* Nepal’s Regressive Tourism Policy
* Saudi-Iranian Rapprochement
* Continuing US-China Tensions
* Russo-Ukrainian War
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal Tourism: Counter-Productive Policy
The Nepal Tourism Board has done the unbelievable and unthinkable – it has shot itself in the foot! [the Nepali equivalent: it has hit itself in the foot with an axe!].
On very short notice, it has announced that from April 1 [the joke will be on them for choosing such an inauspicious date!] individual/solo trekkers will have to be accompanied by a guide.
Fate has been kind to the promotion of trekking tourism in Nepal for more than a decade because the Board has been trying to impose this regulation since 2012 but continuously failed because of events beyond its control. This time around, it has taken the plunge – into the abyss!
Two reasons have been given for this short-sighted decision:
- It will enhance the security of solo trekkers, many of whom have disappeared or fallen sick.
- It will increase job opportunities for many Nepali trekking guides.
Unfortunately, these are based on false premises. Before reaching such an important decision which will have an impact on Nepal’s tourism for years to come, proper market research should have been done.
Pro-active interaction with potential customers at international travel marts like in London and currently in Berlin would have revealed the folly of such an action.
The naked fact is that the new directive will not enhance security. After all, if trekkers are properly informed beforehand, there will be less accidents and no one will go missing.
The hope that more guides will find employment is a chimera. Many trekking tourists come to Nepal because first, they are budget travelers and demanding exorbitant guide fees ranging from US $ Dollar 25 to 50 to 100 and 200 per day [depending on the difficulty of the trek] is absolutely unthinkable!
Second, many trekking tourists come to Nepal because they want to discover and enjoy the natural beauty of the Himalaya in freedom. If they are denied this freedom, they would rather stay away and seek alternative destinations.
The ministry of tourism must also be taken to task for not taking its oversight duty seriously.
The ministry and the board should have taken inspiration from Bhutans’s tourism policy.
There is an urgent need for damage control.
[Personal disclosure: In his younger years, the writer was a tourism entrepreneur in Germany, and later a cultural & mountain guide for the German Alpine Club].
China Mediates Between Iran & Saudi Arabia
In a major international development – with repercussions for regional and international politics – Saudi Arabia and Iran have reached a political agreement that paves the way for the re-establishment of diplomatic ties after a seven-year hiatus.
The breakthrough agreement was facilitated by China and could lead to a significant realignment between the two regional rivals.
Saudi and Iranian officials announced the agreement after talks this week in Beijing, which maintains close ties with both countries [unlike the other superpower, the U.S.].
The two countries agreed to reactivate a lapsed cooperation pact – a shift of policy that comes after years of Iranian proxy militant groups targeting Saudi Arabia with missile and drone attacks. Older trade, investment and cultural accords were also part of the understanding (NYT, March 10).
As part of the agreement, Saudi Arabia and Iran will reopen embassies in each other’s countries within two months and both states confirmed: “their respect for the sovereignty of nations and noninterference in their internal affairs”.
Saudi and Iranian officials had engaged in several rounds of talks over the past two years, including in Iraq and Oman, but without progress.
After years of tensions, Saudi Arabia cut ties with Iran completely in 2016, when protesters stormed the kingdom’s embassy in Tehran after Saudi Arabia’s execution of a prominent Saudi Shiite cleric.
Mohammed Alyahya, a Saudi fellow at Harvard, said the agreement was a “reflection of China’s growing strategic clout in the region – the fact that it has a lot of leverage over the Iranians, the fact it has very deep and important economic relations with the Saudis.” He added perceptively: “There is a strategic void in the region, and the Chinese seem to have figured out how to capitalize on that.”
[After America’s catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan, U.S. policy in the Middle East has been stymied and too Israel-centered.]
China’s Outstanding Role
China’s significant role in hosting the negotiations leading to the breakthrough in a longstanding regional rivalry highlights the country’s growing economic and political importance in the region of West Asia/Middle East.
This geopolitical region was long-shaped by the military and diplomatic involvement of the United States, which since the Obama administration signaled a so-called “pivot” to the Indo-Pacific.
There was a palpable feeling that the U.S. and its allies were pulling away from the region.
China lost no time in filling the strategic vacuum.
China’s most senior foreign policy official, State Counsellor Wang Yi [higher in rank than the foreign minister] indicated in a statement on the Chinese foreign ministry website that China had played an instrumental role in the agreement.
“This is a victory for the dialogue, a victory for peace, and is a major positive news for the world which is currently so turbulent and restive, and it sends a clear signal,” he said exultantly.
Saudi-Iranian Rivalry
The intense competition between the two nations which are less than 150 miles away from each other across the Persian Gulf, has long shaped politics and trade in the entire region.
It has an intense sectarian dimension – a majority of Saudi Arabia’s population is Sunni, while Iran’s is overwhelmingly Shiite. They also compete for leadership of the world’s Muslim populations.
However, the rivalry is predominantly played out via proxy conflicts in neighbouring Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon, where Iran has supported militias that Saudi Arabia says have destabilized the region.
Tensions reached a high mark in 2019, when a missile and drone attack on an important Saudi oil installation briefly disrupted half of the kingdom’s crude production.
According to U.S. officials, Iran had directly overseen the assault.
Iran’s Perspective
Ali Shamkhani, the head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni said that President Ebrahim Raisi’s visit to China in February had helped create the opportunity for the negotiations to move forward.
Shamkhani negotiated with Musaad bin Mohammad Al-Aiban, Saudi Arabia’s minister of state.
Shamkhani described the talks as “unequivocal, transparent, comprehensive and constructive.” He accentuated that he was looking forward to relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia that foster “the security and stability of the region.”
For Iran, mending ties with a regional antagonist would be a welcome relief after months of domestic turmoil marked by anti-government protests that Iranian officials have blamed in part on Saudi Arabia.
The Iranian government spokesman, Ali Bahadari Jahromi, tweeted that “the historic agreement of Saudi-Iran negotiated in China and led entirely by Asian countries will change the dynamics of the region.”
Israel Non Plussed
Israel is Iran’s other major adversary in the entire region and beyond, and has been confounded by the new turn of events.
Israel’s foreign ministry declined to immediately comment.
The news complicates the Israeli assumption that shared fears of a nuclear Iran would help forge a formal relationship with Saudi Arabia.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the incumbent prime minister, has repeatedly stated in recent months that he hoped to seal diplomatic ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia for the first time.
At home, Netanyahu is under a cloud of suspicion for corruption, and at the same time attempting a judicial ‘putsch’. Domestic and international critics have accused him of undermining Israeli democracy to the core. In external affairs, he is more or less now isolated.
Being too clever by half, Netanyahu can only save himself and his country by clinging to America’s coattails.
A New Sino-American Cold War?
For any observer of international relations, it is clear that in any number of misunderstandings add one to another. Some analysts even speak of crises that could spiral out of control.
On the one hand, the two economies of the two superpowers are so heavily intertwined that one can speak of economic interdependence.
On the other, there are flashpoints of intense competition at various levels, at different geographical locations and on different subjects and issues.
The worldwide situation today – taking into consideration the bilateral and multilateral relationships – is one of cooperation & competition.
We cannot yet speak of confrontation or conflict, and even less of a New Cold War.
The term in inappropriate because the politically and economically fragmented world of the 21st century is vastly different from that of the post-Second World War political/ideological blocs.
The nuclear arms race between China and the U.S. has not yet reached dimensions comparable to that between the Soviet Union and the U.S. in the 20th century.
In contrast to the Cold War post-WW II, the U.S. continues to have brisk trade relations with China, whose central bank holds US dollars $ 867 billion in U.S. bonds (Der Spiegel, March 9).
However, the ideological dimension does overshadow the relationship which is also construed as a rivalry between ‘democracy’ and ‘authoritarianism’.
China – supported by Russia and other authoritarian regimes – also rejects and challenges the US-supported rules-based international order and the underlying national sovereignty and territorial integrity of individual states based on the United Nations Charter.
Pivotal Role of the Ukraine War
The Ukraine war has injected enormous tension into the US-China bilateral relationship, which was far from easy even before (Der Spiegel).
Ptin’s invasion has complicated matters so much that we can now speak of a new evolving international power constellation.
First, Russia’s war of aggression is increasingly perceived in the U.S. and the West as a global struggle between democracies and autocracies.
In Moscow and Beijing, it is portrayed as a defence against a West that is “striving for hegemony”.
Second, major powers are trying to line up partners and allies – at the United Nations and elsewhere.
Those most courted are members of the so-called Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during the Cold War and are now grouped under the designation “Global South”, including India, Brazil, South Africa and Indonesia.
