Submit your Article

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  

A few weeks back, the US shot down a Chinese “balloon” that was hovering over its territory. The US claimed that it could be a “spy balloon” equipped with high tech surveillance systems used for intelligence gathering. China contended, “it’s a civilian air ship used for meteorological research, but accidentally entered the US air space by being deviated far from planned course”.  Meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken postponed a pre-scheduled visit to Beijing following a “political uproar” in Washington in the wake of the incident. The balloon incident has certainly ignited a dispute and damaged the US-China relations to some degree. The incident does not seem to have posed a serious national security and intelligence risk thus far, but further escalation may even cause  a ‘war’—hot or cold—between the two countries. The US-China relations have definitely worsened since 2020, mainly after China adopted a “tit for tat” retaliation, by ordering the US to close its consulate in Chengdu, in response to the American closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston (Texas) in 2020 on the charge of spying and intellectual property theft from that consulate. In 2019, the US imposed a ban on the import of Chinese telecommunication equipment produced by Huawei Technologies and ZTE, citing a threat to national security and also debarred the export of tech or software products, including AI chips, to China in 2022. This “tech power game” exhibited tech imperialism, inviting a “Digital Cold War” between the US and China. The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has drawn the attention of the global intelligence community and this war is more likely to escalate further, with the US and Germany recently announcing their commitment to supporting Ukraine by sending dozens of the world’s most advanced battle tanks. While Russia has blamed NATO for seeking direct involvement in the war, the US blamed Russia for obtaining drones and high-tech missiles from its allies, including Iran. Russia is destroying Ukraine, though the latter has received massive tech and arms assistance from the US and its allies. North Korea, under ‘tech propaganda’, is constantly testing and parading multiple modern missiles and challenging the tech superpower—the US. Pakistan is sporadically challenging another tech power India in the guise of AI technology, drones and nuclear weapons. The geodigital situation of Nepal is equally vulnerable as the geopolitical situation is, given a high high possibility of cyber-battle between the two populous and giant economic rivals—China and India. The tech battle between tech superpowers—the US and China—has already swayed the geopolitics of technology. The geo-tech interests of superpowers, “democratization of technology” as well as various transnational issues—terrorism, war, crime, cyber security, nuclear and AI threats—are creating crucial challenges to national security and sovereignty. For tech superpowers, AI and nano-technology have become powerful means in defining state capabilities. For them, AI has become a key tool for national security. Technology has been playing a significant role in the state of affairs since the 1980s. Post the September-11 attacks, AI and foreign policy have become complementary to each other. AI is having a deep influence on foreign policy, while foreign policy is adding inducement to the development and (mis)use of AI technology. The AI, on the one hand, is undermining global peace and security, and weaponizing data. On the other, AI and foreign policy, which have an intertwined relationship, are (re)balancing the clout between tech powers, and helping to shape “global power dynamics”, tech tyranny, digital dictatorship and data colonialism. With the tech and digital revolution, “modern day bipolarity” is progressing toward “tech bipolarity” between the US and China. The US-China rivalry today is largely centered on digital space, AI and tech supremacy. If this tech battle continues for a long time and wreaks restrictions on each other’s tech diligence, India, perhaps, will start gradually dominating global tech and AI. The three powers—the US, China and India—are focusing on “techno-economic competition”, besides traditional rivalry. China is aiming to become a global tech leader, while the US is focused on ‘countering’ or ‘containing’ China. India is strategic enough to benefit from tech bipolarity and geopolitics of technology, while it has made significant achievements in tech and intelligence and is aiming to become a part of possible “tech tri-polarity”. Seemingly, India can play a mediating role between Russia and the West to bring peace in Ukraine as India is close to Russia, enjoys significant economic partnership with China, and has been maintaining strategic relations with the US. India’s role on the “Taiwan issue” will, most probably, determine whether the country is pragmatic enough to (re)shape the changing dynamics of global geopolitics and take advantage of geo-economy and geopolitics of technology. Despite intensifying geo-political friction between the US and China, the two countries have had deep economic ties in the 40-plus years of their diplomatic relations. The two most responsible great powers, however, should envisage a larger landscape and ‘set the seal’ on diplomatic relations with “amity of greatness”, more so after the puncturing of the Chinese “balloon”. Instead of upending geopolitics of technology, the tech powers should center on “navigating democratic and rational technological future” through multilateral diplomacy (tech and digital) and tech foreign policy, whereby they could leverage from tech cooperation, digital markets, digital and cyber intelligence, tech sovereignty (digital, data and cyber), AI regulation and ethics, global data protection and tech order. Since “politics and geo-politics alike are the art of relationship”, it would be wise for them to “leave something concrete on the table” and resolve the blistering issues—diplomatic, tech and trade. For this, there has to be ‘passion’ for peace and prosperity, and ‘greed’ for goodwill and global harmony. Washington and Beijing need to be fortified with sensitivity, conviction, rationality, intelligence and ability to pursue each other. They have to meet, sit, face, dine, communicate and embrace a common strategic and transparent framework as Churchill once said: “If I could dine with Stalin once a week, there would be no trouble at all. We get on like a house on fire”. Essentially, none of the powers can leverage by making other powers terrified and miraculous. If the tech powers do not use intelligence and rationality under the sway of AI and tech supremacy, only ‘madness’ will prevail and ‘human intelligence’ will be in vain. The fate and future that can be caused by the misuse of AI and nuclear technology can be so terrible, painful and miserable that there will neither remain human civilization nor mastery of AI technology, or irrational tech supremacy. 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

