Foreign ministers from the world’s leading countries met in India at various locations
by Vladimir Terehov on 16 Mar 2023 0 Comment

In the first days of March, India was the center of international politics. The formal occasion for the appearance on its territory of the forty foreign ministers was one of the calendar events of the Forum G20, that is the twenty leading economies in the world which together account for 85% of world GDP. Another 20 ministers arrived in New Delhi at the invitation of the leadership of the country hosting all events of the forum, which this year is exactly India.


Recall that the G20 was originally created to develop measures to counteract the crisis phenomena in the global economy. One could argue that a tribute to this “specificity” of the G20 was held a week earlier in Bangalore, the first meeting of the heads of both government agencies responsible for financial-economic activity and central banks (Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting, FMCBG) of the G20 members. All the more so that for a number of reasons the existence of those very crisis phenomena today does not cause doubts.


However, the member countries of another configuration, namely G7, and first of all its leader, the USA, have recently been using the calendar of all international organizations and forums for political attacks against both main geopolitical opponents, i.e. “Russia, which committed an act of unprovoked aggression against Ukraine, as well as its supporter China.”


Washington and its allies are trying to focus the attention of the UN on this topic, which also dominated the last Munich Security Conference, on the sidelines of which a meeting of foreign ministers of the G7 member countries and then the (online) summit of this configuration were held. The latter event was organized by Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida on the occasion of the anniversary of the beginning of the mentioned “aggression”.


With all the already accumulated stock of bile, the leaders of the G7 Foreign Ministry went to New Delhi, with an obvious intention to continue the production of this product, and record this process in the final documents. Their counterparts in the financial and economic sector were doing the same in Bangalore. But since the participants in both the latter events were no longer just adherents of “free-democratic values,” the events in question did not go as smoothly as in the G7 format.


For example, the document, adopted following the FMCBG in Bangalore, says that not all participants of the event agreed with the points 3 and 4 (devoted to the very “aggression” as well as to the “unacceptability of the threat of use of nuclear weapons”). In other words, there was no unanimity on one of the key theses of the current “well-wishers” of Russia and China that almost all the current troubles in the world are caused by the Ukrainian conflict. As for the G20 Foreign Ministers meeting, there was no final document at all at the end of it.


The operation to isolate Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, which was supposed to continue the general course of reducing to a minimum the format of Russia’s participation in all international platforms, also failed at this last event. On the sidelines of this forum there were meetings of the Russian Foreign Minister with a number of colleagues from other countries. Of particular importance were the talks with the Foreign Ministers of India and China, which ended quite positively. Moreover, Lavrov had “foot contact” with the representative of the country that initiated the whole “isolationist” showdown, that is, with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. And it was the latter’s initiative.


It seems that for all sorts of cheap puppets of the “post-Soviet space” who peddle their dislike for Russia (although outwardly and most often for the “Putin regime”) at the global political fair, there are unhappy times on the horizon. These will become even more tangible once the fountain of a kitchen-level propaganda with its “voyages to Warsaw and Berlin” and quasi-religious hysterics is finally shut up.


For no less definite are the global problems (outlined, by the way, in the final document of the FMCBG) of unprecedented proportions. Compared with which any disagreements (often very significant) between the main players seem rather minute. Under these conditions, the intrigues of petty political circles hanging around the table at which the “Great Global Game” is being played now may end very sadly. Naturally, for the intriguers, who will be seen as a hindrance in the organization of much-needed interaction between the leading players today.


Meanwhile, nuances in the behaviour of various components of the “Collective West” regarding both Russia and China in general and the Ukrainian conflict in particular are becoming more and more noticeable. They were manifested not only during the recent G20 events, but also at the three-day so-called Raisina Dialogue that began immediately afterwards. It was created in 2016 by Indian Foreign Ministry as some kind of competitor to the famous “Shangri-La Dialogue,” which operates annually in Singapore under the auspices of the London-based IISS (International Institute for Strategic Studies).


Many of the ministers who had just participated in the G20 moved to the site of the Raisina Dialogue. Here, their speeches appeared much more relaxed than had been the case at the former venue. Apparently, this is related to the remark made by Josep Borrell, not a friend of Russia, that he was not against India buying Russian oil at a price favourable to it. It is hard to believe, but that is exactly what he said. For the weight of India’s presence at the global gaming table today is too great for the West to try and brutally pressure it over the same Ukrainian conflict.


That is what Washington was doing until recently, for which in the process of aggravating confrontation with its main geopolitical opponent (the PRC) the factor of India’s involvement in the US’s (rather loose, but nevertheless) anti-Chinese camp is gaining in importance. Among the various tools used for this purpose a notable place is occupied by pumping (“to the brim”) the current American administration with ethnic Indians. There are also reports of Washington’s lobbying for an American-Indian to be placed in the vacated position of head of the World Bank.


As for New Delhi, the initial positive interest on the subject is replaced by a skeptical smile. Especially after a year ago a senior US administration official of Indian origin, while in the ancestral homeland, campaigned in a very frankly clumsy way for the formation of an anti-Chinese alliance with Washington.


Incidentally, the fact that the UK’s government has been headed by a Hindu by birth for almost half a year hardly affects the nature of India’s relations with the former metropolis in any meaningful way. Because the process of their development (due to quite objective reasons) was started by his predecessor Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, the fact of preparation and launching by BBC of a film (shortly before the discussed events), whose main topic was the alleged participation of the current Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the “Gujarat pogrom” of 2002, turned out to be very unfortunate for the current British government. In the course of the events under discussion, British foreign secretary had to accept a demarche on the matter from his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar.


Nevertheless one of the few positive aspects of all the aforementioned political venues in India was the aforementioned talks of the Indian Foreign Minister with his Russian and Chinese colleagues. Perhaps, first of all it concerns Subrahmanyam Jaishankar – Qin Gang negotiations, because the state of Sino-Indian relations (as well as Sino-Japanese relations) considerably affects the development of situation in the Indo-Pacific Region in general.


Meanwhile, there are serious problems in them and during the Raisina Dialogue one of the main ones was pointed out by Sergey Lavrov.


Finally, a few words about the very subject of all the recent turmoil in the “Collective West,” that is, the contemporary (apparently, the final) stage of the Ukraine project evolution. Only if you close your eyes, you cannot notice its transformation from an instrument of struggle against one of the two main geopolitical opponents into a parasitic boil on the body of the “West” itself.


Therefore, by way of at least some compensation of (quite considerable) costs connected with the mentioned works, it would be advisable to direct that money stream, which is pumped into Ukraine for some reason, to Moscow. As the wise Kaa used to say (however, more likely it was his certain relative): “Strange people! They don’t understand their own benefits.”


Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online journal “New Eastern Outlook.” Courtesy 

User Comments Post a Comment

Back to Top