Nepal/HFDR: In the Dumps; Myanmar: ASEAN to the Rescue; U.S.: Biden Unfolds Climate Plan; First Steps in Korean Unification; Political Changes in Germany

No Winds of Change in Nepal

Nepal is in a state of flux. On the one hand, it is slowly but certainly sliding towards being a failed state. On the other hand, there are still vestiges of resistance towards the thousands of little princes or rajas that have sprung up like deadly toadstools since we had the great honour of being subjected to ‘people’s democracy’ or loktantra. Our own ‘Dear Leader’ – may Lord Pashupatinath bestow divine blessings upon him – has been working tirelessly to carve out an exalted position for himself and the country he rules with such acumen and dignity.

However, some unknowing armchair experts and commentators say that ‘the maharaja in all but name’, has reduced the country to a ‘nation of sheep’ ruled by [mangy] top dogs, where

All animals are equal,

But some are more equal than others.

Considering the structure of the state or more popularly the ‘Himalayan Federal Democratic Republic’ [HFDR] from a top-bottom approach [i.e. it is no longer top, but bottom], the country is still in the lap of the Himalaya, where the gods and goddesses used to frolic, but by no stretch of the imagination, do we have functioning federalism, democracy or republic.

If the discerning reader does not accept this broad judgement, let us examine the structure and processes as we find them today. The diagram shows the various institutions, organizations and groups and their relationships to each other – which are manifold. It is a question of information and communication among the institutions and groups [lateral and vertical], as well as orders and instructions [from top to bottom]. -The President of the so-called republic is akin to a rubber stamp of the reigning prime minister. As head of state, she has been wanting in many respects. There is little [necessary] interaction with other institutions. It seems, she only follows instructions from the PM! -The Prime Minister has accrued more power and prestige than any of his predecessors in the history of our country. There is, unfortunately, no control or accountability whatsoever. He is supposed to be responsible to the legislative arm of government, but he suspends parliament at will. -The parliament is not even a ‘talking shop.

-The Judiciary has been politicized, it is no longer an independent arm, i.e. there are no checks and balances between the three branches of government.

-The Administration or bureaucracy has been stymied and/or sidelined. ‘Baluwatar’ has completely overshadowed ‘Singha Durbar’. The ‘Sick Man’ of the HFDR prefers to do all government business from the comfort of his [official] permanent residence. Thus, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not have an inkling why Nepal was not invited to the Boao virtual meeting in Hainan, or why US President Biden completely ignored Nepal in the Leaders Climate Conference.

The Political Parties have been reduced to ‘collections of hangerson’ of their respective nincompoop so-called leaders. These do not have the guts or the backbone to challenge the ‘Great Leader’.

The Police generally has been involved in maintaining law and order and doing the government’s bidding. It is not known what the Armed Police and the Nepal Army will do if the push comes to a shove. Civil Society, in general, has been sidelined. Most independent societal groups are not functioning at all or low key.

One had hoped that the media as the ‘Fourth Estate’ would remain autonomous and represent the people’s aspirations, Unfortunately, the bulk of our journalists have become politicized and polarized as their recent election demonstrate. It can thus be said that the government has used the cover of the planetary pandemic to chart its own way only for the benefit of its supporters and hangers-on. The people are too lethargic to undertake anything against an unfeeling government, and an inspiring leader with vision has not emerged to initiate decisive action. Even the people of Myanmar with only ten years of partial democracy are more motivated to persevere against great odds.

Can ASEAN Induce Change in Myanmar?

As expected, the ASEAN high-level meeting on Myanmar took place in Jakarta last Saturday. The leaders of Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Cambodia and Brunei were at the meeting, along with the foreign ministers of Laos, Thailand and the Philippines. Myanmar was represented by Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.

The gathering was the first coordinated international effort to ease the crisis in Myanmar, with land neighbours Bangladesh, India [in the north-west], China [northeast] and China [south-east], since the military coup that overthrew Aung San Suu Kyi’s legitimately elected democratic government. Myanmar is part of the 10-nation ASEAN, which has a policy of consensus decision-making and non-interference in the domestic affairs of its members.

The current crisis was no longer considered a purely internal matter. The fact that the leader of a military government in Myanmar attended was most unusual. According to a statement from Brunei, the current chair of the South-East Asian organization, a consensus was reached on five points:

- Ending violence

- A constructive dialogue among all parties

- A special ASEAN envoy to facilitate the dialogue

- Acceptance of aid

- A visit by the envoy to Myanmar There was no mention of releasing political prisoners in the statement, although this would have been the key indicator of the junta’s mood. In fact, the final statement removed language from a draft of the consensus points which had said more than 3,000 political prisoners detained since February 1 would be freed (Reuters, April 26).

According to Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Min Aung Hliang said “he heard us, he would take the points in, which he considered helpful”. Furthermore, Lee said: “He was not opposed to ASEAN playing a constructive role, or an ASEAN delegation visit, or humanitarian assistance.” (Reuters/CNN, April 250).

Now the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As Charles Santiago, head of the ASEAN Parliamentarians for Human Rights group aptly said: “The release of political prisoners is a necessary requirement for the cessation of violence. ASEAN must now act swiftly and set a clear timeline for Min Aung Hliang to deliver on ending the violence or stand ready to hold him accountable.

Myanmar’s parallel National Unity Government (NUG), comprised of pro-democracy figures, remnants of Suu Kyi’s ousted administration and representatives of armed ethnic groups, in a first reaction, welcomed the consensus reached but insisted the junta had to be held to its promises.

Dr Sasa, the spokesman for the NUG said firmly: “We look forward to firm action by ASEAN to follow up its decisions and to restore our democracy.”

It remains to be seen whether the trust placed by the United Nations, China, India and the United States in ASEAN [in the face of their own unwillingness and/or inability to take concrete action] amounts to much.

Biden Plans to Save the Earth’s Climate

President Joe Biden’s summit meeting on climate change was not only a test of American power but also illustrated the limits of his climate policy.

The United States promised to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and help other countries to do the same. It is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in history. China is currently the largest emitter. The Biden administration has pledged to roughly halve its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. It is an ambitious goal that is even slightly below the target set by the European Union and significantly below that of Britain.

China is the world’s largest coal consumer and, therefore, the world’s biggest polluter. At the summit, President Xi Jinping promised that China would “strictly limit” coal projects in the immediate future and “phase down” coal after 2025.

However, away from the summit, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi warned that Chinese cooperation would depend on how the United States responded to Beijing’s policies regarding Hong Kong, Taiwan and Xinjiang.

Some countries were quite hesitant. Australia, India, Indonesia, Mexico and Russia were not willing to make new pledges to cut down on oil, gas or coal – all fossil fuels degrading the atmosphere.

Some countries were being asked to make sacrifices even though they had contributed little to the problem of climate change. They badly needed financial assistance to cope. In this category is also Nepal, which was not invited, although Bangladesh and Bhutan were. This is a sure indication that there is something rotten in the state of HFDR.

The real test of Biden’s climate initiative “will be Washington’s ability to steer the rest of the world toward cleaner energy fast Towards Korean Unification

In the current scenario in the Korean Peninsula where the prospects for unification or denuclearization are very bleak, South Korea’s Unification Minister Lee In-Young has come up with a very

novel idea. He has envisioned a new framework that would entail bringing the citizens and the economies of the two parts while maintaining separate countries and political systems. In an interview with the country’s newspaper Seoul Shinmun, he said the new approach should now “aim more at the ‘One people, two countries, two systems, and one market’ model (Newsweek, April 23).

Lee was inspired by the strategy which established the European Common Market first, which then evolved into the European Union (EU). The EU is now an organization with coordinated economic and political policies and largely open borders, yet have preserved their individual sovereignties among its 27 members. Many even have the common currency, the Euro. His blueprint also resembles the ‘One country, two systems’ model followed by China in reuniting the British colony of Hong Kong and the Portuguese colony of Macau with the mainland in the 1990s.

In the meantime, the administration of Moon Jaein continues to campaign for improving inter-Korean relations. The South Korean President has expressed hopes that his forthcoming summit with U.S. President Joe Biden next month will reignite the stalled peace process.

Fresh Wind in German Politics German political parties are gearing up for general elections this September. The electorate has had enough of the current grand coalition government comprising the conservative, right of centre Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its sister Bavarian party, the Christian Social Union (CSU) together with the left of centre Social Democratic Party (SPD). There is the general perception that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel has fumbled during the pandemic. Frau Merkel herself is retiring after a record fourth term from the chancellorship [prime ministership] of her own volition.

However, there is no need to panic. There is a rising star on the horizon. This is no other than Frau Annalena Baerbock, the environmentalist Green Party’s candidate for chancellorship. She is now poised to lead the EU’s leading economy and the world’s fourth-largest.

The latest poll published Sunday by the weekly Bild am Sonntag placed the Greens narrowly ahead of Merkel’s centre-right bloc in the crucial question of how they planned to vote. The results: Green Party 28 percent

CDU/CSU 27 percent

SPD 13 percent

Alternative for Germany 10 percent

Free Democrats 9 percent

Left Party 7 percent

Surely things may change till the autumn since even a week is a long time in politics. Taking the current numbers, the best bet would be a coalition of the Greens and the Union block. The grand coalition will be history. The second possibility would be a so-called ‘traffic-light coalition’ comprising the SPD [red], the Free Democrats or Liberals (FDP) [Yellow], and the Green Party [green]. The third and most remote outcome could be a coalition of the CDU/SPD/FDP. If the Greens maintain their lead, it is difficult to see how they can be kept out of government. In any case, Frau Baerbock and her party have already chalked out fresh and innovative domestic and foreign policy initiatives that are bound to impress both her potential voters and international interlocutors.