Review of World Politics
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
It does stink to high heaven that our beloved country in its present avatar, the Himalayan Federal Democratic Republic (HFDR) is not capable of producing a capable leader(s) to get rid of the political vermin that has fully infected our body politic.
Like in our great neighbouring country of Bharat, the government of the day is not only incapable of basic administration, it has sacrificed our national security in the broadest sense.
Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli only wants to remain in power by hook or by crook; but to what end? He can be compared to what Winston Churchill said about Russia before the Second World War: “It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.”
He has failed to govern properly on all counts. He and his cohorts have taken the Nepalese people for a grand ride. Corruption is writ so large, that it is unimaginable for the ordinary Nepali to even think what he and his underlings want to do with all that loot.
Oli and his government has also given up on combating the dreaded Covid-19 pandemic. Why is he then clinging on to power? This brings to mind other cogent words of the great and brilliant Churchill:
[The Government] “go on in strange paradox,
Decided only to be undecided,
Resolved to be irresolute,
Adamant for drift,
Solid for fluidity,
All-powerful to be impotent.”
That Oli failed to receive the vote of confidence does not change the overall dismal picture of the Kathmandu Quagmire. The very process of forming a viable government will be messy. And will such a government be willing and capable of confronting our multiple crises?
Myanmar: A Unified Nation Emerging Slowly
What had not been possible before or after independence, for more than seven decades, is now emerging slowly but certainly. This is the prospect of a unified Burmese state of various ethnic groups and nationalities. The Myanmar military establishment – the so-called Tatmadaw — is no longer dreaded, but despised. Together with the need to coordinate resistance against the brutal military regime, has also arisen various forms of cooperation between the protesting and demonstrating groups, between the towns and the countryside, among the various ethnic groups, and between peaceful and armed forms of resistance. Burma/Myanmar is a country on the verge of being reborn. This is the unexpected cloud with the silver lining!
The military junta’s brutal tactics against all and sundry has now effectively opened the eyes of the former dominating Bamar ethnic majority. Now many from this community have seen the dire need for cooperation among the various ethnic groups – a realization that even the former leader of the country, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was not willing to consider during her years of power in cohabitation with the military [Daw = respectful aunt].
Now there is empathy for the Rohingya and other ethnic people who have been suffering worse than the Bamar for many years under a Bamar-dominated military. Until now, the Bamar resisted in the form of mass protests, civil disobedience and worker strikes mainly in the urban areas. Young activists have now taken up training in armed struggle. This is more than supplemented by the armies of the ethnic nationalities in the periphery of the country bordering India, China and Thailand. These countries cannot afford to stand aloof from the developing human catastrophe in Myanmar.
More than a third of Myanmar’s population is composed of ethnic nationalities – above all, the Kachin in the north, the Chin in the west and the Shan in the east – who inhabit a vast frontier region, where the country’s natural resources are also [NYT, May 7].
The February 1 violent coup reinstalled the detested military to power, which has in any case, ruled the country for most of its independent existence. The country is now on the brink of civil war. The situation is now rapidly getting out of hand and “threatening regional and global instability with widespread lethal violence, and the potential outflow of thousands from the country’ (The Guardian, May 8).
America’s Supposed Withdrawal from Afghanistan
After the Biden administration began its military withdrawal from Afghanistan, the country experienced a spate of violence perpetrated by extremist Islamist Taliban and its equally extremist allies like the Islamic State. This was only a precursor of what was to come after September when the antiquated and repressive Islamic Caliphate would be installed. If the Biden administration thinks that with the withdrawal they can wash their hands off Afghanistan, they are sadly and badly mistaken.
This is the authoritative view of Elliot Ackerman, a former marine and intelligence officer [who served five tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan] and his friend “Jack” [who still serves in ‘Special Operations’]: “America might be done with Afghanistan, but Afghanistan isn’t done with America” (NYT, May 6).
Extracting the 3,500 U.S. troops from Afghanistan under the present circumstances is in military terms a “fighting withdrawal”, in which an army leaves the field while still in (malignant) contact with the enemy. Such a fighting withdrawal is considered the most complex and difficult since the fighting force is neither attacking nor defending, and so is exceedingly vulnerable.
Historically, such a marooned British force of 16,500 soldiers and camp followers were treacherously massacred when it attempted to retreat from Kabul to Jalalabad. The only lone survivor was an army surgeon!
The Biden administration has also promised to continue to support the government of President Ashraf Ghani. But for how long, and how long will the “decent interval” last? [Richard Nixon after the calamitous withdrawal from Vietnam].
The recent spate of violent, unnecessary attacks against innocent school girls is just an indication of what the country awaits from extremist Islamists.
Biden’s Irresponsible Taiwan Policy
For no rhyme nor reason, the Biden administration has now embarked on a foolhardy policy of hollowing out the ‘One China’ principle, which had served it and the majority of the countries of the world very well. After all, the United States and other countries have diplomatic relations only with the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan is considered an integral part of the Chinese state. Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and is not recognized as a de jure independent state.
Peter Beinart, professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York (CUNY) considers that “Biden’s quiet, incremental moves to establish official relations with Taiwan” may prove highly consequential. In fact, it truly and deeply reckless. (NYT, May 7). In January, Biden became the first president since 1978 to host Taiwan’s envoy at his inauguration. In April, his administration announced it was lifting limitations on official U.S. contacts with the Taiwanese government. These were veritable red flags to Beijing.
The ‘One China’ policy allowed Beijing to conceive that peaceful reunification remained a possibility, however distant. The Trump administration’s and now Biden’s incremental attempts to whittle down the substance of this core policy has provoked China into undertaking vigorous actions as quid pro quo – such as penetrating Taiwan’s air space and naval manoeuvres around the island. There is absolutely no excuse for the U.S. government to complain or protest.
The basic problem according to Beinert is that the more the U.S. and Taiwan – singly or jointly – formally close the door on reunification, the more likely it that Beijing will seek reunification by force of arms. If Taiwan declares independence in any form, it will be casus belli for Beijing. Moreover, Biden’s “policies are increasing the odds of a catastrophic war.”
Harvard political scientist, Professor Graham Allison has observed pointedly that both Chinese and American national security pundits are in no doubt that “China would choose war over losing territory it considers vital to its national interests.”
Beiner, therefore, questions Washington’s official policy of ‘strategic ambiguity’. It is not at all clear whether and how the U.S. will come to Taiwan’s defence in the case of Chinese hostilities. It is highly unwise and impulsive on two counts: the mistaken belief that it can both provoke Beijing by undoing the “One China” compact and simultaneously deter it with the threat of military force! It is in fact faulty reasoning – logical contradiction.
The fact is that Beijing holds all the cards. It speaks from a position of strength – in all dimensions. As Beinert argues, the American policy of deterrence vis-à-vis Taiwan/China is most reckless and faulty because it lacks both power and will– . He quotes CNN’s/The Washington Post’s Fareed Zaakaria in support: “The Pentagon has reportedly enacted 18 war games against China over Taiwan, and China has prevailed in everyone.”
The advantages are stacked in China’s favour:
-Geography is the main plus point. Taiwan is only a hundred miles from the mainland, whereas major American bases are thousands of miles away and would also come under superior air attack.
-U.S. aircraft carrier groups in the region would be no match to the Chinese ‘carrier killers. U.S. casualties would be staggering according to RAND calculations.
-U.S. domestic support for the government’s Taiwan policy is minimal compared to the Chinese people’s support for their government’s.
Leading U.S. China experts including former ambassadors to Beijing, therefore, plead for a considerable scaling down of America’s forward policy in Taiwan in order to avoid a colossal tragedy. A spiraling upwards of the U.S.-China conflict in Taiwan – according to The Economist the most dangerous place on earth – could even lead to nuclear war – with cataclysmic results for the entire world.
The United States should return to the “One China” framework while working peacefully towards preserving the island’s freedom and way of life.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment