Review of World Affairs (RWA)

By Shashi P.B.B. Malla                                                                                                     Nepal: Beginning of the End for Loktantra?                      The country has been on the wrong path ever since the promulgation of the Loktantra Constitution in 2015. For most Nepalese, it is heading towards being a failed state. By no stretch: of the imagination can it be characterized as a so-called liberal democracy. Such a democracy functions at two levels. There is the formal level comprising free and fair elections, established and functioning political institutions – bureaucracy, judiciary dispensing law and justice, and above all a vibrant legislature or parliament. Then there is the informal level where active citizens and lobby groups pressure or try to influence the elected people’s representatives in order to press home their group or collective interests. Most Nepalese are agreed that at the first level, only the political executive is barely functional. On the second level, the people, in general, have no recourse to push through their legitimate demands, first, because they are not organized, and second, they have no access to the people’s representatives, most of whom are pocketing salaries, but not doing their duty. Civil society in Nepal has ceased to exist. The guard rails have been conveniently removed. There is no custodian of democracy and no institution to take the corrupt and wayward politicians to task. And the current President of the Republic is not part of the solution, but part of the problem itself. The president is a political appointee and cannot function independently as in a sophisticated political system like Germany. Not for nothing was the Hindu Monarchy abolished. Domestically, the monarch was a constant thorn in the side of the errant politicians. With him removed, they could, as they say, make hay while the sun shines. Many were [are] traitors in the pay of India. Externally, the monarch was a shining symbol of Nepal’s independence and sovereignty. Whichever political party is in power in India – whether the Indian National Congress or the Bharatiya Janata Party – tries to undermine and subvert Nepal’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Thus, the Maoist movement was not something that suddenly arose from the soil and genius of Nepal, but was a creature born and nurtured in India. This is a matter of fact in the public domain, even bragged by former Indian president Pranab Mukherji! The Maoists – quislings par excellence – managed to influence and subvert all the other major political parties, especially in the person of Girija Prasad Koirala, to finally get rid of the monarchy, which has such a glorious role in Nepal’s history. This history is not past, but now in the collective memory of patriotic Nepalese is projected into the present and future. There is a palpable sense among Nepalese in all walks of life that we have to get back to our country again. This includes restoring the constitutional Hindu Monarchy as the protector of our traditional way of life and also overseeing sustained development [but not with India’s help, for this will never be forthcoming]. And who will be the custodians of the new and vibrant democracy? We, the Nepalese people ourselves, of course! It should not be difficult to send these venal politicians into domestic or foreign exile, considering that their political institutions are rotten to the core. What we urgently need are:
  1. Dedicated and patriotic personalities – including a couple of courageous, former Army officers – to
2. Organize – tactical and strategic -- street protests [see the example of Sudan below] that will force our unqualified, incompetent and crooked politicians to seek greener pastures/safe havens/ their spiritual homeland(s). 3. Find ways and means to keep the security forces neutral in the new people’s uprising. Especially the Nepal Army should have realized by now that the current political disposition is not worthy of being protected or preserved. U.S. & China: Competition & Confrontation U.S. President Joe Biden connected with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, for a virtual face-to-face meeting last week aimed at cooling off the increasingly heated relationship between the two superpowers. While the three-and-a-half-hour talk covered trade, Taiwan, and human rights, it produced no breakthroughs. It was nevertheless of great significance. Civil Discourse Despite their many disagreements, the two leaders remained cordial during the meeting. Biden called for “simple, straightforward competition,” and Xi, who called Biden an “old friend” said the two sides should boost “communication and cooperation.” David Shullman (Senior Director at the Atlantic Council) says that simply talking is “critical to minimizing misperception and the risk of unintended conflict.” Just the image alone of the two leaders engaging in dialogue could help ease concerns that they are “heading into dangerous territory,” particularly with the risk of military conflict over China. Ms. Ashley Feng (fellow at the Global China Hub) states that concrete matters were also on the table. Both sides “mentioned the possibility of cooperating on issues like health security, climate change, global energy supplies, and regional security issues such as North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran.” They also hashed out a fast-track entry process for U.S. business executives arriving in China. The White House’s priority remained “working with allies and partners to write the ‘rules of the road for the 21st century’“. China’s foreign ministry, on the other hand, “revealed a more assertive Xi”, focused on steering US policy on China toward a more “rational and pragmatic” track. Singapore’s Take Singapore’s longtime leader, Lee Hsien Loong said that Monday’s summit was a “necessary beginning” as the two superpowers try to manage their differences, which he said are “many and deep” (Newsweek, Nov. 18). He predicted no quick solution to a tense U.S.-China relationship that continues to be mired in fundamentally divergent world views,” They are not going to be resolved or reconciled in one meeting or one deal,” said Lee, whose small but economic and technological robust island nation has managed to find common ground with both the mighty military mainstay of the Asia-Pacific and the region’s foremost rising power, which considers the surrounding seas as its backyard. “There is a strong sense [in China] that the East is rising and the West is declining. In particular, that America is a declining power,” Lee referenced the doctrine of the international relations proposed by Xi himself, who was echoing Mao Zedong [ ‘Tung Fang Hung’ = “the East is Red”]. Lee added that taking the long view, “have to bet on America recovering from whatever things it does to itself at the moment.” Flashpoint Taiwan On Taiwan [which Beijing considers a separatist province], perhaps the most bilateral issue in recent years, Lee warned of the lingering risks of an accidental armed conflict. According to Lee’s analysis, Biden, Xi and Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen were all saying the right things – a general call to maintain the status quo – yet the dynamic across the Taiwan Strait was anything but static. “The U.S. has significantly increased the visibility, the level and the intensity of diplomatic and even military engagements with Taiwan,” said Lee. Meanwhile, China continues to vigorously test Taiwan’s air defences, while the self-ruling island grows in confidence about its own role on the global stage. All the moves by all three actors raise suspicions, tensions and anxieties, and make it more likely that a mishap or miscalculation can happen, he said, adding that all parties needed to “chill”. Sudan: Power of Street Protests Last October 30, not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of people took to the streets to protest against the military’s October 25 putsch. The protests on the streets are amorphous, but well-organized. The massive protest was the largest in the world outside of Hong Kong. Successive anti-coup protests have drawn huge crowds across the country, despite the increasing violence from the military regime. Last week 17 protesters were killed – only the latest chapter “in a continuing battle for the political soul, and future of the country,” according to Kholood Khair writing in Al Jazeera (Nov. 18). The side demanding active political participation of the people consists of myriad civilian forces, including the neighbourhood resistance committees, pro-democracy activists, the organization “Forces for Freedom and Change” (FFC) and the ousted Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. On the regressive side are several paramilitary forces, some former rebel armed groups, the remnants of toppled dictator Omar al Bashir’s patronage network, and most importantly, the politicized military. According to highly perceptive Khair writing very knowingly and cogently, Sudan today is divided into two distinct camps: those who are anti-coup, and those who are supportive of it. As of now, the anti-coup side has the upper hand. The military seems to have overestimated its governing capabilities [like the Tatmadawin Myanmar] :
  1. It is doubtful whether the coup leader, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan will be able to garner the necessary constitutional legitimacy.
2. Since all political parties, except the Islamists, reject the coup, which constituencies can the new government claim to represent? 3. How can the ‘coup government’ convince the public that it will meaningfully tackle the difficult issues of transitional justice, corruption and human rights abuses when the military is largely seen as complicit in all three. In the face of mounting international condemnation, the military’s regional allies – Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – will find it difficult to continue to support the coup politically and militarily. The street protests demand a fully civilian government to take the country out of the present crisis for various reasons: Historical experience: The previous model of civilian-military compromise did not work; therefore, alternatives must be sought. Pragmatism: The hybrid government with its faulty decision-making mechanisms could not tackle the important issues. Leverage: the civilians have the momentum and a fairly united position. Thus, “there has never been a more apt time to push for the dismantling of military hegemony and the installing of fully civilian democratic governance in Sudan” (Khair). Democratic success in Sudan would be a trailblazer for the Horn of Africa and the Sahel regions, which it straddles. Moreover, it has also convincingly demonstrated that it also has democratic custodians to watch over democratic processes – something very much lacking in many developing countries [like Nepal] battling democratic fragility and endemic corruption. The first sign of success for the people’s uprising was achieved when Sudan’s military reinstated Prime Minister AbdallaHamdok on Sunday and announced the release of all political prisoners after weeks of deadly unrest. Under the agreement signed with military leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, Hamdok will lead a civilian government of technocrats for a transitional period. The domestic and international pressure on the military must be relentless. Tensions between the West & Russia After the end of the Cold War and the implosion of the Soviet Union, tensions have been building between the political West and Russia after the former has been encroaching on what the latter considers its own backyard, especially with the extension of NATO further east to what was part of the Soviet Communist Empire. In particular, the West has not respected Russian red lines in Eastern Europe. In the latest development, the U.S. has shared intelligence including maps with allies that shows a buildup of Russian troops and artillery to prepare for a rapid, large-scale push into Ukraine from multiple locations if President Vladimir Putin actually decides to invade (Bloomberg, Nov.21). While Putin has said he doesn’t want a war, he himself has conceded that his aim is to keep the U.S. and allies on edge over Ukraine for “as long as possible, so nobody gets it into their head to cause a conflict we don’t need on our western borders.” He reprimanded the U.S. and other states for expanding military infrastructure in Ukraine and stepping up naval missions in the Black Sea and flights by warplanes along Russian borders. For Putin, Ukraine is unfinished business after his annexation of Crimea in 2014. He considers Ukraine as part of Greater Russia and takes great offence at its embrace of the West, especially its nascent military engagement with NATO. Russian authorities are clear that any attempt to occupy large swathes of Ukrainian territory would face widespread public opposition on the ground and trigger sweeping western sanctions that could thrash the Russian economy. The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com