March 20, 2014 ☼ Crimea ☼ Europe ☼ European Union ☼ Foreign Affairs ☼ foreign policy ☼ India ☼ international relations ☼ power ☼ Realism ☼ Russia ☼ Ukraine ☼ United States
This is an archived blog post from The Acorn.
This was my response to a journalist’s question on what I thought of India’s position on Russia’s annexation of Crimea.
India neither has important interests nor the capability to be a useful player over Ukraine and Crimea. It is therefore sensible for New Delhi to let those with interests & capabilities play it out and deal with the outcomes. In any case, the Crimean case conclusively shows that the UN Security Council cannot be relied upon to uphold and enforce the UN Charter.
If Russia’s annexation of Crimea leads to a wider armed conflict then New Delhi will have to review its position.
Power & Principle MatrixFor context, see this post on the Power & Principle Matrix. Taking gratuitous moral positions is not a good way to conduct foreign policy. Let’s not forget that the principle of territorial integrity that the United States and European Union are invoking over Crimea was overlooked with respect to Kosovo a few years ago. A different principle—mass atrocities against the population—was invoked then. Clearly, interests determine which principle is evoked in international relations.
If you would like to share or comment on this, please discuss it on my GitHub
Previous © Copyright 2003-2024. Nitin Pai. All Rights Reserved.