Covid-19 pandemic and Russia and Ukrain war have compounded problems globally

WHY RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR IS BAD NEWS FOR POST-COVID RECOVERY OF WORLD ECONOMY

?The total global devastating impact of Covid-19 on each sphere of human lives and livelihoods, business, trade, and industry, is yet to be ascertained which will not be precisely completed as is so widespread and almost compelled not only a pocket of nations to grinding halt but globally. Even people have suffered the pangs of house arrest. In history, we will read the world before Covid 19 pandemic and afterward as it has created a stark different black line that in the future all can see directly and transparently. No acceptable evidence has yet been established but?as the majority of people raise their fingers toward China but no concrete proof.Covid-19 originated in 2019 in China as the world perceive as intuition but not converted into surety which can be corroborated with evidence. As the world comes to understand that its prime center is China which spread globally so severe an exponential pace as a shock to the world in 2020, damaging people's health and world's wealth, disrupting the global supply chain. The world's economy suffered like never before as China had practically become the fulcrum of its conveyer belt.

?The Xi Jinping regime is still asking for accepting responsibility which let the world pay this Covid price. Russia's President Vladimir Putin has, in effect, actually done the same thing: compelling the world to pay the price of his Ukraine war.While China is the manufacturing hub of the world, Russia and Ukraine are the key suppliers of raw materials that run the worlds of oil, gas energy, metallurgical industries and also microchips and semiconductors, and also food grains, especially wheat, and edible oil that feed much of Europe and parts of Asia and Africa.?Similarly, like China which confronted reciprocal supply embargoes due to health security alarms, the Russia-Ukraine war has halted supplies from Ukraine, led to a ban on purchases from Russia, and heightened economic woes of the Covid-rattled world. The impact runs from the energy sector to mobile-internet communications and food. Russia is one of the top three suppliers of fuels - oil and gas. Oil prices, skyrocketed suddenly, after perceiving no near future end of the war through peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. In a nutshell, severe impact on global human lives and the economy irrespective of any disparity.

?OIL AND GASES

The US, the UK, and much of Europe have either banned the purchase of Russian oil or decided not to buy it. Russia supplies 10-12 barrels of oil to each basket of 100 barrels of oil in the international market. In absolute terms, Russia supplies 45-50 lakh barrels of crude oil every day. In 2020, Russia supplied 12 percent of the world's oil and about 16 percent of natural gas for energy. Sanctioning Russian oil is bound to trigger an energy crisis, particularly in the poor and developing economies as they try to recuperate from the ills of the Covid-19 shock. The rising oil prices are a worry for India's economic recovery even though Russia is not among the top suppliers. India buys about $1 billion of oil from Russia, though its oil import bill is over $82 billion (for 2021) - a 108 percent rise from 2020. The Russia-Ukraine war is also an opportunity for India. Russia has proposed to India to buy its oil at a lower price paid in Rupee-Ruble exchange. India is already looking to invest in Russia's oil and gas sector.

FOOD

Russia and Ukraine are denoted as the 'Bread Basket of Europe. Both are major suppliers of food grains and edible oil to the world. Both supply about 30 percent of wheat and 20 percent of maize. Ukraine is the largest supplier of sunflower oil (one of the main 'refined oils' used in India) followed by ?Russia as the second-largest supplier of the same. Combining both countries, ?produce 60 percent of sunflower oil, whose prices in the future commodity market have reached a 14-year high. Several countries are dependent on Russian-Ukrainian wheat, maize, and other grains - such as Turkey and Egypt, which meet 70 percent of their food grain needs from these two countries, and China, which buys most of its maize requirement for its pigs. China is the world's biggest pork producer and also an importer, and one of the top exporters of meat. The war has disordered the supplies of food grains, maize, and edible oil. As we are watching the war getting elongated more and more after failures of several rounds of peace talk, it could trigger food worries not only in Europe but also in Africa.?

?GOLD

Though not essential items, Russia is the third-largest supplier of gold to the world market after Australia and China. The gold prices soared to even a 19-month high due to the Russia-Ukraine war. ?India gets fulfilled most of its gold demand through imports. Experts have warned that the yellow metal rates could go past Rs 55,000 per 10 gram if the Russia-Ukraine conflict is not resolved soon. India, though, buys about half of the gold from Switzerland.?

NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EVERY SPHERE OF INDUSTRIES

?Russia is also one of the biggest suppliers of industrial metals such as aluminum, copper, platinum, nickel, and steel, among others. Disruption in the supplies of aluminum, copper, and nickel is a because of concern for car manufacturers. The prices of aluminum and copper have risen by about 30 percent since January. Nickel has become costlier by over 75 percent. Nickel is the key metal in making lithium-ion batteries used in vehicles.

?CHIPS

?The semiconductor industry is gazing at a supply crisis. More commonly known as chips or microchips, semiconductors are vital to the making and functioning of computers, smartphones, home appliances, and medical equipment. The world hinges a lot on the supply of raw materials for chip-making in the US, Europe, and elsewhere. Two raw materials hold the key - neon gas and palladium. Ukraine provides more than 90 percent of high-grade neon for semiconductors. Russia supplies one-third of the palladium. Additionally, Russia's steel industry is the primary source of neon, a byproduct that is refined in Ukraine for making semiconductors, mostly by American companies. The above-said war and consequent sanctions on Russia by the US and European countries could cause a global microchip shortage crisis. The world saw a similar situation during Crimea's annexation by Russia in 2014. But that crisis was short-lived.

?FROM COVID TO UKRAINE WAR

A multi-features or perspective supply disruptions caused by the Russia-Ukraine war are identical to the Covid-triggered breaking up of the supply chain. In both cases, the obvious impact looks time-limited, while the economic impact could be long-term. Recent reports from the UK based on the information sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suggest that the country possibly over-counted its Covid-19 deaths - 17,371 compared to 1.37 lakh officially recorded. Similar readjustments are being done in the US and some European countries. However, the economic impact of Covid-19 is yet to be ascertained before it can be subjected to 'adjustment'. Putin's Ukraine war could bring a similar economic cost to Russia and the rest of the world - deaths, and damage counted in Ukraine versus long-term dents to the world economy.

THE ROLE OF UNO

A global organization?like the United Nations (UN) replicates the pivotal challenges and achievements of?its times. On the eve of the organization’s 75th anniversary in 2022, UN Secretary-General António Guterres identified?some?of the challenges and achievements that currently confront the organization. Asserting that the world had a surplus of multilateral challenges and a deficit of multilateral solutions, he regretted that the UN lacked scale, ambition, and teeth. He noted that institutions with authority, such as the UN Security Council (UNSC), do not?have the appetite to bite,?indicating?a?lack of?political will and unity of purpose?among the member states. Additionally, he urged the member?states to strive to preserve the great achievement of having gone so many years without a nuclear conflict or a military confrontation between the major powers. His observations are still relevant today.

?As it struggles to recover from the systemic hammer blows caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the lightning takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban, and the end of the much-vaunted ‘War on Terror’ in August 2021 left the UN improving the pieces of human rights and humanitarian crisis. Now, the ongoing Ukraine war—the first real European conflict since the Second World War that has put the major Western powers in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia on the path of direct confrontation—is proving to be a new litmus test for the UN. As an organization created after the Second World War by the victors and charged with the task “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,?will this be the crisis that breaks the proverbial camel’s back?

?The UN is a little more than the sum of its member-states volition and power dynamics, especially of the ones that matter most—the largest budget contributors and the five permanent members (P5) of?the UNSC; the US, the UK, and France are the Western group and are counterbalanced by?Russia and China. But?Russia’s war in Ukraine has deepened the divide even further. Indeed, Russia?sees the US and Europe drawing the fight out “to the last Ukrainian,” with a view “to suppress Russia” and “create an antipode” of it. It is open that the West and NATO want to?make Russia bleed, deplete, and pay for its misadventure. Some see this as the West’s quest for an ‘End of History 2.0’?(as first conceptualized by American political scientist Francis Fukuyama) with Russia and a possible ‘Cold War 1.5’—if not 2.0—with China. These new?geopolitical and the combination of economic and geographic factors relating to international gaps make it even more difficult?for the UN?to hold together?and drive a?viable?and effective global?governance and crisis response system in its four projects of peace and security, sustainable development, human rights, and humanitarian?response. As the war continues, the UN has been widely criticized for its seeming helplessness?in preventing and stopping?the conflict.?Yet,?the UN has not been inert.

Guterres and the UN’s key intergovernmental institutions, some influential and powerful?UN member-states,?and stakeholders that the UN convenes and influences (such as the private sector, civil society, academia, and media) have?indeed tried to be proactive in confronting Russia?on its war in Ukraine.?This has, however,?been more in the direction of?diplomatically isolating, and naming and shaming Russia to complement the Western sanctions against?it,?rather than?cajoling or engaging it?before or during the war. Whether that?moves the needle towards constructive diplomacy and peace or?irretrievably pushes Russia on a path of?no return?from the escalation of conflict, including a nuclear one, is the critical question. It is also important to consider whether this undermines or strengthens the UN’s credentials as a neutral?mediator and peacemaker.

The Secretary-General could surely have been the ‘X-factor’ that halted the world from hurtling down a dangerous course. However, managing the creative tension between?fidelity to the UN principles and the reality of?great power contention has been a tough task for Guterres, a West European. He came to office in 2017 on the promise of preventing conflict?and prioritizing?and overhauling peacemaking, peacebuilding, and peacekeeping. But he was unable to prevent the Russia-Ukraine war and seems helpless to stop it as a divided UNSC refuses to authorize multilateral action, especially the invocation of Article 41 on economic sanctions and?Article 42 on the use of force, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Guterres has publicly acknowledged?that he did not expect Russia to invade Ukraine.?Like other world leaders, he did not expect a major nuclear power to go to war on its border and took the Russian war preparations and threats as mere brinkmanship. As a result, he did not engage in active preventive diplomacy to arrive at an agreement that met Russia’s security concerns about Ukraine being a neutral buffer between it and NATO, in keeping with the Minsk Agreement. Had Guterres undertaken preventive?shuttle diplomacy, could?he have?persuaded?Russia and the Ukraine/European Union (EU)/NATO/US to combine to?strike a?pre-emptive deal? Or, once the war began, could he have played mediator and stopped the fighting? These will remain important—but unanswered—‘what ifs’.

