An evening with Ms. Suhasini Haidar
On Friday, July 29, we had a very insightful session by Ms. Suhasini Haidar, the Diplomatic Editor of The Hindu, one of India’s oldest and most respected national dailies. Ms Haidar shared her perspectives on the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the larger implications.
About Suhasini Haidar
Ms. Suhasini Haidar regularly writes on foreign policy issues, and hosts a weekly online show "WorldView with Suhasini Haidar" (Youtube playlist). Prior to this, she was Foreign Affairs editor and prime time anchor for India’s leading 24-hr English news channel CNN-IBN (2005-2014), and correspondent for CNN International’s New Delhi bureau before that.
In 2015, Ms Haidar was the recipient of the prestigious Indian print journalism ‘Prem Bhatia’ award. She has won a series of awards for her work in Television as well.
Over the course of her 28-year reporting career, Ms Haidar has covered the most challenging stories and conflicts from various regions including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Libya, Lebanon and Syria. In India, she has done the foreign affairs beat for over a decade. Her domestic assignments include political profiles and in-depth reportage from conflict zones including Kashmir, where she was injured in a bomb blast in 2000.
Ms Haidar worked with CNN International from 1995 to 2005, regularly reporting from India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. She was part of the CNN team that won the Columbia-Dupont Broadcast Journalism Award in 2005 for the coverage of the tsunami in India. She also worked for CNN in New York for a month during its 9/11 coverage.
Ms Haidar earned a Bachelor's degree at Lady Shriram College in Delhi, and then completed her Masters in Broadcast Journalism at Boston University's College of Communication, USA. She lives in Delhi with her husband Nadim and her two daughters Ava Mumtaz and Maya Mehr.
Key reflections on the Russia Ukraine conflict
The conflict is the result of Russia’s unilateral invasion of Ukraine. It cannot be called limited operations as Russia sought to portray at the start of the conflict. It continues to be a full-fledged invasion with Russian jets dropping bombs all over Ukraine.
A range of sanctions have been imposed on Russia by the US and Europe. They are not identical but are working in tandem.
The US has imposed sanctions on Russian officials, oligarchs, companies, etc and banned the import of Russian oil.
The EU has cut off ties with Russia. It has blocked Russia’s access to funds abroad and expelled it from SWIFT. Because of its heavy dependence on Russian oil, the EU has not been able to ban oil imports completely.
MNCs like Coca Cola, Mastercard, have shut shop in Russia. This is an unprecedented development and has had a big impact on Russia.
People to people, trade and travel ties (including music and literature) have been snapped. Some 40 countries have imposed restrictions on Russian movement. (160 countries are still not a part of this arrangement.)
There has been a polarisation of multilateral organizations. The UN, IMF and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) have been boycotting meetings which the Russians are attending. President Putin has so far been attending meetings with only friendly countries. But he is planning to attend the G 20 summit in Bali in November. There is every possibility of a confrontation and boycott of the summit by many western nations.
Impact on the global economy
The price of oil has gone up (Rs 100 + per litre), leading to inflation. Many countries are looking for oil from other sources beyond Russia as winter approaches.
The conflict has led to a sharp rise in food prices. Russia and Ukraine together account for about 20% of the global wheat production. In the six months before the conflict, they exported about 250 mn tonnes of wheat (180 from Russia and 70 from Ukraine). Due to the conflict, exports from Ukraine are blocked while those from Russia are banned. The result is a rise in inflation across the world. India has banned the export of wheat and Indonesia that of palm oil.
There has been a slowdown in GDP growth. The conflict has shaved off 0.4% from the earlier projected growth.
The commitment to the use of clean fuels has taken a back seat. As a result of the conflict and the uncertainties about the availability of oil and gas, most countries are trying to access more fossil fuels.
There has also seen knock on effects due to the conflict. Countries dependent on exports/imports/tourism (like Sri Lanka) have been badly affected.
However, it must be remembered that while 140 countries have criticized the Russian invasion, many of them have not joined the sanctions.
India’s stand
India has abstained from voting on all UN resolutions condemning the Russian invasion. However, India is not isolated in this regard. While many countries have criticized Russia, 160 countries have not joined the sanctions. What explains India’s stand?
The most cited explanation for India’s stand is the traditional partnership/relationship with Russia. Russia has been traditionally a strong supporter of India at the UN. It is the single most dependable country with a veto power and can block any resolution that is not in India’s interests.
