Daily Times

On March 2, 2022, in a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) vote condemning Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and demanding that Moscow stop fighting and withdraw its military forces, Pakistan abstained from voting against Russia. The occasion was a rare emergency session called by the Security Council asking all 193 members of the UNGA to vote on the resolution, “aggression against Ukraine”. Resultantly, the resolution secured 141 votes in its favour, and five against it, whereas 12 members decided not to vote and 35 including Pakistan abstained. Pakistan forgot that abstaining was half acceptance. This was Pakistan’s unprincipled and deplorable decision, which would cast a long shadow over Pakistan’s demeanour in the comity of nations.

On February 24, 2022, following a declaration of war announced by President Vladimir Putin, Russia launched an unprovoked attack from land, air and sea against Ukraine that had posed no threat to it. In his televised speech, Putin made two claims: first, Ukraine historically belonged to Russia; and second, the lives of ethnic Russians were at stake in Ukraine. Putin’s speech reinforced the argument that in Ukraine there was a rebelled-controlled territory backed clandestinely by Russia. Putin thought it was high time Russia cashed in on the internal struggle in Ukraine.

There is more insidious substance to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Putin has been an antagonist to the Ukrainian bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military alliance of 30 countries from Europe and North America. Putin thinks that NATO has been challenging the Russian sphere of influence despite the initial post-1991 understanding that NATO would not grant membership to the former Soviet republics.

The tragedy is that under one excuse or the other, Pakistan has failed to oppose an aggressor, Russia, which is shedding the blood of innocent Ukrainian citizens.

Putin’s claim of irredentism about an independent country such as Ukraine (having a full UN membership) to justify the launching of war is a dangerous proposition. The world has settled itself with post-1945 international order recognizing the sovereignty of countries defined through distinct declared political borders. On August 24, 1991, the Ukrainian parliament proclaimed independence from the fetters of the erstwhile Soviet Union, which was collapsing in the wake of the Cold War. A referendum in December 1991 formalized the independence of Ukrainian, which then joined the UN as an independent country. In principle, Russia has no right to violate the sovereignty and reverse the independence of Ukraine.

In February 2014, Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians. Separatism kept on growing in Ukraine, especially in its east. The separatists even arranged a popular vote to declare independence and made a bid to become part of Russia, which kept on providing weapons and training to them. The state of affairs annoyed the Ukrainian state, which considered it a surreptitious interference in its internal affairs.

General Assembly’s resolutions are meant for feeling the pulse of the world, though the resolutions are non-binding on the Security Council. The “aggression against Ukraine” resolution exuded certain symbols. First, the resolution expressed a consensus that the international community overwhelmingly deplored Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Second, the resolution made Russia fathom the international perception of its aggression against Ukraine.

For Russia, the abstention of 35 members might be a victory, but Russia could convince only five countries to support its cause. Even China refused to back Russia and decided to abstain. The overall result indicated the Russian isolation in the world. One problem with the countries, which yearn to stay in isolation, is that they get inured to seclusion, instead of practising vibrant inter-state relations. Another problem is that decisions of such secluded states impose isolation on their followers as well. Unfortunately, Pakistan has now yearned to be one of the close followers of Russia.

Pakistan has been trying to justify its decision of abstention by verbalizing three stances. First, Pakistan had already demanded the de-escalation of tension, renewal of negotiations, sustenance of dialogue and continual of diplomacy in Russia-Ukraine relations. Second, Pakistan wanted to avoid taking sides in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Third, Pakistan wanted to come out of bloc politics, and hence Pakistan used its independent mind to abstain.

It is known that the underlying reason for Pakistan’s decision for abstention was the pressure of the western countries on Pakistan to do more on Afghanistan, abide by the regulations developed by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), and feel the economic squeeze exerted through the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Nevertheless, it was unjustified for Pakistan to abstain from raising its voice in the favour of the independence of Ukraine and against the aggression of Russia. Pakistan’s act of abstention under any excuse indicated Pakistan’s compromised posture and not Pakistan’s independent thought to assert itself. It is the decision in crisis that expresses a country’s grit. Pakistan foundered on this touchstone.

The question before Pakistan was not if it had asked Russia at the bilateral level to de-escalate tension with Ukraine, but the question was whether Pakistan committed itself to the fundamental principles of the UN Charter calling for non-aggression. The point was not if Pakistan wanted to stand close to the west or away from it, but the point was that if Pakistan could stand on its foreign policy principles of respecting the sovereignty of other states in all circumstances.

The tragedy is that under one excuse or the other, Pakistan has failed to oppose an aggressor, Russia, which is shedding the blood of innocent Ukrainian citizens. The Russian-Ukraine conflict is not a clash on the borders. Instead, the Russian army invaded Ukraine and made civilians suffer. Pakistan should have adopted a clear stance and condemned the aggressor. Unfortunately, in the hope of seeking Russian political and economic favour, Pakistan has blinded itself to human atrocities that the superior military might of Russia has unleashed on the Ukrainians. The point is not what Pakistan can earn by following or not following the bloc politics, but the point is that what principles Pakistan adhere to, come what may. Pakistan’s compromise on principles is a diplomatic disaster.

Above all, Pakistan’s decision to abstain from opposing Russian aggression is tantamount to implied acceptance of the irredentist claims of Russia on Ukraine. This point holds repercussion for the integrity of Pakistan which has been trying to suppress separatist tendencies that emerged on the same grounds in its western half.

The writer can be reached at qaisarrashid @yahoo.com