By Rabi Raj Thapa
A war of necessity is an unavoidable conflict fought to protect a nation’s vital interests or in self-defense when no other alternatives exist, whereas a war of choice is an optional conflict initiated to achieve broader geopolitical, ideological, or preventive goals. Many critics have described the recent U.S.-Israel war against Iran as an unnecessary war of choice.
What, then, about the war between Russia and Ukraine? Is it a war of necessity or a war of choice? Interpretations differ. A common view is that it is President Vladimir V. Putin’s war, driven by his desire to bring Ukraine into submission. Similarly, President Donald Trump initiated what many describe as a war of choice and is now facing mounting criticism. The conflict has subjected him to embarrassing setbacks involving broken promises, failed diplomatic breakthroughs, short-lived ceasefires, and an ever-increasing number of U.S. military casualties. Recently, U.S. Senator Mark Warner of Virginia described the conflict as a “war of choice,” arguing that it was launched without an imminent threat and that the administration had failed to achieve its stated objectives.
The concepts of choice and necessity apply not only to war and conflict but also to governance, peace, and development. For example, what are the priorities of the Balen government today? Which issues are essential, which are necessary, and which are merely matters of choice? In this regard, the government appears to have confused these distinctions in many respects. The government may believe it has a clear direction, but the public certainly does not. Instead, many people are confused and bewildered.
This raises another question: are the prominent leaders of the Balen government influenced by what might be called the “James Bond syndrome”? Some of its key characteristics include an inability to maintain long-term, meaningful commitments, grandiosity, thrill-seeking behavior, irresponsibility, and a tendency to shift blame or avoid long-term accountability.
Take, for example, the government’s haphazard Sukumbasi Hatau Abhiyan (Squatter Removal Campaign). Was it an urgent necessity or merely a political choice? The Balen government could have waited until the end of the monsoon season and implemented the campaign according to a phased DDR (Displacement, Demobilization, and Rehabilitation) approach, thereby avoiding unnecessary protests and political embarrassment.
Another example is the energetic and dynamic Home Minister. He appears to enjoy high-profile, risk-taking initiatives and a glamorous style of leadership. However, as Home Minister, it would have been more beneficial had he devoted greater time and energy to professionalizing law enforcement agencies, improving the welfare of more than 70,000 Nepal Police personnel and over 36,000 Armed Police Force members, strengthening internal security policy and strategy, implementing police reforms, and enhancing inter-agency cooperation and coordination.
Most importantly, the government urgently needs to strengthen Nepal’s intelligence capability. Why is Nepal’s only dedicated intelligence agency called the National Investigation Department (NID) rather than the Central Intelligence Department (CID)? That, too, is an important question.
Today, the Balen government finds itself entangled in the reports of three separate commissions—Justice G.B. Karki Commission, the NHRC’s Lily Thapa Commission, and the Justice Prem Raj Karki Commission—without any clear direction. At the same time, a serious national security issue remains unresolved: the disappearance of 400 Self-Loading Rifles (SLRs) and approximately 100,000 rounds of ammunition. Who is responsible, and who is investigating the matter? It appears that no one is sufficiently concerned. This is not a matter of choice but one of urgent national necessity.
Nepal’s Finance Minister appears more like James Bond in his appearance and body language. He also comes across as highly intelligent and articulate, presenting ambitious plans on paper. However, many ordinary Nepalis find his budget and tax policies increasingly difficult to understand.
Therefore, Nepal’s three prominent and promising leaders should prioritize necessity over choice. They must distinguish between what is immediate, essential, urgent, and strategically important, rather than pursuing policies driven by preference or political expediency.
Finally, Nepal’s leaders should remember that they do not have the privilege of behaving or governing like Donald J. Trump, Vladimir V. Putin, or Benjamin Netanyahu. Instead, they would do well to learn from statesmen such as Konrad Adenauer of Germany, Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, and Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia.
Login to add a comment