To complicate matters, the first three together with China, Russia and Iran are also members of the “BRICSI’ economic/political grouping.
Third, the conflict has been accompanied by their respective ideologies becoming more inflexible and rigid.
Thus, the trajectory of the war has confirmed for Beijing and Washington the perception and image that they had of each other – an ideological adversary with whom understanding is almost no longer possible.
This ideological component is very powerful today in both countries and envelops of political power, the military and technology, which had previously been dominant.
Convergence of Russian & Chinese Interests
China and Russia may have been antagonists during part of the Cold War – the “schism” between their Communist parties is especially relevant.
Today, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping fundamentally reject the idea of a US-dominated world order and even share a deeply internalized anti-Americanism.
There can be no illusions about the ‘peace plan’ recently presented by China.
China expert Alexander Gabuev of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says the ‘plan’ ultimately confirms how closely aligned China’s and Russia’s interests actually are.
Beijing isn’t pushing Moscow to do anything it doesn’t want to do.
It does not specify which party should take which steps and when or how violations should be punished.
It reiterates China’s anti-Western positions, goes easy on the aggressor Russia, and calls for a ceasefire instead of a Russian troop withdrawal.
It sanctimoniously demands the lifting of all sanctions not enacted by the UN Security Council – knowing fully well that Russia as a permanent member with veto powers, de facto makes such UN sanctions impossible!
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: “The fact that China has started talking about Ukraine is not bad.”
Unfortunately, any hope placed on China to de-escalate the conflict is completely misplaced.
As China’s mediation in the Saudi-Iranian rapprochement has shown, it is currently presenting itself as a decisive player on the world stage and fundamentally challenge the prevailing international order.
Putin’s Ukraine War is an Abomination!
According to the distinguished and discerning American Yale historian, Professor Timothy Snyder, Putin’s war is beyond reason (Der Spiegel, March 9).
He argues cogently: “Russia must lose in Ukraine to transform itself from an empire into something else.”
He also considers fears of a nuclear strike by Putin to be highly irrational.
Putin is also seeking to exploit the historical memory of Germans.
Shortly after Putin’s invasion, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz described the war as a “Zeitenwende”, an epochal turning point.
Snyder concedes that “Some of Scholz’s formulations have been quite brilliant”.
He argued that the European Union (EU) is the antithesis of imperialism and autocracy [therefore completely contrary to Russia and had rejected empire in favour of integration].
He also put forward the notion of the European Union as a geopolitical entity.
However, Snyder was critical of the German government for not acting on those stirring words, and above all of the time lapse between words and actions.
Consequently, Snyder makes the case that: “Germany should take the lead in a geopolitically self-confident Europe and make the Ukrainian cause its own.”
This arises from the fact that Germany has a special historical responsibility in Ukraine.
However, even without any history, Germany has a current responsibility as the nearest major power in Europe.
According to Snyder, Germany’s historical responsibility is threefold:
- Germany waged a colonial/imperial war from 1941 to 1945 to control Ukraine. Most Germans have still not realized this suppressed history.
- Because of the above suppressed colonial history, Germany today has tended not to take Ukraine seriously as a state and as a nation.
As a result, in the domestic discourse, only Russia is present, and in its foreign policy, Russia has priority.
- The third source of responsibility is more recent.
Snyder insists that the absurd German notion that you could have a purely economic relationship with Russia is one of the direct causes of Putin’s war.
Thus, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline [in the Baltic Sea] was still being built despite Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, and that it was being built around and beyond Ukraine, made the invasion on February 22 more likely.
Snyder: No Alternative to a Ukrainian Victory
Prof. Snyder argues convincingly that the West has no alternative:
“By helping Ukraine to win this war, Europeans can say they are against aggression and cruelty and for an integration in which states support each other.”
He says ironically that the ratio of talk to tanks is very high!
It is also pathetic to believe that “Russia has the power to do anything it wants at any time simply because it has nuclear weapons.”
Russia cannot be allowed to dictate the narrative while unimaginable atrocities have long been taking place in Ukraine.
Snyder concludes: “Ukrainian resistance has made the world safer, and the Ukrainians must win to ensure that safety.”
The West needs to do all it can to make sure Ukraine has a very decisive battlefield victory this year to persuade Moscow to back down faster.
As Snyder succinctly puts it: “The only way to protect lives on both sides is to end this war, and the only way to end it is to help Ukraine win.”
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail
Login to add a comment