* Flimsy Defence of the “Federal Democratic Republic’
* Mounting Turmoil in Sri Lanka
*The Quad Widens Focus to Indian Ocean
* Putin’s War: Decisive Turning Point?
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal: Republic Grown Stronger, More Vibrant?
March 28 was ‘celebrated’ as the Day of the Republic, and the government daily newspaper The Rising Nepal spared no pains to commission its main guns to defend the indefensible.
The article: “Vigilance Key to Republic System” sounds as if ‘civic vigilance’ was a living institution in the Himalayan Republic, whereas the writer was flogging a dead horse.
All of the write-ups in the ‘Republic Day Special’ of the paper were, in fact, attempts to rejuvenate a dying system which had run out of steam by vilifying the institution of monarchy and not differentiating between absolute/active and constitutional monarchy.
The apologists all describe the ideal situation – what could be in an utopian ‘Shangri-La – but not the stark reality – what actually is in mundane practice – the endemic corruption from top to bottom, instead of all-round development from the bottom up!
One writer underlines pontifically of the shift of an antediluvian monarchy to a democratic republic as “an important event of qualitative political innovation and transformation impregnated with democratic meaning and significance for the Nepalese people”.
The point is that all the apologists of the current republican order should proceed from historical facts and then marshal their arguments accordingly.
- The Nepali monarchy existed longer than the 240 years of the Shah dynasty. A dynamic monarchy ruled and reigned in the Vale of Nepal [ present day Kathmandu Valley ] from time immemorial and was recognized as such by illustrious dynasties in the south in what is today’s India/Bharat and in the north by Tibetan, Chinese and Mongolian dynasties.
- The contributions of various monarchs of the Shah dynasty cannot be under estimated in the narrative of Nepal’s political development and the preservation of its territorial integrity and sovereignty.
- The Revolution of 1950-51 could not have taken place without the active leadership of King Tribhuwan, who has rightly earned the epithet ‘Father of the Nation’.
- No other than B.P. Koirala, one of the leading figures of the Nepali Congress Triumvirate [the two others being Gen. Subarna Shumsher and Ganesh Man Singh] recognized that the monarch and the Nepali Congress were the twin pillars of Nepali democracy and sovereignty [there was a domestic and external dimension to Nepal’s existence as an independent nation in South Asia].
- King Mahendra’s contribution to the consolidation of Nepal’s polity domestically and its international stature cannot be belittled.
Whatever the weaknesses of the Panchayat System, the construction of the East-West Highway and the Arniko Highway were scintillating achievements.
King Mahendra solidified Nepal’s dynamic non-aligned foreign policy and was received as a great statesman in Washington, Moscow and Beijing.
King Birendra highlighted Nepal’s international role by enunciating the country innovatively as a Zone of Peace and ushered in the democratic transition.
- The Indian establishment has always considered the Nepali monarchy as a great hindrance to its grand design in Nepal.
Former King Gyanendra’s misstep in aspiring to be an active, executive head of state without democratic credentials [on the terrible advice of his close advisers and palace secretaries] was no reason for the manipulated Nepalese politicians to throw the baby out with the bath water!
The Nepali monarchy has always been the symbol and protector of the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
That is why the Indian establishment has been dead against the Nepali monarchy.
The Nepali politicians – short-sighted as regards Nepal’s vital national interests – played into India’s hands by summarily abolishing the monarchy without consulting the sovereign Nepalese people.
The Maoists themselves were the handmaidens of the Indian establishment – trained and maintained by them, and, therefore, no better than traitors, fifth columnists and quislings!
- It is indeed strange that the politicians of the main political parties and their supporters in academia and the media avoid the phrases constitutional monarchy and the people’s referendum like the plague.
Sri Lanka: President Gotabaya Must Go!
The general feeling in Sri Lanka is that President Gotabaya Rajapaksa not only needs to leave the political field, but he and his clan need to face accountability.
According to noted political analyst Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu: “Protesters want a new Sri Lanka, not just a reshuffling of the stale old cards” (Al Jazeera).
Ranil Wickremesinghe, from the minority opposition United National Party (UNP), was sworn in as the new prime minister, taking over from the president’s elder brother, Mahinda Rajapaksa [ also a former president ]. He has held the post
Amid widespread protests resulting from the island nation’s gravest economic-cum-political crisis since independence from the U.K. in 1948, the country’s parliament believes that Wickremesinghe is the right call to steady the ship of state.
However, the protesters are clearly hugely disappointed that the discredited president has not stepped down and view the entire episode as a charade of musical chairs. The chaos and violence are not going to subside anytime soon, until political changes at the very top take place.
The Quad & the Indo-Pacific Strategy
The leaders of the four countries in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad – met for the fourth time in Tokyo last week.
Their joint statement pledged continuing cooperation, from a Covid-19 vaccine programme to cyber-security collaborations.
The ‘informal’ group has enjoyed significant momentum in recent years, in larger part because each member has seen its bilateral relations with China fall to the lowest level in decades (Foreign Policy/South Asia Brief, May 26).
The joint statement mentioned a new initiative that bodes well for the group: a programme to monitor maritime challenges, from natural disasters to illegal fishing that includes information- and resource-sharing centres in the Indian Ocean region, as well as South-East and the Pacific Ocean.
The Quad has thus widened its geographic focus to areas of strategic interest especially to India, which is increasingly concerned about China’s growing presence in the Indian Ocean region.
This also suggests the Quad is keen to do more in the areas that matter the most to all four members.
As a geo-political or geo-strategic concept, the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) has become synonymous with the U.S. pivot to the Asia-Pacific, and the Quad is part and parcel of it. It is definitely opposed to China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
As Nepal’s next door neighbours, the strategic concerns of both China and India must be paramount, and this means a fine tuning of Nepal’s foreign policy. There is no alternative to the policy of equidistance.
In this regard, there is no doubt that successive governments in Nepal have neglected to develop the already agreed to projects with China.
Putin’s Ukraine War: Beginning of the End?
There is now realization all around that the war in Ukraine has gone long enough and that prolonging it is not in the interest of anyone.
It is not in the interest of Russia, although President Vladimir Putin started it.
It is not in the interest of Ukraine and it is the prime victim.
It is not in the interest of the neighbouring countries inundated with millions of refugees.
And it is not in the interest of the world at large, parts of which are already suffering from rising food prices and growing inflation.
Debate About Ending the War
Quietly but certainly there is now a debate raging in the principal capitals of the world that after three months of deadly conflict, the war must come to an end – sooner than later.
There is only difference of opinion about how it should end.
After so much death and destruction, can one even speak of victory?
It is clear that the major powers involved in the fighting – directly or indirectly – have their own pre-conceptions about how the war can be brought to a close.
The principal architects of a peace agreement must be Russia, the instigator, Ukraine, the victim and the United States and the European Union as the non-combating, but main supporters of Ukraine.
All the direct and indirect parties involved may have their own conceptions, but all are influenced by their domestic and external audiences and factors.
The Fate of Russia
The moot point in the raging debate is what is to be done with Russia. Answers have been sought in history and the socio-anthropological basis of the Russian state.
In spite of the current state of unity in the trans-Atlantic alliance, the future congruence in the national security sphere is not a given.
The foreign policy interests of such diverse countries like the U.S., the U.K. and the continental great powers like France, Germany and Italy are bound to diverge, given their geo-political distance from antagonist Russia.
Thus, maximalist elements in the United States already refer to Russia as an international pariah that needs to be cut off from the world economy, and even going to the extent of terminating all efforts to integrate Russia in the European (democratization) project – which started with General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform policies of glasnost and perestroika [openness and restructuring] and after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The larger continental European powers would not go that extent and are fully cognizant of the acute short and long term dangers of isolating and humiliating not only Putin currently, but Russia in general.
U.S. Perspective
After Ukraine demonstrated its resolve in resisting Russian aggression, hardliners in the Biden administration have expanded their ambitions regarding the final outcome of the European confrontation.
The American grand design now entails punishing Russian aggression resolutely, weaken Putin’s authoritarian regime, shore up NATO [on the verge of collapse during Trump’s misrule] and the trans-Atlantic alliance [which was also tottering] and for good measure also send an unmistakable message to China [suspected from having designs on self-ruling Taiwan].
At the same time, it wants to demonstrate unmistakably – at least this time around in contrast to 2014 — that aggression will not be rewarded with territorial gains (NYT, May 28-29).
Ukraine’s Aims & Kissinger’s Folly
After the U.S. itself has set the bar for an eventual peace settlement so high, and Ukraine the innocent victim, which has been dragged into an unnecessary armed conflict not of its choosing, it must call the shots.
As Rear-Admiral John F. Kirby (retd.), the Pentagon press secretary said so succinctly on April 29: “President Zelensky is the democratically elected president of a sovereign nation and only he can decide what victory is going to look like and how he wants to achieve it” (NYT).
Zelensky practices the art of the possible and has been careful not to expand his aims toward a larger degradation of Putin’s undoubtedly dictatorial regime.
He has underlined repeatedly that he wants Russia to retreat to the status quo ante position, i.e. the line where Russian troops and Russia-backed militants were before February 24, the start of large-scale invasion.
Kissinger’s Appeasement Suggestion
Henry Kissinger may have been the great theoretician and practitioner of diplomacy, but he is out of place to suggest that Ukraine cede territory to Russia as part of a peace deal.
His views are anachronistic and out of tune with the evolving balance of power in Europe.
Even in terms of realpolitik, there is no rhyme or reason why an emerging, powerful Europe should submit to a declining Eurasian power like Russia, whose only vindication to greatness is that it is saddled with an excess of nuclear weapons that it cannot use.
German Initiative
“Putin must not be allowed to get away with his cynical, inhuman war,” German chancellor Olaf Scholz remarked to a major Roman Catholic conference in Stuttgart, south-west Germany (DW/Deutsche Welle, May 27).
Scholz also warned Moscow is attempting to instrumentalize the impending food crisis worldwide.
“This war is not directed against Ukraine alone, but against values and convictions that shape and define us as a society in Europe: Democracy, freedom and human dignity,” he said, adding that 800,000 refugees from Ukraine have now arrived in Germany.
Scholz said the German government had “stood by Ukraine” adding that “brute force” instigated by Russian President Vladimir Putin must not prevail.
Giving Peace a Chance
Russian President Vladimir Putin told his German and French counterparts that Moscow was open to resuming negotiations with Ukraine, but that the West’s supply of weapons to the Kyiv government could exacerbate the crisis (WSJ/The Wall Street Journal, May 28).
The comments came after the Biden administration [finally] approved the transfer of advanced, long-range rocket systems to Ukraine that the Kyiv government are necessary to stop Russian advances in the Donbas region in the country’s east, where fighting has been intense.
The new U.S. arms shipments could very well turn the tide for Ukraine and compel Russia to sue for peace.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment