Congressional Resolution, even if it passes, holds no weight on the UN’s membership. No country has been expelled from the UN since its inception. Another message could come from the General Assembly (GA) if it suspends Russian officials from the GA. The publication Defense One quotes Daniel Baer, acting director of the Europe Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, as arguing that highlighting Russia’s bad behavior is worth it, even if it doesn’t end with Moscow being expelled. He added: “It’s a way of making a statement about their current behavior being completely unbecoming a member of the security council… We should find every opportunity to shine a spotlight on the fact they are acting in a way that’s completely inconsistent with their obligation as a great power and against the UN charter.”Ukraine has reraised the issue of how Russia first obtained its seat after the fall of the Soviet Union. According to the UN Charter, the USSR and not Russia has a right to a seat on the Security Council. It is highly unlikely that China would dare to raise the issue given that it took the Republic of Taiwan’s seat. The answer rests on whether Russia was the “Successor State” or a “Continuing State” under international law. A successor state is when a sovereign state takes over a territory and populace that was previously under the sovereignty of another state. Unlike a continuing state, a successor is viewed legally as having a new personality. Russia, Ukraine, and George are generally considered successor states of the Soviet Union.

Daria Novak previously served in the U.S. State Department.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.