* Nepal’s Domestic & External Relations
* Sino-European Relations
* Taiwan
* Putin’s War
* Sino-American Rapprochement Essential
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal’s Domestic & External Policies in the Doldrums
The present jumbo coalition government seems unable and unwilling to get down to brass tacks.
It is willfully ignoring the palpable frustration in the majority of the Nepalese people.
Since the time of the general elections the time has been wastefully spent in government formation, distribution of portfolios to the various political parties [i.e. dividing up the spoils] and the formulation of ‘a common minimum programme.
In this the prime minister Shri/Comrade Pushpa Kamal Dahal-Prachanda has emerged as a master of procrastination – whether in the domestic or external sector.
External Relations
Since government formation took so very long and there was not even a foreign minister until very lately, Nepal’s external relations have remained dormant, more or less.
Government’s India-tilt
Since Prachanda Ji and his band of revolutionary brothers and sisters were so well-nurtured by the Indian establishment during the decade of the glorious People’s War, it is quite understandable that the Revolutionary Baje wants to make his first foreign trip to Nepal’s down under.
He also holds firmly to the iron rule of Nepal’s newly appointed prime ministers – the first foreign official/state visit must be to India, aka Bharat, aka Hindusthan.
For this the golden rule of Nepal’s foreign policy, i.e. external relations of equi-distance from both New Delhi and Beijing must be set aside. After all rules are made to be broken!
Even Makune’s acclaimed new formulation of equi-proximity does not apply [For those unfamiliar with Nepali politics, ‘Makune’ is the beloved nomenclature of Shri/Comrade Madhav Kumar Nepal, a former prime minister and one of the most prolific Communist politicians the country has produced. He is currently sagaciously weighing in whether to enjoy the fruits of power in Shri/Comrade Prachanda’s camp or to re-join the bedrock of pure Communism with his chum Shri/Comrade K.P. Sharma Oli (also known as ‘Oily’). Many of his senior colleagues have already decamped].
Shri/Comrade Prachanda Ji is, of course, wise to be wary of his former bosses in Hindusthan. After all, the Maha Purush [Great Person] Shri Shri Narendra Modi had no compunction in closing the borders and hanging an economic blockade on a hapless country after the Great Gorkha Earthquake for the mere perception that his underlings/satraps/bahadurs were not following orders!
Be that as it may, but it is essential that Shri/Comrade Prachanda will have to be in the good books of Modi Ji. Who knows, some crumbs may fall from his table.
As it is, the details of the official visit are being kept as a state secret, as if it is one to the Badshah of Hindusthan!
Europe & China
French President Macron in China
According to a leading U.S. foreign policy pundit, Richard Haass, French President Emmanuel Macron’s trip to China has been nothing short of disastrous.
He has unashamedly curried favour with Xi Jinping (as he did previously with Putin), in the mistaken belief or conviction that France and Europe can be isolated from a possible Sino-American armed conflict over Taiwan.
Haass is adamant that there is no way France and Europe could insulate themselves from what would be the economic and strategic consequences of a possible Chinese attack against Taiwan.
[China would see such an attack not as aggression but as reunification of the motherland]
Worse yet, Haass insists Macron only makes such an attack more likely by suggesting it would not be France’s problem [or Europe’s either].
For Haass, it is hard to see how France and European stability more broadly would benefit from a weaker relationship with the U.S.
It is also all too apparent that France and Europe more generally are unprepared to take up the burden of their own security even if they claim to want to do so.
Without US troops on the ground, Europe would be conventionally very much exposed.
And without the US ‘nuclear umbrella’, Europe would be at the mercy of Russia’s nuclear menace.
Putin’s mere nuclear threat vis-à-vis Ukraine, has sent European leaders scrambling!
Macron’s strategic autonomy vis-a-vis the United States is not even a work in progress.
It has become amply clear that Macron has isolated himself. He doesn’t even speak for France.
As Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki remarked bluntly last week: “Without the United States, Ukraine would no longer exist today.”
German-Chinese Relations
During her official visit to China, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock did not mince matters.
She articulated Germany’s position on the Ukraine War very forthrightly [see below]. It was indeed a very long way from the famous Ostpolitik of the last century. There were no longer any more sympathetic Russian overtones.
Baerbock insisted in calling a spade and did not hesitate to interfere in China’s domestic matters when human rights issues were involved.
Baerbock directly referred to Xinjiang, referencing a UN report that detailed a string of rights violations against Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in the autonomous region including ‘credible’ allegations of widespread torture, arbitrary detention and violations of religious and reproductive rights (AFP/April).
Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang countered that the situation in Xinjiang was ‘not a human rights issue, but a problem of anti-violence and anti-groupings and anti-secession.’
Gang claimed that “Today, Xinjiang is socially stable, economically prosperous, ethnically united, religiously harmonious and the people live and work in peace and happiness.
The Taiwan Question
Baerbock also warned of a ‘horror scenario’ if tensions in the Taiwan Strait increased, days after Beijing carried out comprehensive military drills near and around the self-ruled island.
Baerbock warned that ‘a unilateral and especially violent change of the status quo would not be acceptable to us as Europeans.”
This was in line with the U.S. position – in stark contrast to what French President Emmanuel Macron said just a few days back!
Her comments came after contentious comments by Macron following his own trip to Beijing that raised controversy among Western allies.
Putin’s Ukraine War
Germany’s Standpoint
Germany’s foreign minister, Annalena Baerbock [from the Greens Party] urged China last week to call on ‘the Russian aggressor to stop the war’ in Ukraine, saying ‘no other country has more influence on Russia than China’ (AFP/Agence France Presse, April 14).
Speaking after a meeting with her Chinese counterpart Qin Gang in Beijing, Annalena Baerbock said she had also expressed concerns about human rights issues and warned of the dangers of escalating tensions with Taiwan.
The German foreign minister has been very direct and frank – more so than any other recent visitor or foreign functionary.
This is also an indication that the current ‘traffic light coalition’ of Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals is taking tentative steps of a more assertive foreign policy – possibly even of taking leadership of EU-foreign policy.
Her visit to the Chinese capital comes a week after that of French President Emmanuel Macron [which was mired in controversy] and the head of the European Commission Ursula in resolving the crisis.
The flurry of foreign visits to Beijing highlights the growing clout of China in world affairs, but its attempt to become the main challenger – overtaking Russia by leaps and bounds – of the previous hegemon of world politics, the United States is fraught with difficulties.
This is especially true as it is also challenging the rules-based international order established by the United States and its allies after World War II.
Its standpoint in two conflict zones – Ukraine and Taiwan – has also been heavily attacked, especially by the West.
The German foreign minister was no exception and she openly cast doubts on China’s position in Ukraine: “It is good that China has signaled its commitment to a solution but I have to say frankly that I wonder why the Chinese position so far does not include a call on the aggressor Russia to stop the war,” Baerbock said bluntly.
Baerbock was referring to the fundamental contradiction in China’s stance.
On the one hand, China has positioned itself as a neutral mediator throughout the conflict.
At the same time, through high-level bilateral visits – as that of President Xi jinping to Moscow recently — and supportive statements, it is clearly favouring Russia.
As a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC) it should be upholding and protecting the principles of the UN Charter, but it is refusing to condemn the invasion.
You just cannot ignore the optics!
Thus, after Qin and Baerbock met, China announced that Defence Minister General Li Shangfu would visit Russia at the invitation of his counterpart Sergei Shoigu.
Foreign policy pundits point out that there has been no interaction between China and Ukraine – neither visits nor talks!
China Not to Supply Arms to Russia
As proof of its neutral position, China will not sell weapons to either side in the war in Ukraine, the country’s foreign minister has said, responding to Western concerns that Beijing could provide military assistance to Russia (AP/Associated Press, April 14).
China has maintained that it is militarily neutral in the conflict. Analysts question whether this is in conformity with international law, given that China is backing Russia politically, rhetorically and economically!
All this is taking place at a time when Western nations have imposed punishing sanctions and sought to isolate Moscow for its invasion of its next-door neighbor.
Qin Gang, the highest-level Chinese official to make such an explicit statement about arms sales to Russia, added that China would also regulate the export of items with dual civilian and military use.
The minister also reiterated China’s willingness to help find a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
Analysts also question how this is at all possible when China is not even talking to the aggrieved party!
Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive
What could possibly be delaying Ukraine’s spring offensive is nothing trivial as mud!
Even in an era of cyber- and hypersonic warfare, something as insignificant as mud could very well set the timing for the military offensive.
The (in)famous squelchy ground in Ukraine – which can make it very difficult for vehicles on wheels (rather than on tracks) to move, and can make it very difficult for infantry.
This is, therefore, one (but important) factor that could delay Ukraine’s much anticipated counter offensive against the Russian predatory invaders.
In the coming showdown, at least a dozen brigades including 9 that have been armed and supplied by Western allies, are poised to attack the Russian lines (Economist, April 16).
Several other factors complicate the decision to launch the new fight. One surely, is the damaging impact of the American intelligence leaks.
The latest humiliating setback for US intelligence has potentially compromised Ukraine’s war plans and given Russia’s generals a tactical advantage – for the time being at least.
Ending the War
Two US foreign policy experts, Richard Haass (president at the Council on Foreign Relations) and Charles Kupchan (senior fellow at the same Council & professor of international affairs at Georgetown University) have put forward an (unofficial) new strategy for ending the war in Ukraine (Foreign Affairs, April 13)
They argue that the U.S. should pursue a sequenced approach, providing increased military and economic support to Ukraine and then pushing for a new diplomatic initiative if and when it becomes clear that Ukraine cannot fully realize its objectives on the battlefield.
They worry that without such a step – and staring at the potential for a protracted conflict [ which is also not in the interest of Russia ] – there is danger that Western support for Ukraine will decline.
They are also concerned about the human and economic price Ukraine is paying for the war and about the impact the war is having on the US’s ability to protect its other global interests [which is probably the main official/unofficial anxiety!].
The writers themselves concede that they are not confident Russia would accept any proposal that includes meaningful compromise on its part. Thus the diplomatic path is fruitless, including any initiative by China.
It would have been better if Ukraine is given the resources – and in a timely fashion – to compel Putin to sue for peace – by making the position of the Russian invading army untenable in Ukraine – not necessarily by re-conquering all occupied territory, or even taking possession of Crimea, but by a resounding strategic part-victory – by bifurcating the occupying forces so that there is no landbridge between the Donbas and southern regions (oblasts) along the Azov/Black Seas.
What is fundamentally at stake in Putin’s Ukraine war, is not only:
- Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity; but also
- Europe’s long-term security; and
- United States’ image as the protector of the world-wide order.
Sino-American Relations Crucial to World Peace
The New York Times star-columnist Thomas Friedman hit the nail on the head by writing in an extensive op-ed that the world’s two super-powers are hurtling towards inevitable armed conflict if concrete measures are not taken by both sides (NYT/April 17).
Friedman writes that Sino-American relations have soured so badly, so quickly, and have so reduced the bilateral points of contact that the leaders are barely talking to each other. Such is how overheated the bilateral atmosphere is.
“The smallest misstep by either side could ignite a U.S.-China war that would make Ukraine look like a neighborhood dust-up.”
After visiting mainland China and Taiwan lately, Friedman concludes that peace, stability and tranquility in the Taiwan Strait is incompatible with any move by Taiwan [or by reckless U.S. politicians ] towards formal independence – this is also China’s absolute red line.
[It should be underlined that for all intents and purposes, Taiwan is already a de facto autonomous country with a functioning democracy; the fine point is not to attempt in converting it into de jure independence. Motto: ‘let sleeping dogs lie’]
Friedman also points to the crux of the problem: namely, the increasingly important role that trust, and its absence, plays in international relations.
The naked fact is that trust has become more significant in Sino-American relations – or rather its absence.
Unfortunately today, there is a tendency among both Republicans and Democrats to speak most harshly about China, forgetting the commonalities.
One should not forget the formidable weight and strength of what China has achieved since opening to the world in the 1970s.
At the same time, China’s Communist Party government has a stronger control than ever on it society.
However, the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) iron embrace is also a “product of all the hard work and savings of the Chinese people, which have enabled the party and the state to build world-class infrastructure and public goods that make life for China’s middle and lower classes steadily better” (NYT).
Weighing the shifting power relationship between America and China, it is essential to pinpoint what exactly they are fighting about.
Friedman argues that uncovering the real answer to that question is so much deeper and more complex – and much more than ‘Taiwan” or ‘democracy versus autocracy”.
The erosion of Sino-American relations is the result of something old and obvious – as every student of international relations can point out.
It is the traditional great-power rivalry between an incumbent (and declining) hegemon (U.S.) and a rising power, challenging that premier power’s supremacy (China).
However, there are certain peculiarities in this great-power confrontation.
Thus, what appears to be a run-of-the-mill great power rivalry/competition/confrontation is occurring between nations whose economies are intimately intertwined!
Neither China nor America has ever had an antagonist quite like the other.
Friedman rejects the doomsday approach that the two countries are destined for war.
On the contrary, he argues that the two powers are
- doomed to compete with each other;
- doomed to cooperate with each other; and
- doomed to find some way to balance the two.
The U.S. establishment has to make it crystal clear that it is not the goal of US foreign policy to topple the Communist regime.
Friedman also points out that the notion that China can economically collapse and America still thrive is utter fantasy.
China itself has to understand that it will never realize its full potential – in a hyper-connected, digitized, deep, dual-use, semi-conductor-powered world – unless it establishes and maintains trust.
Both countries need each other, and the world needs both.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment