- * Nepal’s Emerging Political Parties
- * Sudan Civil War
- * Ukraine War
By Shashi P.B.B. Malla
Role of Nepal’s Emerging Political Parties
The role of political parties in any political system is crucial since they mediate between the mass of people and the various political institutions.
Ideally and in a broad perspective, a political party is a means by which the people can speak to the government and have a say in the governance of the country.
Thus, the primary role of the political party is to fix the political agenda and national policies – domestic and external.
Nepal’s first political party – the Praja Parishad (the People’s Council) arose out of a sense of grievance and in opposition to the autocratic Rana regime.
It was followed by the Nepali Congress, which jointly and under the leadership of King Tribhuwan led an armed revolution against the Ranas.
Both parties epitomized the people’s aspirations for more personal freedoms, possibilities for social and economic betterment and more say in the governance of the nation – in other words: a democratic way of life.
Unfortunately, most Nepali political parties lost their sense of purpose and direction and degenerated into mere organizations to win elections, and once in government to reap the spoils of office. This was their cardinal aim.
It was, therefore, no surprise that the electoral process became merely the ‘democratic’ means to the end of amassing ill-gotten wealth at the cost of the deceived people.
Political parties’ duties/services are manifold.
They have to adapt to the changing times.
The Nepalese people have become more demanding. Many are now better educated and also have foreign experience – work and study.
The main political parties have failed to adapt and also underestimated the wishes and aspirations of the people.
They have been a great disappointment – they have failed to project charismatic leadership.
More than the ‘broader’ principles of the state – federalism, secularism, constitutional monarchy vs. republic, people today are more interested in bread and butter issues.
Thus, the role of ideology is not so pressing at this moment in time.
The emergent political parties, especially the Rashtriya Swatantra Party (RSP) must, therefore, explore ways and means to stabilize the economy and aim for future growth.
In the present context this will be best achieved by joining the coalition government and assuming a leadership role.
Sudan Military Confrontation: Ceasefire Extended Again
Sudan’s regular army (SAF/Sudan Armed Forces) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) have again agreed to extend their ceasefire by an additional 72 hours.
It is the latest of multiple temporary truces that have been violated by both sides.
The army said the extension came due to “US and Saudi mediation.”
Meanwhile, the United Nations is sending its top humanitarian envoy amid the “unprecedented” situation.
Thousands Flee
The UN estimates that more than 75,000 people have been internally displaced in Sudan, while another 20,000 have fled to neighbouring Chad.
Some 6,000 people – mostly women – have fled the growing conflict in recent weeks and have arrived in neighbouring Central African Republic.
The protective infrastructure is scarce.
The conflict threatens to spill over into neighbouring countries.
Top Priority Must Be Delivery of Aid
The international community should focus on getting humanitarian aid to Sudan even while clashes between warring factions continue, Eric Reeves, a researcher and analyst at the Rift Valley Institute said.
He said the international community has “done a terrible job of confronting the reality.”
“You can’t have two generals, two armies in one country without conflict becoming inevitable, especially when men at the top are so ambitious,” Reeves said about Sudan’s military commander General Burhan and General Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) [DW/April 30).
Terrible Situation
Hundreds of people have been killed since the fighting began between the two generals who have grappled for power since two successive coups in which they were joint schemers.
Thousands are also fleeing the country. While governments from across the world have launched evacuation missions to airlift their citizens to safety, the World Food Programme (WFP) has had to suspend support to 7.6 million people in Sudan!
Gen. Burhan has branded the RSF – supported by Russia’s mercenary Wagner Group among others – as a militia that is seeking “to destroy Sudan” while Gen. Dagalo has countered with the accusation that the army chief is “a traitor.”
The international community should follow the Bard’s dictum:
“A plague o’ both your houses!” and remove both generals from the scene of action, and explore ways and means to establish a transitional civilian government to restore peace and stability.
Intense fighting has affected 12 out of 18 constituent states across Sudan, including the Darfur region.
The sides are particularly locked in battle for the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, and they have fought on despite a series of truces.
The army has been battling RSF forces entrenched in residential areas of the city, although the situation was said to be relatively calm on Sunday.
