Submit your Article

With a conflict intensifying between Israel and Hamas after the recent Hamas attack, the Middle East, which was gradually heading toward unity and harmony, is plunging into a war, once again. Regardless of its root cause, the hostilities in the region can have a spillover effect, which can polarize the world. A conflict like this can also become a breeding ground for fresh rebellions, terrorists and criminal gangs.

No rational human being can support terrorism anywhere in the world. Talks and negotiations are a must to bring back normalcy in the region and beyond for the greater good of humanity and human civilization. War is never a solution. War begets more war and results in a lose-lose outcome. There is no alternative to peace and harmony. Thus, the international community in general and the parties to this conflict in particular should reconsider the “Framework for Peace in the Middle East”.

The author is a geostrategic thinker

The world is under two major threats now—“tech threat” that is challenging sovereignty of nations and impinging on personal sovereign dignity of individuals, and “Religious Radicalism” that could foment civilizational clashes and lead to ethnic cleansing.

A tech battle between China and the US, along with disinformation from big tech and social media have been challenging tech and democratic order. The US, India and the UK—the oldest democracy, largest democracy and the champion of parliamentary democracy—are going to polls in 2024 amid risk of disinformation or influence of AI and ethnic nationalism.

Civilizational clashes fueled by ethnic nationalism in different countries reflect domination of religion over religion, culture over culture, human over human and civilization over civilization. This can challenge social-civilizational or democratic order.

“Hate crimes” embedded in religious beliefs can have spillover effects and cause ethnic war, causing huge losses to civilization, if not handled with utmost rationality. 

The author is a geopolitical analyst 

The recent G7 foreign ministers’ meeting urged China to force Russia to end its war with Ukraine.  Neither China nor the US can handle the international crisis on its own. If China can play a role in ending this war, it can also play a role in the creation of a new global order not acceptable to the west.

Together, the US and China can play a role in tackling global crises, including the Russia-Ukraine war, using three measures—formation of ‘G2’ by adopting a 4Cs approach (consultation, communication, coordination and cooperation); G2 mediation between Russia and Ukraine for ending the conflict and leading the world and transformation of G7 into G10 by bringing China, India and Russia on board by securing Russia’s commitment to Ukraine’s sovereignty. These measures reflecting a “new economic and political reality”can help create a new global order, apart from achieving ‘win-win results’ through fair competition.

The author is geopolitical analyst

India’s PM Narendra Modi, while addressing world leaders at the G20 meeting in New Delhi, frequently used the word ‘Bharat’ instead of ‘India’ and reiterated a 2,500-year history of his country in Sanskrit. 

The podium he was taking to welcome foreign delegates, too, was decked as ‘Bharat’, with a symbolic ‘Lotus’—Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s election symbol—displayed around the summit venue. The unprecedented branding of ‘Bharat’ along with ‘Hindu civilization’ could help set a nationalistic agenda for the ruling BJP in upcoming general elections. 

Latest developments like India’s emergence as a ‘Space power’, its soft tone at the recent BRICS summit, and successful execution of G20 Summit could result in a great strategic advantage to India to rise as a prominent power on the world stage. 

A moot question is: How will India balance ties with China, Russia, the US, and various multilateral associations, including QUAD, IPS and BRICS? 

The author is a geostrategic thinker 

With the novelty in tech and AI, the threat perceptions have also changed. Every tech power considers “tech sovereignty” as one of the key elements of national power capability, while China’s mantra of tech sovereignty lies within its goal of ‘Algorithmic Governance’, ‘Tech Supremacy’ and ‘Global Leadership in AI’ that it has targeted to attain by 2025 and 2030 respectively. China is said to be in the process to initiate the concept of “sovereign” internet, where “China possibly controls key technology supporting critical infrastructure in countries around the world” (VoA News). China’s prospect of ‘Digital Silk Road’—that includes expansion of digital capabilities through big data, IoT, and underwater technology—can also be a part in attaining tech sovereignty.  To achieve those goals, China has massively invested in AI, information and data security, economic and military edge, and producing engineers and AI experts. China produces more than 600,000 engineers annually (70 percent more than India) and has four times more AI experts and engineers than the US (RAND). Tech sector in China reportedly contributes to nearly 39 percent of GDP, while 80 percent of its GDP growth is determined by the application of technology.  Reportedly, China consumes about 40 percent of the total chips produced globally and controls more than 50 percent of global lithium ion production capacity, while it dominates nearly 93 percent of EU’s magnesium consumption. China controls more than 55 percent of global rare-earth mining. The rare-earth elements are used in various crucial technologies including manufacturing components in touch screens of smartphones, missile-defense systems, electric cars (and batteries), and renewable energy equipment (The Wall Street Journal). For China, ‘outer space and cyberspace have become new commanding heights of strategic competition’ between states, reads China’s Military Strategy 2015. The US, on the other hand, is an extant tech super power that is dominating the global order. Great power vs superpower China has become stronger economically, militarily and diplomatically on the world stage in recent years. China, politically a Marxist country, has been significantly benefiting from economic liberalism for the last 45 years. Chinese GDP is approximately $18.32trn, which is nearly 18.5 percent of the Global GDP (SIPRI Fact Sheet-2021). The second largest economy in the world, China also has a larger GDP than that of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest economy combined. It has been a great power for about 60 years, which boasts nearly 2.5m soldiers, which is one of the strongest military forces in the world (Military Direct). China has military expenditures of around $293.35bn, which is nearly 14 percent of the world’s total military spending ($2113bn) per year (Statista-2021). The Chinese defense budget, second only to the US, is again larger than that of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth largest economy combined. Besides its military might, China has also been engaged in soft power diplomacy, international cooperation, economic integration, development and economy under various initiatives including the BRI. China, however, is running into structural constraints such as “demographic crisis” in the long run, which is why it will be the decelerated-economy over the next two years, according to the projection of the IMF. China’s past “one child policy” has become a huge challenge to its foreign policy of the present. India, on the other hand, is leveraging the demographic constraints and expected to be the world’s fastest-growing economy over the next two years. The US, a long time “realist” country, has been a great power for more than 100 years and extant superpower for about 75 years. It has nearly 2m soldiers and a military expenditure of $801bn in a year. The US defense budget, which is nearly 38 percent of the world’s total military spending ($2113bn) (Statista-2021), is larger than that of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh largest economy combined. Its GDP of more than $25.46trn is nearly 21 percent of the Global GDP (the US had dominated more than 35 percent of the global economy in terms of production at the end of WW-II). (IDDS-Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies; World Arms Database; SIPRI Fact Sheet-2021). The American military possesses the world’s most advanced technology whereas its satellites used in military surveillance and mapping, and communications are said to be high enough to trace out even the tiny objects on the road. And, the tech sector in the US is contributing to nearly 12 percent of the US GDP. Despondently, the US, under the political cover of liberal idealism, is struggling to garner alliance support to counter China that is largely grounded on its long standing realist beliefs of power balance and dominance, argue analysts. History will, however, justify whether the US could have become a responsible global leader. From the above assessment, it can be estimated that the parallel growth competition between the US and China in all domains—economic, defense, technology and soft potentials—may have similar patterns for the years to come that would help emerge them as a bipolar force of Global politics, economy and technology. Yet, the one with sensible vision, cohesive mission, generous action, and trustful coalition would dominate the global order. However, we cannot predict the future of global politics and make assertions about China’s grand presence on the world stage or America’s gloomy decline, as world politics is quite complicated. But we can map the possibilities or trace the consequences based on inferences, data and facts. For now, we can say that China is indeed influencing global politics by being deterministically sensitive, conscious and responsible. Yet, “honesty” and “pragmatism” matter. The US, under the Trump administration, has dispensed with several multilateral associations and threatened to get out of several others, including pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal, Paris Climate Agreement and the nuclear missile accord with Russia, which resulted in heavy loss of the US credibility, reputation, reliability and trust from its allies. A few weeks ago, classified intelligence documents revealed that the US is reportedly engaged in spying not just its foes like Russia, North Korea and China, but also its important allies and friendly countries including South Korea, Israel, Ukraine, and the UAE. Numerous western media, including The New York Times, The Guardian and The Washington Post, stated that the disclosure of highly classified documents represents “a massive intelligence breach”, which complicated US relations with the concerned allied countries and raised mistrust on US reliability to maintain secretes, which could even jeopardize diplomatic ties with its allies. This could also make a significant impact on the Ukraine war, while it could be a “hole-in-the-wall” for its adversaries to change their strategies. Yet, the allegations are not verified officially by the concerned partners. The US has a very disappointing precedent of snooping on its allies, including Germany, in the past. It was revealed that the US has been involved in prying on the then German Chancellors Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande in 2013 and 2015, respectively (TIME). The US is gradually losing trust from its associates and could be isolated in the global political sphere in the long run, while China is sensibly expanding its presence, trust and integrity on the world stage. Had the US and its allies desperately wanted peace in Ukraine, perhaps, they would have accepted the peace deal proposed by China, and Washington would have begun peace talks along with Beijing. Arguably, the US neither wants “full scale war” nor “absolute peace” in Ukraine because it wants to leverage between the prospects of  “not war” (“no end of war”) and “not peace”. This is why the US has not been directly involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. Essentially, China is the first target for the US and Ukraine the second, while its another vital purpose is to weaken Russia by using Ukraine, argue analysts. As like the conflict and instability in Ukraine is more a security threat to the EU than Ukraine itself (from the European perspective), so is the security concern in Nepal (from Chinese and Indian perspectives). How India maintains its relations with its immediate neighbors, including China and Nepal, will determine whether India is also willing for parallel global leadership along with the Asian giant, China. At this instance, “Nepal is in a geostrategic chessboard” (author’s previous column), while if any of the three powers—the US, China and India—make a coercive move against Nepal, one or two of them—individually or together—would make a counter-move against the third one. In the foreseeable future, Nepal could be a most preferred player for the superpowers in the global geopolitical chess match. Yet, the crucial concern for Nepalis is whether Nepal is cautiously prepared to make a sensible move in the global geopolitical chessboard? Nepal should make a rational move such that it could “hedge” them strategically and heighten its credence in the international sphere by advancing its national interest. The US-China relations have been at a “historic low” since Nancy Pelosi, the then House Speaker, visited Taiwan on 2 Aug 2022, and Taiwan President Tsai Ing-Wen met House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on 5 April 2023 in the US. On the other hand, China-Russia relations have been at their “highest point” following President Xi Jinping’s visit to the Kremlin. Since the US is currently dragged down into a tumult of domestic issues, and the chances of getting cooperation from its allies and friends are getting low, it may not directly involve Taiwan next. The US has still not maintained formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan since it broke the relations in 1979, while the US itself does not consider Taiwan as a sovereign country. The EU, after French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks, perceives that “Sovereignty Variance” of Taiwan is dissimilar as that of Ukraine, while China considers Taiwan its inalienable territory. The Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang urged his German counterpart Annalena Baerbock, who recently visited Beijing, to support the reunification process of Taiwan with China. “China once supported Germany's unification cause and hopes Germany will also support China's great cause of peaceful reunification,” said top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi. In response to Wang’s remark, Baerbock said, “Germany understands the importance and sensitivity of the Taiwan question to China and reaffirmed that Germany would continue adhering to the one-China principle,” stated CGTN. Arguably, China is in a grand mission to garner international support for peaceful reunification of Taiwan with its mainland, besides its other undertakings. China could be successful in integrating Taiwan with the mainland, while Hong Kong would be far easier than Taiwan, argue some analysts. Following the integration of Taiwan and Hong Kong, China could be a new superpower on the world stage. Yet, being just a superpower is a hegemonic perception, while China is expected to be an accountable global leader with “amity and cooperation”. Amity and cooperation Despite intensified geopolitical friction between the two superpowers—the US and China—they also have deep economic ties; the US-China trade volume was said to be more than $690bn in 2022. They should be conscious regarding their rising and/or declining global credence and should not give any undue space to the others in waiting. They can preserve their greatness only through decent leadership. For this, they have to overcome their belligerent attitude toward each other, and need to be equipped with conviction, knowledge, intelligence, agility and ability to pursue each other instead of exuding coercive measures. The geopolitical reality of the present world politics is that both the US and China cannot downright contain, confront, or ignore each other, like it happened during the Cold War between the US and Soviet Union. The US-China negotiation should not (and must not) turn into a binary (0 or 1) “either war or capitulation axis”. Washington and Beijing must realize that both of their policies should not be practiced as if it’s an ON/OFF switch. Instead, they must bring the possibility of identifying several fractional possibilities lying between 0 and 1. The world’s two most responsible nations in modern history have to plan for those options with decent, equable, and nimble rationality.   Most importantly, they should start communication, cooperation and coordination with trust and reverence with a shared vision and pragmatism for a constructive and peaceful world. The great nations like the US and China should explore their greater spirit and bigger generosity for the greater good of society, humankind, and the Universe.

The past few weeks have seen China’s formidable presence on the world stage, with domestic politics keeping the sole superpower, the United States, busy. The footprints of Beijing were clearly visible on the global diplomatic front as it sought to broker peace between arch rivals Russia and Ukraine, mediated a diplomatic concord in the Middle East, and hosted some top global leaders. While Chinese President Xi Zinping was having a meeting with his French counterpart Emanuel Macron along with European Commission Chief Ursula von der Leyen in Beijing, the former US President Donald Trump was in the dock in connection with dozens of felonies. Trump, while addressing his close supporters in Florida right after a Manhattan Court hearing, said: “America is on the verge of division and most likely to witness a crucial threat to democracy.” Trump expressed his fury and worry against his own nation and revealed that the US is currently focused on a few limited stories such as Russia, Ukraine, Trump himself, and China and Taiwan. In any case, whatever precedent the indictment of Donald Trump sets in domestic politics, the American credibility is likely to suffer. Immediately after President Xi returned to Beijing from the Kremlin by brokering a peace deal in the Russia-Ukraine war, European leaders visited Beijing to pursuade China to maturely conciliate the peace compact. Macron, on his way home, accentuated Europe's “diplomatic autonomy” by saying: “Europe should not always be an admirer of the US and be dragged into the Sino-US dispute on the issue of Taiwan.” This signifies that Europe is likely to remain silent on the Taiwan issue, which further indicates that Europe wants to ‘reset’ relations and remain close to China. After the EU leaders' return, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visited China, while German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was also on a visit to the same country. All these diplomatic developments point toward China’s rise as a global leader. Looking back, the 9/11 terror attack on the US brought nations together. Then came the 2003 Iraq war for global power balancing. But the coronavirus crisis pushed the worldwide balance to the brink. China’s rising clout in the global stage and the magnitude of the Russia-Ukraine war are about to further test this balance. As China is getting stronger—economically, militarily, technologically, strategically and diplomatically—and expanding its influence globally, the world is most likely to witness a much tougher and terrific global balance of power than ever before. The author’s intention, however, is neither to overestimate China nor to underrate the US, but to assess the prospects of both the nations in various domains–technology, macroeconomics, defense structure and spending, and soft potentials based on data, facts and inferences, and explore whether China is decently prepared for Global leadership?   China on world stage   China’s sensible engagement in diverse affairs–economic, development and diplomatic–through multilateralism is making it a resilient and more responsible emergent leader not only in the region, but also in the global sphere. It has maintained substantial membership cum leadership in different supranational organizations and institutions such as BRICS, SCO, APEC, ASEAN (dialogue partner), AIIB and NDB (New Development Bank under the BRICS framework), South-South Cooperation Fund, and China Silk Road Fund (project under the BRI framework). AIIB is said to be the World Bank of “Chinese characteristics” that has 57 member countries, including four of the G7 nations (Britain, Germany, France, and Italy), Australia, India and South Korea, among others. This shows that China has been rationally successful in influencing the developing and developed economies as well and bringing them under its pragmatic economic leadership. AIIB was reportedly established to defy the US-dominated ADB and WB, and to “contend the US at the global economic table”. NDB is perhaps established to make an arrangement of direct currency exchange of Yuan with the respective currencies of BRICS members in the long run, besides its said objectives. Recently, China and Brazil have announced a new agreement for direct exchange of Yuan (Chinese currency) with Reals (Brazilian currency) without converting into the US dollar, which is likely to challenge the financial hegemony of the “elite currency”.  Notably, the two emerging developing economies—China and Brazil—had a trade volume of more than $154bn in 2022 (CGTN). Meanwhile, former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has been elected the new head of NDB, whereas current Brazilian President Lula attended the inauguration of Rousseff in China. This signifies that China-Brazil relations are going to be renewed and strengthened as Lula is an ardent supporter of “One China Policy”. Arguably, China earned one more strategic partner in Latin America since Brazil, under Lula, is said to prefer a multipolar world, especially a China-led world order. Likewise, Malaysia is said to have proposed to China to establish the Asian Monetary Fund (AMF), which is expected to counter the IMF. The establishment of AIIB and AMF would indeed help China to “extend its sphere of economic and political influence” that would further help it to “take a leadership role in the global economy” (The New York Times). China has made significant economic advancement and diplomatic influence over the past three years despite the Covid-19 pandemic and heavy sanctions on its tech and trade from the US and its allies. Realizing the urgency of emergency medical response, China made remarkable cooperation in many countries in Asia, Europe, Latin America and Africa, irrespective of political ideology. China executed a pragmatic ‘Medical Diplomacy’ as part of humanity without any political prejudice, which helped achieve some of its global strategic objectives. China has been passionately expanding its diplomatic sphere in recent years. As a result, it has been successful in influencing countries in every continent. China is emerging as a global leader as it has received tremendous praise for its patience and comprehensive measures in handling the coronavirus crisis. It has a strong diplomatic grip in Europe through the “Medical Silk-Road” initiated when the pandemic was at its peak. The ‘Medical Diplomacy’ adopted during the global medical emergency has certainly helped strengthen and widen the sphere of BRI prospects in Europe and beyond. China has been successful enough to influence about 149 countries (44 in sub-Saharan Africa, 35 in Europe and Central Asia, 25 in East Asia and Pacific, 21 in Latina America and Caribbean, 18 in the Middle East and North Africa, 6 in South East Asia; out of which, 18 are EU countries and 9 are G20 countries) around the world through infrastructure development under the BRI (OECD). Earlier, the US dominated most parts of the world to pursue its strategic interests. China must have understood that it cannot leverage by “making others uncertain and miraculous” unlike the US. China has been apparently overshadowing the US influence in many parts of the world, including the Middle East, Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe. Following the China-brokered diplomatic deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the erstwhile rivals in the Gulf have come to a common ground of state relations such as agreeing to resume flights, bilateral visits and making diplomatic missions functional. Meanwhile, Arab Foreign Ministers held talks on the Syrian crisis and bringing Syria back to the Arab League. Also, Saudi Arabia mediated peace talks with Houthi rebels in Yemen. Arguably, the US played multiple roles for mediation between different rivals in the Gulf, to little avail, while the recent China-led mediation has resulted in perceptible outcomes. China not only brokered diplomatic deals and promoted unity in the Gulf region, but also encouraged Islamic nations for peace, harmony and sustainable security architecture, which makes sense in the political sphere in the region and beyond. Eventually, the more cohesive the Arab World, the higher credit China would get. The US pull-out from Afghanistan following its foreign policy fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan in the past has not only left an evil reputation behind in the Middle East and South Asia, but has also unlocked and widened the door for its nearest rival China to consolidate its presence in both the regions. Earlier, the US struggled hard to make inroads into Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Russia and China, while it is detrimentally concentrating on Russia, Ukraine and Taiwan at the present. America had been smart enough in winning hearts, minds and spirits in each continent of the globe in the past. Conversely, it is now applicable and functional to China. Donald Trump’s plank of “Make America Great Again”, has been propelled to make China and Russia great, while India is in the waiting line. American emphasis on democracy, human rights, international law, multiculturalism and multilateralism were the key constituents of its security and legacy in the past, while American critics within are questioning them now. The US’ withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal- 2015, under the Trump administration in 2018, perhaps has prompted Iran to align with China and deliberately rejuvenate its relations with Saudi Arabia. When we see China’s political march, tech and AI mastery, economic growth patterns, diplomatic influence, soft power enhancement, military achievements and global diplomatic influence, it has become clear that Beijing is preparing for a global leadership role. To materialize the ambition of such a scale, China should take its immediate neighbors, including Nepal and India, into confidence, and resolve all the misunderstandings by being honest, pragmatic, and responsible. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, the South China Sea, and the border dispute with India are China’s major domestic and bilateral issues right now. How it handles these issues will determine China’s prospective path to Global leadership. How China maintains its relations with East Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea, and what role it would play to bring peace in the Korean Peninsula would make China’s global march more comfortable. According to the Wall Street Journal (April 2, 2023), Japan is breaking with the US allies and buying Russian oil despite sanctions on Russia by the Western nations, including the US and its allies. Japan is said to be the only G7 nation that did not send lethal weapons to Ukraine against Russia. South Korea has also been reluctant in directly sending weapons to Ukraine, as South Korean law restricts supply of arms that would “affect” international peace. This signifies that Japan and South Korea could warm up to the China-Russia-led world order. Recently, Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu, during a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, agreed to start joint “military” and “military-technical cooperation” (Reuters). As part of “no limit” friendship, China and Russia have deepened relations not only in economic and political cooperation, but also in military collaboration. Likewise, China, Russia and Iran are reportedly in a new “missile mission”, whereas they are said to be engaged in supplying Iran a key chemical compound used in propelling ballistic missiles (Politico). China, Russia, Pakistan and Iran also recently held foreign minister-level meetings on the issue of Afghanistan. Perhaps, they want to take optimum advantage of American troops leaving Afghanistan. All these events and developments suggest the global world order is headed for more intense rivalry between the great power and the superpower. The second part of this article will be published next week  

At a time when Baghdad was observing twenty years of the US invasion of Iraq, Chinese President Xi Jinping met Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin to broker a peace deal on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Within a few days of Xi’s return to Beijing, Russia is said to have deployed tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus as a “warning to the west”. Meanwhile, Honduras broke off its diplomatic ties with Taiwan and switched to China to establish diplomatic relations by stressing on ‘One China Policy’, which signals that like-minded countries have started leaning toward a China-led new world order. A little earlier, China brokered a diplomatic deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran, in which the two major rivals in the Gulf agreed to resume their diplomatic ties. Following this historic move under the mediation of China’s top diplomat Wang Yi, major developments are taking place in the region. The Iranian President is likely to visit Saudi Arabia soon, Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad has visited the UAE, while Oman’s Sultan is expected to visit Iran shortly. What’s more, Iran and Iraq, once arch rivals, are likely to strengthen relations, having already signed a deal to step up border security. Yemen and Saudi Arabia are also in the process of improving relations. China, Russia and Iran conducted a joint military drill in the Gulf of Oman. All these unprecedented “geopolitical transitions” (be it in Russia or in the Middle East) will not only instigate geopolitical transformation, rebuild relations, reshape unity or help develop a security architecture there, but also pave a strategic path for China to expand its sphere of influence and accelerate its march into global ambitions. China is desperate to expand its global influence—be it through BRI, Global Security Initiative (GSI), Global Civilization Initiative (GCI) or Global Peace Initiative (GPI). That is why China has reportedly got engaged in brokering peace and diplomatic deals in recent times, using its embassies, which are higher in number than any other countries’. The world witnessed bi-polar politics between the US and Soviet Union after World War-II and during Cold War 1.0. The US has been a great power for more than 100 years and the sole superpower for about 75 years (after Cold War 1.0). The US became the most powerful immediately after the end of WW-II  (at that time, it accounted for more than 35 percent of the global economy in terms of production), and was capable enough to (re)shape global politics and economy as per its wishes. The world is again witnessing bi-polar politics between the US and China , with the latter emerging in recent years as a dynamic country marked by extraordinary economic rise, diplomatic initiatives, technological innovations and geopolitical transformations. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s remarks (“China and Russia are driving geopolitical changes globally”) indicates that a new world order is emerging amid resilient China-Russia ties. The recent meeting between President Xi and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin has indeed left multiple repercussions such as a tough strategic message to the west, the rise of China as a responsible global power, moral and psychological support to the Kremlin, and an anticipated political sense of reciprocity on the Taiwan issue, among others. The Beijing-Kremlin gesture could result in global geopolitical consequences like stronger China-Russia ties, a united Arab World under China-brokered diplomatic deals, a higher possibility of integration of Taiwan with the mainland China, the emergence of religious radicalism, which may weaken India, while strengthening Iran and Saudi Arabia, and isolating Pakistan from the Islamic World. For now, there is no immediate risk of WW-III with the West, but Cold War 2.0 has indeed begun, which can directly affect Nepal-physically, geo-strategically, economically and digitally as the country is directly under the “tectonics” of Cold War 2.0. How can Nepal leverage every opportunity in the changing dynamics of global geopolitics to its advantage? This is a crucial concern for the Nepalis. Following the emergence of China and India as economic powers, India-China or US-China competition in diplomacy, economy, trade, investment, cooperation and connectivity in Nepal has increased, which has amplified the country’s geostrategic credence globally. The geo-location of Nepal, the Tibet factor, competition between India and China, and between the US and China in Nepal pose substantial challenges to the country. Their irrational competition on “who can be more stupid” has only increased the threat to Nepal’s physical and psychological security. Physically, Nepal shares an open border of 1880 kilometers with India and 1439.18 kilometers of boundary land with China. Nepal’s national security is crucial due to existing geo-location, dynamics of geopolitics and its asymmetric relations with India and China. Yet Nepal’s physical position is quite significant. Psychologically, Nepal has been mostly stressed by psychological and political warfare, and influenced by geopolitical meddling. Due to the changing dynamics of geopolitics in the region and beyond, powerful countries like the US, China and India have been relentlessly increasing their activities in Nepal and are likely to push their interests in Nepal through various strategies, including the IPS, MCC, B3W, BRI, or the “carrots and sticks” of the “Neighborhood First Policy”. Logically, Nepal is now under a sensitive geopolitical chess-game and is at the epicenter of the geopolitical chess-board as shown in the diagram below: Diplomatically, Nepal should conserve its geostrategic magnitude and balance the expectations projected under various initiatives as mentioned above by considering geopolitical sensitivities. Nepal can equally leverage from all the powers and maintain balanced relations through inclusive political interactions, partnership and cooperation, and balancing or strategic hedging as the country is in what can be called ‘a system affecting position’. Nepal has maintained cordial relations with every country in South Asia, and enjoys good ties with many countries in Europe, Asia and America. It can influence the world by adhering to its candid political, societal and civilization culture as a champion of democracy and human rights. Nepal is perhaps one of the few countries in the world with incredible soft and strategic potentials through which it can significantly influence the whole world. It can be a “bridge builder” not only in the South Asian region, but also in the European and American continents. Nepal should engage with different countries through multilateralism so as to benefit from opportunities in different sectors like trade, economy, cooperation, knowledge sharing, technology transfer and security—both physical and digital. A soft security strategy has become more important for Nepal in a fast-changing world. Since Nepal does not possess significant intelligence, counter-intelligence or strategic intelligence mechanisms and has not been fortified with robust defense technologies, its presence in regional and global politics should not create ample ground for others to cause trouble to it. In the international political or diplomatic sphere, Nepal cannot apply “Newton’s third law of motion”. How Nepal maintains its relations with Beijing and New Delhi is a matter of critical concern for Washington. Thus, realizing its sensitivities and significance of geostrategic credence, Nepal should make a rational geostrategic move amid an emerging world order.  

Toward the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world witnessed unparalleled transfiguration in global economy, health, social order, security, geopolitics and international relations. Meanwhile, the pandemic hit the whole world; religious radicalism influenced parts of it; tech bipolarity and digital cold war intensified between tech superpowers—the US and China; one-directional Russian invasion of Ukraine compelled the western world, including the US and EU to be feverishly engaged in Ukraine; the rising Asian giants—China and India—made considerable headway in economy, technology and geopolitics; North Korea threatened the west, including the US, by ramping-up nuke and Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) tests. Amid all this, Nepal has been witnessing colossal political mayhem under shrewd domestic power-game followed by international diplomatic gimmicks.    The “War on Westphalian Sovereignty”, “Peace of Westphalia”, the World War-I to the “Treaty of Versailles” (that ended WW-I) and the “League of Nations” (the first global intergovernmental organization), WW-II to the formation of the United Nations, inducing of Cold War-I to the US supremacy in world politics followed by disintegration of Soviet Union and the fall of Berlin Wall, waning of American credibility followed by the 9/11 attacks and corresponding debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan to the splendid rise of China following the emergence of President Xi Jinping, Donald Trump’s fluke presidency to the appealing of Cold War-II, and relentless domestic political power-struggle to the antagonistic manipulations of international powers in Nepal, we find that the politics of emotions or “emotional displays” have played a ‘vexing role’ in pervading every practice of domestic and international relations. The entire world has witnessed watersheds like the “War on Westphalian Sovereignty”, “Peace of Westphalia”, the World War-I, “Treaty of Versailles”, the “League of Nations” (the first global intergovernmental organization), WW-II, the formation of the United Nations, the US supremacy in world politics after the disintegration of Soviet Union and the fall of Berlin Wall, waning of American credibility after the 9/11 attacks, a splendid rise of China and Cold War 2.0. On the domestic front, relentless domestic political power-struggle to the antagonistic manipulations of international powers suggests that the politics of emotions or “emotional displays” have played a ‘vexing role’ in pervading every practice of domestic and international relations. The world is now under multiple international threats such as threats to humanity, digital and cyber space, maritime security, sovereignty (physical, tech and digital), and AI and nuke threats, whereas two emotions—“fear” and “hate”—are dominating policy discourse, resources, cooperation, and public diplomacy. The intensifying conflict in Ukraine and corresponding international inducements are perhaps the result of “over-rationalized emotions”, rather than a solemn act of balancing between soft and hard power. The power, resources, thought, feelings, ideas or ideologies are the crucial aspects that the political actors usually fight for, while there is a modest connection between “political functioning of history” and “politics of emotions”—that is shaping the political and diplomatic perceptions, argue IR scholars.  In Nepal, a number of envoys of different foreign diplomatic missions have been recurrently visiting heads of staff of almost all agencies, leaders, ministers and chief ministers of main political parties. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal inappropriately undermined the essence of diplomacy by asking the then Foreign Minister Bimala Rai Poudyal, who stepped down later, not to attend the pre-scheduled UNHRC meeting in Geneva at the last minute. The PM also canceled his own visit to Doha for participation in the Fifth Conference of the LDCs, which shows a poor diplomatic vision. This is, however, high time for Nepal to contribute to the international community-- both technically and logically–and leverage from every transnational opportunity, but the shameful domestic power game is dogging down Nepal’s diplomacy. Also, PM Dahal reportedly stepped in for halting the Nepal visit of William Joseph Burn, the director of CIA, scheduled for February 15. Why was the CIA director planning to visit Nepal, and then why was his visit not approved later?  This is a crucial concern. This decision could possibly bring indignation in US-Nepal relations. It’s a sheer right of every Nepali citizen to know about political and diplomatic developments in a country situated at a very sensitive geostrategic location. The Dahal-led government has, apparently, stopped a proposal from the Ministry of Agriculture to test Indian vegetables for pesticides, citing that such tests could ‘harm’ Nepal’s relations with India.  How can the executive head of a nation opt for “emotional politics” on such sensitive issues in the name of “emotional deference” or making others’ “comfortable”, instead of safeguarding the health and wellbeing of citizens? This is, perhaps, nothing but a thundered emotion by the psyche of “India Factor” or a “bug diplomacy” incited by hangover of fear-psychosis of “Big Brother Syndrome”, instead of believing in ‘friendship’, ‘trust’, ‘truth’ and ‘respect’ as the pillars of Nepal-India relations. Meanwhile, some foreign commercial and political predators would like to dominate Nepali products, market, economy and diplomacy at a time when Nepal’s economy is heading toward a pathetic condition, argue the economists. In 2019, Dahal, one of the co-chairs of the then ruling party—NCP—came into shame-light by issuing an undiplomatic statement in the Venezuelan crisis, which hit US-Nepal relations. Ensuing this issue, the US ambassador, reportedly, showed his reluctance to participate in a briefing called by the then government in Kathmandu, while Nepal’s ambassador in Washington was also grilled. Following the unexpected result of 2022 general elections, the senior leaders of CPN-Maoist and CPN-UML, whose party (the CPN) disintegrated in 2021 due to the ‘clash of emotions’ despite having nearly a two-third majority in the parliament, again joined hands to form a government under the leadership of Dahal, while it could not last more than two months and the alliance collapsed yet again due to Dahal’s ill will. Dahal often deploys emotional stunts to (re)shape the perception of others in domestic politics, and sometimes executes emotional diplomacy, blaming the critics. The parties started lambasting each other by using uncivil words all over again. Once they get a little closer, they make atypical attachment. When they become slightly different, they start cursing each other. Whenever they encounter a crisis within the party, they try rejuvenating the relations. But magic does not work in the socialization process. The “over-rationalized emotions” of Nepali political leaders are likely to prove costlier not only for themselves, but also for their respective parties and the nation. Emotions such as “anger”, “fear” and “happiness” can correspondingly affect the socialization process as they are passed down from generations to generations, which takes place not only because we propagate our genes but because brain of subsequent generations are wired by those genes, writes Lisa Feldman Barrett in “How Emotions are Made- The Secret Life of the Brain”. The incivility and disgracing behavior against others not only replicates one’s own pity sense of emotional intelligence, but also fosters a huge gap in human to human connection that largely disrupts affection, enthusiasm, and affects the brain; which subsequently challenges the ‘present vitality’, ‘mutual trust’ and ‘future prosperity’ of society, writes Christine Porath in “Mastering Civility: A Manifesto for the Workplace”. Seemingly, numerous political leaders in Nepal are typically groomed with “destructive emotions” whereby anger, fear, pride, sympathy, guilt or shame are rooted deep inside their mind, while they hardly exude “constructive emotions” such as empathy (compassion), praise and passion. The main reason behind this kind of “emotional inequality” is, perhaps, the lack of “emotional stability”, which affects their personal and political life as “inequality begets negative moral emotions”. Emotions, however, themselves are not constructive or destructive, while their nature depends upon the response of the particular individual who interprets that specific situation, argue psychologists. Accordingly, the realists usually make ‘risky and unusual’ decisions that are based on two emotions- fear and hate, while constructivists more likely make rational decisions based on empathy and passion. They are mostly governed by disruptive emotions such as anger and fear that are linked with security concerns, while empathy is associated with mutual cooperation, harmony and peacefulness in diplomacy and international relations, writes Yohan Ariffi in “Assessing the Role of Emotives in International Relations”. The general public, however, have high expectations on the political side of a society as they believe that the political leaders are icons of the guild, whereby their every role should depict a sense of integration, social harmony, stability (political, economic and societal), innovation and nation building. Yet the reality is that the government or leaders come and go, while the nation and institutions remain. Thus, every responsible politician must enhance the nation’s sovereign dignity, irrespective of one’s politics or emotions. Essentially, politics should be a form of civilization, whereas all of its stakeholders could work for the greater wellbeing of the people, society, nation, the planet and humankind, for which the leaders need to be self-informed with immense sense of patriotism, morality and pragmatism along with a “finely tuned” sense of political and emotive intelligence. The author has studied MSc (CS), MSc (Stats), MA (IR&D), and MPhil (Mgmt). He is pursuing research on Tech Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Thought