India facing dilemma over response to Russian invasion of Ukraine

United Nations Security Council vote on a resolution during a meeting on Russian invasion of the Ukraine, Friday Feb. 25, 2022 at U.N. headquarters. (AP)
Short Url
Updated 27 February 2022
Follow

India facing dilemma over response to Russian invasion of Ukraine

  • India abstained from voting on UN resolution condemning Russia
  • As strategic partner of Moscow and Washington, New Delhi trying to avoid joining ‘superpower rivalry,’ experts say

NEW DELHI: India is facing a dilemma in its position over the Russian invasion of Ukraine, former diplomats and experts said on Sunday, as New Delhi tries to balance its close ties with both the West and Russia.  

Russia launched a full-scale assault on Ukrainian territory and major cities, including the capital, Kyiv, on Feb. 24. Air, sea, and ground attacks have since intensified, forcing almost 200,000 Ukrainians to flee to neighboring Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Moldova.

After a US-sponsored resolution demanding that Russia cease its attacks was tabled in the UN Security Council, India, a strategic partner of both Moscow and Washington, abstained from voting. The Indian government called for “a return to dialogue” and offered to “contribute in any way towards peace efforts.”

Nandan Unnikrishnan of the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation told Arab News: “What India is trying to do is to balance between two partners who are essential to its own calculations.”

New Delhi’s ties with Moscow span more than seven decades, with half of India’s military hardware being sourced from Russia. On the other hand, its partnership with the US has been growing for the last 20 years, with both countries being members of the Quad, a four-state strategic security dialogue that also includes Japan and Australia, which was established in the face of increased Chinese economic and military power.

“Everyone understands that India is doing a very difficult task of dancing on a rope,” Unnikrishnan said, adding that while Russia praised India’s neutrality after its abstention on the Security Council vote, the US administration of President Joe Biden expressed its understanding.

“The Biden administration’s statement after the vote said that they understand that the relationship with Russia is distinct,” he said. “India needs to very carefully calibrate the impact it would have if it takes one stand or other.”  

Anil Trigunayat, New Delhi’s former ambassador to Moscow, said that given India’s strategic partnerships with the US and Russia, it has to “calibrate its own national interests and does not wish to be bogged between a superpower rivalry.”

Arvind Gupta, director of the think tank Vivekananda International Foundation, who served at the Indian embassy in Moscow, said that taking a stand is “difficult” not only for India, but also other countries.

“I feel India has taken a balanced view — not going into outright condemnation but expressing concerns and talking about the legitimate interests of all concerned,” he said. “That places India in a position where it can play some role in bringing down the tensions.”

But remaining neutral may become difficult, as pressure is likely to mount on India.

“India would come under significant pressure from both the US and Russia to show support for either side,” Pranay Kotasthane, deputy director of the Bangalore-based Takshashila Institution, told Arab News.

“Given its military overdependence on Russia on one hand, and the overwhelming agreement with the West on countering China on the other, India’s choices have become more constrained,” he said. “It will be a serious test of India’s diplomacy to keep both sides happy. It seems to be pushed to strategic autonomy by compulsion, not by choice.”

Policy and defense expert Manoj Joshi of the Observer Research Foundation said India has been avoiding taking a stand, but continuing a policy of neutrality may become a challenge in the long run.

“One UN member has attacked another UN member, so an aggression has taken place. India called for cessation of hostilities. If India can sit on the fence they should sit on the fence if they think they can do it. But it’s going to be increasingly difficult,” he said.

“When a conflict situation has arisen, it’s very difficult to stay neutral. There is a pressure from both sides to support them. It’s one thing to be neutral when there is no shooting going on. When the shooting is going on you have to make a choice.”


Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon pleads not guilty to Minnesota protest charges

Updated 7 sec ago
Follow

Ex-CNN journalist Don Lemon pleads not guilty to Minnesota protest charges

  • A magistrate judge ordered Lemon released to await trial, after a night in custody following his arrest late on Thursday by the FBI

LOS ANGELES: Former CNN news anchor Don Lemon entered a not guilty plea on Friday to federal charges over his role covering a protest at a Minnesota church against President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, the Republican administration’s ​latest move against a critic.
Lemon, now an independent journalist, livestreamed a protest against Trump’s deployment of thousands of armed immigration agents into Democratic-governed Minnesota’s biggest cities. The protest disrupted a January 18 service at Cities Church in St. Paul.
A magistrate judge ordered Lemon released to await trial, after a night in custody following his arrest late on Thursday by the FBI.
Dressed in a cream-colored double-breasted suit, Lemon spoke only to say “yes, your honor” when asked if he understood the proceedings. One of his attorneys said that he pleaded not guilty.
“He is committed to fighting this. He’s not going anywhere,” said Lemon attorney Marilyn Bednarski.
“I have spent my entire career covering the news. I will not stop now,” Lemon told reporters after the hearing. “I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.”
A grand jury indictment charged Lemon, who is Black, with conspiring to deprive others of ‌their civil rights and violating ‌a law that has been used to crack down on demonstrations at abortion clinics but ‌also ⁠forbids obstructing access ​to houses ‌of worship. Six other people who were at the protest, including another journalist, are facing the same charges.
Thousands of protesters took to the streets of Minneapolis and other US cities on Friday to denounce an immigration crackdown in which federal agents fatally shot two US citizens, sparking one of the most serious political crises Trump has faced.

PRESS ADVOCATES ALARMED
Free press advocates voiced alarm over the arrests. Actor and activist Jane Fonda went to show support for Lemon, telling journalists the president was violating the Constitution. “They arrested the wrong Don,” Fonda said.
Trump, who has castigated the protesters in Minnesota, blamed the Cities Church protest on “agitators and insurrectionists” who he said wanted to intimidate Christian worshippers.
Organizers told Lemon they focused on the church because they believed a pastor there was also a senior US Immigration and Customs ⁠Enforcement employee.
More than a week ago, the government arrested three people it said organized the protests. But the magistrate judge in St. Paul who approved those arrests ruled that, without a grand jury indictment, ‌there was not probable cause to issue arrest warrants for Lemon and several others ‍the Justice Department also wanted to prosecute.
“This unprecedented attack on the First ‍Amendment and transparent attempt to distract attention from the many crises facing this administration will not stand,” Abbe Lowell, Lemon’s lawyer, said in a statement, ‍invoking constitutional free speech protections.
In the livestream archived on his YouTube channel, Lemon can be seen meeting with and interviewing the activists before they go to the church, and later chronicling the disruption inside, interviewing congregants, protesters and a pastor, who asks Lemon and the protesters to leave.
Independent local journalist Georgia Fort and two others who had been at the church were also arrested and charged with the same crimes.
US Magistrate Judge Dulce Foster on Friday ordered Fort’s release, denying prosecutors’ request to hold ​her in custody, according to court documents.

TRUMP CRITICS TARGETED
The Justice Department over the past year has tried to prosecute a succession of Trump’s critics and perceived enemies. Its charges against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia ⁠James, who both led investigations into Trump, were thrown out by a judge.
Lemon spent 17 years at CNN, becoming one of its most recognizable personalities, and frequently criticizes Trump in his YouTube broadcasts. Lemon was fired by CNN in 2023 after making sexist on-air comments for which he later apologized.
Trump frequently lambastes journalists and news outlets, going further than his predecessors by sometimes suing them for damages or stripping them of access-granting credentials.
FBI agents with a search warrant seized laptops and other devices this month from the home of a Washington Post reporter who has covered Trump’s firing of federal workers, saying it was investigating leaks of government secrets.
Press advocates called the FBI search involving the Post reporter and the arrests of Lemon and Fort an escalation of attacks on press freedom.
“Reporting on protests isn’t a crime,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute. Jaffer called the arrests alarming, and said Trump sought “to tighten the vise around press freedom.”
Trump has said his attacks are because he is tired of “fake news” and hostile coverage.
Legal experts said they were unaware of any US precedent for journalists being arrested after the fact, or under the two laws used to charge Lemon and Fort. They include the Freedom ‌of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a 1994 measure that prevents obstructing access to abortion clinics and places of worship.