Review of World Affairs (RWA)
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
The “Withering Away” of Communism in Nepal
Nepal’s Communist parties are ‘communist’ in name only, when in power they have not attempted to foster the main tenets of Marxism-Leninism.
Communism as a political ideology aims to achieve the common ownership of land and capital and the elimination of the coercive power of the state. Nepal’s communist parties have done nothing in this regard.
The Nepalese communists have been unable to adopt the Soviet communist model nor the Chinese Maoist model — they have been left out on a limb and having cut themselves off from the main trunk have been unable even to develop communism with Nepalese characteristics.
Like communists everywhere, the Nepali comrades discarded a basic tenet established by Karl Marx – that of “withering away of the state”. Instead, they captured the nation-state and made it a vehicle of communist propaganda. In the process, they became ossified themselves and are in the process of ‘withering away’.
The Communist Party of Nepal – Maoist Centre (CPN-Maoist) is even worse off. As their name suggests, they were inspired by the great Mao Zedong, who became the effective leader of the Communist Party of China (CPC) following the Long March from south-east to north-west China.
Following their own ‘long march’ from Rolpa in all directions, the Maoists gradually lost their principles and their aim of transforming Nepali society in all its aspects, unlike the CPC.
The Nepali Maoists also did not diligently apply Mao’s brilliantly constituted “protracted-war”. They became the prey of India’s insidious external spy agency RAW and by extension an instrument of the Indian establishment. They then waged war against the Nepali state and the Nepali monarchy [as the living symbol of Nepali sovereignty and territorial integrity].
Pushpa Kamal Dahal and his cohorts did not [or could not] follow Mao in developing and introducing his own socio-economic measures, central to which were the concepts “permanent revolution” and the importance of the peasantry [including land reform].
Dahal did develop his own personality cult, but without an inkling of the domestic and international reputation of Mao, who was a patriot of the first water. Dahal was at worst a traitor.
Like all communist leaders, Dahal thinks he is indispensable [like Oli, Makune] and has set in motion a self-perpetuating myth.
Unlike Mao, Dahal did not have the capacity or guts to undertake earth-shaking projects like the “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom”, “the Great Leap Forward” and “the Cultural Revolution”. He degraded himself by accepting the duties of an Indian satrap. Nothing good can be expected from the CPN-Maoist as long as Dahal is at the helm of affairs.
A participant at the Maoists’ ‘eighth national convention’, Ganesh Bahadur Gurung, 76, who has been a member since 1986, even before the party became a Maoist force said ruefully:
“Leaders have prioritized their individual interests.
No one thinks about the party, society and the country. [They] have become self-centred, selfish and power-hungry” (The Kathmandu Post, December 27).
His words could very well apply to the so-called leaders of all other parties [with some notable exceptions!].
A former member and currently lecturer in History at Tribhuwan University, Nil Prasad Pant said he had lost all hope that the Maoist party would ever improve (TKP).
However, all things remaining equal, the best thing for the political development of the country is that the communist parties are in a situation of individual and collective disarray.
The Way Forward, or Backward?
It would be political suicide, if Sher Bahadur Deuba were to enter into an electoral alliance with either K.P. Sharma Oli and his CPN-UML, or singly/jointly with Dahal’s Maoists and Makune’s CPN (Unified Socialists). Considering that Deuba’s own Nepali Congress (NC) has accumulated a very bad name by consorting with such strange bedfellows, Deuba has unwittingly manoeuvred himself into a cul de sac.
In addition, over the years the NC has abandoned the twin pillars of democratic socialism with Nepalese characteristics and constitutional monarchy as the touchstone of Nepali sovereignty and independence – vehemently championed by the great tripartite, multi-ethnic/multi-caste leadership of B.P. Koirala, Subarna Shumsher J.B. Rana and Ganesh Man Singh. Thus, the NC has become rudder-less and anchor-less, a ship drifting with no helmsman in sight!
In the forthcoming local and national elections, Rajendra Lingden of the Rashtriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) and Sher Bahadur Deuba of the NC will be the main rivals – with the others mere sideshows.
Like a grandmaster, Lingden will have to outwit multiple players in as many board games. Perseverance and pragmatism will be key factors in checkmating his weak, but wily antagonists – all set and ready to make any pact with the devil!
NATO-Russia Confrontation
‘ History is Prologue’
The former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said last week that the United States grew “arrogant and self-confident” after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“How can one count on equal relations with the United States and the West in such a position?” Gorbachev told state news agency RIA Novosti on the eve of the anniversary of his resignation as the leader of the USSR (CBS News, December 24).
He noted the “triumphant mood in the West, especially in the United States” after the Soviet Union ceased to exist in 1991. “They grew arrogant and self-confident. They declared victory in the Cold War,” Gorbachev, 90, the Nobel Peace laureate said.
Gorbachev resigned as president of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991, just days after the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus [all Slavic countries] signed an agreement.
He rightly pointed out that it was together that Moscow and Washington pulled the world out of confrontation and the nuclear arms race.
A former KGB agent and loyal servant of the Soviet Union [last assignment: in Leipzig, East Germany, therefore his fluency in German], was hugely dismayed when it fell apart, once calling the collapse “the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century.”
Russian Perspective
Putin believes in the cultural and religious unity of Russians and Ukrainians [not unlike that of majority Indians and Nepalese] and the inscrutability of his intentions is actually intended according to Russia-expert Angela Stent [Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution]. He is actually striving for strategic ambiguity [in Foreign Affairs, Dec. 6: “Diplomacy – and Strategic Ambiguity – Can Avert a Crisis in Ukraine.”].
Stent suggests that the West talk with Putin, but keep him guessing, i.e. apply their own version of strategic ambiguity.
In recent years, President Vladimir Putin has grown increasingly insistent that NATO is encroaching close to Russia’s borders, and Moscow last week demanded “legal guarantees” that the US-led alliance will halt its eastward expansion.
Two weeks back, Moscow presented the West with sweeping security demands, saying NATO must not admit new members and seeking to bar the U.S. from establishing new bases in former Soviet countries.
Putin said last week that Washington has been willing to discuss the proposals and talks could take place at the start of next year in Geneva.
A senior U.S. official said Washington was ready for talks “as soon as early January.”
The View from Kyiv
The capital of Ukraine Kyiv is over 700 km from the supposed frontline. Some reports suggest Russia, after moving troops into Belarus, may encircle it along with other large cities to the east, or use targeted airstrikes.
It is more likely though that eastern and southern areas nearer the frontline will be the main target, with Kyiv having to deal with interrupted supplies and communications, as well as Russian sabotage and increased cyber and information warfare (The Guardian, Dec. 24).
A nationwide poll found that half of Ukrainians would resist a Russian invasion by taking up arms or through civil resistance.
After losing large areas of territory to Russia and Russian-backed militias in 2014, and enduring a simmering armed conflict in east Ukraine ever since, not to mention economic hardship and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, many Ukrainians are so accustomed to a threatened disaster that they no longer believe politicians and the media.
Amid the Russian buildup on Ukraine’s eastern border and in annexed Crimea in the south, hostile rhetoric between Russia and the U.S. and its allies is edging towards a new Cold War high point, with Ukraine the actual battleground for any armed hostility. However, there is always the acute danger of spillover effects into neighbouring countries.
The stance of Germany & the EU
First indications point to Germany’s new government weighing a more forward-leaning foreign policy in close cooperation with the European Union (EU).
While seeking continuity with the Merkel era, the newly installed German ‘traffic light’ [of Social Democrats (SPD), Liberals and Greens] coalition government’s vision of Germany’s role in the world could provide the opportunity for a potential reorientation. The central question is whether Europe’s most populous and prosperous country finally assume a greater leadership role in the world (WPR/World Politics Review, Dec. 20). This includes the stance vis-à-vis Russia in the current Ukraine crisis.
Since taking office this month, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has emphasized the need for dialogue with Russia over its military build-up on the Ukrainian border while joining Western allies in backing sanctions should Moscow actually invade.
True to Scholz’s words, his foreign policy adviser Jens Plotner and Russia’s Ukraine negotiator Dmitry Kozak agreed to meet after a lengthy telephone conversation last Thursday (Reuters, Dec. 25).
Berlin doubts more than Washington whether Russia actually wants to attack Ukraine. SPD parliamentary leader Rolf Mutzenich stressed that the German government was keen to de-escalate tensions.
Critics accuse Germany of being beholden to Putin because of its need for Russian gas, attacking the already completed [but not yet operating] “Nord Stream 2” direct pipeline between Russia and Germany, bypassing Ukraine.
Berlin insists that Nord Stream 2 is not political and would be only one of several pipelines transporting Russian gas to Europe.
Officially, the German side’s goal is to achieve a swift reactivation of the Normandy format – the quadrilateral negotiations between Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany.
Current Situation
New satellite images show that Russia has accelerated the build-up of its forces in annexing Crimea and near eastern Ukraine in recent weeks while pressing the United States for security guarantees it is seeking (Reuters, Dec. 24).
The Kremlin, on the other hand, reiterated last Friday that it reserves the right to move its own forces on Russian territory, and on the contrary, Western countries were carrying out provocative military manoeuvres near its borders.
U.S., European and Ukrainian leaders have accused Russia of building up troops again near Ukraine’s border [with malevolent intent] after an earlier brief buildup in April. Consequently, Biden and other leaders say Moscow appears to be weighing an attack as soon as next month [when the snow would have frozen and allowed the movement of tanks and heavy vehicles]. This has been repeatedly denied by Moscow.
Russia says it wants NATO to halt its eastward expansion and is seeking guarantees that the Western military alliance will not deploy offensive weapons to Ukraine and other neighbouring countries.
Biden has threatened strong economic and other measures if Russia invades Ukraine, building on sanctions imposed over Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and backing for an ongoing separatist rebellion by pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment