Review of World Affairs (RWA)
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Nepal: India’s Territorial Aggression in the Far West
India has insisted on developing and building a strategic road through Nepalese territory.
The ruling Nepali Congress (NC) first said that India’s (aggressive) move to continue road construction in the LipuLekh area in the Far West despite Nepal’s (continued) protests is “objectionable” (my Republica, Jan. 15).
The statement was made on behalf of the NC by the newly-elected General Secretaries duo, Gagan Thapa and Bishwa Prakash Sharma.
The press statement also demanded that India immediately withdraw its troops (illegally) occupying the Kalapani region [sovereign Nepalese territory] and amicably resolve the border dispute through high-level diplomatic negotiations based on historical facts and evidence.
The Nepal government followed with a statement: [We have] “been requesting the Indian government to stop unilateral construction/expansion of any road that goes via Nepali territory.”
Furthermore: “The Nepal government is committed to resolving the border issues on the basis of historical treaties and agreements, facts, maps and evidence through diplomatic channels as per the spirit of friendly relations between the two countries” (TKP/The Kathmandu Post, Jan. 17).
However, there is absolutely no evidence that the government of Hindustan is willing to negotiate in good faith. It believes that ‘might is right’ whether in domestic politics [like the ruling BJP calling for ‘mass exterminations’ of Muslims] or in external relations.
Then, we have the meek and incompetent Deuba-led coalition government unwilling and unable to tackle questions of vital national interests – whether it be the murder of a Nepali national in the Mahakali River or the MCC compact.
We have to take a holistic approach in our dealings with our wily, aggressive, and would-be dominant southern neighbor, which has delusions of grandeur as a ‘great power’ and considers the whole of South Asia and beyond as its ‘sphere of influence’ [see below].
Nepal-India Border Dispute No Longer Bilateral, but Trilateral Issue
What our government, most media experts, and foreign policy pundits are not considering is that the Indo-Nepalese border dispute in Kalapani/LipuLekh is no longer a bilateral issue, but a trilateral one, also involving China.
Modi, the undisputed Swami of Hindustan, previously boasted that there were plans to extend this strategic road even further to Lake Mansarowar/Mount Kailash – a place of pilgrimage par excellence for both Hindus and Buddhists – but which happens to be in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR)!
There have also been reports that India and China have reached a tentative agreement to also facilitate Indo-Chinese bilateral trade through Lipulekh. But this entry/exit point to/from TAR does not have bilateral jurisdiction but is a tri-junction of Nepal/China/India under International Law.
The Nepal government needs to urgently seek clarification from Beijing to what extent Sino-Indian cooperation/collaboration has progressed in this regard, and if this has indeed reached a point of fruition, Nepal’s vital national interests have been trampled on by both neighbours – very disappointingly, to say the least.
Time Running Out for MCC
The American Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant of US $ 500 million was signed between the governments of Nepal and the United States back in September 2017! At the time Sher Bahadur Deuba was the prime minister and his government was backed by the Maoist Centre (MC).
The then speaker of Parliament, Krishna Bahadur Mahara (MC), repeatedly blocked the measure from being taken up in parliament. Mahara was disgraced and forced to resign after an alleged sexual assault case.
K.P. Sharma Oli and his CPN-UML with nearly a two-thirds majority in parliament was ready to push through the MCC Compact in parliament. Now in opposition, Oli and his cronies are singing a different tune and claiming that they do not have any position on the MCC grant.
After the Communists unified and formed an electoral alliance [and flabbergasted Deuba and the NC], the new Nepal Communist Party (NCP) were unable to provide good governance. The MCC grant also became a victim of the crass infighting between Pushpa Kamal Dahal and K.P. Sharma Oli.
Other NCP leaders like Bhim Rawal and Jhala Nath Khanal for no rhyme nor reason also became notorious opponents of the MCC compact.
Now the Communists are using all the dirty tricks of their trade-in blocking the MCC grant in parliament.
Now, in a wide-ranging interview with The Kathmandu Post (Jan. 16), Mahmoud Bah, acting chief executive officer at the MCC, said that the United States cannot keep the grant on hold indefinitely.
If it is finally withdrawn, it will be a great occasion for Nepal’s Communists to celebrate. Their personal, selfish, and personal interests – and their relentless machinations — would have won the day. They have used insidious and totally false arguments to hoodwink gullible people.
As acting-MCC-CEO Bah so succinctly stated, the US assistance has been the target of sophisticated and malicious misinformation and disinformation campaigns to discredit MCC and the government of Nepal in order to prevent the compact from progressing helping improve the lives of millions of Nepalese.
We trust these traitorous Communists at our own peril. They have actually dug their own graves, but want to make a last-ditch effort to save themselves by riding to power on Deuba’s coattails!
Ukraine Confrontation
Escalating Tensions
Last week’s high-level and high-stakes diplomatic meetings failed completely to resolve the escalating tensions over Ukraine. This has placed Russia [which initiated the crisis], the United States, and its European allies in uncharted post-Cold War territory, which in turn poses significant challenges for the main players to avoid an outright and potentially disastrous armed confrontation.
However, unlike previous disagreements that have arisen since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the current Ukraine crisis and seemingly insurmountable differences between Washington and Moscow pose tangible risks of debilitating economic warfare and military conflict that are exacerbated by the dangers of miscalculation and overreaction.
U.S. Position
The U.S. and its NATO and other European allies expect that Russian President Vladimir Putin withdraw the threatening vast 100,000 troops now deployed near the Ukrainian border to establish his bona fides to negotiate in good faith (AP/Associated Press, January 15).
Russia has been accused of stoking tensions for no legitimate reason.
