Submit your Article

As they say, a week is a long time in politics. What about a month or a couple of months? 

Well, it’s a pretty long time, even for a laid-back society.  

Let’s leave politics aside and roam around a bit. Seasons come and go every three months. Numerous flowers blossom, die and fall. Larvaes turn into beautiful butterflies in 2-5 weeks, depending on factors like species and growing conditions.    

Wheat becomes ready for harvest in about four months whereas paddy takes up to six months, depending on things like varieties, growing conditions and agronomic practices. 

But politics, the Nepali strain in particular, appears to be a different ball-game altogether. 

The federal parliament of Nepal offers a not-so-shining example. 

The summer session of the parliament is coming to an end at midnight on Thursday. In its final hours, the opposition parties and the ruling parties are busy blaming each other for the sovereign body’s failure to introduce important legislations during the seven-month session. 

The main opposition has blamed the government for not listening to it and forcing it to encircle the well to make its voice heard. The second largest party in the parliament has defended its moves, stating that they were meant to make the government take corrective measures like the formation of a high-level commission for investigating the 60-kg gold smuggling case.   

It has also accused the government of failing to give the House business. 

On its part, the government has said that obstructions from the opposition bench, the main opposition in particular, are mainly to blame for the inefficiency of the parliament. While the opposition bench has every right to raise voices, it should not have brought the parliamentary proceedings to a halt, it has reasoned.      

The blame-game aside, the failures of the parliament are indeed glaring. Crucial bills on truth and reconciliation and money-laundering remain stuck. The bill on loan-sharking has made it through the parliament, though there’s no dearth of critics, who take it as a half-baked one.

The government as well as the Office of the President have come under fire for presenting and authenticating a Citizenship Amendment Bill in a very controversial manner. The presidential pardon in murder cases, granted on the recommendation of the government, has not gone well either.   

As for the achievements, there is not much to brag about. The ruling dispensation managed to get the budget for the fiscal 2023/24 through. And in the penultimate hours of the session, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres addressed the joint meeting of the parliament.    

The seven-month session is over, but the opposition and the ruling parties can still learn important lessons from it. 

While the government should give more space to the opposition bench, listen more to it and do its utmost to address its concerns, the latter should also give up it’s my way or highway attitude.  

Opposition parties have accused the three major parties, including the main opposition, of holding the parliament hostage for their petty interests. The main opposition and the government should take this charge seriously. 

Summing up, a principles-based conciliatory approach across the aisle will go a long way in making the parliament more effective.

The National Human Rights Commission has retained its ‘A’ status amid fears that it could be downgraded due to a flawed process of appointment of office-bearers.  

At its first session of 2021, GANHRI Sub-Committee on Accreditation (SCA) had decided to conduct a special review of the accreditation status of the NHRC.  SCA had taken such a decision after a group of civil society organizations alleged that the 2021 appointment process of NHRC was inconsistent with domestic laws and essential requirements of the Paris Principles (PP). 

At its second session of 2021, SCA had decided to defer the review of NHRC to its second session of 2022, with the judgment of the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court over the legality of appointments made by the KP Sharma Oli-led government pending.  

SCA has expressed satisfaction that the information provided by NHRC demonstrates full compliance with PP. It has encouraged NHRC to continue to advocate for amendments to the NHRC Act to provide for a selection and appointment process that complies with PP. The verdict of the SC on the legal challenge to the appointments of NHRC in 2021 has not yet been delivered and that a hearing date has been set for 6 Dec 2023.  SCA has further stated that NHRC should take reasonable steps to enhance its effectiveness and independence, which has been largely questioned after the flawed appointments in 2021.

 NHRC has been suggested to continue its cooperation and actively engage with OHCHR and other international regional and national level organizations to effectively discharge its mandate. The SCA has provided following recommendations: Publicize vacancies broadly;  maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups; promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process. 

SCA emphasizes that, to function effectively, an NHRI must be provided with an appropriate level of funding in order to guarantee its independence and its ability to freely determine its priorities and activities. It must also have the power to allocate funding according to its priorities. It encourages the NHRC to continue to advocate for an appropriate level of funding to carry out its mandate, including the work at the grassroots with its 10 field offices.

The world is witnessing an AI or a high-tech war rather than just a traditional warfare—be it Russia-Ukraine war or Israel–Palestine conflict, while the conflicting parties have been massively ‘weaponizing technology’ and also undermining basic humanitarian laws. 

If the Israel-Palestine war, unfortunately, escalated over Iran or the Arab World with a shrewd intention of destabilizing the Mideast or disintegrating China initiated Gulf unity, the outcome would be more disappointing or costlier than that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya in the past.

The massive US funding on the war in Ukraine and Israel, and possibly in Taiwan, instead of rationally investing on peace prospects, could not only induce divisions within the EU, NATO and other alliances, but could also affect the outcome of US election 2024 and impact the Russia-Ukraine war as well. 

