India’s claim to ‘strategic autonomy’ and ‘freedom of choice’ in diplomacy and international relations will come under scrutiny when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Ukraine in August.
Modi’s expected trip to Kiev will mark the first-ever visit by an Indian PM to the country since it emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. It will also come nearly six weeks after his visit to Moscow – and will undoubtedly be depicted as a “balancing act” by foreign policy experts in India and elsewhere.
However, it must be seen in light of the intense pressure the United States has placed on New Delhi and overt criticism by Western countries over Modi’s latest meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
When Modi visited Russia on July 8, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky reacted sharply, describing it as “a huge disappointment” and “a devastating blow to peace” on X, formerly Twitter. At the time, New Delhi sought clarification over Zelensky’s remarks, while the Kremlin maintained that the Ukrainian leader “lacks legitimacy.”
Moscow will closely follow Modi’s expected visit to Kiev while the US will further push New Delhi to strengthen ties with Ukraine in order to needle Russia.
Expectedly, the US administration this past week again voiced its concerns over Modi’s visit to Moscow, which happened after he assumed office for the third time in June 2024.
New Delhi’s swift response to the US objection on July 25 is unsurprising too. Delhi contends that all countries have “freedom of choice” in a multipolar world when deciding on their bilateral relations.
A renewed debate about morality in global politics was stirred when Donald Lu, the US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asia, joined other American top officials to censure Modi’s visit to Moscow about three weeks ago. On July 23, Lu told a Congressional hearing on Capitol Hill that his country was upset by the “symbolism and timing” of the visit, at a time when American President Joe Biden was busy hosting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) summit in Washington.
Republican Congressman Joe Wilson, a former co-chair of the India caucus in Congress, expressed his ‘shock’ and ‘sadness’ over Modi hugging Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. In response to Wilson’s assertion in the form of a question, Lu stated that he “could not agree with you more about our disappointment about the symbolism and the timing of Prime Minister Modi’s trip to Moscow.”
US Ambassador to India Eric Garcetti also remarked on Modi’s Moscow trip without directly mentioning Russia, cautioning that there was “no such thing as strategic autonomy.” Additionally, according to a US State Department spokesperson, the US concerns were formally conveyed to India following Modi’s arrival in Russia.
What exactly has irked both the legislative and executive branches of the US administration about Moscow-Delhi proximity is something to be assessed, analyzed and understood in a wider global, geo-economic, geo-strategic, and also bilateral context. What compelled the US administration to employ strong terminology in disapproving of Modi’s Moscow trip and his meeting President Putin?
Michael Kugelman, South Asia Institute Director at The Wilson Center, argues that the US opposition to Modi’s visit is primarily because “it does not want its allies and partners engaging with – much less embracing – Putin."
According to Kugelman, the US worries about continued Indian engagement with Russia "because of all the Russian military equipment and technology in the Indian defense sector at a time when there is an increasing supply of sensitive US defense equipment and technology flowing into that same sector.” This, Kugelman told RT, has “problematic" national security implications for the US.
Among such anxieties, another major concern for Washington remains New Delhi buying crude oil from Moscow after the US and EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia in the aftermath of the Ukrainian conflict. The US argument is that the closeness between Delhi and Moscow will not benefit the people of Russia, and, as “a beacon for democracy,” India shouldn’t rely on “a dictatorship.”
Conveniently, the US does not want to address serious and genuine questions over its questionable partnerships with monarchs and military dictators in the Middle East and South Asia. Explicitly promoting a morals-based foreign policy without some circumspection is awkward in more ways than one.
Moscow has been sharing its knowledge and expertise in sectors such as education, energy, science, technology, health care and others with India. The BRICS+ bloc has further cemented the partnership between the two countries, thus causing more anxiety in the US.
Furthermore, the fear among the American think-tanks about the growing influence of China and Russia and their promises to offer an alternative vision and a new world order is palpable. The US understands that its hegemony is likely to be challenged on multiple fronts in the near future. Some policymakers in the US understand that and favor expanding business ties with China.
As an aside, famed English broadcaster Piers Morgan wrote “Shame on you” on X in response to Putin’s decision to award Modi the Order of St. Andrew, Russia’s highest state honor.
It is another matter that Morgan has earned global notoriety for being a vocal apologist for the Israeli war crimes in Palestine in his live broadcasts.
Ironically, on July 24, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was given a standing ovation in the US Congress. In his address to the lawmakers, Netanyahu showered praise on the support offered by the US leadership for Israel’s offensive in Gaza. Netanyahu, against whom the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution team is seeking an arrest warrant on charges of possible war crimes and crimes against humanity due to his actions in Gaza, also drew cheers from some of the legislators.
This is just one of the many examples of US hypocrisy and doublespeak with regards to morality, ethics, and human rights. In all fairness, only about half of the US House and Senate Democrats boycotted Netanyahu’s address to the US Congress, but the other half not only listened eagerly but also cheered for Netanyahu; some offered a standing ovation as well.
There were some protesters outside the US Congress in Washington denouncing the Israeli leader’s visit to the country, but in his speech, Netanyahu disdainfully described them as “Iran’s useful idiots.”
When it comes to US foreign policy, morality, ethics and civil rights can wait, and wait endlessly. The United States should be the last country on the planet to deliver ethical or moral lectures. Where does the US derive the strength to have this entitlement of sorts to invoke selective morality in international relations?
The danger of overtly promoting a morals-based foreign policy, according to Michael Kugelman, is that “you open yourself up to accusations of double standards and hypocrisy when you apply that policy selectively. And the US is certainly selective in this regard.” Speaking to RT, Kugelman further argues that in contemporary geopolitics, “morals and ethics tend to take a backseat to interests.”
It is about time that the US readjust its moral compass before delivering dry and drab lectures on human rights and morality in international politics. Washington does not have an enviable track record, given the fact that successive US regimes have caused unimaginable devastation in Japan (Nagasaki and Hiroshima), Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq in the past, and how its unconditional support for Israel’s condemnable actions in Palestine is one of the biggest foreign policy disasters of the 21st century.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.