Review of World Politics
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal: No Movement in Domestic Politics
The political opposition to Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli sees no way forward than to ask for his resignation on “moral grounds”. This was the case when CPN-Maoist Centre lawmaker Pampha Bhusal cited the examples of two of Oli’s former cabinet ministers who had resigned on so-called moral grounds. This would have been quite funny, were it not so grotesque coming from someone who belonged to an organization terrorizing the country for ten long years in the name of the spurious ‘People’s War’.
From the point of view of practical politics, there is indeed no compunction for Oli to resign. After all, what applies to ministers, doesn’t apply to the PM. In the power politics of the day and among thieves, robbers and scoundrels, it is up to the opposition to unseat him from his perch, where he seems to be quite firmly ensconced! He has the majority of the UML parliamentary caucus in his hands, and he is so in the process of isolating his party foes that they will have no other choice than to separate from the parent party as in 1998.
Then there is the larger question of the state of the political system as a whole. That it is in a state of complete disrepair is not only Oli’s contribution. In such a milieu, it is indeed a waste of time discussing the legal and constitutional niceties of various political and parliamentary moves. The ordinary Nepali does not care one iota about the dissolution/reinstating of parliament or the inner-party feuds.
She/he is concerned about the machinery of government and administration coming to a grinding halt, and no way out of the Kathmandu Quagmire.
One of the three Kathmandu English dailies hit the nail on the head when it heralded: “Nepali politics is becoming devoid of principles, ethics and ideologies” (The Kathmandu Post, March 23). We can only quarrel with the ‘tense’ – this dismal state of affairs is already upon us and the ‘Kathmandu Quagmire’ is an imminent reality!
The Makune-Jhallu Bhai faction of the CPN-Unified Marxists-Leninists (UML) is trying to hollow out the party from within in order to eject Oli, but this will not amount to much as Oli wields all the levels of power. They as well as Prachande and his gang have to come to terms with the fact that they no longer belong to the makers of shakers of Nepali politics.
Prachande’s Maoists are now a lost breed, not able to influence events and less still to topple the Oli-government.
The Nepali Congress under its visionless leader Sher Bahadur Deuba doesn’t know which way to go.
The Janata Samajwadi Party-Nepal (JSP-N) was from the beginning an artificial construct and is now turning hither and thither and in the process falling apart, i.e. into its constituent parts. It is also no longer the heralded ‘kingmaker’ in the politics of horse-trading.
Thus currently, the possibility of a coalition forming against Oli is receding to the background.
Global Pressure on Myanmar Generals Builds up
The country-wide opponents of Myanmar’s military putsch protested steadily over the last weekend. Simultaneously, international pressure on the military junta to halt its brutal repression of democracy supporters is gaining momentum. Even many Asian neighbours joined Western countries in condemning the continuing lethal force (Reuters, March 20).
The death toll since the February 1 coup has now risen to 238. The bloodshed has not silenced the revulsion for the re-imposition of military dictatorship and deep anger over the ouster of the elected government and the detention of its leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
The activists have adapted tactics to fool the security forces, who have remained cold-blooded. In demonstrations in the second city of Mandalay, many were injured when a vehicle drove into them and police fired rubber bullets. There were also protests all over the country, from the north to the Irrawaddy delta in the south.
UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned what he called the military’s continuing brutal violence. He did say that a “firm, unified international response” was urgently needed, but did not elaborate on what concrete actions could be taken!
UN rapporteur Tom Andrews called for sanctions in response to the generals “ruthless” attacks on people. “The world must respond by cutting their access to money and weapons. Now.”
Members of ASEAN, who have for years abided by a code of not criticizing each other’s domestic problems, have also begun speaking out. Indonesian President Joko Widodo has called for an urgent meeting of the South-East Asian regional organization and said: “Indonesia urges that the use of violence in Myanmar be stopped immediately so that there are no more victims.” As a first step, the organization could suspend Myanmar’s membership and warn that sterner measures could follow.