In a recent analysis of the situation in Foreign Affairs, two astute experts, Mai Hassan (Associate Professor of Political Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Ahmed Kodouda (until recently an aid worker based in Sudan) conclude that Sudan’s two leading generals are dragging the country toward disaster and that only civilian leaders can forge a path to peace (May 1).
They also assign responsibility: “Sudan’s sudden collapse into violence partly reflects the failure of Western [US, UK, France, EU] and regional powers [Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE] to defuse tensions between the SAF and the RSF.”
Putin’s Ukraine War: Xi Calls Zelensky
After much prompting, China’s President Xi Jinping finally called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, but doubts remain over China’s peacemaker credentials.
The two leaders spoke for over an hour by phone on April 26 in what was the first conversation between them since the unprovoked, brutal full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine began nearly 15 months ago.
The long-anticipated call was welcomed in Kyiv and by much of the international community as an indication of Chinese readiness to support diplomatic efforts to end the invasion (Peter Dickinson/Ukraine Alert, April 26).
China as Peace-Maker?
However, questions remain over China’s ability to strike a balance between a potential peacemaker role and the country’s already massive strategic ties with Russia.
In an expanded statement that appeared to address Xi’s calls for a “political settlement to the crisis’, Zelensky stressed Ukraine’s rejection of any land-for-peace compromises with the Kremlin.
“No one wants peace more than the Ukrainian people,” wrote Zelensky. “Peace must be just and sustainable, based on the principles of international law and respect for the UN Charter. There can be no peace at the expense of territorial compromises.”
According to Chinese state media, Xi sought to assure Zelensky that China would refrain from taking sides in the ongoing war, while also offering thinly-veiled criticism of US-led Western support for Ukraine.
“China is neither the creator nor a party in the Ukraine crisis,” he was quoted as saying. “As a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a responsible great power, we will not add fuel to the fire, and above all, we will not seek to profit from the crisis.”
While the call did not produce any major breakthroughs, the two leaders agreed on the appointment of a new Ukrainian ambassador to China. Xi also committed to dispatching former Chinese ambassador to Russia Li Hui as a special envoy to Ukraine and other unspecified countries with a brief “to conduct in-depth communication with all parties,” as Beijing seeks to lead peace efforts.
The timing of Xi’s call sparked considerable debate. Zelensky had sought to engage directly with Xi for a number of months, publicly expressing his readiness for dialogue in late March following the Chinese leader’s high-profile visit to Moscow.
Xi refused to confirm when he planned to call his Ukrainian counterpart, stating instead that the conversation would take place “when the conditions and the time are right.”
It is unclear why Beijing decided that conditions were now suitable for renewed dialogue with Kyiv.
The most recent diplomatic development certainly did little to convince doubters that China is a credible peacemaker.
Speaking in Paris last week, Chinese ambassador to France Lu Shaye questioned Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and indicated that all former Soviet countries lack “effective status under international law.”
Lu’s comments sparked a strong diplomatic backlash, with Ukraine branding the Chinese ambassador’s position “absurd” and senior officials in other post-Soviet capitals demanding urgent clarification (Ukraine Alert).
In a bid to remove misunderstanding, China’s foreign ministry in a most unusual step, officially distanced itself from Ambassador Lu’s remarks and confirmed that China respected the independence of all post-Soviet states.
Xi’s call to Zelensky may have been viewed in Beijing as an opportunity to repair the damage caused by the unwarranted diplomatic scandal and shift international attention back toward China’s push for progress toward a negotiated peace.
Since the onset of Russia’s barbaric aggression in February 2022, China has sought to portray itself as neutral.
At the same time, Beijing [as well as India and the majority of the Global South] has refused to condemn Russia for the war, preferring instead to express cautious understanding for Moscow’s actions while voicing criticism for the alleged role of the West in provoking the conflict.
To the casual observer, China is trying to have it both ways.
A 12-Point Peace Plan announced in February 2023 was China’s first major diplomatic initiative, but the vague document failed to gain serious traction and international support.
China’s attempts to position itself as a neutral mediator have inevitably been undermined by the country’s close economic, political and strategic relations with the Kremlin.
