Submit your Article

The year was 1972, and what a year it was! The global champion of capitalism, the United States, crossed the Himalayan barrier to shake hands with a communist China leaving behind past irritants like the Korean War and the Vietnam War and establishing bilateral ties that would emerge as the most important international relationship.

This new chapter in the diplomatic relationship between the two amazingly different countries, which marked the end of over two decade-long halt in the ties, was a Richard Nixon-Henry Kissinger masterstroke targeted at weakening China’s ties with the then Soviet Union.

This relationship proved resilient even during trying times like the Tiananmen Square massacre (1989), the handover of Hong Kong (1997) to mainland China, constant friction over Taiwan, the collapse of communism in East Europe and the fragmentation of Soviet Union in the 1990s. China then opened up to the world from the late 70s and joining the World Trade Organization in 2001. At the climax of the winds of change, the Berlin Wall collapsed, but the ties between the US and China remained intact.

By and large, this bond between a democracy and a communist country proved beneficial for the world as the latter opened up and became a global factory for gadgets, clothing and vehicles, among others. Over the years, academic and scientific collaboration between Chinese and American universities would strengthen, boosting research on diverse fields.

Sadly, this era of engagement seems to be coming to a close and an era of disengagement seems to have begun amid speculations that China will soon be the largest economy by relegating the US to the not-so-coveted second place.

Indications of a possible disengagement are everywhere: In high seas, land, in the air and the space. The disputed South China Sea is one of the potential flashpoints, where the US is siding against China with other claimants in favor of what it calls the freedom of navigation. China’s Belt and Road Initiative will surely cross path with the Asia Pivot Strategy, making the whole of Asia, including South Asia, a flashpoint.

In a clear sign of fraying ties, American companies have started shifting from China to Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia, among other countries.

One would be naïve to think that this disengagement would pass off peacefully. It would be equally foolish to think that the superpower and the hyperpower would engage in a full-fledged confrontation. But there’s little doubt that the two countries will seek to harm each other's interests on their own and by taking like-minded countries on board, setting off a prolonged Cold War 2.0.

Needless to say, this kind of conflagration will be disastrous for global peace, stability, and prosperity. Already, the world is witness to the ongoing trade war between the two global giants, a major factor in the economic slowdown that is taking global proportions. As China and the US have footprints everywhere, no part of the globe will be left untouched.

A war of words is also going on between the two sides. The US is accusing China of giving concessions to Chinese companies, thereby denying a level playing field for its companies, something which the US has also started doing to protect its core interests. The US is also accusing China of stealing technologies and vice-versa. The US is accusing Beijing of currency manipulation in view of Chinese ambition to promote its national currency (RMB) as an international currency. How this trade war will end up is quite uncertain.

Amid this, Nepal offers an interesting spectacle. Here, there’s no dearth of hopeless optimists, high-stake gamblers and their lofty plans to make the country prosperous by keeping the border open to allow huge influx of peoples and goods from the immediate neighborhood and beyond, and keeping the two economies like conjoined twins.

While farm and other products from the dear neighbor can enter Nepal without much hassles, most of our products find it pretty hard to make it through the border down south. Stricter border controls are out of the question, given that the onus is on our small-time politicos to make Nepal and the Nepalis bear the historical burden of unequal relations institutionalized by questionable bilateral legal instruments like the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty.

Is this bunch of optimists and high-end gamblers, by the way, seeing any opportunity to benefit from the animosity of the two giants, formulating plans similar to the ones it has made to profit from the ‘prosperity’ of the two giant neighbors? This is regardless of the fact that their ongoing and future projects are mainly aimed at promoting their own national interests, whether it’s the BRI, the IPS, Arun III, cross-border pipeline projects or cross-border power transmission lines?

Or is it assessing this trade war and the possibility of a serious global recession that may force Nepali migrant workers to return home, cause market prices to escalate, and push a huge population into abject poverty again, giving rise to a humanitarian crisis? Is it formulating some plans to tide over this worst-case scenario?.

The author is a veteran journalist

The UN was set up after WWII with good intentions. Fifty-one countries got together and entered a network whose aim was “maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights” (UN website). Nobody could disagree with such a mandate.

But then cracks began to show in this ideal utopian vision. While the rhetoric assured the world that the unique international character of the UN meant it was open to all 193 member nations, it also stated: “The Organization can take action on a wide range of issues, and provide a forum for its 193 Member States to express their views, through the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council and other bodies and committees.”

The Security Council is made up of 15 (mostly) wealthy countries which have used their muscle power to dominate and invade small countries. They also apply sanctions to nations that they deem rogue—although the criteria for a rogue nation appears subjective, at best. At worst, an objective observer may argue that the wealthiest nations have ganged up on regional powers because they don’t want them to dominate some capitalistic sector (energy, military, or otherwise) that they themselves have an interest to monopolize.

The workings of the UN is neo-colonial. Members of a monied bureaucratic class dominated by Europeans, North Americans, Australians and Japanese are posted to various outposts in the world. Through these postings, they tell the governments of various nations how to conduct themselves on all sorts of internal issues like governance, finance, justice, and security. Interference of this sort which would never be accepted by Western nations is meted out to Third World nations on a daily basis. These nations are seen to be intransigent if they refuse these 'favors'.

No questions are accepted on why a skewed economic system which allows Western nations to dominate financially continues to operate in the 21st century.

If we are to truly follow the spirit of the UN, we need to dismantle the current system and set up an alternate system of global governance. This new UN—let’s call it the United Planet—would prioritize environmental health of the Earth over military, economic or demographic superiority of nation-states. It would not see military might as the arbiter of authority, but would follow the spirit of liberalism, in which the equality of all human beings would be the touchstone for creating a just and ethical economic policy.

The work done by the UN has been exemplary in many regards. But in no way has it brought social change fast enough for the seven billion people who are suffering from lack of basic needs (food, housing, education, health, and a living, sustainable environment.) Urban poverty besets Western nations, despite talk of great wealth. Financial and monetary policies continue to favor the rich, with certain layers of society getting the crème de la crème access to credit and cash, while those at the bottom do all the work and get very little.

None of this is working, for either the rich or the poor. It was working well for the rich till the environment started to collapse and excessive exploitation of resources led to a planetary crisis. Even the very wealthy become subject to climate change, air pollution, and water shortages. There are expensive bunkers to retreat into, but in the end there is no escape as the collapse of biodiversity may wipe out all humans.

Our world is more unequal than ever, despite glowing optimism. Technology, including AI, rears its ugly head as a means of surveillance and state control. One war, one natural disaster, and millions of people can be displaced, starving, bonded to labor, trafficked, enslaved, with no oversight or system in place to stop such an event. We’ve seen such events in our lifetime—the Rohingya genocide, migrants risking their lives in dinghies to reach Europe, the slavery of African immigrants in Libya, the detention of children of Latin American families on America’s borders, the cultural erasure of Uighurs in China.

Technology has gotten a free pass for too long. It needs to be regulated with great oversight (although we have already opened a Pandora’s box.) Covert military programs will continue to misuse technology, on a scale we cannot imagine now. Any international organization that replaces the UN must be alert to this possibility. It must constantly seek to find and delete these fascist impulses.

What we need now is a radical new system to replace the old and outdated. The new union of governments will govern in a just and ethical manner, treating all nationals of Planet Earth with equal dignity. The new union will ensure fair distribution of money and resources, prioritize environmental protection over capitalistic gain, and reward simple living over excessive consumption. All of this will happen through a system of global governance which will replace entrenched systems of racial and gender inequality, nation-state dominance, and exploitation of capital and labor.

The MeToo Movement from women, Extinction Rebellion, Greta Thunberg and all the children of the world who call for an ethical deal on sustainability—all these movements point to a time in history when change is inevitable. Governance can no longer be left to a group of elderly men. We need to ask for, and get, a radical overhaul of the way governance is imagined, and conducted, on this planet.

Many teachers, particularly in cities, are present at an academic institution only during the time of their classes, and work at several other institutions. In this process, they spend considerable time commuting on motorcycles. Thus the phrase ‘helmet teachers’ (wearing a helmet is mandatory in Nepal) is commonly used to refer to teachers who teach part-time at several institutions. 

Many of us have encountered such ‘helmet-teachers’ who are all unique in their own way, largely in terms of their orientation to teaching and learning. We have also heard diverse opinions about these helmet teachers, ranging from ‘they are money minded individuals’ to ‘they are the soul of higher education’. Sushil Kumar Pant in “Innovations in Nepali College Classrooms: The Experiences of a Helmet Teacher” captures these sentiments by arguing that the phrase ‘Helmet Teacher’ is often associated with teachers who are not committed to their profession. He also draws attention to several innovative classroom practices of these helmet teachers including case studies, internships, project and thesis work, seminars, audio-visual aids, article reviews, and reflection journals in teaching-learning engagement. 

Helmet teaching results from the way our education system is organized. Underlying the phenomenon is the belief that teaching and learning can be accomplished in a 45 to 60-minute classroom where the instructor is the purveyor of some curriculum based knowledge and students the passive recipients of that knowledge. Although some helmet teachers might be innovative, as Pant suggests, helmet teaching hardly supports important aspects of teaching-learning, like building a strong teacher-student relationship, encouraging active learning, giving prompt and adequate feedback and accommodating and respecting diverse ways of learning. 

An economic lens offers a clearer view of the phenomenon. Most teachers in Nepal are paid based on the time they spend in classrooms (or the number of classes they take, or the number of courses completed). As the pay at most educational institutions is minimal, teachers can make only so much income from one institution. So they need to work at several institutions. 

Economic benefits being their key incentive, helmet teachers want to maximize their income by scheduling classes at two institutions with little time in between. Considering the traffic situation in Nepali cities, particularly Kathmandu, the commute time is unpredictable. Many times the teachers arrive late in the classroom, and at other times they cannot come at all. Retrospectively, as teaching-learning in Nepal is largely limited to the transfer of knowledge from teacher to student, this process is severely impacted when the teacher or the knowledge provider is absent. 

The economic struggles of teachers are not limited to Nepal though. In many parts of the world, teaching is not a lucrative job. For examples, in the US teachers take a second or even a third job to make ends meet, a phenomenon called ‘moonlighting’. Both ‘helmet teaching’ and ‘moonlighting’ illuminate the need to provide teachers with a decent income. 

We see helmet teaching as an important issue that calls for immediate attention because of its cyclical nature and manifold impacts. At the micro level, the most prominent and immediate impact of helmet teaching is that it deprives students of engaged, holistic learning and limits them to simply meeting curricular requirements. At the meso level, these teachers are part of or lead academic institutions and run the risk of transferring the same values to their students, making it an inter-generational problem. And at the macro level, helmet teaching even impacts educational policies. 

We understand educational policies as a product of the experiences of educators and concurrent discussions on education. In an education system that values helmet teaching and undervalues holistic learning, educational policies are unlikely to transcend this limited understanding. 

Educational institutions should take the lead in establishing the value of the teaching and learning process. They are the ones that should expand teaching-learning from the confinements of the syllabus and incorporate its other values like research and skill-development. Students too can contribute to changing the teaching-learning culture by being active participants in the process, not relying completely on teachers, and going beyond the syllabus and examination scores to incorporate career goals and life skills. 

If the majority of teachers practice teaching-learning engagement as adding value to life’s purposes, and academic institutions strive to prepare students for life by facilitating skill development—rather than preparing them for exams and decent grades and educational policies can be made context-specific and holistic, helmet teaching would be an obsolete phenomenon. 

Dahal is a PhD scholar in Social Work at Boston College, the US. Dhamala is an Assistant Professor of English at Ratna Rajya Laxmi Campus, Nepal.

There are many ways in which China and Nepal can sustainably co-operate and boost trade both ways. Healing herbs have always been a major export from Nepal’s mountain areas, especially the Karnali. Nepal needs to regulate the trade and give back the benefits of this trade to local communities. Right now, it requires a license to harvest the herbs. Indian businessmen who pay for the license can legally harvest while the locals can be prosecuted for picking herbs from their own forests. This system must be dismantled and greater autonomy given to locals to steward and sustainably harvest their own forest resources. 

China’s traditional healing herbs and medicines are world-class, and Nepal can learn a lot from them. Our government should request the Chinese government to provide an exchange program which trains people in acupuncture techniques as well as traditional Chinese herbs so we can give low-cost traditional herbal alternatives to our people. Following a gruesome injury, I have gone to an acupuncturist and experienced first hand the wellbeing that comes from acupuncture. I have also seen people with paralysis and other life-crippling events recover in this healing center. 

China and Nepal should also work on ecological tourism, in which people are taught about the benefits of maintaining wild areas and wildlife. Without our forests and animals, we will not survive for long. Nature can do without humans, but humans cannot do without nature. We need to understand this and work towards rebuilding mixed forests which give importance to old growth trees. 

The trees of Kathmandu have been decimated, killing thousands of old growths in road expansion programs. We faced the consequences of those actions including an epidemic of dengue, which is spread by mosquitoes.

Everyone from the Mayor to our most valued doctor Sanduk Ruit came down with this disease. The mosquito’s natural predators, including dragonflies, birds and bats, all live in green areas, and with cement and asphalt everywhere, Kathmandu is prime “real estate” for mosquitoes to breed in. We know the wages of ecological sin is death, and in current scenario of climate change it might quickly become mass death unless the environment is given top priority. 

Kathmandu needs to reforest itself quickly, and that means picking the right species of hardwood tree (not the tropical palm trees that the government quickly planted along President Xi’s route from the airport). Of course a two year old tree will never exhale the thousands of tons of oxygen a stand of century-old old growth trees give out, but at least it would be a start towards thinking about a more sustainable city. 

China should think about how it could support Asian cities to re-green, not just concretize. Concrete is turning out to be an unviable material due to the way we have recklessly destroyed mountains for lime and riverbeds for sand. China should also conduct research on green building materials which are sustainable and which do not harm the environment. 

The one area in which Nepal could support China is in helping it adopt its very successful community forestry model. Nepal has been in the news as one of few countries where the total landmass of forests is increasing. This is not just due to mass migration of people from villages into cities (although that is a factor), but also because of an extremely successful community forestry program that been operational since the late 1970s. Late King Birendra’s “Hariyo Ban, Nepal Ko Dhan” (Green Forests are Nepal’s Wealth) program was instrumental in this reforestation in Nepal. 

As the global economy slows down due to the disruptions of climate, there has to be new ways to think about creating prosperity. The old model of relentlessly pumping out objects and materials toxic to the environment and harmful to living things has to change, if industries and economies are to survive. 

China can play a key role in this moment. It has the capacity to quickly shift to new, green materials, as it has shown with its manufacture and adoption of electric vehicles which outnumber those in Western economies. China’s solar industries are the best in the world, and Nepal should also court solar power and electric vehicle support to Nepal, not just focus on stalled hydropower. We should lobby for a government exchange program in which Nepali engineers are trained in solar and EV technologies in China.

President Xi’s visit was a prestigious moment for Nepal, for whom both its giant neighbors are equally important. We were honored. Our cultural and historical ties are long, and will last through the ages. We should use this moment to think about long-term benefits for both to help the two citizens survive the turbulence of planetary and economic changes . 

This is the third and concluding part of the author’s three-part article on Nepal-China ties