If the enemies of our enemies are our friends, does that mean that the enemies of our friends are our enemies?

This is a question that retired Sen. Col. Zhou Bo, now a fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy Tsinghua University, has asked himself.

Here is his answer: “Not necessarily. ... That’s the Chinese perspective on the Russia-Ukraine war.”

Russia is China’s strategic partner, while China is Ukraine’s largest trading partner. China understands Russia’s “legitimate and reasonable concerns” about the expansion of NATO, but also supports the principle that the autonomy and territory of all nations should be respected. “China’s neutral position might not be what either side wants, but it is a position that both sides can accept.”

On March 2, China abstained from the U.N. General Assembly resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. A total of 35 countries abstained, including India, South Africa, Iran, Iraq and Vietnam. In a subsequent April 7 vote to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council, the number of abstentions rose to 58, and included Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. In both votes, a majority favored condemning Russia’s actions, but the total population of the countries belonging to the so-called abstain caucus amounts to half of the world’s population. Most regional powers have moved to the abstain caucus. It would seem that a new force is emerging in international politics.

U.S. President Joe Biden has appealed to “freedom-loving nations” to unite, describing the worldwide conflict surrounding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as “a battle between democracy and autocracy, between liberty and repression, between a rules-based order and one governed by brute force.”

Former Indian national security adviser Shivshankar Menon disagrees. Menon objects to the idea of “two camps,” saying the idea that “democracies will band together in a muscular reaffirmation of the liberal world order” is “wishful thinking,” and that “far from consolidating ‘the free world,’ the war has underscored its fundamental incoherence.”

In fact, it is impossible to cast the war in Ukraine as a black-and-white struggle between democracy and despotism. The gray zone of the abstain caucus is expanding. Of the 111 countries and regions invited to the Biden administration’s virtual “Summit for Democracy” in late 2021, nine countries — Angola, Armenia, India, Iraq, Mongolia, Namibia, Pakistan, Senegal and South Africa — abstained from the U.N. resolution to censure Russia. Moreover, a full 27 of the same 111 countries and regions abstained from the resolution to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council, including Brazil, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, South Africa, Nepal, Ghana, Angola, Belize, Botswana, Cape Verde, Guyana and Kenya.

There are various reasons for these abstentions: opposition to the double standards of Western human rights diplomacy; dissatisfaction with the white-Eurocentric approach to world affairs; resentment of past colonial rule and colonial legacies; gratitude for Soviet support during national wars of liberation; distrust of Western economic sanctions; and concern over rising energy and food costs.

In the case of New Delhi, there are also national security concerns; the relationship with Russia is part of India’s insurance policy with regard to China. India also imports weapons from Russia. And among the countries of Southeast Asia and Latin America, unhappiness at being ignored by Europe and the West may also be a factor.

The current abstain caucus may well come to influence global governance one day. It may emerge as a force similar to that of the nonaligned movement that refused to side with either the U.S. or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. This time, however, there are doubts as to whether China can lead the nonaligned, as it did in the past.

China’s current guise of neutrality is belied by its effective backing of Russia. In the future, this could well develop into a China-led Sino-Russian block. Nor can BRICS operate as a nonaligned force as long as Russia remains a central member (along with Russia and China, BRICS includes India, Brazil and South Africa).

As things stand, the Group of 20 also faces an identity crisis. If we exclude the EU (which has no voting rights) and Russia (a no vote), seven of the remaining 18 member states abstained from at least one of the recent U.N. resolutions. Indonesia, this year’s G20 host, has indicated it plans to invite Putin to the summit, but European members and the U.S. will not attend if Putin does.

Diplomacy that forces nonaligned nations to submit to some type of loyalty test is unacceptable. Excessive rhetoric and passion surrounding human rights, democracy promotion, peace and justice should be tamped down. It is not values (liberty, human rights) that we must pursue, but principles (international laws and rules).

A high-ranking U.S. government official spoke of the need to “persuade the persuadable” within the abstain caucus. It is time to act on those fine words.

Yoichi Funabashi is chairman of the Asia Pacific Initiative and a former editor-in-chief of the Asahi Shimbun. This is a translation of his column in the monthly Bungei Shunju.