Moscow and Beijing have strengthened relations considerably over the past decade, notably in the wake of the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and military intervention in eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region.
Following Xi’s official visit to Moscow in March 2023, China underlined the bilateral relationship had now “acquired critical importance for the global landscape and the future of humanity.”
But at the same time, other Chinese officials have attempted to downplay the significance of Beijing’s links to the Putin regime.
Speaking to the New York Times in early April, the Chinese ambassador to the European Union (EU) Fu Cong denied China is on Russia’s side in the war and dismissed earlier official statements about a “friendship without limits” between the two countries as “nothing but rhetoric.
Most significantly, the diplomat also stated that China would not on any account provide arms for Russia to use in Ukraine now or in the future.
China’s position for most observers seems to be that of having its cake and eating it too!
For the international community, China’s decision to finally call Kyiv is indeed a welcome gesture – but it remains that only.
There is substantially little to suggest Beijing is currently in a
Both Russia and Ukraine – the aggressor and the victim – continue to reject talk of a compromise settlement, with Moscow demanding recognition for its claims to around 20 % percent of occupied Ukrainian territory, and Ukraine insisting according to international law and the Charta of the United Nations on the complete de-occupation and liberation of all forcefully seized territory.
According to the Atlantic Council’s Dickenson, despite these obstacles, the conversation between Xi and Zylensky was nevertheless highly significant.
The call was a diplomatic victory for Ukraine and an indication of a Russian ally.
“This positioning could take on greater significance in the coming months if battlefield developments create opportunities for serious talks to take place.”
Ukraine’s Counter-Offensive: Goals, Opportunities, Risks
Russia is pounding civilian targets, dastardly killing innocent men, women and children and hoping to bring Ukraine to its knees.
However, in total, Ukrainian air defences successfully shot down 21 out of 23 missiles fired last Friday.
In response to the attacks, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba tweeted defiantly: “The way to peace is to kick Russia out of Ukraine.”
“The way to peace is to arm Ukraine with F-16s [modern US jet fighters] and protect children from Russian terror” (FP/Foreign Policy World Brief, April 28).
Ukraine’s leadership is putting the final touches on the much-awaited counteroffensive announced months ago. It is hoped this will turn around the grueling trench warfare the country is currently experiencing.
It hopes to drive Russia out of all its occupied territories. It could be a decisive battle, a fight for liberation (DW/Deutsche Welle, , April 30).
Lately, it received Western tanks delivered via Poland. It will need every one of those tanks in the coming weeks and months.
Why is Kyiv Waiting?
For one, the weapons expected from the West have not all been delivered yet.
Since early 2023, Ukraine has received much “heavy metal” [colloquil for big armaments], much of it for the first time.
These include dozens of modern battle tanks and armored personnel carriers (APCs) from German and British production, American Patriot air defence missile systems, Soviet-era fighter jets.
It is estimated that the army and the national guard have created at least 16 new brigades, encompassing about 50,000 fighters in total.
These new units need to prepare and familiarize themselves with their new weapons.
An additional challenge is coordinating numerous formations for a new integrated offensive.
Until now, Ukraine has had little experience in such ‘modern’ last year in been simulated on computers.
Ukraine’s Thrust
Some military analysts believe the Ukraine army’s main thrust will be directed towards the Zaporizhzhia region in the south.
From there, Ukrainian forces are expected to push towards the Crimean peninsula to cut Russian troops off from overland routes. This would be a great success for Kyiv.
But it will not be easy – Russia has built up multiple lines of defence.
Also, unlike last year in Kharkiv and Kherson, Russia is now expected to respond with counterattacks of its own. That is also one of the risks Ukraine will take with its expected counteroffensive.
Counteroffensive Would Not End the War
Despite such concerns, the mood in Kyiv is cautiously optimistic.
“This strike cannot fail. More territories will be liberated,” one military expert said. “The question is: How much, and at what cost?” (DW).
It remains unclear what will happen after the counteroffensive.
Many worry the West might pressure Ukraine to negotiate and make painful concessions if it fails to live up to expectations.
However, top military leaders have already rejected that scenario.
The writer can be reached at: shashipbmalla@hotmail.com
Login to add a comment