Factually, ?Guterres has made multiple?explicit statements on Russia’s liability since Moscow recognized the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk?on 21 February 2022 and then began its war with Ukraine on 24 February. “We are seeing Russian military operations inside the sovereign territory of Ukraine on a scale that Europe has not seen in decades.?This unilateral military offensive is against all principles of UN Charter, wrong, unacceptable but not irreversible.”??He argued that continuing?the war in Ukraine was “morally unacceptable, politically indefensible and militarily nonsensical.” Cautioning that the conflict was not heading anywhere and that, at last, each city would have to be conquered street by street,?he urged?an end to the “absurd and unwinnable war started by Russia.” On?the discovery of the mass graves in Bucha, he expressed shock and asked for an independent investigation. He subsequently?told the UNSC?that “we are dealing with the full-fledged invasion, on several fronts” of Ukraine and “with several aims, including redrawing the internationally-recognized borders between the two countries.” He cited the High Commissioner for Human Rights?as apprehending possible war crimes, grave breaches of international humanitarian law, and serious violations of international human rights law. He deeply regretted the divisions that had “prevented the Security Council from acting not only on Ukraine but on other threats to peace and security around the world.

?Distressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s?accusation of NATO and the EU wanting to start a nuclear war,?and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman?stating that the country could use nuclear weapons if?its existence were?threatened, Guterres termed?it a bone-chilling development. He feared?that the?prospect of nuclear conflict, once unthinkable, was now within the realm of possibility and urged for?the security and safety of nuclear facilities?in Ukraine to be preserved.?Insisting?that it was time to stop the horror unleashed?on the Ukrainian people, he warned that?any further escalation of the war—by accident or by design—threatened all of humanity, and so it was imperative to follow the path of diplomacy and peace and called on Putin?to withdraw and resolve matters peacefully. ?Anticipated, Expectedly, Russia took umbrage at Guterres’s “partisanship” on the Ukraine crisis:?“To our great regret, the UN Secretary-General turned out to be susceptible to pressure by the West and recently made several statements incompatible with his status and his authority under the UN Charter.” He has?“not raised his voice even once to support the necessity of complying with the requirements of the Minsk Package of Measures and Resolution 2202 of the UN Security Council.” Throughout the crisis, Guterres continued to express serious concern at the?impact of the war on the civilians in Ukraine, stating that it had reached “terrifying proportions,”?and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.?He gave special prominence to the importance of respecting international humanitarian law and the UN’s pivotal role in alleviating the ballooning humanitarian and refugee crisis (with over 10 million people displaced and five million refugees).?Acknowledging that a global ceasefire may not be possible, he proposed actions?to “guarantee evacuation of civilians from areas of fighting,” “humanitarian access in a reliable situation,” and the “creation of a mechanism” involving Russia, Ukraine, the UN, and other humanitarian entities, to permanently?act together.

?He outlined the collateral damage to the pandemic-weakened?economies of?developing countries that were being beaten further by escalating energy, fertilizer, and?food prices, inflation,?and the financial?crisis. He appealed to the wealthy countries to find creative ways to finance increased humanitarian and post-COVID-19 development recovery worldwide, and not?divert resources into military spending.

Against the backdrop of these?interconnected challenges, Guterres established a Global Crisis Response?Group on Food, Energy, and?Finance, whose report is being followed up through UN interagency cooperation, activating the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and?the member states.?However, the UN has not commented on the impact of the economic sanctions, unilaterally imposed by the Western countries on these multiple crises.?Apart from these public statements, Guterres has also been in contact with a number of countries—including China, France, Germany, India, Israel, and Turkey—on mediation efforts to end the war.?However, so far, neither he nor the UN has been a?part of?the?several rounds of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine,?nor?the mediation efforts by other UN member-states. Concerned about the Secretary-General being on the sidelines of peacemaking, some former UN officials have asked Guterres to?proactively intensify his efforts to mediate?and provide good offices for the cessation of hostilities and?conflict resolution?through?peaceful means.?Given?the existential crisis the UN currently faces with?its?raison d’être?being tested again, the officials were apprehensive about the possibility of the UN becoming irrelevant and succumbing to the fate of its predecessor (the League of?Nations) and feared Guterres’s legacy being blighted. Guterres looked to have?taken the advice and has perhaps also sensed that Russia and Ukraine will now be more?amenable. He visited Russia on 26?April and met Putin and Lavrov,?and then traveled to Ukraine to meet President Volodymyr Zelensky.[?As Guterres did not carry any incentives for either side from the US or the EU,?he did?not succeed in initiating negotiations on a ceasefire or ending the war. However, he managed to secure Putin’s agreement to work with the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross, by negotiating a series of pauses to evacuate thousands of civilians in Mariupol, especially from the Azovstal Steel Complex where the Ukrainian defenders and civilians were holding out, and get humanitarian aid?and the safe passage operation started on 1 May.?Guterres’s recent engagement has somewhat redeemed the Secretary-General’s?role and has laid the basis for future political engagement and good offices in eventual conflict resolution.

?ACTION AND INACTION IN A DIVIDED UNSC

Since the beginning of the Ukraine war, the UNSC has voted on three draft resolutions, two of which were not adopted.?Zelensky even mocked?the UNSC's inaction by demanding that it dissolve itself.?The resolution for an ‘Emergency Special Session’ (ESS) of the General Assembly, to consider and recommend collective action on the situation in Ukraine, was the only one that was passed.?India abstained on all resolutions, including the?Russian-drafted one that called?for aid access and civilian protection in Ukraine.?Nevertheless, the UNSC has played a useful role by meeting frequently—over 20 sessions and?in different formats—to consider political developments,?the humanitarian situation, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) related risk mitigation. The 5 May UNSC debate sums up the state of political alignments. Russia?took credit for humanitarian breakthroughs and complained about ‘Russophobia’ becoming prevalent.?Describing the conflict as a proxy war of the collective West against Russia, put the onus on Western countries for peace by recalling that?it had advanced proposals for global and indivisible security architecture, but the West had?arrogantly cast those aside. China, hinting at the US and European?military?aid to Ukraine, asserted that “delivering weapons will not deliver peace”. It stressed that dialogue and negotiations were the only, inevitable way and that basing one country’s security on the insecurity of others was not reasonable.?The repeated?eastward expansion of NATO after the Cold War not only failed to make Europe safer but also sowed the seeds of conflict. China?warned that “the world does not need a new Cold War.”?Refuting?Russian conspiracy theories, the US insisted that Russia was the only perpetrator of this war, it had started it and it alone must end it. “In light of that, it is hard to understand why some Council members continue to call on all parties to desist.”

?India welcomed the Secretary-General’s?engagement with the Russian and Ukraine leadership and the humanitarian reprieve was secured. Expressing concern at the worsening situation in Ukraine and?echoing Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s appeal?for an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, India argued?that there was no winning side and a return to dialogue and diplomacy was the only way, and stressed that “it?is in our collective interest to work constructively, both inside the United Nations and outside, towards seeking an early resolution to this conflict.”?Significantly,?India also reiterated?“that the global order is anchored?in international law, UN Charter and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of states,” thus, clearly virtue signaling and putting paid to critics at home and the West on this issue.??On the WMD-related risks, allegations have been traded?in the UNSC and media?by both sides. The?taboo against a nuclear power directly engaging in a conventional “bush war” with a denuclearized neighbor who, in turn,?has been backed by other major nuclear powers, has been broken. It sets a very dangerous precedent and smashes the fundamental principle of nuclear deterrence practiced hitherto by nuclear-weapon states. Some of the UNSC debates have reflected this apprehension. On-demand from the UNSC members, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)?has vowed to step up efforts?to monitor the safety of the 15?nuclear power plants in Ukraine?and undertake safety and security missions in response to Russian moves around them.

The Russians, on the other hand,?have secured an open?briefing?to?investigate the alleged cases of biological weapons laboratories functioning in Ukraine, and?an emergency clean-up by “the Kyiv regime of the traces of a military biological program funded by the United States.” Russia presented documents “confirming that a network of 30 biological labs across Ukraine were conducting very dangerous experiments” to strengthen the pathogenic qualities of the plague, anthrax, cholera, and other lethal diseases using synthetic biology. Addressing these concerns, UN?High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu told the UNSC that the “United Nations is not aware of any such biological weapons programs…nor is it in a position to confirm or deny reports that public health facilities are in areas impacted by armed conflict, placing the safety of those facilities at risk.” She appealed to all parties in the conflict to ensure the safety of all such facilities in Ukraine. She admitted that the UN had neither the mandate nor the capacity to investigate such claims, which fell under the auspices of the 1972 Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention (BTWC).?Once again, this?exposed the UN’s toothlessness?and lack of multilateral verification mechanisms,?besides the infirmity of?its?biosecurity architecture overall. The Chinese lost no opportunity to corner the US on biosecurity by?asking that?credible information be released by Moscow?and “addressed adequately”. They further pressed the US and Ukraine to follow their BTWC obligations, provide clarification, and accept multilateral verification.?India, on the other hand, while affirming the importance of?full and effective implementation in the letter and spirit?of?the non-discriminatory?BTWC, asked that concerns be addressed through consultations and cooperation between the parties concerned. Western?UNSC members were worried that Russia was using disinformation tactics as a pretext for possibly using biological or chemical weapons against the Ukrainians. Russia rejected these accusations and instead argued that the “Ukrainian nationalists” had brought chemical agents to some regions in Ukraine to “create a provocation and then blame Russia for it.”

?CONVERTED ROLE OF OTHER UN BODIES

?The UNSC, which has ‘the teeth’ but found no will to ‘bite’, is only one part of the international architecture designed to deal with conflict, although it is a major one; other parts of the UN and the broader multilateral system have also been fully mobilized.?Significantly, the UN General Assembly?(UNGA) was stirred into unprecedented action?and convened two meetings under the ESS established by UNSC Resolution 2623.?UNGA voted on three resolutions: a procedural vote and?two substantive resolutions on Ukraine (aggression against Ukraine on?2 March and?humanitarian consequences of aggression on 24 March). It further adopted a historic resolution on 7 April suspending Russia?from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC), the first for a P5 country. The UNGA vote condemning Russian military operations in Ukraine got 141 of 193 votes.?It fell to 93, less than 50 percent of the membership when Russia was expelled from the UNHRC in a more polarizing vote. Fifty of these 93 votes came from the Western and East European Groups, 29 from Latin America and Oceania, four from Asia, and 10 from Africa. Twenty-four countries (including China) voted against, 58 abstained, and 18 did not vote.

?Resolutions?censuring Russia were adopted in other UN bodies too, including?the UNHRC—three resolutions and procedural votes,?including one establishing a Commission of Inquiry to investigate human rights violations and war crimes committed during the conflict. Other resolutions were adopted by the IAEA (10 in total),?International Labour Organization (1), UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1), Inter-Parliamentary Union (2),?and International Telecommunication Union (1). India abstained in all cases.

The?International Court of Justice ruled against Russia on a dispute raised by Ukraine?and asked it to stop the invasion immediately. The Indian judge, in a personal capacity, voted in favor. Similarly, at the instance of?39 countries led by the UK, the International Criminal Court?launched investigations?into possible war crimes and?genocide?being committed?by Russia in Ukraine. The political headwinds have been so strong against Russia that, for the first time, it failed to get elected to?all?four UN bodies it contested. The UN?may claim it has influenced the war and encouraged peace through political pressure, legal decisions and investigations, and humanitarian assistance.?Importantly, it has helped set a narrative in the court of global public opinion,?in what Russia has termed an?‘info war’ and psychological operations by the West against it.?Although non-binding, the resolutions?marked the?power and consolidation of the Western group, including the EU, post-Brexit?UK,?a post-Afghanistan US, Australia, Japan, and the NATO. Curiously,?China did not go all out in mobilizing the developing countries against the Russian suspension?resolution even though it could have easily secured the 15 additional votes to defeat it.

IMPETUS FOR UNSC

?The unprecedented direct?military?action by a P5 country in a neighboring country has laid renewed focus on UNSC?reform. The?status quo powers now might be more open to reviewing the UNSC’s composition?and expansion, and may even be willing to consider regulating the use of?the veto. There also seems to be a realization in the West about the merits of increasing the membership of the UNSC -both permanent and non-permanent, to enlarge its?circle of influence within and to carry more weight globally. The war has also highlighted the power and importance of the UNGA as a more representative moral suasion body on peace and security matters, relative to the paralyzed?UNSC, where a veto is exercised to block all action when any P5 member chooses to do so.

While it is unlikely?that veto power will be given up, ways of adding more accountability for its usage are being considered through a resolution that was passed in the UNGA?on 26?April. Notably, three P5 countries—the US, the UK, and France—supported it.?The resolution?mandates a meeting of the UNGA whenever a veto is cast in the UNSC, the ‘Veto Initiative’. While this may be a meaningful step to empower the UNGA and strengthen multilateralism, it will not?negate the veto power of the P5.?There is also talk of expelling Russia from the UNSC and the UN, both of which are impossible. Under?Article 6 of the UN Charter, a member that persistently violates the principles of the Charter can be expelled from the UN if the UNGA?votes by a two-thirds majority on?the recommendation of the UNSC. But the UNSC vote?is subject to the Russian?veto. No state has ever been expelled from the UN and Russia cannot be expelled from the UNSC either as there is no such provision?in the Charter.?Ukraine has asked?whether it was legal for Russia to take over the erstwhile Soviet Union’s seat when it collapsed in 1991,?but this tack is difficult to take after 30 years. Moreover, expelling Russia will only enhance the value of China’s veto power, which the West will not want.

?INDIA'S VIEW/RESPONSE OF THESE ISSUES

There has been much debate about India’s stance in the UN on the Ukraine war and its persistent abstention?from?voting?on?resolutions that condemn Russia?and?seek its isolation and suspension from UN bodies. Critics have asked how India, with its strong?convictions and belief?in the UN Charter?and?its principle of upholding territorial integrity and sovereignty of states, refrained from calling out the Russian invasion of Ukraine and maintained neutrality. India seems to have abstained on reasons of both substance and process, which is explained in each case. In India’s view, the resolutions became a highly political exercise not to propel the two parties towards diplomacy and peace but to castigate Russia, which only pushed?it irreversibly into?continuing the war until it can declare victory.?India has taken a principled stand?by consistently condemning the war itself and the devastation and suffering it has caused. It has expressed strong support for the principles of?inviolability of sovereignty, territorial integrity,?and the peaceful settlement of disputes as it firmly believes that?this is integral to a?global order anchored in international law and the UN Charter. From India’s perspective,?successive UNGA resolutions on Ukraine, which have been used with a retaliatory intent and the politicization of the issue of human rights, do not advance these principles.?Moreover,?India’s call for?the cessation of hostilities and urgent humanitarian assistance?is not fully reflected in the resolutions. On the UNGA resolution on Russia’s suspension, India expressed concern over?the Bucha mass graves but wanted the due process of an independent investigation to establish the facts first. The expulsion of a duly elected member in a hasty manner without due process could set a dangerous precedent that can later be misused against less developed countries caught in conflicts. It could also be directed against India by vested interests in the UN.

As Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar pointed out, India is on the side?of peace and diplomacy and?is guided by its national beliefs, values, and strategies. India’s stance reflects its independent decision-making and foreign policy, which has inspired other South Asian UN member states and 58 countries of the Global South, including six UNSC members, to abstain.?He added that India does need to ensure its strategic and security interests vis-a-vis Russia, but also equally with the West, and safeguard its energy security; India needs to factor in how sanctions may impact its economy and the well-being of its people in an interdependent global economy.?He stated that India’s independent position was heeded by both sides, which enabled it to evacuate over 22,500 Indian nationals at the start of the war. On humanitarian action, India has asked that it be guided by the principles of humanitarian assistance (humanity, neutrality, impartiality, and independence), and?never be politicized, especially to ensure free and uninterrupted humanitarian access and evacuation of civilians in areas of intense fighting.?India’s position has evolved as the war has progressed. It has called for restraint on all sides. The immediate priority is a de-escalation of tensions, taking into account the legitimate security interests of all countries, and aiming towards securing long-term peace and stability in the region and beyond, through constructive diplomacy.

?A GOLDEN CHANCE FOR TRANSFORMATION MAKEOVER

?The UN holds immense value. Despite its structural constraints, it is still serving the four projects of humanity as best as it can through norm-setting, knowledge and best practice hubs, advocacy and movement building, and lighthouse programs on the ground. It has undertaken more than 70 peacekeeping operations,?12 of which are ongoing.]?Not only has the UN helped 59 million refugees,?but its mandates and convening power in every area of the public good have also had a beneficial impact. It has done invaluable service on gender equality and has propelled sustainable development, including climate change action through the Millennium Development Goals, Sustainable Development Goals, and climate change treaties.

Nevertheless,?the UN faces unprecedented existential challenges. It is wracked by multipolar, if not bipolar, great-power contestation and divides. The international world order and major power relations are experiencing tectonic shifts that are rocking the UN system.?As confrontations stew in the Indo-Pacific and in Old Europe, the post-war model of great power relations is being recalibrated. The battle lines are also being drawn between the Western democracies and the ‘authoritarian models’ of China and Russia. The UN is expected to be a supranational arbiter, but the contending parties do not trust it. This ‘epic?churning’?of the international order must not go to waste, and this opportunity for creative destruction should be seized. The UN must reform not only because the alternative is to?perish, but for the sake of peace, prosperity, and the sustainability of humankind. This is an opportunity for India as well. India was emerging from the chrysalis?of colonialism?when UN 1.0 was fashioned in 1945 according?to the compact and design of?the P5 member states. Today,?when that compact is shattered, India is well placed to take some leadership in the effort to mobilize member states around convening, under Articles 108 and 109, a conference to review?and reinvent the?UN’s mandate?in the light of?new realities and old ideals. It is certainly time to go back to the drawing board. The redrawing must include?UNSC expansion, democratization,?and reform, guaranteeing impartiality, technical excellence, the independence?of the UN Secretariat from institutional capture by any bloc or countries, enhanced crisis response capacity, and financial viability and stability. At a time when the concepts of?state sovereignty?are undergoing a transformation under the shape-shifting effects of?Technology 4.0?and the new media, the world needs a reimagined ‘concert of nations’ and revitalized institutions for global governance and crisis response

About ORF

Set up in 1990, ORF seeks to lead and aid policy thinking toward building a strong and prosperous India in a fair and equitable world. It helps discover and inform India’s choices and carries Indian voices and ideas to forums shaping global debates. ORF provides non-partisan, independent analyses and inputs on matters of security, strategy, economy, development, energy, resources, and global governance to diverse decision-makers (governments, business communities, academia, and civil society). ORF’s mandate is to conduct in-depth research, provide inclusive platforms and invest in tomorrow’s thought leaders today.

?They look back at 2021 and reveal lessons leaders can take to garner more success in 2022. An edited version of their conversation follows. Employees’ mental health is worse. Compared with last year at this time—on the one hand, we are postvaccine, so we’re in a different place now, and on the other, it feels like we’re constantly recalibrating expectations. As the situation is surely getting worse. There have been pronounced amounts of prolonged stress, prolonged anxiety, and prolonged uncertainty. And we started making it OK by acknowledging that people are stopping working and not coming back.

There’s one group taking a timeout; some people have basically said, we have suffered enough with the pandemic. Now we are trying to do our word as before the pandemic. People in leadership positions of them are being a bit demanding about people coming back. It’s an interesting bifurcation.?And they feel burnout is as much, if not more, of an issue now. Their present number one concern is about coming back to the office, its work-life balance. It’s the commute. It’s managing all the things. There is no boundary between home and the office. And at the same time, you ask people what the number one worry about staying at home is, and it’s work-life balance because there’s no boundary between home and the office. You’re available 24/7, and some organizations have managed to hit the worst of both worlds: you’re expected to be in the office, so you have to deal with all the logistics of coming in. But then when you’re at home, you’re expected to be available 24/7. And people are just saying, “I was barely able to hold on during the pandemic, but now I’ve got the added stress of coming in without the benefit of a break between work and life. This has got to stop.”

The leaders who were inclined to start with the humility to say they’re banged up, and have an awareness of their own grief, their own longing, and their own anxiety, and being willing to engage the employees on it has yielded remarkable returns, just being able to have an open conversation on it.

Sadly, some leaders have gotten burned out and expressed their helplessness to work as before. And there are organizations that are starting to recognize those folks in the middle—the ones who are well-intended but don’t know what to do—and providing them with training on what questions to ask and what things to do when a burned-out employee approaches them. Addressing that large group of leaders in the middle where people want to do the right thing but don’t quite know-how, It is observed that organizations starting to invest and be very intentional. They try to see employers doing on the kind of organization-wide level at this point to address mental health and burnout. To some extent, employed some wellness programs are super helpful in terms of self-care, but they’re an additional work stream that folks have to undertake. Employers starting to be very intentional about what a full spectrum of mental health concerns could be. Employers are starting to differentiate between people who are really in need and those who are experiencing burnout. This is not to minimize burnout. There are different tool kits that can be implemented depending on the issues someone is experiencing, with some getting more clinical more quickly. However, it’s a tightrope because we so guard and value our privacy, but in this environment so much more is on display. And if you look a little bit at insurance claims, more and more people are being diagnosed, usually with some level of depression and anxiety together.?One of the things that showed is that women are feeling more burned out than men. And although both women and men had a significant increase in burnout over the pandemic, individuals who had women as leaders felt less burned out.

There’s a societal thing here, which is we continue to load you all up with all the chores of the two partners; women take on a caring role for their husbands or their partners. They’re the primary caregiver to the kids, the elder parents almost always go to the woman to make sure things are coordinated and done. The task load for women, in our society anyway, is so massively disproportionate.?Our latest?Women in the Workplace?research shows that burnout and the burnout gap between women and men have almost doubled since last year’s report, and women who are also people of color are even likelier to suffer chronic stress.

The Great Attrition research shows that the reasons people are leaving organizations are more for the relational factors: Do I feel valued at work? Do I have a good relationship with the manager? Am I able to manage it all? Versus the structural factors: What’s my title or what’s my comp? People are leaving for some of the broader pieces, not just the pay. People are walking away from jobs. When we surveyed folks, we found that 40 percent of people were at least somewhat likely to leave their job in the next six months. And almost two-thirds of those would leave without another job in hand. So they’re walking away from work and if they’re walking away from work, without something else to go to, that’s a real signal that they are fed up.

With a survey going specifically to the people who left without jobs if people do not re-enter the workforce. Otherwise, people sustained a level of not enough people working, which could be pretty problematic. And from a habit-building and psychological standpoint, if people spent six months not going to work, it might start getting really easy not going to work.??Definitely, it shows a huge uptick in people that were retiring, but now we’re seeing a little glimmer of hope because the unretirement rate is going up. So, workforce participation was down and is still down 1.6 percentage points as of the summer. It’s now down to 1.5 percentage points lower. ?People are starting to come back into the workforce. ?Because of the option between a toxic work environment and being at home—they’ve found out through the pandemic that they can afford to be at home. This is in real, real trouble in certain sectors that are dominated by people of color and women. Those are the ones that have some of the highest rates of people leaving.

Now remote work is an important element of the flexibility some of this demographic is looking for and a potentially vital factor, both in attracting and retaining talent during this period of intense churn. Factually, very few companies would want to offer and very few employees would want to have full remote because of the need for collaboration, for getting together. It will depend on the work environment, job, the actual tasks they get done, whether that means that you’re coming to the office three days a week or three days a month. Even in the most conservative companies, there’s going to be an expectation that employees should have at least one day that they can flex and work remotely.

The role that middle management plays in the training and development of making devices of work, how does something really work? It’s not just about the task; there’s an operating part. There’s a cultural part. There’s just a good, old-fashioned coaching part. That is invaluable. In the pursuit of cost-cutting choking out the number of middle managers, it’s better to hit the perfect number than it is to make sure that the work being done is actually getting the leadership it needs. All of the research shows that some of the most important skills for the future, which the Future of Work?research confirms, come from those types of interactions, and which may be got from your manager. The impact that being fully remote has had on the fabric of the culture. Companies are recognizing that the people manager has a critical role in development. Even in learning and development organizations, they’re going to direct a lot of their energy to people leaders, because so much of the learning, so much of the skills they need in the future are what’s done in that job. Now it discerns that organizations think through not just how do I upskill the manager but how do I reorient the manager’s time? So that they have real-time to be a people leader. So they have real-time to spend on apprenticeship, to spend on time and coaching.

There’s a fair number of leaders who are hoping this is transitory, and that all of their employees are going to come back. ?It probably has to accelerate the transition of that group of leaders. It is a golden chance for a newer generation of leaders who get this mix of remote, individual work, teamwork, and collaboration. This transition should be speeded up that transition a little bit. As ?2022 is the year of pulling it all together. Rethinking all of those pieces of the talent system with a goal, not to have individual outputs on talent acquisition, or performance management, or learning and development, but really to have all of those be in service of the change that is being tried to make in our people. And the change that we’re trying to make through our people leaders. We’re at the point now where for many organizations, next year is the year of, OK, how do we pull it all together? How do we, if we pull it together, rapidly advance? If we don’t, what are the risks for us on the other side?

STRUCTURING ?STRATEGIC RESILIENCE

To meet the challenges posed by the pandemic, businesses around the world had to react in agile and decisive ways. As we move into the next phase, now is the time for businesses to seek out and seize the opportunities emerging in the recovery. This involves conducting an “after-action review” to collect data and insights on lessons learned from the pandemic, and then using these to prioritize actions to enhance business value today and build strategic resilience for tomorrow. Businesses that take these steps now will be well-placed to leverage more effectively on the opportunities arising in the post-COVID-19 recovery – and to continue winning in their marketplaces as greater certainty and stability return.?What does it take to win in a changing world? ?the most urgent forces facing business leaders in 2021 and beyond is bringing the latest thinking and cutting-edge research from across our global network, the most pressing business issues to life, and describing how leaders can rethink and reinvent their businesses to succeed and be part of the solution.?The challenges covered include climate change, digital disruption, diversity & inclusion, and workforce & skills – all in the context of the post-COVID-19 world.

?MAJOR?FOCUS AREAS POST COVID-19

BUSINESS RESILIENCE

COVID-19 brought fast-moving and unexpected impacts for which many existing crisis plans and teams were unprepared. But by learning the right lessons from the pandemic and building resilience for the next crisis, businesses have an opportunity to turn the COVID-19 disruption to their advantage and emerge stronger through disruption. It is easily observed three key lessons that businesses can adopt for long-term resilience: (a) Plan and prepares for the next inevitable disruption by designating a crisis response team, designing a crisis response plan aligned to your strategy, goals, and purpose, and building an integrated resilience program, (b)?Remove silos between resilience competencies and teams, and integrate them to coordinate the tactics, tools, and technologies needed for effective crisis response, and (c) Build organizational resilience by establishing high-level resilience governance, revisiting and rethinking your crisis management structure and response strategy, and fostering a culture of resilience.?Navigate Tax and Legal Measures in response to COVID-19 which presents significant challenges to people and organizations around the globe and the disruption continues to evolve. ?Global executives responding to business disruption have great expectations for responding to global disruption post-COVID-19. India can live up to its full potential by eliminating frictions, and the world’s largest democracy can generate higher and more inclusive growth. gal entity.

As businesses close to help prevent transmission of COVID-19, financial concerns and job losses are one of the first human impacts of the virus; Not knowing how this pandemic will play out also affects our economic, physical and mental well-being; and Despite this fear, businesses and communities in many regions have shown a more altruistic response in the face of crisis – actions which could help countries preparing for COVID-19. There has been a significant economic impact of the coronavirus on financial markets and vulnerable industries such as manufacturing, tourism, hospitality, and travel account for 10% of global GDP and 50 million jobs worldwide. Global tourism, travel, and hospitality companies closing down affect SMEs globally. This, in turn, affects many people, typically the least well-paid and those self-employed or working in informal environments in the gig economy or in part-time work with zero-hours contracts. Some governments have announced economic measures to safeguard jobs, guarantee wages and support the self-employed, but there is a lack of clarity in many countries about how these measures will be implemented and how people will manage a loss of income in the short term. Behind these statistics lie the human costs of the pandemic, from the deaths of friends and family to the physical effects of infection and the mental trauma and fear faced by almost everyone. Not knowing how this pandemic will play out affects our economic, physical, and mental well-being against a backdrop of a world that, for many, is increasingly anxious, unhappy and lonely. Fear of the unknown can often lead to feelings of panic, for example when people feel they are being denied life-saving protection or treatment or that they may run out of necessities, which can lead to panic buying.?Psychological stress relates to a sense of a lack of control in the light of uncertainty. In all cases, lack of information or the wrong information, either provided inadvertently or maliciously, can amplify the effects. There is a huge amount of misleading information circulating online about COVID-19, from fake medical information to speculation about government responses. People are susceptible to social media posts from an apparently trustworthy source, often referred to as an “Uncle with a Masters”-post, possibly amplified and spread by “copypasta” posts, which share information by copying and pasting and make each new post look like an original source, as opposed to posts that are “liked” or “shared” or “retweeted”.?

?CONCLUSION

As in any distressful conditions, to increase the woes of sufferers, unfortunately, cybercriminals and hackers are also exploiting this situation and there has been a significant rise in Coronavirus-themed malicious websites, with more than 16,000 new coronavirus-related domains registered since January 2020. Hackers are selling malware and hacking tools through COVID-19 discount codes on the darknet,?many of which are targeted at accessing corporate data from home-workers laptops, which is more vulnerable than an office environment. Social distancing and lockdowns have also prompted altruistic behaviors, in part because of a sense that “we’re all in this together”. The pitfall of self-isolation or social lockdown is symptoms of traumatic stress, confusion, and anger, all of which are exacerbated by fear of infection, having limited access to supplies of necessities, inadequate information, or the experience of economic loss or stigma. This stress and anxiety can lead to increased alcohol consumption, as well as an increase in domestic and family violence.?Health measures must be the first priority for governments, businesses, and society. It is important for businesses to show solidarity and work together to protect staff, local communities, and customers, as well as keep supply chains, manufacturing, and logistics, working.?Following WHO advice, there is a need for the business community to move from general support to specific actions and focus on countries’ access to critical supplies, including a “Community Package of Critical Items” (a list of 46 items that all countries need). Of these items, 20 are either not available locally or available stocks are too limited. These missing items fall into four categories: Hygiene: Chlorine, HTH 70%, alcohol-based hand rub, liquid soap; Diagnostics: lab screening tests, lab confirmation tests, enzymes, RNA extraction kits; PPE: gowns, scrubs, aprons, sterile gloves, protective goggles, face shields, masks (N95 or FFP2); and Case management equipment: oxygen concentrators, oxygen delivery systems, mechanical ventilators. The call for action is for more money, to work with manufacturers to create capacity, and to organize purchasing so there is guaranteed access, especially for poorer countries with less resilient public health systems. The concept is to create a global security stockpile of supplies and equipment, an effort that needs: Emergency financing; Access to and increases in manufacturing capacity; Access to national and supplier stockpiles; and warehouses and distribution capacity.

Global leadership combines human ingenuity, experience, and technology innovation to deliver sustained outcomes and build trust.