Malaysian PM Muhyiddin Yassin said he was appalled by the persistent use of lethal violence against unarmed civilians: “We cannot afford to see our brotherly nation of Myanmar become so destabilized at the hands of a selected few, who seek to promote their own vested interests.”
Philippine foreign minister TeodoroLocsin said ASEAN had to act. Singapore has also spoken out against the violence and the coup that triggered it. As a concrete measure, ASEAN could freeze the financial and immovable assets of the generals in their own countries.
Unfortunately, the military has to date shown no sign of being swayed. The only option now to end the bloodshed is now forceful regime change.
Our own Kul Chandra Gautam, the former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN has written the most cogent and succinct analysis of the current Myanmar crisis [“Seeking a way out of the Myanmar crisis” & “Myanmar needs a Padauk Revolution” in The Kathmandu Post, March 21 &22]. However, he is perhaps too optimistic. He pins his hope on a counter-coup from within the Tatmadaw [military] or a section siding with a popular revolution [a Spring or Flower Revolution. This runs counter to the hard-nosed realpolitik of the ruthless generals backed by Russia and China.
U.S. China Talks in Alaska
Last week, there was an explosive start to discussions between the top U.S. and Chinese diplomats in Anchorage, Alaska.
The meeting began with an opening statement by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken who laid out American concerns with Chinese actions over Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as recent cyber attacks. Blinken underscored: “Each of these actions threatens the rules-based order that maintains global stability” (Foreign Policy, March 19, 2021).
China’s top-ranking diplomat and former ambassador to the U.S., Yang Jiechi countered with an unapologetic opening broadside. He excoriated the US and charged it with hypocrisy on human rights and its treatment of minorities. He sharply criticized US foreign interventions, and accused U.S. officials of possessing a “cold war mentality”.
For good measure, Yang also rubbed it in: “The United States does not represent international public opinion and neither does the western world.”
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi offered a more conciliatory tone, recognizing Blinken and Biden’s National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan as “true friends of the Chinese people,” while questioning the timing of a U.S. decision to sanction Chinese officials over Hong Kong on the eve of the meeting.
However, the subsequent, closed-door discussions were “substantive, serious, and direct”, according to a senior U.S. official (SCMP).
The current of distrust felt by both sides is set to continue, and the little hope of rapprochement” (Michael Hirsh/Foreign Policy).
Biden’s Unnecessary Diatribe Against Putin
Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged President Biden to join him in a live online dialogue after Biden [ill-advisedly] agreed with an anchor’s assertion that Putin was a “killer” in a live television interview.
The undiplomatic comment has poisoned already dismal bilateral relations between the two sides as Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said it showed Biden “definitely does not want to improve relations” with Russia.
In reacting to Biden’s out of the blue comment, Putin offered a psychological reflection, appearing to upend the accusation back on the U.S. president: “When we evaluate other people, states and nations, we always seem to be looking in the mirror…We always see ourselves. We always pass on to another person what we ourselves are in essence.”
Biden surely made an unnecessary, undiplomatic statement. He will have to be more statesman-like in future. He already has a potential cold war on his hands [with China], a second one would be a further burden!
The UK to Add Nukes to Arsenal
In a published review of its foreign and defence policies, last week the British government quietly announced that it will raise the upper ceiling on its number of nuclear warheads for the first time since the end of the Cold War.
This strategic document does not spell out the exact reasons, but The Economist suggests the rationale could include countering Russia’s advantage in lower-yield warheads or retaining an ability to target multiple adversaries at once.
However, the move cuts against the grain of non-proliferation: “Whatever the precise reasoning, the timing could hardly be worse,” the journal writes. “Britain’s move has prompted bafflement among most nuclear experts. It is unlikely to do much to boost deterrence while doing real diplomatic harm. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’ five-yearly review conference is five months away and the mood is mutinous. Many non-nuclear states are furious that nuclear-armed ones are doing little to slash their arsenals. China, India, Pakistan and North Korea have all been growing their [nuclear] forces.”
U.S. & India to Expand Military Ties
US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin and Indian Defence Mnister Rajnath Singh pledged Saturday to expand their military engagement, underscoring the defence ties between the two countries very much concerned over China’s growing influence in the Indo-Pacific region [geopolitically speaking: the ‘heartland of Asia’].
The top defence officials agreed to deepen security cooperation, intelligence sharing and logistics (AP/Associated Press, March 20).
Austin, making the first visit to India by a high-level member of President Joe Biden’s administration, highlighted: “India is an increasingly important partner in rapidly shifting international dynamics. I reaffirm our commitment to a comprehensive forward-looking defence partnership with India as a central pillar of our approach to the Indo-Pacific region.
The timing of Austin’s visit, which follows a meeting last week between leaders of Australia, India, Japan and the United States – the so-called ‘Quad’ – as well as, talks between the highest-ranking diplomatic and national security U.S. and Chinese officials in Alaska amid a bitter exchange of words, signals the importance Biden places on India as a security ally.
In recent years, relations between the U.S. and India have been driven by a convergence of interests to counter China. More recently, India drew closer to the U.S. following its months-long military standoff with China along their disputed border in eastern Ladakh, where deadly clashes had erupted in summer last year.
China, of course, perceives these developments as a concerted policy of containment and an attempt to hamper its peaceful rise.
America’s Indo-Pacific Folly?
Among all the euphoria with regard to the new U.S. administration’s tilt towards Asia, or to use the new-fangled term “Indo-Pacific”, there are, of course, voices of dissent. Professor Van Johnson of Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand takes strong issue with the new policy of ‘preserving/promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific’ (Foreign Affairs, March 12, 2021).
To put it in a nutshell, Prof. Johnson believes that the U.S. by adding new commitments in Asia will only invite disaster. Unfortunately, neither the Biden administration nor Trump’s before, have given much thought to the implications and risks of expanding the field of play – from the Western Pacific to the Indian Ocean – in this “great game” with China.
He takes issue with the aggregate ‘Indo-Pacific’ while it subsumes the much more important ‘East Asia’, which should be the primary focus of the U.S.: “What could be more important than preventing war in the world’s wealthiest, most militarized, and most populous region?”
He argues that by grouping South Asia with East Asia, the cliché ‘Indo-Pacific’ obscures the ‘Asian peace’ in East Asia since 1979. The politics of South Asia are out of step with those of East Asia – they are completely different games. The U.S. cannot calibrate policies when it views everything through the lens of a single mega-region with a single mega-purpose.
The U.S. also risks overextending its power in the Indian Ocean, where it has no comparable alliances, responsibilities, or interests as in East Asia and the Pacific with five treaty allies, not to mention Hawaii, Guam and Micronesia.
Johnson also maintains that in South Asia, China’s main conflict is on land in the Himalayas/Karakorum – against India, a dispute that does not concern American interests: “The surest path to preventing war in the Indian Ocean is restraint, not more troops in defense of a non-existent redline.”
He warns that China will not [cannot ?] remain passive as it perceives the U.S. military further encircling it.
What happens if the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar gets out of control endangering the national security of neighbouring countries and prompting international intervention is still an unexplored question.
In the case of the ‘Indo-Pacific’, “an imagined sphere of U.S. interest that puts the Indian Ocean on a par with East Asia could lead to disaster.”
However, more than a decade ago, the prescient geopolitical thinker Robert D. Kaplan had already chalked out a reasonable argument for the importance of the Indian Ocean for the future of American power [“Monsoon”, 2010]. He had written: “…the U.S. Navy can engineer an ‘elegant decline’ from the hegemony [of India and/or China] by fostering cooperation with other navies to protect the maritime commons. The more China and India rise, the more welcome U.S. power will be in the region as a counterbalance to both.”
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment