CNA News Website or Mobile Service Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022
Sign In
CNA Insider
Commentary
Commentary: Ukraine peace summit failed to meet ‘historic’ expectations
Without a rethink of their current approach, it is unlikely that the carnage on Ukraine’s battlefields will end anytime soon, says international security expert Stefan Wolff.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is pictured on a monitor as he attends the plenary session of the Summit on Peace in Ukraine, in Stansstad near Lucerne, Switzerland, Jun 16, 2024. (Photo: Urs Flueeler/Reuters)
Stefan Wolff
19 Jun 2024 06:00AM (Updated: 19 Jun 2024 08:09AM)
Bookmark
Share
BIRMINGHAM, England: The Summit on Peace in Ukraine, hosted by Switzerland on Jun 15 and 16, ended with a final communique that was disappointing for Ukraine and its Western partners.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seemed to have high hopes for it, making an in-person appeal at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore earlier in June for leaders to support the summit.
As the event at the Burgenstock resort in Switzerland began, Zelenskyy said: “I believe that we will witness history being made here”.
The summit did not live up to expectations. The content of the communique was weaker than could have been hoped, and even then, not all of the delegations signed up to it.
With key countries absent from Switzerland and no agreement on a time or venue for a follow-up meeting, the future of this particular approach to achieving peace in Ukraine may well have come and gone.
NO CLEAR PATH TO PEACE
In line with the agenda of the summit, the communique focuses on three areas in which 84 of 100 attending states and international organisations came to agreement.
First, they emphasised the importance of the safety of nuclear energy and nuclear installations and the inadmissibility of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Second, they noted the importance of not weaponising food security and ensuring the uninterrupted availability of Ukrainian agricultural products on the global market.
Third, they called for a complete exchange of all prisoners of war and the release of all deported and unlawfully displaced Ukrainian children and detained civilians.
The communique also notes that those who support it “decided to undertake concrete steps in the future in the above-mentioned areas with further engagement of the representatives of all parties”. What exactly these steps are and when they will be undertaken, however, remains unclear.
The communique also notes “commitment to refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity of all states, including Ukraine, within their internationally recognised borders, including territorial waters, and the resolution of disputes through peaceful means as principles of international law”.
“The United Nations Charter, including the principles of respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of all states, can and will serve as a basis in achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine,” it added
Related:
Commentary: What Ukraine wants might not be what it needs for peace
Commentary: The price of rebuilding Ukraine goes up each day – but shirking the bill will cost even more
CHINA-BRAZIL RIVAL PLAN
Notably absent from the communique was one key Ukrainian and Western demand, namely the complete withdrawal of all Russian troops from occupied Ukrainian territory. This could have been interpreted as a nod in the direction of other peace proposals that focus on achieving a ceasefire along the current frontlines, notably the Indonesian and Chinese proposals of 2023. Yet, Indonesia, while present with an envoy, did not join the final communique.
China not only declined to attend but also launched a joint initiative with Brazil that presents a rival format for a future peace process. The Chinese-Brazilian proposal specifically focuses on the participation of both Russia and Ukraine and the need to discuss “all peace plans”.
Interestingly, it mirrors some of the language included in the joint communique of the Swiss summit, including in its emphasis on an exchange of all prisoners of war, nuclear safety, and food security.
Its immediate aim, however, appears to be “the realisation of a comprehensive ceasefire”, something that Ukraine and its Western partners have so far rejected. Nor does the Chinese-Brazilian proposal make any reference to the UN Charter or the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Chinese-Brazilian proposal, therefore, presents a more serious alternative to the Swiss peace summit.
Related:
Commentary: Two years on, where is Russia’s war on Ukraine going?
Commentary: As Putin’s hostility towards the West grows, so does Russia’s reliance on China
With the exception of Türkiye, none of the other major regional and global players in the war in Ukraine have signed up to the final communique. Saudi Arabia, at some point considered a potential venue for a follow-up meeting in the autumn, declined to join the communique, as did India. With South Africa not even in attendance, all the key members of the enlarged BRICS have signalled if not their opposition to the Swiss summit than at least their preference for an alternative format.
The fact that there were relatively few attendees from Africa and Asia also indicates the broader failure of Ukrainian and Western efforts to enlist countries from the Global South in their peace initiative.
While understandable, the exclusion, so far, of Russia from these discussions has led to a lack of a credible process that could lead to an end of the war in Ukraine.
After the Swiss summit, it is abundantly clear that the Ukrainian and Western approach is unlikely to gather the necessary global support to generate true momentum towards peace in Ukraine. What is not clear, is whether this will be recognised by Kyiv and its partners. Without a rethink of their current approach, it is unlikely that the carnage on Ukraine’s battlefields will end anytime soon.
Stefan Wolff is Professor of International Security at the University of Birmingham and Head of the Department of Political Science and International Studies.
Source: CNA/yh(aj)
Sign up for our newsletters
Get our pick of top stories and thought-provoking articles in your inbox
A I R I E F Website 