India is heavily dependent on Russia for military hardware (60%) and spares (85%). Russia is the only country which has agreed to meaningful technology transfers as a result of which the development of the Brahmos missile has been possible. But due to the war, several concerns have been raised about India’s heavy dependence on Russia. The country may have less weaponry to supply to India and also may be able to produce less ammunition due to the war.
India is surrounded by hostile neighbours like Pakistan and China. Afghan terrorists are also a threat. As it faces so many challenges closer home, Russian support is important.
India gave up imports of Iranian and Venezuelan oil under pressure from the US administration. But this time, the country has chosen to ignore American requests and decided to buy Russian oil at heavily discounted prices.
When it comes to Indian nuclear power plants, only those with Russian collaboration are really working.
Many other countries have not joined the sanctions against Russia. So India has probably decided to keep its options open instead of siding openly with the western countries.
There was a time when this government had written off the non aligned movement. But the conflict has underscored the virtues of non-alignment and the importance of pursuing what is good for the national interest.
How the conflict has changed our future?
The future of conflicts has changed. The Russian invasion has happened without any immediate provocation. The message is that countries may do whatever they can get away with. China, Burma and the Taliban are good examples. There is no longer any compulsion to work within the internationally accepted norms.
The concept of universal human values and universal human rights has lost its relevance. We can expect countries to define their values as per their own interests.
There are question marks on the future of global trade and cooperation.
We may be moving toward a world of G 0, as Ian Bremer predicted. This means each country will be for itself even if it takes part in international forums.
The UN may need some structural changes.
We have to rethink our relations with neighbours in South Asia.
Q&A
On her journey
Ms Haidar remarked that in the fast-paced life of a journalist, there is little time for reflection.
Looking back, she felt that life has changed little for her since she began her career as a 21-year-old, 28 years back. She starts the day watching different television channels and reading various newspapers. Long hours are still common.
Ms Haidar’s career can be divided into three phases:
CNN: After her education, she worked for CNN first at the UN and then in the Delhi bureau taking care of South Asia. Her role was to essentially interpret the happenings in South Asia for the world.
CNN/IBN: She covered countries like Libya, Syria and Lebanon. Her role was to interpret global developments for the Indian audience.
The Hindu: This marked a change from television to the print media. She has been the Diplomatic editor for 8 years.
Journalism is not a high paying profession. Long hours are common and 24-hour shifts cannot be ruled out. Glamour is only a small part of the job. It is mostly hard work. With seniority, things do not become much easier.
So the motivation for a journalist is really to change things by interpreting events and making people aware of what is happening. Journalists should be able to break down issues and interpret them for the common reader. They play an important role in fighting for a cause, be it consumers, victims of exploitation or discrimination or addressing other larger issues in society.
On whether the conflict could have been avoided
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO had been expanding its membership steadily. By 2003, the NATO membership was double that in 1991. There was a further increase by 2008. The contours of the NATO alliance were coming closer and closer to Russia. Despite assurances from the US and the EU, security guarantees were being disregarded. Georgia and Ukraine were next on the list to join NATO. In view of these developments, Russia threatened to invade Ukraine as it had done earlier in Crimea. Ukraine made some noises but did not categorically rule out joining NATO. Putin thought the time had come for action and the invasion began on February 24. There is no doubt that Russia has violated its commitment to avoiding unilateral invasion/aggression/territorial sovereignty. But the west also probably did not do enough to prevent the conflict. Once the conflict started, it became very difficult to stop the war. The steps taken by the west since the war began, have only increased the polarisation.
On the possible scenarios ahead
Past predictions have proved wrong. Russia was expected to finish off Ukraine in 10 days. But the unprecedented actions of the west and the courage of the Ukrainians (supported by the west) have thwarted Russia’s ambitions. Russia however is undeterred by the actions of the west. While the invasion may not be rolled back, Ukraine could survive. Thus, the stalemate and uneasy status quo may continue. There is some let up on sanctions to allow the exports of food from the region. This may also happen in the case of oil. The worst case scenario is that hostilities do not stop and the miseries of the common man may continue like it happened in Iran.
On India’s policy initiatives in the wake of the crisis
As the price of oil and food has gone up, there have been adhoc responses by the government. Oil prices in India have not come down even though international prices have come down. There is talk of UAE and Saudi keeping strategic oil reserves in India.
In the case of food, we announced that we would export and help the world. Later, we banned exports and then stated that we would work on a government-to-government basis. In a dynamic situation, midcourse correction is understandable. But the clear lesson is that we should not promise what we cannot deliver. (We had seen this during the second wave in May last year when we announced we would export vaccines without having enough supplies.) The world may go through such crises in the future and we should be well prepared.