Last month, the author got an opportunity to attend (virtually) “Tanner Lecture 2023” on “AI and Human Values” conducted by Seth Lazar, Professor of Philosophy at the Australian National University, at Stanford University. The lecture was primarily focused on AI-Human connection and AI ethiCS (“ethiCS: the ethics in Computer Science”). “We are increasingly connected to one another by algorithmic intermediaries—sociotechnical systems such as centralized privately—and publicly-controlled digital platforms and competing decentralized architectures”, underlined the lecture. Amid the advancements in technology, human thoughts, perceptions, behaviors and lifestyles have also been unpredictably changing. Starting from the Steam Engine in the ‘First Industrial Revolution’ to Nano Technology, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Quantum Technologies and Biotech in the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ and beyond, the technological revolution seems to combine both ‘life’ and ‘non-life’ materials including physical, digital and biological sphere. AI technology is likely to be an important means of navigating the entire world, while it has already made a global impact on society, economy, politics, national security and international relations (IR). More than 5 billion people are said to be wedged within a range of broadband infrastructure—that provide access to internet connection—and live online globally, while the global spending on ICT was nearly $5.82 trillion in 2022 (WEF). AI is expected to add about $16 trillion to the global economy by 2030 (IGCC, UC). The technological revolution today has not only changed perceptions of the human race, it has also made it possible to control every action around the world with just one “click” charted by one thought. Technology has made our lives so easy that cellphones are handling many of our activities, including monetary transactions. The phenomenal development of AI has made us so successful in technological innovations that (perhaps) nothing we think is impossible, today. Lately, ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer), a next generation AI technology, has created a huge storm in the tech world. ChatGPT, reportedly a large language model trained on language from the internet data sets, is designed by OpenAI, a tech firm based in the US. It is said to be one of the best AI technologies algorithmically, as it solves academic queries, including writing essays, research papers, preparing speeches and solving exam questions with explanations. It can produce music (songs) and write poetry. It has been equipped with terrific general knowledge, rationality and reasoning that helps to give synthesized responses to every enquiry. ChatGPT can even do coding for different languages including Python. Yet it cannot make judgments or decisions and work on real-time as it does not possess any consciousness or ability to feel emotions. ChatGPT, however, is spurring both hope and despair as well as excitement and fear in society and the tech sphere. Some institutions in the US have reportedly banned ChatGPT considering its negative impact such as ‘accuracy’ and ‘completeness’ of information in learning. The generative AI technology, however, is said to “shape the future of technology” as it has distinct features such as ‘interactivity’, ‘autonomy’ and ‘adaptability’. But will we be able to shape the future of human mind (rationality and critical thinking), humanity, job security, economic equality and societal biases, and conserve the future of traditional schooling systems? This is a crucial question. AI technology is destined to replace humans in multiple sectors, including tech, hospitality, industry and service, which is likely to render hundreds of thousands of people jobless. Per WEF predictions, more than 85 million jobs will be displaced by AI technology and automation by 2025. Big tech and social media companies like Google, Apple, Microsoft, Twitter, Meta and Amazon among others, reportedly laid off more than 200,000 employees just in 2022. The reasons for mass tech layoffs are said to be pandemic, economic slowdown, inflation and war. Indeed, the long-term objective of the big tech companies is to depend on AI instead of humans. Technology has made people’s lives simple, comfortable, successful, apart from saving lives and helping them to cope with disasters. For instance, AI robots and drones were deployed to locate survivors beneath the rubble in Turkey and Syria that experienced a massive earthquake recently. Conversely, technology has also added to stress. With the increased use and abuse of social media and technology, “social isolation” is growing rapidly, damaging emotional and mental health of most social media users. Social media were expected to rationally connect society and strengthen democracy, but they have been used as a “tech propaganda machine” to spread disinformation and destabilize democracy. Various studies have shown that the big tech companies and social media, in complicity with the powerful ruling elite in different countries, have tried to undermine democratic values in the guise of ethnic and religious nationalism. Also, the state authorities have scrutinized civilians underneath the “surveillance system”, which is dictating every personal space and distressing “sovereign human dignity”. The surveillance technology is said to be detecting even the ethnicity of individuals along with racial biases. Non-state actors including cyber criminals and cyber terrorists are posing a serious threat to cybersecurity architecture around the world. The Nepali tech and cyber sphere was outraged a few weeks back due to cyber hacking and snagging of digital infrastructures at different government offices. The central server of the government and servers of different sensitive sectors such as the Department of Immigration and National Information Technology Center went down. The main purpose of hackers, perhaps, was data breaching. Nepal has witnessed multiple cybersecurity threats in banks, telecoms, power-grids, airports and foreign missions due to weak digital infrastructure. Nepal needs to rationally focus on intelligence mechanisms—cyber and digital intelligence—so as to protect data, information and sensitive digital infrastructures from foreign cyber actors or political predators. It is essential to address human values such as freedom, equality, societal dignity, emotional health, personal sovereign dignity, and national security as a matter of policy under a broad regulatory oversight. All nations are required to raise a united voice through multilateral channels (diplomatic channels) to bring all ethical, technical and policy concerns within the ambit of international law and data policy to regulate AI technology, big tech and social media globally. The technology, though, will definitely help advance human lives by conserving human values if AI, digital technology and social media are used in an honest, safe, fair, ethical and responsible manner by all the users. (The second part of this article will appear next week) The author has studied MSc in Computer Science, MSc in Statistics, MA in International Relations & Diplomacy, and MPhil in Management. He is now pursuing research on Tech Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Thought