• Nepal’s Degenerated Political Parties
  • Russia under Pressure from the West
  • Ukraine Vibrant
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla Nepal’s Political Parties Problematic The country is faced with a myriad of domestic and external problems, but the main political parties are not up to the mark. Instead of being part of the solution, they are in fact the main problem. The five-party alliance managed to come ahead in the local elections, but good governance is nowhere within reach. PM Sher Bahadur Deuba has been attacked by his own rivals within the Nepali Congress for not delivering. On the economic front, the unwieldy alliance of social democrats and Communists of various hues has not pursued a coherent and sustainable development policy, so that many noted economists fear that Nepal is sliding down the path taken by Sri Lanka. As in the case of not importing fertilizers on a timely basis. The Maoist Finance Minister Janardan Sharma is mired in controversy and corruption, and by association and tolerance so is the whole government. Why ministers of two associate alliance parties have to be substituted after such a short duration is also a moot question. The informed public can only conclude that it was now the turn of the new ministers to participate in the spoils! As in Sri Lanka, Nepal is also living beyond its means and importing too many luxury goods. The government is doing nothing to clear the heavy debts of the Nepal Oil Corporation to its Indian counterpart. This could be a terrible noose around our necks. Our foreign exchange reserves could run out in less than six months. We badly need a capable and experienced economist to handle a joint ministry of ‘Finance and Economic Development’. In our external affairs, the government made a mess of both the MCC and the “State Partnership Programme (SPP). Our relations with the United States, a dependable development partner, are badly disturbed. Deuba was unable to stand up to his Communist detractors. As things now stand, he is not in a position to repair the once flourishing relationship and should postpone his U.S. visit. It is not in our national interest to parrot India’s position in Ukraine. Nepal is not a rising regional and great power like India, essential to the emerging US policy of pivoting to the Indo-Pacific. Nepal, unlike the other countries of South Asia, has to take a principled stand on Putin’s war of choice against a sovereign country. It has to clearly recognize that Russia has flagrantly violated international norms and international law in impinging on the territorial integrity of a much smaller and weaker state. Our current rulers and would-be decision-makers in the realm of external relations have failed to study our recent history. Nepal has since a long time cultivated the image of a peace-loving nation, but not wanting to live in isolation, but taking an active part in international deliberations. Consequently, from very early on, it has been active in conflict resolution around the world and has contributed continuously to UN Peace Keeping Operations. It has an impeccable record and is punching above its weight. It should not tarnish its reputation of being a peaceful arbiter. On such matters as deciding the peaceful resolution of conflicts, it must firmly stand on the side of a small, peaceful country defending its sovereign rights and territorial integrity against an ‘evil empire’.  The West Squeezes Russia at Crucial Summits The G-7 In a pivotal week of European summit meetings, two of the political West’s major geopolitical blocs – the G 7 and NATO – focused on pushing back the aggressive intentions of a would-be new imperial power – Russia (WaPo/The Washington Post, June 28). It was a new lease of life for both institutions. Especially, NATO which had been degraded to complete irrelevance, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24 now became of paramount importance for the security of Europe. Not only that, NATO is now pivoting across the entire Eurasian landmass and has even a resurgent China in its sights. In the majestic location of Schloss Elmau near Garmisch-Partenkirchen in the Bavarian Alps, the leaders of the “Group of Seven” nations pledged to back Ukraine “as long as it takes” to resist Russia’s invasion. The Group described a Russian missile strike on a crowded shopping mall in Kremenchuk – while it was in full meeting [and therefore as a direct challenge] – in east-central Ukraine as a “war crime”. French President Emmanuel Macron described it as an “abomination”. “We share the pain of the victim’s families, and the anger in the face of such an atrocity. The Russian people have to see the truth.” Russia was also a member of the Group between 1998 and 2014. However, this era of the “Group of Eight” now seems an anomaly in retrospect. The bloc was initially initiated in the depths of the Cold War as a loose association of the capitalist West’s major industrialized countries. Russia joined in the years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the inclusion reflected the liberal optimism of the moment then. However, the domestic political situation in Russia soon went sour and Vladimir Putin showed his true colours. His liberal economic rule hardened into an “ultranationalist autocracy” [something we are currently observing also in India], and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014 led to it being expelled from the exclusive club [it is, however, still a member of the G 20]. In hindsight, it is clear that the Western countries did very little to punish Russia then, and also to deter Putin from future aggressive actions, although what he had undertaken between 2008 and 2014 were rampant violations of international law and the Charta of the United Nations – and absolutely not becoming of a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. The latest meeting of the G-7 in Germany saw various moves aimed at increasing pressure on Moscow. The members are pursuing the implementation of a price cap on Russian oil to further deprive Putin of much-needed revenue to support his war effort. For Russia, the Writing is on the Wall The G-7 leaders made clear that Western powers were not interested in finding Putin a diplomatic way out to end the war – at least not yet. “It is up to Ukraine to decide on a future peace settlement, free from external pressure or influence,” they said in a joint statement. “We will continue to coordinate efforts to meet Ukraine’s urgent requirements for military and defence equipment.” The discussions on all these fronts continued in Madrid under NATO auspices. NATO to the Fore Most of the leaders of the G-7 proceeded immediately to Madrid, Spain for a NATO summit. The gathering of the West’s preeminent military alliance was a major affair with member states making the sweeping and weighty announcement they will boost the total number of forces kept at a high readiness to 300,000 troops. It’s a direct response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and is part of the “biggest overhaul of our collective defence and deterrence since the Cold War,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Transforming NATO’s quick-response force, which currently has only 40,000 troops, is one way the 30-member alliance is responding to Russia’s aggression. Leaders also discussed plans to bolster the alliance’s eastern flank, outlined a new force model, announced funding decisions and published a fresh strategy document that lays out NATO’s strategy for the years ahead. Putin’s war against Ukraine has profoundly shifted the mood on the continent. A recent survey found that more than half the people in each country of the G-7 – which includes Europe’s four largest economies [Germany, UK, France, Italy] – believe they are in a new Cold War with Russia. But there are still problems and questions. Countries in Eastern Europe fear a lack of commitment and eventual fatigue from partners to the west. More than half of NATO members have not increased their defence budgets during the ongoing conflict. Pivot to China & Asia-Pacific The NATO summit also spotlighted the emerging geostrategic challenge of China. At the end, the leaders of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea also attended, as a mark of shifting focus in the international arena. However, there is no unanimity on how to counter Beijing with major European powers like France and Germany wary of adopting Washington’s all-out hawkish and confrontational posture. Ukrain’s Path to Victory Two perspicacious academics: Kirstin J.H. Brathwaite (Assistant Professor at Michigan State University) and Margarita Konaev (Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security) have enriched the discussion on conflict and peace studies within the discipline of International Relations by elevating the concept of “Sustainment” as a key element in protracted conflicts in their path-breaking essay: “The Real Key to Victory in Ukraine” (Foreign Affairs, June 29, 2022). At the same time, they have underscored why sustaining the fight against Russia is everything in the now war of attrition. Definition The word “sustain” (verb) as many nuances:
  • strength or support physically or mentally
  • bear the weight of an object
  • keep something going over time or continuously
  • confirm that something is just or valid.
The noun “sustainment” incorporates all the above meanings, The current stage of the war has seen only small swaths of territory change hands. According to Brathwaite and Konaev, the emerging war of attrition is more likely to depend on “sustainment” – “the ability of each side to ensure a relentless influx of troops, ammunition, and heavy equipment to the frontlines in the east [and possibly south] especially as the conflict drags on and international attention dissipates.” In addition, logistics, financial management, personnel services, and health services will be crucial, determining which antagonist is better able to replace its depleted units, resupply and maintain its equipment, and obtain food, fuel and ammunition quickly and necessary amounts. As things now stand, both militaries are clearly showing signs of strain, especially when it comes to reinforcing troops after heavy losses. Like most realist pundits, the writers are of the opinion that the conflict is increasingly likely to end – or at least be contained – with a negotiated settlement or cease-fire, sustainment would be the key to provide vital leverage for Ukraine. In other words, it would be able to negotiate from a position of strength. Sustaining the fight against Russia will, therefore, take political, economic and military commitment from the Ukrainian people, as well as from the U.S. and NATO allies. However, the emerging domestic challenges in all supporting countries make that sustainment increasingly costly and eroding of public support as the war drags on and Western countries find it increasingly difficult to muster the political will to uphold their commitments to Ukraine. Time is of the essence. Ukraine must be quickly and evenly supplied with sophisticated weapons and other essential materials to maintain its sustainment and prevail on the battlefield. The sooner the war ends, the better for all concerned – the warring parties, the nervous neighbours and the hungry world. In this sense, Ukraine’s President Zelensky hoped for the war to end by the end of this year. The Silver Lining in Current Western Policy There is little doubt among academic circles and foreign policy pundits that the West’s policy vis-à-vis Ukraine in the years 2008-22 was very short-sighted and misguided – to say the least. This time around, the West’s response to Putin’s aggression has been prompt and more robust. A leading scholar, Daniel W. Drezner (Professor of International Politics at the prestigious Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tuft’s University) concludes that U.S. support for Ukraine could be a game-changer in the current tug-of-war of international power politics. Prof. Drezner evaluates: “For the first time in years, the United States has demonstrated policy competence during a global crisis,” (Foreign Affairs: “The Perils of Pessimism. Why Anxious Nations Are Dangerous Nations”, July/August 2022). Ukraine’s stout resistance and its Western re-orientation have reminded everyone, including Americans, that U.S. soft power and structural power persist. After decades of rhetoric about declining American hard power and a democratic recession, U.S. policy- and decision-makers can now, in fact, speak of restored alliances and a firm determination to strengthen the liberal international order. Lessons for the Wider World – and Nepal What happens in and around America is, therefore, of vital concern to the rest of the world – not only its foreign policy initiatives but also its domestic developments. It is all very well and good to trumpet the virtues of a non-aligned foreign policy, but it is better to hedge your bets. Our so-called leaders and foreign policy pundits – whether from the media or academia – should first get their historical and geographical facts right before venturing a learned opinion! It was very short-sighted of our political leaders and lawmakers to squash an ordinary, run-of-the-mill military cooperation by wrongly labelling it a military alliance or pact. As is their wont, they excelled in throwing out the baby with the bath water! According to Drezner, for all his bombastic talk about restoring Russian imperial greatness, Putin had a pessimistic worldview which greatly influenced his decision to invade as he felt that he was facing a closing window of opportunity. Unfortunately for him, the surprising course of the war had other unintended consequences. It further fed Putin’s pessimism and encouraged pessimism in Beijing as well. Chinese officials expected a fractured and ineffectual Western response to Putin’s war of choice. Otherwise Xi would not have agreed to a “friendship without limits” just before Putin unleashed his aggression. Now its initial bad choice leaves it more vulnerable in the Asia-Pacific. Beijing’s support for Russia has also left its Asian neighbours even more wary of Chinese intentions – in the East and South China Seas and the Taiwan Strait. As things now stand, Drezner postulates that a United States, confident in its future and its role in a fragile and leaderless world, could recapture its historic position within the international system. An optimistic United States could fortify international institutions [including the UN Security Council] and offer a bridge to China and the countries in the Global South that are interested in joining  a new World Order as responsible stakeholders. Unfortunately, there is a flip side to the equation: if the great powers succumb to pessimism and see no gain in all-round cooperation for the common good, then all bets are off, and the world will face a dangerous decade. The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com