As we have tried to intervene in the currency markets, we have lost forex reserves ($70 bn). It is difficult to shore up the rupee. It will only lead to a drain on the forex reserves. Let us hope that currency controls do not come back. There is no plan to raise income tax as the last two budgets have shown.
We are only two years away from the general elections. By 2024, the government would have been in power for 10 years and its progress report will be critically reviewed. The government is realizing that the culture of freebies cannot be sustained. It is no longer a viable option.
Next year, we will be playing host to G20 and that forum is largely about economic governance. We will have to demonstrate our economic competence.
On applying the lessons learnt for future conflicts
The immediate impact of the conflict was on the medical students in Ukraine. About 20,000 0f them had to be evacuated. This was done successfully barring one casualty. Indian citizens are there all over the world. So how do we handle their evacuation in case of future conflicts?
A second lesson is the need to bulletproof/war proof the economy. Self-reliance has become more important and there are question marks about globalization. We are increasingly looking at a more insular/inward looking future.
Dealing with conflicts: We must help the countries in the region but also take care of our interests. For example, many refugees from Sri Lanka may come to India.
India’s position at the top: There is no role model today (not USA, not Russia not China) as far as global leadership is concerned. India has an opportunity to play this role. But that is not possible given its own influence in South Asia. Trade can bring countries together. But we still do not have a free trade zone in the region. Unless South Asia is a force multiplier, India cannot become a global leader. (In other regions of the world, free trade areas are quite common. Consider NAFTA, Mercosur, EU, ASEAN, Eurasian Economic Union, GCC, African Union, etc).
On the coming together of China and Russia
The government is not officially admitting that China is occupying Ladakh. Chinese troops are also not leaving the LoC. This might embolden China. While India is worried, unlike Ukraine, we are much bigger and have good defence capabilities. China also realizes that India will be a difficult country to take on.
India has been telling the US that if we push Russia to the wall, they will become friendly with China. Russia’s dependence on China is now a reality. The US is prepared to deal with China but not with Russia.
As a part of BRICS and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization consisting of China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), India has a foot in both the boats. Western countries will confront us on authoritarianism, crackdown on the media and NGOs and treatment of minorities in our country. But Russia and China never complain about these issues. An authoritarian government in India may feel more comfortable with these two countries. Two years back, India seemed to be moving towards the west. But we cannot say that today. The east is moving in a different way and is less pro US compared to 20 years back.
On the strength of the rouble
Russia has not been hit in the way it was expected. Russia continues to export wheat, fertilizers, coal and defence hardware. Many countries are importing from Russia and paying in their local currency. 25% of India’s oil purchases this year are going to be from Russia compared to the 2-3% earlier. 50% of this oil is going to a Russian owned refinery and Reliance. India has a $ 50 bn stake in Russia’s oil reserves. India has set up a special payment mechanism with the Russians. The calculations of the west to bring down the rouble have not worked out. (There are also restrictions on the trading of the rouble.)
On Russia’s use of nuclear weapons
Any nuclear move will have reactions and repercussions across the world. Let us hope that such weapons will not be used.
On the implications of Russia invading Sweden
Sweden has applied for NATO membership. So, if Russia invades Sweden, we can expect NATO to retaliate.
On news consumption
There is a need to diversify the news sources. Every truth now has two sides. While Russian channels project the war in their own way, the BBC and CNN do not give any benefit to the Russians.
We must invest in news gathering. We must pay for content. Free news will be substandard. Greater accountability must be imposed on news channels. We must stop subscribing to unreliable news channels.
The decision to bomb civilians cannot be justified in any way. There must be acknowledgment that what is wrong is wrong. India’s reluctance to criticize Russia in this regard cannot be justified. There is a need to protect human values. The decision to bomb the big Ukrainian cities looks more like an act of revenge. If he had limited his operations to the border areas, there might have been more international support for Putin.
On QUAD vs BRICS
India is a member of BRICS, which is built around economic engagement through a payment system, local currency trade mechanism, development bank, etc. India is also a member of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization consisting of China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) which is equivalent to the QUAD. (QUAD or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue consists of Australia, India, Japan and the US.) India is in both the places. How do we explain this?
Concluding notes
In the long run, Russia is likely to pay a heavy price. Even if it declares itself the winner, it will get limited benefits. Realistically speaking, this is a war without any winners.
