By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
LATEST
Nepal has now entered uncharted territory by the sudden street demonstrations by the Gen Z protesting against the recent ban on social media, autocratic tendencies of the ruling parties and rampant, endemic corruption in general.
The Oli government has chosen to clamp down violently on the protests which are not restricted to the capital Kathmandu.
There have already been 16 unnecessary deaths in the capital – and still counting.
At this critical moment, the Federal President, Ram Chandra Paudel must act decisively.
He must suspend parliament, sack the Oli government, and install an emergency, technocratic government.
* * *
In a recent general convention of his party, the UML-CPN, Prime Minister and Chairman KP Sharma Oli declared that the party’s – and the government’s priority would remain firmly on issues of national interest, including disputed territories such as Limpiyadhura, Kalapani and Lipulekh.
[The phrase ‘such as’ indicates that there are other territories in dispute, and it would be proper for the government to inform the public of the whole gamut of ‘territorial problems’.]
Given the widespread attachment to the nation as a social and political organization, national interest is, therefore, a powerful device for invoking public support.
If Oli uses the term to seek support for domestic policy objectives, it is less persuasive given the vast extent of differences on domestic policy and the better term would be public interest.
In foreign policy in contrast, the term invokes an image of the nation, or the nation-state, defending its interests within the anarchic international system where dangers abound and the interests of the nation are always at risk.
[The term ‘national interest’ may also be used as a tool for analysing Nepal’s foreign policy, in particular, analysing what is best for the nation in its relations with other states.
This use of the term emphasizes not merely the threat to the nation from the international anarchy {and developing multipolarity}, but also external constraints on the freedom of manoeuvre of the state from treaties, the interests and power of other states [in Nepal’s case, above all India and China, with the former predominating, and other factors beyond the control of the nation such as geographical location [which can be a major geopolitical liability, or a fundamental strategic advantage, depending on the diplomacy of the nation’s leaders. In Nepal’s case, no leader – with the exception of King Mahendra – has been able to bridge the gap from liability to advantage] and dependence on foreign trade [the bilateral Indo-Nepalese trade imbalance is particularly acute for Nepal].
The analytical usage of the term national interest in evaluating foreign policy must also focus on national security as the core of national interest.
Nepal’s best interests are objectively determined by the situation of the state within the international system and can be deduced from the study of Nepalese history [also essential in preserving the Nepali identity] and the success/failure of policies.
Oli has pledged that the government and the ruling UML-CPN will continue to play a visible and decisive role in defending Nepal’s sovereignty, strengthening democracy and steering the country towards prosperity.
He also claimed that his government was working to preserve the best aspects of the past while laying foundations for the future.
Unfortunately, the track record of the government does not inspire confidence.
One can only say and hope: ‘action speaks more than words’.
The writer can be reached at: shashimalla125@gmail.com
Login to add a comment