EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
Since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the word “neutrality” has been used extremely often in Bulgaria in relation to Russia’s actions and the subsequent sanctions. When we talk about international conflicts, the factors for decision-making suddenly multiply in geometric progression. Being closely tied to trade relations, the global economy turns out to be a cog in the wheels of making abrupt and ill-considered decisions. The danger of creating economic cataclysms, but also social tension, increases with every statement by the state that decides to continue or discontinue trade in various types of key goods. The management of each state is a complex process of balancing interests and maneuvering through crises – be it economic, health, social or military. The lack of sufficiently good experience and school in international relations of the state also has its impact on the actions of the government during communication with external stakeholders and countries. However, the attempt to stigmatize the word "neutrality" or "abstinence" from making radical decisions in one direction or the other collapses when we try to draw analogies with the surrounding world.
Temporary coalitions or realignment?
The new barricade is in place, currently made with available materials, but the barbed wire is starting to be stretched, as are the concrete blocks. And if the etymology of the word barricade comes from the French for barrel ( barrique ), then the current one in the commercial sense is distinguished by barrels of oil and gas pipes. But at the moment we are observing the military analogy of powder kegs, which also represent a new type of border that is threateningly taking shape around Europe. The clearly distinguishable coalitions are the West in the face of the USA and the European Union, adding Japan and South Korea as an ally in the Pacific waters. On the other side, the firm conspiracy of Russia, China, Syria and Iran is visible. However, the result of the vote on the resolution by the UN General Assembly to remove Russia from the Human Rights Council made an impression. Out of 175 countries that voted, 93 supported the decision, 24 were against, and 58 abstained. The key lies precisely with the abstaining countries, as a kind of “decisive vote”. The so-called relatively neutral position is taken by both African and Middle Eastern countries, as well as representatives of the “Asian tigers”, and also India. Also, an important element is that together the countries that abstain or vote against represent about 50% of the world’s population. Are they not the third country in the New World Order?
Abstinence and interests
The reasons for the abstention of some countries are directly related to the West's attitude towards them in the past, as well as the negative historical accumulations resulting from military or destabilization processes in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The dependencies between neutral countries and Russia should also not be underestimated - about 80% of the equipment for the Indian army is of Russian or former USSR origin. The war caused the supply of weapons, as well as maintenance, to be delayed, this under the constantly growing tension on the Indo-Chinese and Indo-Pakistani borders. Another important element of the Indian economy is the dependence on fertilizers, the main importer of which is the Russian Federation, which in itself ties the food supply and nutrition of the population to the good relations between the two countries. Oil is another key, valuable raw material, binding the two countries in a trade grip, especially in view of its inflationary rising price around the world and the discount at which Russia sells it to the countries it defines as strategic partners. Despite publicly expressed dissatisfaction with the conflict in Ukraine, India does not directly name Russia as the aggressor, maintaining its stable line of relations.
South Africa is another interesting case, being part of the BRICS club - in his speech to parliament, President Ramaphosa outlined his country's line regarding the blame for the conflict with the following words: "The war could have been avoided if NATO had listened to the warnings of its own leaders and officials over the years that its expansion to the East would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region." However, in addition to this statement, there is also a complement from the country's recent public position, which, although not naming Russia directly, stated that "South Africa has always opposed violations of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states in accordance with the UN Charter." While Russia's relationship with India concerns trade relations and resource security of the two countries, the case is not analogous when it comes to South Africa.
Two of the US’s biggest allies in Southwest Asia, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are also maintaining their neutrality – partly because of US accusations that the Saudi crown prince ordered the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, and partly because of the flimsy US efforts to help deal with the conflict in Yemen and the destabilising activities of Houthi rebels along the border. Voices from both countries suggest that there is a rift in their relations with America that could persist for a long time. This is also part of the reason why OPEC producers in the Persian Gulf are resisting calls to help isolate Russia by pumping more oil to tame prices on the market.
In Latin America, some countries, including Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, are known for historically choosing the path of neutrality in international conflicts. However, we should not exclude the relationship of the first letter of BRICS, namely Brazil, which is closely linked to Russia, due to its dependence on fertilizers and chemical products for its agricultural industry and the production of soybeans, corn, sugarcane, cotton and other crops. Imports from Russia account for approximately ¼ of all imports of such products. Of course, the fact that Jair Bolsonaro wants to be re-elected next year in the presidential elections should not be excluded, which is why the position on the conflict is so moderate - since a significant part of the economy is dependent on imports from Russia.
Double standards
Many Western countries do not understand that trust in the developed world has collapsed – whether it is because of the many wars of the US in the Middle East, which led to destabilization and problems for surrounding countries, or perhaps because of the attitude towards citizens of various African countries, who, in parallel with the Ukrainians, fled the war, but were not welcomed at the borders of the European Union. It should also not be forgotten that during the Covid crisis, citizens of countries in the developed world were first provided with vaccines, and everyone else was told to wait. African countries also remember well the help of the Soviet Union in the anti-Apartheid movements and the training of activists during the Cold War. In contrast to the fragile and declining influence of the West, over the past 12 years China has been investing in Africa, thereby creating new political and economic dependencies. The countries of the Middle East are bringing to the fore the double standards regarding the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine and the attitude of the developed countries towards the refugees from there. Their positioning in this case is more anti-American than pro-Russian, but their dependence on the import of wheat and vegetable oils from Ukraine and Russia should not be underestimated. Even Ian Bremer, who is a fierce opponent of Putin and the war in Ukraine, stated that “The United States does not have a strong moral right to condemn Russia…”, probably referring to all the started and poorly argued conflicts over the last 50 years. While the Cold War divided the countries into allies of one bloc or the other, now we are observing the post-American reality. It is very unlikely that the new rising great powers such as China and India will return to the bosom of praying to or following the West.
If it wants to remain relevant, the West must wake up from the waking coma it has been in for the past decade and realize that the affluence and comfort it has been mired in is due to and thanks to many factors outside of itself. Paternalistic, moralizing, and haughty talk over the years has led to a split in understanding. Underestimating and failing to accept the perspective of others outside of the Pax Americana leads to much deeper and longer-lasting turmoil in international relations, both in terms of commercial interests and military ones. Trying to measure with the same units of measurement in different political, economic, social, religious, and moral dimensions usually leads to a wrong transposition of the blueprint, which affects the stability of the foundations – such as those that are currently leading to the collapse of the new Tower of Babel. The only thing the West's upturned nose and finger-pointing will do is push neutral countries into the hands of the newly forming Eastern Bloc - the one that currently understands them better.
