From a surprise visit to Asia’s premier security summit, the Shangri-La Dialogue, in Singapore to hopping on flights bound for Qatar, the Philippines and France, to clinching a 225 million USD military aid package and an apology for delay from the American President: it has been quite a busy week for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. His chief aim being to rally as many nations as possible to attend the upcoming peace conference in Switzerland.
Set to be convened at the luxurious Bürgenstock resort on June 15 and 16, the Summit will be the fifth international attempt to ensure “a comprehensive, just and lasting peace for Ukraine” based on the 10-point peace framework proposed by Kyiv in 2022.
War of Words with Beijing
In a rare public occurrence, Zelenskky flew off the handle on what he alleged to be China’s defence and financial support of Moscow, its repeated refusal to meet Ukrainian leadership and attempts to “disrupt the peace summit” on Russia’s behalf. One of the most intense statements was his description of China as an “instrument in the hands of Putin”.
China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun, who seemed to be absent from the room during Zelenskyy’s speech, denied all allegations. Beijing, which maintains a “no limits” comprehensive strategic partnership with Russia, stood by its neutrality on the issue and reaffirmed respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite emphasising its “close communication” with Switzerland, China took a rain check on the Summit citing the absence of the three foundational criteria for a successful peace process, foremost being the organisers’ refusal to invite Russia and hence the absence of both parties to the conflict; which in Beijing’s eyes, not only hampers a fair discussion but also makes the Summit incomplete, given the absence of all concerned stakeholders. To China, a peace conference without both Moscow and Kyiv does not only display a lack of sincerity but also threatens to further escalate the conflict. Beijing however has offered to convene a separate conference with both parties which Zelenskyy has rejected, stating “Ukraine is the victim of the war. It is us who have to initiate everything … Nobody else is fully aware of what Russia has brought with this war to our state..No one else has the right to dictate how this war should end”.
Russian President Putin snubbed the Summit as a way for Ukraine and its Western allies to “pressurise” Moscow, claiming Russia was never invited and had still been reproached for refusing to attend.
Numerous Peace Plans
Several peace plans have been put forth since the war started in February 2022. Zelenskyy’s 10-point peace plan, which focuses on issues such as nuclear safety and food security, does not only demand restoration of Ukrainian territory captured by Russia but also Moscow’s trial as an aggressor of war. While Russia described the peace plan as “not feasible and not realistic”; many including NATO, the United States and France supported it. Russia instead supported both the failed Istanbul Communiqué, which emphasised Ukraine’s neutrality and demanded Kyiv limits its military size, and China’s peace proposals as the basis of negotiations.
Beijing, so far, has proposed two frameworks: One on its own accord and the other in collaboration with Brazil. Apart from similarly arguing for nuclear safety and food security, China’s 12-point proposal , “China’s Position on the Political Settlement of the Ukraine Crisis” (关于政治解决乌克兰危机的中国立场), adopted in February 2023 called for “abandonment of Cold War mentality” i.e. opposing “bloc confrontation”, indirectly criticising NATO’s expansion in Eastern Europe which Beijing believes has flared the conflict. The adoption of the recent 6-point proposal framed with Brazil stands in line with the previous proposal in addition to supporting a peace process recognised by both parties to the conflict i.e. acceptable to both Russia and Ukraine as well as opposing the practice of “dividing the world into isolated political or economic groups”, reiterating criticism of NATO and Western attempts to sanction Russia.
At last year’s Shangri-La Dialogue, Indonesia proposed its version of the peace plan; calling for withdrawal of Russian troops, the establishment of a demilitarised zone and a UN referendum on the “disputed territory”.
While almost all the peace plans converge on calls for nuclear safety and food security, Russia’s participation as a party to the conflict and NATO’s and Western military support for Ukraine remain major points of contention. Such limitations have so far rendered all peace talks inconclusive.
How successful is the Summit likely to be?
While expressing his frustration over many nations not responding to the invitation, Zelenskyy announced at the Shangri-La Dialogue that 106 nations, of the 160 originally invited, are expected to join the Summit.
Diverse opinions have been expressed on the upcoming Summit. While a commentary in The Guardian described it as a “gamechanger” for Ukraine, an article in the European Pravda described the Summit as “dangerous”. Claiming to have reviewed the “latest draft decision of the Summit”, the article notes that the peace proposal will weaken Kyiv’s position by not only pushing the main tenets of the Ukrainian Peace plan on the backseat but also by “normalising Russia’s position” by kickstarting new summits.
While the debate continues, Russia’s absence— whether due to not being invited or due to a lack of willingness to join even if the invitation had been extended— hampers the credibility of the Summit in a major way, not only because its decisions, if at all there is one, would remain unacceptable to one of the two parties to the conflict but also because Moscow’s absence has triggered many including China, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Pakistan, among others to drop out. Among Southeast Asian nations too, only four are likely to attend. India, which has maintained neutrality in the conflict and was personally approached by Zelenskyy to join, might attend but not be represented at the highest level.
Most shocking of all for Ukraine has been US President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the Summit. Biden would instead be attending a star-studded fundraising event for the Democrats called “Premier Night with the Presidents” to be attended by former President Barack Obama and renowned actors George Clooney and Julia Roberts in Los Angeles. While Vice President Kamala Harris and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan will fill in for Biden, the US President’s absence has drawn Zelenskky’s ire, who said it “would only be met by an applause by Putin”.
Despite finally loosening the purse strings and handing Ukraine the military aid package, Biden, in a recent interview with the TIME magazine, clearly stated that he is not ready for the “NATOisation of Ukraine”, for “Peace doesn’t mean NATO.. Peace means Russia never, never, never, never occupies Ukraine”. According to experts, Ukraine’s entry into NATO is unfavourable to Biden’s re-election, who is already dealing with Israel’s continuing war in Gaza and low ratings at home, with 59% Americans disapproving of him as the President in May 2024. The issue however remains a major bone of contention between Kyiv and Washington. Moreover, while welcoming the Biden administration’s support for Ukraine to target Russia just across the border with arms supplied by Washington, Zelenskyy further demands Ukraine be allowed more leeway to “fire back” inside Russian territory; something the US is not likely to authorise.
Even if one keeps aside the absentees list for a moment, those flying to Switzerland too are highly unlikely to radically change their respective positions on the War at this point in time; casting doubts whether the Summit is even slightly worth the candle in resolving the crisis.
Lasting peace would require not only the active and positive participation from both parties but also genuine efforts and firm political will on part of all stakeholders to end the conflict. Without that, summits and peace processes, no matter how sincerely conceptualised, would be nothing but an endless spiral of inconclusive discussions and a hollow contest of talking points.