* Nepal: The Presidency & Nepali Politics: From Bad to Worse . . .
* Ukraine’s Overwhelming Support at the UN
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepali Politics at the Crossroads
The Beginning of the End of the First Republic?
The push and pulls in domestic politics seems — at the surface – to only concern the election of the new federal president.
However, there is no denying the fact that the country has been on a slide, and this was accelerated during the tenure of PM K.P. Sharma Oli and his machinations during the pandemic.
The period thereafter has seen Nepali politics at their worst. Good governance was thrown out with the bath water and the inner contradictions of the Constitution and the political parties themselves – that should have sustained it – came to the fore.
Even after 15 years, the parties are bickering over the sense and meaning of the Constitution.
The political leaders are endlessly complaining that the purposes of the Constitution have not been realized!
- Federalism as such has not been achieved at all.
- There has been no proper devolution of power.
- In popular parlance, the constituent ‘states’ are still called ‘provinces’,i.e., they are still dependent on the centre.
- The same is true of district and commune/municipal administrations.
- The national parliament has been reduced to a rubber-stamping body.
- Even the opposition has become too loyal! The leader of the opposition, Sher Bahadur Deuba has been caught in the act of colluding with the government.
- The Republic itself is being attacked from anti-national, ant-social elements and the forces of regression.
- The President of the Republic is supposed to be an independent, impartial, non-executive, and above all a ‘ceremonial’ head of state.
She/He has been everything but.
The President, in fact,
- Reduced to a playing ball of the political parties, doing the bidding of the party in power;
- Accruing political power not in conformity with the Constitution;
- Reduced ‘secularism’ to shambles by imitating the religious role of the Shah monarchs.
- PM Pushpa Kamal Dahal brags that with a common presidential candidate, he has achieved the politics of national consensus.
The fact is that the country is about to become a victim [again] of our leaders’ machinations.
And the country may again descent into chaos!
Unlike the monarchs of yore, the president is, most unfortunately, not the representation and protector of Nepalese sovereignty and territorial integrity!
Regarding the current state of the nation, we have it straight from the horse’s mouth:
“The prime minister has broken the coalition by deciding to support the Congress candidate in the presidential election” (Pradeep Gyawali, deputy general secretary of the CPN-UML).
Gyawali continued: “This decision will invite infinite political instability in the country” (TKP/The Kathmandu Post, Feb. 27).
Thus, to overcome the malaise of Nepali politics, the Constitution must be taken to its logical conclusion – it must be radically amended!
We must start from the basics.
The top-bottom approach has failed miserably. We must build from the bottom up. The people from the grassroots must take charge of their own destiny.
The primary organizations at this level – like the mothers’ groups, local forest users, etc. – must have primacy.
Political participation will also start from this level and democracy will be established and sustained.
Call to Action – Now!
However, mere discussion among concerned Nepalese, or even intellectuals is not a solution.
We are all aware of the pathetic state of affairs. From whatever angle we look at it, we can only come out of the morass by radical action – and that means regime change!
UN General Assembly Resolution:
- Overwhelming Moral Victory for Ukraine
- Russia Pathetically Isolated
On the eve of the year’s anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked aggression of its next door neighbor Ukraine, the United Nation’s General Assembly (UNGA) has again corroborated that Russia is the unmitigated aggressor and demanded that it cease all hostilities.
In view of the fact that the UN’s executive arm – the Security Council – has been rendered toothless, not least by the veto-wielding permanent member Russia itself, the General Assembly has asserted itself.
[There is no provision in the UN Charter for suspending a member, but the General Assembly could cite extraordinary circumstances to suspend Russia from the UN Security Council (UNSC) – due to a fundamental change of circumstance in international law – rebis sic stantibus].
In the vote, out of 193 UN members, an overwhelming 141 voted in favour and only 7 voted against; 32 abstained.
The UNGA resolution called for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from Ukraine and a complete halt to fighting.
The UN vote also called for peace as soon as possible.
The resolution reaffirmed support for Ukraine sovereignty and territorial integrity, rejecting any claims to the parts of the country it occupies in contravention of international law.
Last September, MPs in Moscow had voted to illegally annex four regions of Ukraine in the south-east and south.
The UN resolution categorically demanded that the Russian Federation immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders “and called for a cessation of hostilities (BBC, Feb. 24).
The measure is not legally binding but holds immense political weight.
Since the UN Security Council (UNSC) is stymied, the GA could have gone even further. In fact, under the terms of collective security which underlies the UN Charter, there is an obligation to do so.
While the resolution was passed overwhelmingly by the majority of nations, there were some notable abstentions.
China, India, Iran and South Africa were among the 32 countries to abstain in the vote.
Russia, together with China, India, South Africa and Brazil are members of the international organization BRICS, spanning three continents [whether or not this organization is still functional].
Recently, Iran has also joined the association, making it BRICSI [a combination of the first letter of the countries’ names].
This forum accounts for 40 percent of the world’s population and 26 percent of its economy. However, it has not been very active on the geo-political stage.
The seven countries who voted against were ‘birds of a feather’ – Russia, Belarus, North Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua and Syria – all infamous for severe human rights abuses, impunity and pariahs in the international community.
From the South Asian region, India, together with Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka abstained.
For once Nepal was on the right side of history, and together with Bhutan and the Maldives voted for the just resolution. [Afghanistan is practically suspended and could not vote since the UN does not recognize the Taliban regime. The same is true for Myanmar].
Ukraine’s Perspective
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba said the vote “made it clear that Russia must end its illegal aggression. Ukraine’s territorial integrity must be restored.”
“One year after Russia launched its full-scale invasion, global support for Ukraine remains strong,” he tweeted.
UN Secretary General Condemns Invasion (again)
During the debate at UNGA, UN General Secretary Antonio Guterres serially condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
“That invasion is an affront to our collective conscience. It is a violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.”
The possible consequences of a “spurring conflict” were, he said, a “clear and present danger.”
Guterres said the war was “fanning regional instability, and fueling global tensions and divisions, while diverting attention and resources from other crises and pressing global issues” (BBC).
India Abstains Again
India has once again abstained from voting in the UNGA resolution that condemned Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which started a year ago.
India reiterated its position on the invasion, saying that peaceful dialogue was the only way out. [This was a lame excuse for sitting on the fence – a defence of the indefensible!]
New Delhi has increasingly faced pressure – especially from the West – to take a firm stand on Russia.
Many countries, including the U.S. and the UK have publicly appealed to New Delhi to take a clear stand and “do the right thing.”
It should have been taking the lead in this regard in the region South Asia.
But India has resisted the pressure strongly and continued with its strategy of not criticizing Russia directly. It has abstained from similar resolutions both at the UNGA and at the UNSC in the past.
This policy of strategic ambivalence will get India nowhere if it wants to play a more dynamic role as the chair of the G-20 and also in the informal alliances of the Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) pertaining to contain China.
No doubt India and Russia have over a half-century-old trusted relationship since the beginning of the Cold War and even after its end.
Russia is also India’s largest arms supplier even though its share has dropped in recent years largely due to New Delhi’s decision to boost domestic defence manufacturing and a widening imports portfolio (BBC).
The two countries also have a history of diplomatic cooperation. Moscow has repeatedly vetoed UNSC resolutions unfavourable to India over the disputed region of Kashmir [just like the U.S. has acted in Israel’s favour].
At the UN vote last Friday, India’s permanent representative to the UN, Richira Kamboj, said “no solution can ever arrive at the cost of human lives” – an empty and meaningless statement tending to be ‘holier than the pope’ and offering no real solution to the problem [like PM Narendra Modi’s earlier statement that war is out of fashion in this era!].
The fact is that it is countries like India, China and South Africa that are part of the problem.
Role of India & the G-20
As the chair and host of the G-20 group of countries, India welcomes foreign ministers, including Antony Blinken, the U.S. Secretary of State for a meeting.
The Economist’s Adam Roberts writes: “India’s non-alignment role, as a democracy that chooses not to challenge Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, leaves it either isolated or in a useful swing position in international politics.”
It will be interesting to see how Modi and his government handles the event!
China Proposes 12-Point Peace Plan
On the one-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Chinese Foreign Ministry presented a 12-point plan aimed at resolving the conflict between the two countries (Knewz, Feb. 24).
However, it was not clear if this was just a unilateral declaration ‘up in the air’, or whether China would undertake concrete measures at negotiation with the direct conflict parties and their (indirect allies) and subsequently monitor the progress of bilateral/multilateral talks on the pressing issue – play a constructive role in ending the war.
The plan calls for an immediate ceasefire, the end of Western sanctions on Russia, measures to ensure the safety of nuclear facilities in Ukraine, and the establishment of human corridors for civilians.
It was emphasized that all parties should support Russia and Ukraine in working together to resume direct dialogue as quickly as possible.
The statement also emphasized that non-combatants must strictly abide by international human law and that they should not be attacked under any circumstances
The 12-points of China’s peace proposals are:
- Respect for the sovereignty of all countries.
- Abandonment of Cold War mentality.
- Ceasefire
- Resumption of peace talks
- Resolution of the humanitarian crisis
- Protection of civilians and prisoners-of-war
- Ensuring the safety of nuclear power plants.
- Reducing strategic risks
- Facilitating grain exports
- Stopping unilateral sanctions
- Ensuring the safety of industrial zones.
- Return of refugees and displaced persons.
The world now waits to see the outcome of China’s peace proposal.
But it does seem more like a sounding balloon.
“The basic tone and the fundamental message in the policy is quite pro-Russia,” said Li Mingjiang, a professor of Chinese foreign policy and international security at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, (AP/Associated Press, Feb. 25).
Does China Back Russia in its War on Ukraine?
China has offered contradictory statements regarding its official stance.
It says Russia was provoked into taking action by NATO’s eastward expansion, but has also claimed neutrality in the war.
Ahead of Russia’s attack, Xi Jinpin and Vladimir Putin attended the opening of last year’s Winter Olympics in Beijing and issued a joint statement that their governments had a “no limits friendship”.
China has since ignored Western criticism and reaffirmed that pledge.
[Under such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine that Putin did not inform Xi of his forthcoming invasion plans].
Putin has said he expects Xi to visit Russia in the next few months.
Putin and the president of Belarus, Lukashenko are also expected to visit Beijing shortly.
U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken has accused China of “trying to have it both ways.”
“Publicly, they present themselves as a country striving for peace in Ukraine, but privately [i.e. covertly], we’ve seen already over these past months the provision of non-lethal assistance that does go directly to aiding and abetting Russia’s war effort.”
Is China Contemplating Providing Lethal Support to Russia?
The U.S. has also warned that China is on the verge of supplying arms and ammunition to Russia.
At the Munich Security Conference, Blinken said the United States had long been concerned that China would provide weapons to Russia.
Blinken also said he expressed to the Chinese envoy to the meeting, State Counsellor Wang Yi [former foreign minister] that “this would be a serious problem.”
This was reiterated by President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, who told NBC that providing Russia with lethal assistance would be against China’s own national interests.
It would alienate them from any number of countries, including America’s European allies and make them culpable for Russia’s atrocities against civilians.
[China could by itself radically change the military equation in Ukraine and be responsible for an escalation of the conflict. Its ‘peace plan’ would then have turned out to be a smoke screen, calculated to lead the international community up the garden path!
It is a fact that the Chinese military is keenly observing the Ukraine war for lessons to be learned for an eventual invasion of the self-governing island of Taiwan.
It may also be computing that prolonging the war by supplying arms to Russia may be to its vital interests – by weakening U.S. resolve and/or U.S. domestic support for the proxy war.
In such a scenario, it would be virtually playing with fire!]
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment