G-21

 September 12, 2023

 You can’t please everyone and nor should you try. The reasons you might try to please someone at the cost of another someone could come from a wide variety of reasons. You actually agree with the someone you decide to please — personal preference, or that someone is more powerful, more useful, than the other one — a practical consideration. 

 

I’ve been watching some of the G-21 debate shows coming from India. Most, or should I say all, were/are tomtom-ing India’s ability to have got a consensus — particularly on the Russia-Ukraine situation. I’d prefer to call it an invasion of Ukraine by Russia than the war between Russia and Ukraine for really would Ukraine have voluntarily waged a war with Russia? 

 

This consensus was achieved by considerably watering down the words of the Bali declaration which named Russia as an aggressor. One of the participants of the show said this aspect of the Bali declaration was an aberration. I disagreed, shouting at him on the tv screen from my sofa. The statement this G-21 has adopted instead merely says, ‘Today’s era must not be of war…We call on all states to uphold the principles of international law including territorial integrity and sovereignty, international humanitarian law etc…’ Apparently this declaration upheld the human suffering in Ukraine while not blaming Moscow. 

 

Russia thanked India for preventing the Western leaders from Ukrainizing the summit. They were pleased. I don’t know who else, besides me, is dissatisfied by this but Ukraine has criticized the declaration’s text for not mentioning Russia. 

 

The only person on the debates I watched who called this what it is — shifting the balance towards the Russia-China bloc — was criticized by the rest of the participants. Some might say so what? About time Western countries were shown their place. 

 

Where do you stand on this? Is it enough to say states (powerful ones for sure) must honor the territorial integrity of other states (less powerful than them)? Is it enough to say that father’s must not abuse their children but when a father does, then respond by saying, ‘we sympathize with the pain of the children,’ but make no mention of the aggression of the father. You know what I mean!

 

I have presented it in a simplistic way. There are nuances to this. But the idealist in me does not like how the aggression has been swept under words of generality, under preferred values  and behaviors that the world should follow. How about living by those values too and calling out those who don’t? But this happens less and less everywhere. Lofty, nice sounding declarations, but no walking the talk. 

 

Of course, once this consensus was reached the summit could get on with the real work of economics. About one of these outcomes too, the India-Middle East-Europe economic corridor, the same reporter from above pointed out how the details were not available. Who would be bank-rolling it, he asked. Some of the other participants did lower their enthusiasm for this achievement when this was mentioned. Kudos to them for being open to perspectives — one though still praised India the new super-power under PM Modi. 

 

So where do you stand? Was this summit the success that it says it was? 

 

Today I am pondering why I, who has no power to change any outcome of anything, even ponder these things and write blogs. I don’t know. But I am glad I feel strongly about things outside my power. I like this part of myself.

 

Now that I have got this out of my system I might actually do some productive work.