Subsequently, it would leave a stronger precedent on the Taiwan issue. China, meanwhile, is widely garnering sustenance by taking advantage of a gradually waning US image, for its global political march. Against this backdrop, the world is most likely to be divided into two poles such that sooner or later every international conflict would ultimately end on Beijing-Washington negotiations, else slip into WWIII. Inviting a war is nothing but just an irrational competition on who would be stupider. Investing in war cannot be a wise ‘strategy’; instead, it is an ‘absurdity’. States, as responsible actors, should take steps for peace and harmony, and win hearts, minds and spirits of their nationals for maintaining a socio-democratic order.

The world is also observing a new version of Cold War centered on ‘democracy’ vs ‘autocracy’ in the form of tech and AI, data colonialism, data harvesting, cyber warfare, tech propaganda, intelligence sharing and spy-tech diplomacy, space race, maritime aggression, diplomatic maneuvering, interference in the internal affairs of states and unfair (and unilateral) tariffs or sanctions inconsistent with international laws. Consequently, global disorder is more disordered today. 

The induced “distrust and polarization of democracies” and disinformation from big tech and social media have been constantly challenging techno-democratic order, while the Russia-Ukraine conflict—that is largely marshaled by tech weaponries—is constantly fuelling for global disorder, and the Israel-Palestine conflict is likely to disunite the Arab World. The US, India and the UK as well as other influencing democracies such as Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea are going to polls in 2024, while the challenges to ‘electoral democracy’ following the risk of disinformation or the influence of AI and ethnic nationalism cannot be undermined.

In the past, the West undermined Russian tech, cyber and nuclear capabilities, while the consequence was that the US frequently witnessed vulnerability in its cyber security and is now facing grave challenges to democracy from within and outside. The West is not accepting China’s AI strength and diplomatic clout, including its four initiatives—BRI, GDI, GSI, GCI—while the consequence is that the world is being gradually divided into two poles seeking alternative global orders. The West is also not accepting India’s promising tech and Space strength. This disregard could end up making India an alternative power in the global stage in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, all the three influencing powers—China, India and Russia—have had remarkable history cum civilization, grand legacy, abundance of resources, strong national power capability, great population, greater size, rapidly emerging economy, innovative technology and remarkable defense capability, which none of the reigning powers can undermine now. While China has been the strongest of the three due to its AI supremacy, strong defense capability, gamut of intelligence and wider clout on the global stage. India is logically stronger because of its national power capabilities, including “fertile population” or “demographic advantage”, followed by strategic ties with Russia, bulky economic undertakings with China and geostrategic alliance with the US. Russia has become much stronger due to its tactical nuclear capability followed by stronger bilateral and geostrategic ties with China, India and North Korea.

The author is a geopolitical analyst

This article is part 1 of a two-part series

The United States of America has requested Nepal to become a member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.

Till now, more than 55 countries have joined the OGP. At a meeting with Minister for Foreign Affairs Narayan Prakash Saud at Washington, DC, USAID Administrator Samantha Power discussed the matter.

It is not clear how Nepal reacted to the US offer. USAID Spokesperson Jessica Jennings said: Administrator Power reinforced the US government’s partnership to further strengthen the relationship with Nepal and recognized Nepal’s democratic progress, including potential membership in the Open Government Partnership.

During the conversation, the duo discussed the impact of USAID’s long-standing investment in Nepal and discussed the new development priorities.  According to the spokesperson, Administrator Power expressed commitment to advancing Nepal’s inclusive economic development and highlighted USAID’s work with the Nepal government and private sector to unlock the country’s investment potential. After the bilateral talks with his American counterpart, Foreign Minister NP Saud is holding talks with heads of USAID, MCC and other development agencies.

Saud also held a meeting with US International Development Finance Corporation's CEO Scott Nathan where he highlighted the measures taken by Nepal to enhance private investment in various sectors of the economy and urged DFC to encourage the American private sector to invest in Nepal.  

CEO Nathan said DFC wants more projects in Nepal, including in infrastructure development, energy, and agro-business, apart from its current involvement with SMEs. He noted that DFC is not only involved in financing, but also helps to create the ecosystem for private-sector development.

Minister Saud also participated in a talk program titled Nepal’s Foreign Policy Outlook hosted by the United States Institute of Peace. Speaking about Nepal’s foreign policy orientation, Minister Saud stressed Nepal’s pursuit of an independent foreign policy which is based on the Charter of the United Nations, non-alignment, and principles of Panchasheel. “Our conduct of external relations is based on a balanced and independent outlook, which is rooted in the historical fact that we were among the few countries that always remained independent, free from any colonial rule,” he said.

Highlighting Nepal’s political transformation of historic proportions, the Minister said, “We ended armed conflict in the country by establishing a home-grown peace process tailored to our requirements. We were able to settle differences by making a democratic constitution. That happened in Nepal. In the country of the Buddha, peace prevailed; democracy prevailed. In this journey, the support from our partners like the USA was important.”