Russian Standpoint
For the Russians, the West’s absolute refusal to consider a ban on NATO expansion and the withdrawal of troops from Eastern Europe is proof of its untrustworthiness.
Russian are complaining that the U.S. and NATO started the aggressive behavior.
Bottom Line
The refusal thus far by each side to climb down from what the other regards as unrealistic and maximalist demands have left the prospects for diplomacy in limbo.
‘Sphere of Influence’ & Exit Strategy
Russia is insisting that Ukraine lies within its sphere of influence, and that, therefore, it cannot tolerate military activities in and near Ukraine [except, of course, its own aggressive moves] that threaten its national security.
The term sphere of influence in international relations refers to a territory or region over which an outside state/power claims control, influence, or preferential status.
The privileged or dominant state does not claim sovereignty under international law, but does claim military, political or economic exclusiveness and in so doing not only restricts the rights of other foreign powers but imposes limitations on the autonomy and independence of the targeted area.
These claims may or may not be enshrined in treaty form, but are de facto tolerated by the country/countries in the region and by third parties.
In addition, there is a great geopolitical difference between ‘spheres of influence’ and ‘spheres of control’.
In relation to Latin America, the unilateral declaration by the United States of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 had the effect of establishing, with the tacit connivance of the United Kingdom, unrivalled US dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
It was originally intended as a warning to European states not to intervene in the New World. It then became the conceptual basis of US foreign policy in Central and South America.
In 1823 and for a considerable period afterward, it was little more than wishful thinking, as the U.S. did not possess the naval power or the diplomatic status to enforce what the German statesman Otto von Bismarck called ‘this extraordinary piece of insolence’. [Graham Evans/Jeffrey Newnham: The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, 1998].
U.S. Theory & Praxis
The Biden administration rejects the notion that powerful nations can demand that their (weaker) neighbours fall under their “spheres of influence”.
As U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken put it last month: “One country does not have the right to dictate the policies of another or to tell that country with whom it may associate; one country does not have the right to exert a sphere of influence. That notion should be relegated to the dustbin of history.”
This is indeed a noble principle, but it is not one [as we have seen above] that the United States observes in practice.
The Biden administration has continued Washington’s decades-long embargo of Cuba. The goal is to promote democracy, but the international community views it as an act of political bullying.
It has not ended Trump’s effort to cut off Venezuela from global trade. In the words of a European Union official, the U.S. is prepared to “starve Venezuelans until their leadership surrender or their people oust them.”
The United States Enormous ‘Soft Power’
The U.S. wields considerable international influence through its “soft power”.
The U.S. has a dynamic economy, a vibrant cultural scene, and an open society, and, therefore, close relations with Washington are more attractive to America’s neighbours than close relations with Moscow are to Russia’s neighbouring countries.
But as Peter Beinert [professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York] writes: “within the velvet glove remains an iron fist” (NYT: “The U.S. lies to itself about global politics”, Jan. 15-16).
Mexico, whose long border with the United States offers a parallel to Ukraine’s proximity to Russia, can publicly disagree with aspects of U.S. foreign policy, but it cannot join a military alliance with U.S. adversaries.
Nor is it possible to imagine a Mexican government inviting Russian or Chinese troops onto its side of the Rio Grande river!
Under the Charter of the United Nations [under which Ukraine is a full-fledged member] and International Law, Russia has no right to dominate Ukraine, just as the U.S. has no right to bully Cuba and Venezuela.
However, in the realm of international politics, it is not abstract morality that holds sway, but raw power, i.e. realpolitik – in the grand tradition of Bismarck, indicating shrewd attention to detail, an inclination to moderation, and a willingness to use force if necessary.
The raw fact of the matter is that the United States and its European allies are not willing or able to use raw power to deny Russia a say over Ukraine’s future.
Implicitly, the Biden administration, as well as, NATO itself have already conceded that there are no plans to admit Ukraine anytime soon to the military alliance. Doing so would explicitly mean that the U.S. and other NATO members would have to come to its defence were it to be attacked [by Russia] under the collective security provisions. Under the current political and military balance of power in Eastern Europe, Russia has the overwhelming upper hand in conventional forces. No need to talk about the use of limited, tactical nuclear weapons – this could very well degenerate into the unconceivable MAD conflagration – mutually assured destruction.
Prof. Beinart quotes other pundits in proposing ‘artful diplomatic language’ to allow both sides to save face agreement would recognize the brute reality of geopolitical power in Eastern Europe.
As a gesture of ‘goodwill’, Russia would, of course, withdraw all its massed troops from Ukraine’s eastern and southern borders – otherwise, the agreement would have no teeth. But it would have (re)established Russia’s ephemeral sphere of influence – of supreme importance to Vladimir Putin with his delusions of superpower Soviet grandeur.
The destruction of Ukraine would have been averted and Europe would come back from the brink of a devastating war [probably WW III !].
German Initiative
In the latest development, German Foreign Minister Ms. Annalena Baerbock said on Monday that she hoped mounting tensions with Russia over Ukraine could be solved by diplomacy.
But she warned that Moscow would suffer greatly if it does attack the country: “Each further aggressive act will have a high price for Russia, economically, strategically, politically,” Baerbock, in Kyiv on a trip that will next take her to Moscow, told a joint news conference with her Ukrainian counterpart Dmytro Kuleba (Reuters, Jan. 17).
Baerbock was firm in her assessment: “Diplomacy is the only way.”
In this connection, a possible breakthrough would be remotely possible, if German Chancellor Olaf Scholz followed up with a visit to Moscow. He would need no interpreter because Putin speaks fluent German [after his time as KGB resident in Leipzig, in former East Germany]. Scholz could seamlessly continue the landmark Ostpolitik of his distinguished predecessor Willy Brandt.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment